CWP No. 22154 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 22154 of 2011 Date of decision 30.11.2011 Mamraj Yadav and others . Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Jagat Singh , Advocate for the petitioners 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 13.8.2009 (P.1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 7.1.2010 (P.2) issued under Section 6 of the Act alongwith award dated 30.3.2011 (P.3). The petitioners have asserted that they have no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act nor any intimation with regard to pronouncement of award. They came to know only when officials of the respondents came to the spot for taking possession of the land. They are still cultivating their crops over the land in question. The possession of the land in question has not even been taken. Their basic challenge is that there was no public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality nor it was published any where. They could not even file objections under Section 5 A of the Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length. The facts revealed in the petition would show that award has been announced on 30.3.2011. It is well settled that acquisition of land cannot CWP No. 22154 of 2011 2 be challenged after pronouncement of the award. The aforesaid proposition has been laid down in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyden Beig (2002) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma v. Deputy Secretary to Govt. 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, Moreover, we find that under Section 12 of the Act it has been categorically provided that award shall be considered as final and conclusive evidence between the Collector and the persons interested. A perusal of the award (P.3) would show that possession of the land was taken on 30.3.2011. The afore-mentioned fact is mentioned in sub para 2 under sub heading 'Compulsory Acquisition Charges and the mode of payment'. It has also been recorded that the land free from all encumbrances vests in the State Government with effect from 30.3.2011 when possession has been assumed to be taken. In such a situation it is not possible to conclude that petitioners were not intimated about the notification by issuing publication/ public notice in the locality depriving them the opportunity to file objections under Section 5 A of the Act. The petition is wholly without merit . Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 30.11.2011 Judge okg