IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 5959 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 8, 2010 Tarsem Kumar 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. J.K. Goel, 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. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 11.9.2008 (P-9) passed by the Director, Urban Development Department, Haryana, Panchkula, rejecting the representation of the petitioners, which was filed by them in pursuance of the order dated 14.9.2006 passed by this Court in CWP No. 16101 of 2006 (P-8). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were Members of the H.S.E.B. Employees Co-Operative House Building Society Limited, Kaithal, wherein Plot Nos. 106 and 107 were allotted to them. On 9.8.2002, the respondent State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for acquisition of total land measuring 294.08 acres for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of the land as residential, commercial and institutional area for Sector 21, Karnal. Since the land owned by the petitioners was also covered in the aforementioned notification, they along with other members of the Society filed objections under CWP No. 5959 of 2010 Section 5-A of the Act stating that the society has spent huge amount of Rs. 40 lacs for construction of roads etc. and that many members of the Society have also raised construction. On 8.8.2003, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made acquiring total land measuring 277.46 acres. The land of those persons who have constructed their houses and other buildings were released from acquisition whereas the remaining land, including the land belonging to the petitioners, was acquired. The petitioners again made various representations to the authorities and eventually filed CWP No. 16101 of 2006 in this Court seeking quashing of the notifications dated 9.8.2002, 8.8.2003, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the award dated 5.8.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar. On 14.9.2006, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. However, the Division Bench upheld the notifications in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 18398 of 2005. On 11.9.2008, the Director, Urban Development Department, Haryana, rejected the representation of the petitioners, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and also perused the paper book with his able assistance. From a careful perusal of the paper book it is evident that there is delay on the part of the petitioners. Even the earlier petition i.e. CWP No. 16101 of 2006, was filed after announcement of award by the Land Acquisition Collector, which was announced on 5.8.2005. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land, free from all encumbrances was taken and as such it is deemed to vest 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 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, 2 CWP No. 5959 of 2010 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 has also come on record that the constructed area has already been released by the respondents from acquisition. Since the petitioners have not raised any construction on the plots in question, therefore, their case has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11.9.2008. Moreover, there is also un-explained delay of about one year and seven months on the part of the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid order. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In view of above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 8, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3