IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 2788 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 17, 2010 Pawan Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer for quashing notification dated 1.1.2002 (P-12) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 30.12.2002, made under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners have also challenged the award dated 29.12.2004 (P-17) announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. The principal ground raised for challenging the aforesaid notifications is that opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act was not afforded and the land of influential persons has been released. The details of the released land has been mentioned in Annexure P-15, which refers to filing of various writ petitions including CWP Nos. 19095 of 2001, 19095 of 2004, 18988 of 2004 CWP No. 2788 of 2010 and 18792 of 2004. The petitioners have also urged that the land has also been released on 12.6.2006 (P-24 & P-25). We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length and find that the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired on the announcement of award dated 29.12.2004 (P-17). A perusal of the award shows that the possession of the land belonging to those persons was taken who had not filed any petition. It has referred to seven pending writ petitions and recorded a finding that the land of which possession has been taken vests in the ownership of the Haryana Government and on transfer would vest in the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) free from all encumbrances from the date of the award i.e. 29.12.2004. Accordingly, there is no escape from the conclusion that the land free from all encumbrances under Section 16 and 17 vests with the State. It cannot, thus, be excluded from acquisition. Moreover, there is no explanation why the petitioners remained silent over five years in availing the remedy of the petition and why they waited for so long. In support of the aforesaid view we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627. The only argument raised by Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in cases of other persons, land has been released even after passing of award and taking of possession. Firstly, it may not constitute a valid basis for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition because any illegal action of the respondent State would not result into issuance of any positive direction to continue committing that illegality. Moreoever, from the 2 CWP No. 2788 of 2010 details furnished by the petitioners in the form of orders dated 12.6.2006 (P-24 and P-25) it appears that those petitioners had filed some petitions and they were directed to withdraw the same. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to admit this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) February 17, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3