CWP No. 4877 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4877 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 Braham Pal son of Sh. Chhote Lal ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. R.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Hooda, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to a notification dated 25.01.2008 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire a vast track of land including a small piece of land owned by the petitioner. The land was acquired for a public purpose i.e. development and utilization of land for Residential and Sector Road, Sector-52 at Gurgaon. Further CWP No. 4877 of 2010 2 challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 23.01.2009 and Award dated 12.01.2010. In response to a notice issued, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the land was vacant when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Further that Award was passed on 12.01.2010, the possession was taken thereafter and it was handed over to the representative of Estate Officer, HUDA, as such this writ is not maintainable. Heard counsel for the parties. When notice of motion was issued, we noted the following contentions of counsel for the petitioner:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, land was released from acquisition after considering the objections raised by the original owner Smt. Krishna Devi. The petitioner got No Objection Certificate from the department and purchases the land in question for residential purpose. The State of Haryana again issued notification, for the acquisition of the said land on 25.05.2008 to construct a road. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the road can be constructed even without disturbing the constructed portion of house of the petitioner.” We have seen the site plan placed on record by the petitioner to show extent of construction in the plot in question. It consists of three tin sheds and one small room. It appears that the construction has been raised after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was also CWP No. 4877 of 2010 3 stated as such in the written statement, to which no replication has been filed. State counsel averred that the petitioner shall be entitled to get compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and besides that, he may claim relief under a policy for rehabilitation of the oustees issued by the State Government on 07.10.2007. This writ petition having been filed after passing of an Award is not maintainable, in view of ratio of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698, M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 18, 2010 pj