JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners at length and perused the paper-book.
2. The petitioners have challenged Notifications dated 2.5.1988 (Annexure P3) and dated 1.5.1989 (Annexure P4) issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The petitioners have also challenged the supplementary award No. 5 dated 28.12.99 (Annexure P8) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Directorate of Urban Estates, Panchkula (Haryana). There is no challenge in the writ petition to the main award dated 29.4.1991. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they have “A” Class construction on the land which has been acquired. The residential houses of the petitioners existed on the acquired land, even prior to the issuance of the Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. The petitioners had submitted at the time of hearing of the Objections under Section 5-A of the Act that a report had been made by the Land Acquisition Officer, after visiting the spot that the entire area belonging to the petitioners had been constructed and may be exempted from acquisition, keeping in view the policy decision taken by the Government to that effect. This advice was ignored. The petitioners, therefore, agitated the matter in the Civil Court. Ultimately, Civil Suit has been dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide about the legality or otherwise of the acquisition proceedings. The suit was withdrawn with liberty to file the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the land of the petitioners should be released from acquisition. The respondents had been making promises in the Civil Court that the matter will be settled by way of compromise. The release of the land would save the exchequer a sum of Rs. 80,000 crores which would have to be paid to the petitioners as compensation. We are of the opinion that as the award has been passed in the land Acquisition proceedings on 29.4.1991 and the supplementary award has been passed on 28.12.1991 the right, title and interest in the property has vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, the present writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings at this stage would not be maintainable. This view of ours finds support from a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.,1 A.I.R. 1986 Punjab and Haryana 202 (Full Bench). In the aforesaid case, it is clearly held as follows :-
“2… Once the Collector makes his award under Section 11 of the Act and takes possession of the land, two consequences follow i.e., (i) the acquired land absolutely vests in the Government, and (ii) such vesting is free from all encumbrances. In other words, with the taking of the possession by the Government, the title of the land acquired completely passes to the State…”
4. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Converted Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.,2 (2003-1)133 P.L.R. page 634. The Division Bench after referring to numerous judgments of the Supreme Court, has held as follows:-
“15. It was then contended by the petitioners that the actual physical possession of the land is still with the writ petitioners and therefore, presumptions of vesting of the land with the State Government under Section 16 of the Act cannot be drawn at this stage. The said argument is not tenable in as much as the award Annexure P15 itself makes a mention that not only the amount of compensation has been offered but also land acquired vest in the ownership of the State Government and stand transferred to HUDA free from all encumbrances from the date of the award itself. Rapat Roznamcha No.703 dated 11.8.1990 has been relied upon by the respondent HUDA to contend that the symbolic possession was delivered to HUDA on the said date. It has been held by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2180 that even when symbolic possession is taken in pursuance of the award made, the land stands vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances.”
5. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S.S. Grewal, J.
