The main legal point established in the judgment is that the land vests in the government on the announcement of the award and possession, and the non-deposit of compensation does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. Fifty three petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 18.8.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Annexure P.13, Notification dated 12.8.1988 under Section 6 of the Act, Annexure P. 14 and the award dated 11.8.1990, Annexure P. 15 in the present writ petition filed on 9.7.2001.

2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of the present writ petition are that one M/s Raccman Auto Private Ltd. was owner of the land measuring 133 Kanals !9 Marias situated within the revenue estate of village Mujesar, Hadbast No. 9 including land measuring 40 Kanals 3 Marias which was purchased by the company in the year 1963-64, Although there were earlier notifications for acquisition of the land but such notifications are not relevant for determination of the controversy in the present case. The acquisition under challenge was initiated by virtue of a notification dated 18.8.1987 under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the land measuring 5.02 acres i.e. the land which was purchased by M/s Racman Auto Private Ltd. in the year 1963-64. After the objections were considered, notification under Section 6 was issued on 12.8.1988. Such notifications under Section 4 and 6 were challenged by the petitioners and some other persons by v/ay of the writ petition No. 7766 of 1989 and the said writ petition was dismissed after reply and replication was filed on 9.11.1989. Subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 11.8.1990. It was recited in the award that the possession of the land acquired vide this award will be taken over immediately after offering the compensation which has duly been offered today.

3. The petitioners averred that no award was made in respect of the superstructure. However, it was further stated that neither the compensation assessed in the award An-nexure P. 15 was paid nor the same has been deposited in court nor notice as contemplated by Section 12 of the Act has been issued. It was further stated that the possession of the land has not been taken by the State and the petitioners continue to be in possession thereof. However, in subsequent paragraph the petitioners stated to the following effect:

"20. That it is reiterated that in pursuance of the award Annexure P. 15 neither the compensation amount was disbursed to the petitioner, nor the same has been deposited in court, nor any notices under Section 12 as required have been received by any of the petitioners nor any supplementary award with regard to the buildings etc. has been announced till today."

4. The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings after proclamation was made in the locality by the chowkidar that the possession of the land would be taken on 26.7.2001.

5. In pursuance of the notice issued, the State filed its reply and submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and latches. It was mentioned that the amount of compensation after the announcement of the award is lying in the general account of the respondents and can be disbursed even in the court itself. It was further mentioned that the supplementary award could not be made as the officers were not allowed to enter for making the assessment. The State has further stated that the amount of compensation pertaining to the acquired land has already been disbursed to the concerned persons but so far as the claim with regard to the buildings etc. is concerned it could not be given because the officials were not permitted to enter the building to assess the compensation. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as HUDA), respondent No. 3 has stated that the land vested in HUDA from the date of the award since the compensation was offered and in terms of the stipulation in the award itself the land vested with the HUDA. It relied upon Rapat No. 73 dated 11.8.1990 to contend that none else except HUDA has any r