IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 10396 of 2004 Date of Decision: May 7, 2010 Prahlad Singh and others …Petitioners Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate. Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for UOI. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, and Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for HUDA. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 69 petitions2 as the acquisition of land/buildings etc. is sought to be made by common notifications initiating the acquisition proceedings. These petitions involve acquisition of vacant land, residential houses, commercial establishments, industrial units and religious places etc. The acquisition has been challenged on the principal grounds of procedural lapses alleging mandates of law, discrimination, violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, violation CWP No. 10396 of 2004 and other connected petitions of principles of natural justice and infringement of the State policy for release of constructed areas. The respondent State of Haryana has acquired the land in question for a public purpose, namely, for utilisation and development of land for residential, commercial and institutional purposes for Sector 1 (Part), 10-11 (Part), 12 and 13 Bahadurgarh under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, in the revenue estate of village Bahadurgarh, Hadbast No. 38, Balore, Hadbast No. 64 Sarai Aurangabad, Hadbast No. 44 and village Barkatabad, Hadbast No. 63, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. In that regard a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was issued on 17.4.2002; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 10.4.2003 and the award by the Land Acquisition Collector was announced on 25.6.2004. It is apparent from the record that the award in the acquisition proceedings in question was announced on 25.6.2004 before filing of these petitions. The position is discernible from the following table:- Sr. No. CWP Nos. (all of 2004) Date of announcemen t of award Date of filing of the writ petition 1. 11252, 11695, 11838, 11842, 11845, 11906, 11910, 11911, 11913, 11914, 11916, 12341, 12776 25.06.2004 01.07.2004 2. 11915 25.06.2004 03.07.2004 3. 10396 25.06.2004 12.07.2004 4. 10708, 10713, 10803, 10804, 10805 25.06.2004 19.07.2004 5. 10904 25.06.2004 21.07.2004 6. 11391 25.06.2004 29.07.2004 7. 11496 25.06.2004 30.07.2004 8. 11619, 11622, 11628 25.06.2004 31.07.2004 9. 11713, 11858, 17507 25.06.2004 05.08.2004 10. 12018, 12138, 12143 25.06.2004 09.08.2004 11. 12059 25.06.2004 10.08.2004 12. 12257 25.06.2004 11.08.2004 2 CWP No. 10396 of 2004 and other connected petitions 13. 12219, 12278, 13272 25.06.2004 12.08.2004 14. 12333, 12335, 12354, 12355, 12398, 12431 25.06.2004 13.08.2004 15. 12394 25.06.2004 16.08.2004 16. 12503, 12529, 12537, 12599 25.06.2004 17.08.2004 17. 12523, 12535, 12581 25.06.2004 18.08.2004 18. 12637, 12648, 12684 25.06.2004 19.08.2004 19. 12718, 12727 25.06.2004 20.08.2004 20. 13290 25.06.2004 25.08.2004 21. 13229 25.06.2004 26.08.2004 22. 13269 25.06.2004 27.08.2004 23. 13305, 13310, 13313, 13314 25.06.2004 28.08.2004 24. 14087, 14108 25.06.2004 10.09.2004 25. 17056 25.06.2004 30.10.2004 26. 17592 25.06.2004 08.11.2004 27. 17848 25.06.2004 17.11.2004 28. 17958 25.06.2004 18.11.2004 Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of these petitions. It is conceded position on record that the award in these petitions has already been announced on 25.6.2004 before filing of the petitions. There is a catena of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court laying down the principle that no petition would be competent after announcement of award against the acquisition proceedings. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 29 of the judgment rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501, has observed as under:- “29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be 3 CWP No. 10396 of 2004 and other connected petitions loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.” (emphasis added) Considering the issue of maintainability of the writ petition after declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passing of the award, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48, in para 17 has held that after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. While holding so, their Lordships’ has also noticed the view earlier taken in para 4 of the judgment rendered in the case of C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627, which reads thus: “4. The admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in GOR No. 1392 Industries, dated 17.10.1962, total extent of 6 acres 41 cents of land in Madhavaram village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpatta District in Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the 4 CWP No. 10396 of 2004 and other connected petitions manufacture of Synthetic Rasiua by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras. The acquisition proceedings had become final and possession of the land was taken on 30.4.1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed by the company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance Co. which is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally had ownership, was transferred in GOMs. No. 816 Industries, dated 24.3.1971 in favour of another subsidiary company, Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent which is also another subsidiary of the company had requested for two acres 75 cents of land; the same came to be assigned on leasehold basis by the Government after resumption in terms of the agreement in GOMs. No. 439 Industries, dated 10.5.1985. In GOMs.No. 546 Industries, dated 30.3.1986, the same came to be approved of. Then the appellants challenged the original GOMs. No. 1392 Industries, dated 17.10.1962 contending that since the original purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to be in operation, the appellants are entitled to restitution of the possession taken from them. