IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18050 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: October 20, 2008 Harnek Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed 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 instant petition is directed against notification dated 8.2.1989 (P-1), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 7.2.1990 (P-2) made under Section 6 of the Act. The case of the petitioners is that the land belonging to them is situated in village Nanhera, Tehsil and District Ambala, as is evident from the perusal of notification dated 8.2.1989 (P-1). The purpose of acquisition is development and C.W.P. No. 18050 of 2008 utilisation of the land as residential, commercial and industrial area for Sectors 10 and 11, Ambala Cantt. under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. They have claimed that despite announcement of Award No. 9, dated 23.1.1992, they are continuing in possession of the land and have raised three storey residential building. The petitioners have further asserted that a large number of persons have earlier approached this Court and their petition bearing C.W.P. No. 863 of 1992 against the same notification was allowed on 23.7.1993 (P-11). Thereafter another petition by 56 persons was filed, bearing C.W.P. No. 1012 of 1992, which was also disposed of by a Division Bench on 10.5.1994. The basic reason underlying the view taken by this Court is that no personal hearing was granted before disposing of the objections filed by the landowners under Section 5(2) of the Act. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find that the writ petition is devoid of merit and suffer from unexplained delay and laches. The acquisition proceedings in this case have been completed after announcement of award No. 9, dated 23.1.1992 in respect of village Nanhera where the land of the petitioners under acquisition is situated (P-14). It is well settled that after announcement of award, no acquisition proceedings could be challenged. The aforementioned view has been taken by Hon’ble 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 2 C.W.P. No. 18050 of 2008 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. In the present case, the award was announced on 23.1.1992 and the instant petition has been filed on 1.10.2008, which is after a period of more than 16 years. The only explanation tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioners explaining the delay is that the petitioners were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. Such a sweeping statement cannot be accepted nor could it constitute the basis for declaring the acquisition as illegal. The argument of the learned counsel that the possession of the land continues with the petitioners can also not be accepted after announcement of award and taking of possession by the respondent State. It cannot be claimed by the petitioners that they have been in possession. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212. Therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the submission made by the learned counsel. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) 3 C.W.P. No. 18050 of 2008 October 20, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4