IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10341 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 27, 2010 Davinder Chawla and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 27.4.2006 (P-5), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 26.4.2007 (P-9) and award dated 23.4.2009 (P-10) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length and also perused the paper book with his able assistance. It is conceded position on record that the award in the present case was announced on 23.4.2009 and the instant petition has been filed on 26.5.2010. 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 CWP No. 10341 of 2010 award against the acquisition proceedings. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. It is, thus, well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land free from all encumbrances is taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government. Thus, no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 27, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2