IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17658 of 2009 Date of Decision:-18.11.2009 Rajbir Singh ---Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. Petitioner has directed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the land acquisition proceedings. The Govt. of Haryana has acquired the land of the petitioner along with other land vide impugned notification dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure P1) under section 4 and notification dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P2) under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) at public expenses, for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Water Treatment Plant and Underground Tank for Sohna Town, District Gurgaon. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notifications (Annexures P1 and P2) and subsequent award dated 16.7.2009 in this petition. 2. It is not a matter of dispute, rather admitted by the petitioner (in ground (iv)) that the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter to be referred as “the LAC”) on 16.7.2009 in respect of notifications sought to be challenged through the instant writ petition. The award has been passed by the Collector and filed in his office, which is final and conclusive evidence between the Collector and the persons interested in regard to the true area and value of the land as contemplated under section 12 of the Act. The respondents have acquired the land by invoking the urgency provisions under section 17 (1) of the Act, which is clear from the notification (Annexure P2). Admittedly, the present petition was filed subsequent to the announcement of the award by the LAC. Once the award has been passed by the LAC, then the present writ petition is clearly not maintainable, so as to impugning the initial action of the respondents in acquiring the land in question in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 698, Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 695 and this Court in Kamlesh Chander and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 535. 3. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the instant writ petition filed, so as to challenge the notifications whereby the land of the petitioner was acquired after passing the award, is not maintainable, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge (Satish Kumar Mittal) 18.11.2009 Judge AS