- (1.) It is a conceded position that notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,1922 (for brevity 'the Act') (which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) was issued on 31.5.2004 for the purpose of Development Scheme for an area measuring 70.50 acres by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar after entertaining and deciding objections under Section 38 of the Act. A further notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued on 27.5.2005 (which is equivalent to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). The State Government and the Local Government issued no objection certificate on 14.2.2006 for the aforementioned scheme which resulted into the issuance of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to the land owners/interested persons. The objections were heard which culminated to passing of award on 25.5.2007. The petitioner was also issued notice on 11.6.2007 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar intimating that his property/land stands acquired by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar for the aforementioned scheme. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to collect compensation from the Office of the Collector.
(2.) After hearing learned counsel at some length and perusing various Annexures along with the averments made in the petition, we are of the considered view that the respondents have taken all the necessary steps culminating into issuance of notification under Section 42 of the Act and also passing of award dated 25.5.2007. This is taken in accordance with law. There is no infirmity in the legal procedure required to be followed for acquisition of the land for implementation of a development scheme. Merely because the petitioner did not prefer to file any objection or came to contest acquisition later on would not be a ground for quashing acquisition proceedings. The request of the petitioner for exemption of his land from acquisition can also not be considered, because it is too late to claim that the property/land belonging to the petitioner was excluded as the land has vested in the State, free from all encumbrances. Even otherwise, no writ petition is maintainable for challenging the acquisition proceedings, after the announcement of the award which, in this case, has been passed on 25.5.2007. For the aforesaid purpose, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1996 11 SCC 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, 2000 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Naidu, 1997 2 SCC 627and Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 2 JT 280.
(3.) We find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.;