ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Notification dated 30.05.2005 issued under Section 4 (Annexure P-1) and notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the 'Act')on 22.05.2006 (Annexure P-2). It is conceded as a fact that the award has already been passed in July 2007. The aforementioned fact has been conceded by Mr. Mamli during the course of the hearing. After passing of the award, the possession is also taken in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) It is well settled that no petition is maintainable after the award is passed and the possession of the land is taken because the land vests in the State. So there is no possibility even otherwise to exercise jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act to release the land.

(3.) For the aforementioned reasons, we place reliance on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Ltd., 1996 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, 2000 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, 1997 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1996 11 SCC 698 and M/s. Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 2 JT 280.