IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 8782 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: November 18, 2008
Satish Singla and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate,
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent State.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for the respondent HUDA.
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.
1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of four petitions2
because common question of law and facts are involved therein. In
these petitions challenge is made for quashing notification dated
C.W.P. No. 8782 of 2007 2
21.6.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 22.2.2007, issued under
Section 6 of the Act as also the award dated 4.5.2007, whereby the
Government has acquired land for public purpose, namely, for Sector
dividing road between Sector 24 and 25 Rohtak. It is conceded
position that all these petitions have been filed after announcement of
award by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Hisar, which
was passed on 4.5.2007. The principal ground of challenge is that
prior permission of the Government before announcing the award is
necessary, which according to the petitioners has not been obtained in
the present acquisition.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a
considerable length we find that there is no merit in these petitions
which are liable to be dismissed. The argument raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is without any substance because such an
irregularity would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings nor the
award. In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgment of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Ongole v.
Narra Venkateswarlu, (1996) 7 SCC 150. Moreover, it is
undisputed and admitted position that the petitioners have approached
this Court by filing these petitions after announcement of award by
the Land Acquisition Collector. It is well settled that no writ petition
would be competent after passing of award because possession of
land was taken and it is deemed to be vested in the State Government.
In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the
C.W.P. No. 8782 of 2007 3
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. There is thus, no ground to interfere.
3. In view of above, these petitions fails and the same are
dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
November 18, 2008 JUDGE
Pkapoor
2
1. Satish Singla and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.
8782 of 2007).
2. Saroj Gupta v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 8783 of 2007).
3. Ram Phal and others v State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 9389
of 2007).
4. Saroj Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.
19519 of 2008).