IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 19810 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 28, 2010 Babu Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Shallie Taneja, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. 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 prays for quashing notification dated 3.10.2006, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’); declaration dated 1.10.2007, made under Section 6 of the Act (P-1 and P-2 respectively); notice issued under Section 9 of the Act, dated 14.9.2009 (P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The Government has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and institutional Sector 24 and 25A, Gurgaon, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, for the Haryana Urban CWP No. 19810 of 2009 Development Authority. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on 30.9.2009 before filing of the instant petition, which has been filed on 16.12.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that 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 30.9.2009 before filing of the instant petition. 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 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 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, 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. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 28, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2