CWP No. Present: Mr., Advocate, for the petitioner. **** The prayer made in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing notification dated 15.11.2002 (P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 12.11.2003 (P-4) issued under Section 6 of the Act. A further prayer for quashing the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No.2 on 18.11. 2005 has also been made. In the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 3 a categorical stand taken is that the petitioner has not been filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act and the writ petition is not maintainable after announcement of the award. The aforementioned assertions have been made in paras No. 4 and 5 of the written statement. After hearing learned counsel we are of the considered view that it is now well settled principle of law that no writ petition could be maintainable after announcement of the award, which in the present case was announced on 18.11.2005, whereas the instant petition has been filed on 15.3.2007. In that regard reliance has been placed on judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698, Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48, C.Padma v.Dy.Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 SCC 627 and Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan JT 2008 (2) S.C.280. The situation in the instant case is visible worse because the petitioner did not raise any objection under Section 5-A of the Act which further supports the rationale that there was acquiescence of the petitioner to acquire the land. In view of above, there is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 14, 2008 JUDGE anita In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 946 of 2007 Date of decision: 13.5.2008 Jagdish Kumar and others ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. **** M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of directions to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra Nos.1247 and 1248 measuring 1 Bigha- 12 Biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Nanakpur, H.B.No.91, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. According to the assertion made by the petitioner, the land is already in forcible possession of the respondents since 1954-55 and the Forest Rest House has been constructed by the respondent-Forest Department. The aforementioned fact has not been denied by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Morni Pinjore CWP No. 946 of 2007 -2- Forest Division, Pinjore-respondent No.4 in his letter dated 12.5.2006 (Annexure P-10). When the matter came up for consideration on 2.5.2008 we have passed the following order:- “This case unfolds an unfortunate situation created by the respondents-State. According to the averments made in the petition, the possession of the land belonging to the petitioner was taken unauthorizedly in the year 1954-55 for constructing Forest Rest House, Nanakpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. The construction was later on raised without any acquisition proceedings or making any payment of compensation. The matter is being adjourned on the request of learned State counsel for filing reply. On 8.2.2008, one last opportunity was granted to do the same, reply has still not been filed. Then the case was again listed on 11.4.2008 but the position remained unchanged. Today, again the learned State counsel has placed before us a letter dated 29.4.2008 sent by a Divisional Forest Officer, Morni Pinjore Forest Division, Pinjore-respondent No.5, which is endorsed to the Advocate General, Haryana. According to aforementioned letter, a request for adjournment for a period of six months has been made because the land is likely to be acquired by the department. However, we are not satisfied with the inter-departmental communication at CWP No. 946 of 2007 -3- the end of respondent No.5. Accordingly, we direct that a responsible officer should file a specific affidavit disclosing the date of taking possession of the land belonging to the petitioner with its total area, the reason for not acquiring the land either by negotiation or by compulsory acquisition as envisaged by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the period in which the acquisition proceedings are to be initiated and the compensation is likely to be paid. Once possession has been taken long years ago then why not make payment of 80% of the amount by preparing draft award. The aforementioned affidavit be filed within a period of ten days from today. List again on 13.5.2008.” In pursuance to the aforementioned directions an affidavit by Sh. Rajesh Gulia, HFS, Divisional Forest Officer, Morni Pinjore Division, Pinjore, has been filed stating that a period of six months would be required to complete the acquisition proceedings and to pay them the compensation subject to the sanction of the competent authority i.e. Forest Commissioner, Haryana. Having heard the learned counsel and taking into account the affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Morni, Pinjore Division, Pinjore, we are of the opinion that the acquisition proceedings should have been initiated long ago. The negotiations which took place either in the year 1982 or 2003 could not culminate into final award CWP No. 946 of 2007 -4- because payment could not be made in first agreement and considerable delay was caused in the second agreement. In sub para 2 of para 2 of the affidavit, the following averments have been made: “In the year of 1982 after the negotiation when department requested the petitioner to execute the sale deed and take the compensation the petitioner refused even though he had made an agreement. Since then the matter remain under correspondence with the other concerned offices likes as D.C. & P.C.C.F and Forest Commissioner, Haryana. Then in the year of 2003 again negotiation was done and the value of the land was assessed at Rs.2,00,000/- per Bigha. Total value of land at Rs.3,20,000/- the sanction of the same was received from the Forest Commissioner, Haryana on 20.4.2007 vide their letter No.2292-Ft-3-2007/5669 dated 10.4.2007. After receiving the sanction, this office took immediate action and Cheque No.092166 was issued and sent to the petitioner on 2.5.2007, but he refused to take the same.” It is obvious from the perusal of the above para that the petitioners had agreed in the year 1982 but nothing transpired. For more than 20 years inter departmental correspondence continued without any result. Thus, in 2003 the petitioners again agreed for sale of land. Again it took four years to offer them price of the land. Accordingly they rejected the payment sought to be made by a CWP No. 946 of 2007 -5- cheque on 2.5.2007. The aforementioned facts are a tell-tale story of state autocratic action. A humble citizen has resigned his fate to Almighty State. The entry of the State into the land of the petitioners and erection of building thereon is an act which has no legal backing. The action is condemnable being simply arbitrary. In view of above, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondent-State to make a draft assessment of the land at prevailing market rate and make payment of at least 80% of the amount of the draft assessment to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. The rest of the procedure of acquisition should be completed as per the affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Morni, Pinjore Division, Pinjore, within a period of six months from today. The petitioners shall also be entitled to compensation in lieu of the use of land from the date of possession till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The aforementioned directions have been given keeping in view the policy of law as reflected in Section 17 (3 A) of the Act. The petitioners are entitled to their costs which are quantified as Rs.50,000/- The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Bench Secretary. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE May 13, 2008 (SABINA anita JUDGE