THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15621 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 8, 2008 Baljit Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notifications dated 29.8.2007 and 27.2.2008 (P-3 & P-5), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) whereby the Government has sought to acquire land for public purpose, namely, for construction of Judicial Court Complex at Nakodar. It is an admitted position that award in C.W.P. No. 15621 of 2008 the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on 18.7.2008 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 1.9.2008. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Award in the present case has already been announced on 18.7.2008 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 1.9.2008. 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 free from all encumbrances. 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 (JORA SINGH) 2 C.W.P. No. 15621 of 2008 December 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3