IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6658 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 24, 2008 Chotte Lal 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. Jangvir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. The admitted position in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was issued on 4.11.2003, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 3.11.2004 and award under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 31.1.2006 (P-2). The instant petition has been filed on 23.4.2008 challenging award dated 31.1.2006 (P-2) and notices dated 15.1.2007 [P-1 (Colly)], whereby the petitioners have been called to receive the amount of compensation in lieu of the acquired land. It is pertinent to notice that earlier also the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 17321 of 2007 C.W.P. No. 6658 of 2008 in this Court, however, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one with relevant documents, vide order dated 15.11.2007. The principal ground urged in support of the petition is that the respondent authorities never called the petitioners and other affected persons for hearing as envisaged under Section 5- A of the Act; a joint site inspection committee visited the area and certain plots have been excluded from acquisition, even structures with proportionate open area have been released. It has been claimed that the respondents have left the land adjacent to the land of the petitioners and adopted discriminatory approach while implanting the acquisition policy in a mechanical manner, by virtue of which land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired whereas the adjacent land has been excluded. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length 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 instant petition. The argument concerning discrimination on the ground that adjacent land of certain persons have been released from acquisition lacks merit, inasmuch as, the respondent State is competent to release the land from acquisition even after issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. There is no material placed on record to show that hostile discrimination has been meted out to the petitioners or that any favour has been shown to others by releasing their land from acquisition. In that regard we place reliance on a judgment of this Court in Anand Buttons Ltd. v. 2 C.W.P. No. 6658 of 2008 State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 565. Therefore, it cannot constitute a basis to declare the acquisition as illegal. Furthermore, award in the present case was announced on 31.1.2006 and the instant petition has been filed after expiry of more than two years thereafter i.e. on 23.4.2008. Even the earlier petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 17321 of 2007 was filed after the award dated 31.1.2006 (P-2). It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land was taken and it vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Even the development project for which the land has been acquired, might have been accomplished. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered 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 M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. There is thus, no ground to interfere. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 24, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3