AJAY TEWARI,J - (1.) AT the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that out of the aforesaid bunch of petitions, CWP Nos. 7337 of 2001, CWP No. 5150 of 2002, CWP No. 8877 of 2001, CWP No. 8878 of 2001, CWP No. 8879 of 2001, CWP No. 8880 of 2001, CWP No. 8881of 2001, CWP No. 8886 of 2001, CWP No. 8887 of 2001,CWP No. 8888 of 2001, CWP No. 8889 of 2001, CWP No. 8890 of 2001, CWP No. 8891 of 2001, CWP No. 8892of 2001, CWP No. 7889 of 2001, CWP No. 20318 of 2003, CWP No. 20356 of 2003, CWP No. 17549 of 2001, CWP No. 17913 of 2001, CWP No. 17958 of 2001, CWP No. 201 of 2002, CWP No.1302 of 2004,CWP No. 667 of 2004, CWP No.3298 of 2005, CWP No. 6316 of 2003, CWP No. 5572 of 2002, CWP No. 40 of 2004, CWP No. 1735 of 2002, CWP No. 2541 of 2004, CWP No. 7427 of 2001, CWP No. 20386 of 2005, CWP No. 20382 of 2007, CWP No. 15287of 2001, CWP No. 10675 of 2005, CWP No. 20393 of 2005, CWP No. 8459 of 2001, CWP No. 8178 of 2001, CWP No. 1340 of 2009, CWP No. 12668 of 2001, have been filed after the passing of the award.
(2.) IN CWP No. 1460 of 2010, Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, a Division Bench of this Court on 29.01.2010 held as follows :- "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we are of the view that the instant petition lacks merit. It is conceded position on record that the award in the present case was announced on 27.6.2008 (P-7) and the instant petition has been filed on 27.1.2010. Even a supplementary award was also announced on 26.9.2008 (P-14). There is inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the Court. There is a catena of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court laying down the principle that no petition would be competent after announcement of award against the acquisition proceedings. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 29 of the judgment rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, 1996(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 647 : (1996)11 SCC 501, has observed as under :- "29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches." (emphasis added) 8. Considering the issue of maintainability of the writ petition after declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passing of the award, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000)2 SCC 48, in para 17 has held that after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder......................... ............ ................. ................. .............. 9. Reliance may also be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 96 : 2008(2) R.A.J. 82 : JT 2008(2) SC 280. It is, thus, well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land is taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision, the Writ petitions filed after award are dismissed.
(3.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ petitions bearing bearing Nos. 4981 to 4989 of 2001, CWP No. 3814 of 2001, CWP No.7476 of 2001, CWP No. 6604 of 2001, 7156 of 2001, 7108 of 2001, 5512 of 2001, 7050 of 2001 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Facts are being taken from CWP No.7050 of 2001.;