IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16308 of 2006 Date of Decision: April 3, 2008 Kewal Krishan 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. Ashok Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. M.M. KUMAR, J. The admitted position in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was issued on 2.5.2001 (P-1), declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 30.4.2002 (P-2) and award under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 27.4.2004. The instant petition was filed on 20.9.2006. The principal ground urged in support of the petition is that the land comprising of house of the petitioner has also been acquired by the C.W.P. No. 16308 of 2006 notification and declaration issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, whereas surrounding houses have not been acquired. It has also been urged that subsequent award in respect of structure has not been passed and possession is still with the petitioner. The house on the land in question was built by the petitioner much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that there is no ground made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. The argument concerning discrimination on the ground that houses of certain persons have been released from acquisition lacks merit, inasmuch as, the respondent State is competent to release the land from acquisition even after issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot constitute a basis to declare the acquisition as illegal. Furthermore, award in the present case was announced on 27.4.2004 and the instant petition has been filed expiry of more than two years thereafter i.e. 20.9.2006. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land was taken and it vested in the State Government and even the development project for which the land has been acquired might have been accomplished. 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 2 C.W.P. No. 16308 of 2006 Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. There is thus, no ground to interfere. It is also apposite to mention here that writ petitions challenging the same notifications and award have already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. One such writ petition is C.W.P. No. 17068 of 2003, decided on 21.5.2004 (Sher Singh v. State of Haryana and others). In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 3, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3