IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5797 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 22, 2008 Raj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be al- lowed 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. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing action of the respondents in continuing with the acquisition of the part of the land belonging to him. He has claimed that the land adjoining to his land which is similarly situated has been released from acquisition, whereas the land of the petitioner has not been given the same treatment. It is undisputed that the process of acquisition of land was initiated on 23.02.1989 and 22.02.1990 by C.W.P. No. 5797 of 2008 issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act were considered after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the award was announced on 21.02.1992. The case of the petitioner is that land belonging to some other land owners like M/s Shiv Shakti Spinning Mills, S.D. Processors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mahalakshmi Spinners Limited have been released, whereas the part of the land belonging to the petitioner still has been acquired. Having heard learned counsel at some length, we find that the instant petition is devoid of merit because no petition after the award would be maintainable as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court 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. Moreover, we have dismissed similar petition being C.W.P. No.17613 of 2007 which belongs to the land acquired under the same notification. There is thus, no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) December 22, 2008 JUDGE 2 C.W.P. No. 5797 of 2008 Monika/Pkapoor 3