IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12411 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 29, 2008 Sudha Rani …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notifications dated 30.5.2005 and 22.5.2006 (P-3 & P-4), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) whereby the Government has sought to C.W.P. No. 12411 of 2007 acquire land for public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential commercial area for Sector 22-23 and 24 Part, Jagadhri, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, for the Haryana Urban Development Authority, in the area of Villages Jagadhri-HB No. 400, Jaroda-HB No. 403, Gulab Nagar- HB No. 404 and Bohotali-HB No. 405, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on 16.7.2007 before filing of the instant petition, which has been filed on 13.8.2007. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that there is no ground made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. Award in the present case has already been announced on 16.7.2007 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 13.8.2007. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land was taken and it is deemed to be vested in the State Government. 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. 2 C.W.P. No. 12411 of 2007 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 29, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3