CWP No. 4985 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 4985 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 19, 2010 Har Pyari Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajiv Doon, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 9.9.2002, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), and declaration dated 8.9.2003, made under Section 6 of the Act as also the award dated 6.9.2005 (P-3, P-5 and P-8 respectively). A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to release the land of the petitioner, measuring about 408 square yards, comprised in Rectangle No. 104, Killa No. 33, situated within the area of Municipal Committee, Jind. The Government has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area at Jind, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, for the Haryana Urban 1 CWP No. 4985 of 2010 Development Authority. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on 6.9.2005 (P-8) before filing of the instant petition, which has been filed on 15.3.2010. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. Award in the present case has already been announced on 6.9.2005 (P-8) before filing of the instant petition. No writ petition would be competent after passing of the award because possession of land, free from all encumbrances has been taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 19, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2