IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: March 10, 2010 CWP No. 16651 of 2009 Balbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP No. 16696 of 2009 Bhupinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CWP No. 18929 of 2009 Deep Chand and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 16651, 16696 and 18929 of 2009 because in all the petitions the petitioners have challenged the CWP Nos. 16651, 16696 & 18929 of 2009 proceedings for acquisition of their land, which were initiated by issuance of notification dated 15.12.2006, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration made on 18.10.2007, under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector has announced the award on 14.3.2008, whereas these petitions were filed on 29.10.2009 and 4.12.2009. 2. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 it has been asserted that at the time of announcement of award on 14.3.2008, the possession of the acquired land was taken on the same day and thereafter construction work of dividing road of Sectors 7 and 37 Rohtak is complete. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 it has been submitted that the provisions of the Act have been religiously complied with. The objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act were duly considered and decided after affording them an opportunity of hearing. It has also been pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) has already upheld the acquisition proceedings, subject matter of instant petitions, while dismissing CWP No. 5035 of 2008 (Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana and others), decided on 30.10.2008. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that against the order dated 30.10.2008, passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 5035 of 2008, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13702 of 2009 has been preferred, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court while issuing notice has stayed dispossession of the petitioner in that case, vide order dated 29.5.2009. The SLP is still pending consideration of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 4. Be that as it may. The fact remains that these petitions have been filed after announcement of award dated 14.3.2008. There is no dearth 2 CWP Nos. 16651, 16696 & 18929 of 2009 of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court laying down the principle that no petition would be competent after announcement of award against the acquisition proceedings. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 29 of the judgment rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501, has observed as under:- “29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers to quash the notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.” (emphasis added) 5. Considering the issue of maintainability of the writ petition after declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passing of the award, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48, in para 17 has held that after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the 3 CWP Nos. 16651, 16696 & 18929 of 2009 acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. While holding so, their Lordships’ has also noticed the view earlier taken in para 4 of the judgment rendered in the case of C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627, which reads thus: “4. The admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in GOR No. 1392 Industries, dated 17.10.1962, total extent of 6 acres 41 cents of land in Madhavaram village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpatta District in Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the manufacture of Synthetic Rasiua by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras. The acquisition proceedings had become final and possession of the land was taken on 30.4.1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed by the company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance Co. which is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally had ownership, was transferred in GOMs. No. 816 Industries, dated 24.3.1971 in favour of another subsidiary company, Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent which is also another subsidiary of the company had requested for two acres 75 cents of land; the same came to be assigned on leasehold basis by the Government after resumption in terms of the agreement in GOMs. No. 439 Industries, dated 10.5.1985. In GOMs.No. 546 Industries, dated 30.3.1986, the same came to be approved of. Then the appellants challenged the original 4 CWP Nos. 16651, 16696 & 18929 of 2009 GOMs. No. 1392 Industries, dated 17.10.1962 contending that since the original purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to be in operation, the appellants are entitled to restitution of the possession taken from them. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have held that the acquired land having already vested in the State, after receipt of compensation by the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have no right to challenge the notification. Thus the writ petition and the writ appeal came to be dismissed.” 6. Reliance may also be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. It is, thus, well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land is taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. There is delay of one year and seven months on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court from the announcement of award dated 14.8.2008, which has remained un-explained. The petitioners would of course be entitled to compensation at the market value prevalent at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in accordance with the award subject to further remedies of reference etc. Thus, no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. 7. In view of above, these petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. The office is directed to place a photocopy of this order on the files of each petition. 5 CWP Nos. 16651, 16696 & 18929 of 2009 (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 10, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 6