IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18573 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: December 16, 2008 Des Raj Chela Satguru Kirpa Nand Ji …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana. for the respondents 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. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 18573, 18574 & 18878 of 2006 and 7640 of 2007 as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. However, the facts are referred from CWP No. 18573 of 2006. C.W.P. No. 18573 of 2006 2. The proceedings for acquisition with respect to the land belonging to the petitioner were initiated on 11.11.2003 when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 10.11.2004 under Section 6 of the Act were issued. The award was also announced on 8.11.2006. On the eve of the award, land of some of the land owners was released vide order dated 8.11.2006 (P-4). The instant petition has been filed on 22.11.2006 after announcement of award. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we are of the considered view that by a catena of judgments, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has now held that a writ petition after announcement of award is not maintainable to challenge acquisition proceedings. 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. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 25.9.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 18851 of 2006 (Jagdish Rai and others v. State of Haryana and others) and other connected matters, which belongs to the same acquisition. The 2 C.W.P. No. 18573 of 2006 Division Bench has directed the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioners in that case. 4. Therefore, without accepting the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of acquisition proceedings, we dispose of these petitions with a direction to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, to entertain the representations of the petitioners and decide the same on merit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representations. The representations by the petitioners shall be made under Registered A.D. cover by incorporating all the pleas which have been raised in these petitions, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. The writ petitions stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 16, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3