The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding after the passing of the award, and the significance of delay or laches in approaching the court.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. The petitioner prays for quashing the impugned award dated 22.6.1962, Annexure P.4 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar as the said acquisition was never acted upon by the respondents as well as the land owners, no compensation was paid and possession is still with him. Thus, the petitioner also prayed for relief under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the 2013 Act”).

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Gopal Singh, father of the petitioner had purchased land measuring 8 kanals situated in the area of Village Jalandhar Beat No. 307, Tehsil and district Jalandhar from one Sudershan Lal Mahendru vide sale deed dated 6.2.1950. He remained owner in possession of the said land till his death and thereafter, his property was inherited by his sons including the petitioner-Swaran Singh in equal shares. Till today, the petitioner alongwith his brothers is owner in possession of the land. Out of the said land, land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla was acquired and mutation was entered in favour of the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar vide jamabandi for the year 1994-95, Annexure P.3. According to the petitioner, the change of ownership was only a mere paper transaction but the possession is still with him. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22.6.1962, Annexure P.4. The Government of Punjab acquired land measuring 14 acres for an unknown scheme and the land of the petitioner measuring 8 kanals 4 marlas was part of the acquired land. The petitioner avers that through the award was passed but possession of the land was never taken by the Government and even compensation was also not paid to the land owners. The petitioner has even constructed his residential house and boundary wall. He is regularly paying the property tax to the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. The petitioner sent a number of letters to the respondents praying for correction of revenue record with regard to the ownership but having received no response, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Admittedly, the award was passed in the year 1962. The present petition was filed in the year 2015. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the award at this belated stage after the announcement of the award would not be maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others, (2000) 2 SCC 48, while considering the issue of maintainability of the writ petition after the announcement of the award held thus:-

“16. In any event; after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of recent cases C. Padma & Ors. v. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. & Ors. reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627, this court observed as below:-

"The admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") in GOM No. 1392 Industries dated 17.10.1962, total extent of 6 areas 41 cents of land in Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District in Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the manufacture of Synthetic Rasiua by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. Madras. The acquisition proceedings had become final and possession of the land was taken on 10.4.1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed by the company, it was handed over to Tvl, Simpson and General Finance Co. which is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally