IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3685 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 24, 2008 Yashvir and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA. Mr. A.K. Pathania, Advocate, for HSIIDC. M.M. KUMAR, J. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notification bearing No. 32/39/2005-41B1, dated 25.11.2005, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and notification bearing No. C.W.P. No. 3685 of 2007 32/39/2005-4 1B1, dated 24.11.2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the aforementioned notifications and acquisition proceedings were also subject matter of challenge in C.W.P. Nos. 1793, 1813 and 8015 of 2007. A Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the aforementioned writ petitions, vide detailed order dated 14.12.2007, passed in C.W.P. No. 1793 of 2007 (Smt. Shakuntla and others v. The State of Haryana and others). Further, C.W.P. Nos. 4537, 4538, 4540, 4546, 4552, 4553, 4554, 4557, 9391, 9392 and 12343 of 2007, in respect of same notifications, have been dismissed by the Division Bench, vide order dated 18.12.2007, passed in C.W.P. No. 4537 of 2007 (Mahipat v. State of Haryana and others), in terms of its earlier order dated 14.12.2007, passed in the case of Smt. Shakuntla (supra). Another bunch of 16 petitions have been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was a member, vide order dated 4.2.2008, passed in C.W.P. No. 2752 of 2007 (Mamraj Yadav and others v. State of Haryana). Learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the aforementioned position. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the record with their able assistance as well as after going through the orders dated 14.12.2007 (supra), 18.12.2007 (supra) and 4.2.2008 (supra) passed by this Court, we find that the controversy in the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division 2 C.W.P. No. 3685 of 2007 Bench of this Court in Smt. Shakuntla’s case (supra). It is also apposite to notice that the award in the acquisition proceedings, which are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition, was announced on 24.2.2007, whereas the writ petition challenging the impugned notifications dated 25.11.2005 (P-3) and 24.11.2006 (P-5), has been filed on 9.3.2007. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land was deemed to be taken and 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 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. For this additional reason also this petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of above, this petition is dismissed in terms of order dated 14.12.2007, passed in the case of Smt. Shakuntla (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 24, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3