IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 2, 2011 1. CWP No. 1613 of 2011 Subbar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents 2. CWP No. 4516 of 2011 Ilahi Baksh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents 3. CWP No. 4139 of 2011 Shamsuddin …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. M.M. M.M. M.M. KUMAR, A KUMAR, A KUMAR, A KUMAR, Acg. cg. cg. cg.C.J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1613, 4516 and 4139 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent State of Haryana in pursuance to notifications dated 31.3.2008 and 27.3.2009, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) respectively, for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of Industrial Model Township Rojka Meo in CWP Nos. 1613, 4516 and 4139 of 2011 2 District Mewat, to be planned as an integrated complex for Industrial Complex for industrial and other public utilities in villages Dheerdhika, Badhelaki, Roopaheri, Rewason, Mehrola, Khedli- Kankar, Rojka Meo, Kauvarshika and Baduri, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat. 2. The acquisition has been challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioner(s) are owner in possession of the land in question and they had constructed the dwelling units 15 to 20 years back. They have no other residential house except the one which is subjected to acquisition. They also claimed to have filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act but the same have not been considered effectively. The other ground taken is that the area is already fully habitated and could not be utilised for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired. Without application of mind and conducting survey at the spot the respondents have acquired the land in question. 3. In the respective written statements filed by the respondents it has been specifically denied that no objection under Section 5-A of the Act was filed by any of the petitioner. Therefore, they have no legal right to file the instant petitions. It has also been pointed out that award had already been announced on 31.5.2010 and the process of acquisition is complete. All the three petitions have been filed much after announcement of award, which are not maintainable as per the settled proposition of law. It has also been asserted that since all the provisions of the Act have been religiously complied with, therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. CWP Nos. 1613, 4516 and 4139 of 2011 3 4. It has remained undisputed that these petitions have been filed after announcement of the award i.e. on 27.1.2011, 10.1.2011 and 7.3.2011 respectively. Therefore, we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner(s) and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petitions. Award in the present case had already been announced on 31.5.2010 before filing of the petitions. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land was taken and the land is deemed to be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In such a situation it is not possible to invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Reliance in that regard may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. Star Wire (India) Ltd. Star Wire (India) Ltd. Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC , (1996) 11 SCC , (1996) 11 SCC , (1996) 11 SCC 698; 698; 698; 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar Municipal Council Ahmednagar Municipal Council Ahmednagar Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. v. v. v. Shah Hyder Beig Shah Hyder Beig Shah Hyder Beig Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 , (2000) 2 , (2000) 2 , (2000) 2 SCC 48; SCC 48; SCC 48; SCC 48; C. Padma C. Padma C. Padma C. Padma v. v. v. v. Dy. Secretar Dy. Secretar Dy. Secretar Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu y to the Government of Tamil Nadu y to the Government of Tamil Nadu y to the Government of Tamil Nadu, , , , (1997) 2 SCC 627; (1997) 2 SCC 627; (1997) 2 SCC 627; (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. v. v. v. State of State of State of State of Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 , JT 2008 (2) SC 280 , JT 2008 (2) SC 280 , JT 2008 (2) SC 280. There is thus, no ground to interfere. 5. In view of above, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed. 6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 2, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor