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