CWP No. 184 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 184 of 2010 Date of decision 8.1.2010 Mukesh Kumar Garg ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan ,Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The respondent-State has acquired the land in dispute by issuing notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') on 4.4.1998 and 6.4.1998. It has remained undisputed that the award was announced and even possession was taken by making appropriate entries in that regard. However, the petitioner kept on making representations and approached this Court by filing CWP No. 7209 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.5.2009 directing the respondent- State to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner. It has been found that the claim of the petitioner for release of the land based on residential house consisting of three rooms, one hall, latrine, bath room and kitchen has been found to be false as there was no such construction before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The only construction that has been mentioned in the award dated 15.7.1999 on Khasra Nos. 711-712 Min. is one room, boundary wall and iron gate for CWP No. 184 of 2010 2 which amount of compensation was assessed. Having heard the learned counsel at some length we are of the view that the order dated 20.11.2009 (P.13) does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The land has been acquired by invoking the urgency provisions in the year 1998 and even award has been announced on 15.7.1999. The possession of the land was taken on the announcement of the award. The land free from all encumbrances vests in the State after taking possession. There was no possibility of release of land after taking of possession in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act. Moreover, the petitioner has raised illegal construction after the issuance of notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act and have set up false claim. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 8.1.2010 Judge okg