Writ petitions challenging acquisitions after award pronouncement are non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The petitioners have thrown a challenge to the acquisition notification dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure P-3) as issued under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894') which was followed by declaration dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 6 of the ibid Act and also the order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure P-6) vide which the request of the petitioners to release their lands from acquisition has been declined.

2. Before we divulge into the alleged illegality of the impugned notification(s), it is apt to mention here that award Nos.8-9 qua the petition land(s) was announced way back on 23.6.2010 and the possession of the acquired land was handed over to the Estate Office, HUDA, vide rapat rojnamcha No.636 dated 23.6.2010 of village Kutana and rapat No. 637 dated 23.6.2010 of village Rohtak. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed much belatedly after the pronouncement of the requisite award and the consequent assumption of possession by the acquiring authority. On pronouncement of award and on assumption of possession of the land by the acquisition authority concerned, the land vests with the acquiring authority and the landowners do not have any right, title or interest in the petition land(s). One of the issues, which needs to be considered in the present writ petition is that "whether upon pronouncement of award by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, the present writ petition is maintainable"?.

Submissions By The Learned Counsel For The Petitioners

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the land measuring 7 kanals 12 marlas, as per the jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 wherein, in the column of the "nature of land" an entry of "gair mumkin plot' is recorded. He has further submitted that the petitioners have constructed two residential rooms and a boundary wall over the petition land(s), which is infact, their ancestral property. Further, he has placed reliance upon a Government policy vide which release of constructed area from acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners has set up a case, on the ground of discrimination. He has also submitted that the similarly situated constructed houses have been released from the acquisition whereas, the same has been declined to the petitioners. To establish that the petitioners have constructed a house over the acquired land(s), he put emphasis on the record prepared by the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak and also the notice dated 20.2.2014, whereby, arrears of house tax have been demanded qua the petition land(s), by the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak. It is also submitted that no personal notice, whatsoever was served upon the petitioners thereby enabling them to file objections, under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 whereas, under the Act of 1894, the Land Acquisition Collector was bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as per standing order No.28 of the Financial Commissioner, which prescribed the procedure for serving notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

Submissions By The Learned Counsel For The Respondent-State

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel has vociferously argued that all the statutory compliances were made during the acquisition proceedings. Infact, the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued in respect of total land measuring 160 acres i.e. 69.13 acres of village Rohtak and 90.87 acres of village Kutana and the said notification was published in two daily newspapers i.e. one in English newspaper "INDIAN EXPRESS dated 3.1.2008 and the second in Hindi news