CWP No.4118 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 4118 of 2006 Date of decision 1 .5.2008 Vijay Latka and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.L.Saggar, Addl. AG Haryana Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG Hy. M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification dated 11.11.2002 ( Annexure P.2) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'), declaration dated 7.11.2003 ( Annexure P.4) issued under Section 6 of the Act and award dated 31.10.2005 ( Annexure P.10). The petitioners have also prayed that any subsequent proceedings in pursuance to the afore- mentioned notification be also set aside. It is pertinent to mention that the instant petition has been filed on 16.3.2006 which is after the passing of award. A large number of writ petitions arising out of the afore-mentioned acquisition proceedings have been pending before this Court. On the statement made by the learned State Counsel, we had asked the Director, Urban Estates, Panchkula to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the policy of the State dated 26.10.2007. In pursuance to the statement made by the learned State counsel, the Director Urban Estates, Panchkula has considered the case of CWP No.4118 of 2006 2 the petitioners and has concluded that the land of the petitioners cannot be recommended for release because there is a 'C' class structure for carrying the business of Plantation and Agriculture on a portion of the land and the rest of the land is vacant. Accordingly, the land has been recommended for acquisition. It is further pertinent to notice that even otherwise the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the instant petition was filed after the announcement of the award as already noticed in the preceding para. It is well settled that no writ petition is maintainable after the announcement of award as has been held by 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 Nadhu (1997)2 SCC 627 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd v. State of Rajasthan JT 2008(2) SC 280. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 1.5.2008 Judge okg