ORDER

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Whether the acquired land can be treated to have vested in the State Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act’) on the making of an award by the Collector though the actual and physical possession continues with the landowner is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants questioning the acquisition of their land was dismissed.

2. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Haryana issued Notification dated 17-4-2002 for the acquisition of the appellants' land along with other parcels of land of Village Baloure, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar for development and utilisation thereof for residential, commercial and institutional parts of different sectors of Bahadurgarh.

3. The predecessors of the appellant and other landowners filed objections under Section 5-A(1) and prayed that their land may not be acquired because they had developed the same for agricultural activities like dairy, gardening, etc. by investing huge money. They claimed that the acquisition proceedings were initiated without application of mind and there was no justification to acquire fertile and irrigated land. They also pointed out that land acquired for the same purpose in 1965 was still lying vacant and undeveloped.

4. Another objection taken by the predecessors of the appellant and other landowners was that the area proposed to be acquired falls in the National Capital Region under the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (for short “the 1985 Act”) and in the regional plan prepared by the National Capital Region Planning Board (for short “the Board”), the land in question has been shown as part of the green belt/green wedge and, as such, the same cannot be acquired for residential, commercial and institutional purposes. In support of this plea, the landowners relied upon an order passed by this Court in CAs Nos. 4384 and 4385 of 1994.

5. Although it is not clear from the record as to how the Collector dealt with the objections and submitted recommendations to the State Government, this much is evident that the State Government issued declaration dated 10-4-2003 under Section 6 of the Act reiterating its resolve to acquire the entire area notified under Section 4(1) on 17-4-2002. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed the award dated 25-6-2004.

6. Immediately after the pronouncement of the award, the predecessors of the appellant and other landowners filed 69 writ petitions questioning the acquisition proceedings on various grounds including non-consideration of their objections, non-application of mind by the Collector and the authorities concerned of the State Government and violation of the provisions of the 1985 Act and the Regional Plan 2001 prepared by the Board. They pleaded that being a participating State, the State of Haryana is bound to act in consonance with the provisions of the 1985 Act and it cannot acquire land in violation of the Regional Plan 2001. They relied upon the judgment of this Court in GDA v. Delhi Auto & General Finance (P) Ltd. and pleaded that the land which has been identified in the Regional Plan 2001 as the green belt/green wedge cannot be used for the purpose of urbanisation. They also claimed that possession of the acquired land was still with them and they were cultivating the same.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court did not deal with the grounds on which the appellants questioned the acquisition of their land including the one that the impugned acquisition was contrary to the provisions of the 1985 Act and the Regional Plan 2001 and dismissed the writ petitions by observing that once the land has vested in the State Government, the writ petitioners do not have the locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

8. The Divisio