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have held that the acquired land having already vested in the State, after receipt of compensation by the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have no right to challenge the notification. Thus the writ petition and the writ appeal came to be dismissed.” Reliance may also be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of 5 CWP No. 10396 of 2004 and other connected petitions Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. In a latest judgment rendered in the case of Sawaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others (SLP (C) Nos. 11023- 11026 of 2010, decided on 1.4.2010), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has noticed the sorry state of affair that litigants are eager to abuse the process of the Court, having no idea for the law of limitation/delay and laches. In paras 6 to 11 of the judgment, their Lordships’ after noticing various earlier judgments on the issue, has concluded as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners that they had not been aware of acquisition proceedings as the only ground taken in the writ petition has been that substance of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 had been published in the newspapers having no wide circulation. Even if, the submission made by the petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed that they could not be aware of acquisition proceedings for the reason that very huge chunk of land belonging to large number of tenure holders had been notified for acquisition. Therefore, it should have been a talk of the town. Thus, it cannot be presumed that petitioners could not have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.” It is, thus, well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land is taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioners would of course be entitled to compensation at the market value prevalent at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in accordance with the award subject to further remedies of reference etc. The petitioners would also be entitled to compensation for the user of the land from the date of 6 CWP No. 10396 of 2004 and other connected petitions possession to the date of notification issued under Section 4. Thus, no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of these petitions. In view of above, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 7, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 7 2 Sr. No.CWP No.YearTitle103962004Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and others107082004Shri Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others.107132004Dharmvir Singh Yadav v. State of Haryana and oth- ers108032004Harbir Singh another v. State of Haryana and oth- ers108042004Smt. Neelam Rathee and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers108052004Subhash Chander and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers109042004Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana and oth- ers112522004Samunder Singh v. State of Haryana and others113912004Vi- dya Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others114962004Narinder Singh v. Union of India and others116192004Dharambir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others.116222004Mahabir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others116282004Surat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others116952004Bhagat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others.117132004Parmod Kumar Khullar and another v. State of Haryana and others118382004Satpal v. State of Haryana and others.118422004Ravinder Singh and another v. State of Haryana and oth- ers118452004Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others.118582004Prem Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers119062004Durga Parshad and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers119102004Jai Bhagwan and others v. State of Haryana and others.119112004Vandana Gugwani v. State of Haryana and others.119132004Chand Gulati v. State of Haryana and others.119142004Om Parkash v. State of Haryana and oth- ers119152004Kamlesh Devi v. State of Haryana and others119162004Jeet Gangvany v. State of Haryana and others120182004Krishan Chand and oth- ers v. State of Haryana and others.120592004Harkishore and others v. State of Haryana and others.121382004Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and others121432004Shambu Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and oth- ers122192004Ram Kishore v. State of Haryana122572004Raj Singh v. State of Haryana and others122782004Ramesh Chander Grover and others v. State of Haryana and others123332004Kamlesh Arora v. State of Haryana and others123352004Azad Singh v. State of Haryana and oth- ers123412004M/s Rajesh Rubbers Moulders Bahadurgarh v. State of Hary- ana and others123542004Satya Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others.123552004Sumitra Devi v. State of Haryana and oth- ers123942004Parmod Arora v. State of Haryana and others123982004Ma- havir and others v. State of Haryana and others.124312004Dharam Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others125032004Narender Singh Rathee and others v. State of Haryana and others125232004Krishna Devi v. State of Haryana and others.125292004Anil Kumar and others v. State of Hary- ana and others125352004Anil Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others125372004Yashpal and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers125812004Raghbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers125992004Mange Ram and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers126372004Ashwani Kumar Rathee and another v. State of Haryana and others126482004Pawn Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and others 126842004Sanjay Mittal and another v. State of Haryana and oth- ers127182004Gulshan Kumar Nindwani v. State of Haryana and oth- ers127272004Raghubir Singh and another v. State of Haryana and oth- ers127762004Manohri Devi v. State of Haryana and others132292004Kar- tar Singh and others v. Union of India and others132692004Naresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others.132722004Mewa Devi v. State of Haryana and others. 132902004Smt. Komal Rathee and others v. State of Haryana and others.133052004Dharmender Singh Rathee and others v. State of Haryana and others133102004Ram Singh and others v. State of Ha- ryana and others.133132004Attar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others.133142004Pawan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others.140872004Prem Parkash and another v. State of Haryana and oth- ers141082004Shri Bhagwan v. State of Haryana and oth- ers170562004Narayan Singh and others v. Union of India and oth- ers175072004M/s A.D. Plastics v. State of Haryana and oth- ers175922004Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others.178482004Nawal Kishore and others v. State of Haryana and oth- ers179582004Kuldeep Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May , 2010 JUDGE