JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The challenge in the present writ petition is to the acquisition proceedings in respect of land measuring 35 kanals 12 marlas owned by the petitioner which is a part of land sought to be acquired measuring 26 acres 1 kanal and 13 marlas. 2. The petitioner has sought quashing of acquisition proceedings on the short ground that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued after the expiry of one year of the last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and thus the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and therefore, the subsequent announcement of the award will not revive the lapsed proceedings. 3. Said question has been raised as the notification dated 28.4.1999 under Section 4 of the Act was published in Jan Satta (Regional language) News Paper on 3.5.1999, in the National Herald (English Newspaper) on 7.5.1999 by beat of drum in the locality on 12.5.1999 and in the State Government Gazette on 15.6.1999. 4. On the other hand the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 22.6.2000 was published in the Newspapers on 29.6.2000 - whereas it was published in Haryana State Government Gazette on 4.7.2000. It has further come in evidence that the petitioner was served with a notice for determination of the amount of compensation dated 4.4.2002 and in pursuance thereof, the award has been announced on 22.4.2002. The present writ petition has been filed on 24.5.2002 after the award has been announced. 5 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sub- section (1) of Section 6 prohibits the publication of declaration after the expiry of one year of the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act since, such declaration has been made after one year from the last date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, the declaration by the State Government dated 22.6.2000 is without jurisdiction and subsequent announcing of the award will not revive the lapsed proceedings. 6. Learned State Counsel has relied upon AIR 2002 SC 187 to contend that declaration under Section 6 of the Act is dated 22.6.2000 and the minor delay in issuing such notification will not vitiate the acquisition proceedings since the land stood vested in the State Government after announcing of the award free from all encumbrances. 6. Learned State Counsel has relied upon AIR 2002 SC 187 to contend that declaration under Section 6 of the Act is dated 22.6.2000 and the minor delay in issuing such notification will not vitiate the acquisition proceedings since the land stood vested in the State Government after announcing of the award free from all encumbrances. Learned State counsel has relied upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported as AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 202 to contend that a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings after announcement of the award is not maintainable. 7. The learned State counsel further in the alternative argued that although Section 6 contemplates publication of notification within a period of one year but no consequences of non-publication of the notification are contemplated in the said provision as are contemplated for not announcing the award under Section 11-A of the Act. Therefore, even if there is delay in issuance of a declaration the same will not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. 8. It was argued that as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act the intention of the State Government that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose is to be notified in the official gazette, two daily newspapers as well as in the locality. It is further contemplated that last of the date of publication of such notice shall be the date for completing one year period under Section 6(1) of the Act. Since the public notice of Section 4 notification was lastly published in official gazette on 15.6.1999, therefore, the declaration under section 6 could be made within one year of 15.6.1999. However, the same was made on 22.6.2000. Since in pursuance of such declaration, the award has been announced on 22.4.2000, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable since the land stood vested in the State Government. 9. Before proceeding further it will be beneficial to reproduce Sections 4(i) and 6 of the Act which read as under : "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. 9. Before proceeding further it will be beneficial to reproduce Sections 4(i) and 6 of the Act which read as under : "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. -- (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. 6. 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub- section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made wherever require under Section 5-A, sub section (2) : Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), -- (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification : Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some found controlled or managed by a local authority. Explanation 1. -- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2. -- Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues. Explanation 2. -- Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues. (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for, a Company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing." 10. The notifications under sections 4 and 6 were published and the award announced before the filing of the writ petition. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 202 that once the Collector makes its award under section 11 of the Act, two consequences follow i.e. the acquired land absolutely vests in the Government and such vesting is free from all encumbrances. In other words with the taking of possession by the Government, the title of the land acquired completely passes to the State. 11. In Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2517, General Manager, Telecommunication and another v. Dr. In other words with the taking of possession by the Government, the title of the land acquired completely passes to the State. 11. In Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2517, General Manager, Telecommunication and another v. Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan and others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 268, State of Haryana and others v. Dewan Singh and others, (1996) 7 SCC 394 and Mohan Singh and others v. International Airport Authority of India and others, (1997) 9 SCC 132, the Honble Supreme Court has held that by operation of section 16 of the Act, right, title and interest in the land vest in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances after the announcement of the award and possession is taken. However, it will be beneficial to reproduce the finding of the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 501 where the Honble Supreme Court while examining the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act held to the following effect : "22. xx xx xx xx On taking possession, it became vested in BMC free from all encumbrances including tenancy right alleged to be held by the respondents. Possession and title validly vesting in the State, becomes absolute under section 10 of the Act and thereafter the proceedings under the Act do not become illegal and the land cannot be reverted in the owner. Only before taking possession, the Government can withdraw from inquiry under section 45(1) of the Act or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may quash it on legal and valid grounds. If the award under Section 11-A was not made within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, as enjoined under Section 1-A of the Land Acquisition Act, whether the notification under Section 4(1) would lapse. This court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. had held that the after the land stood vested in the State, even if the authorities failed to comply with the statutory requirements, it does not have the effect on the vesting of land in the State. Thereby the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 do not stand lapsed. Thereby the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 do not stand lapsed. The same view was reiterated by another Bench in Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar. The High Court, therefore, was not right in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution in granting declarations as mentioned in the beginning or in making order of injunction against the appellants pending writ petitions. It is an equally settled law that a tenant cannot challenge the notification under section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act when the landlord himself had accepted the award and received compensation." The said judgment of the Honble Supreme Court was followed in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 696 holding that person who approaches the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of the Court for him to question the legality of the notification under section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and the award of the Collector under Section 11. 12. Subsequently, in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 48, the Honble Supreme Court again refused to quash the acquisition proceeding relating to Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. 13. A Division Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7702 of 2001 decided on August 13, 2002 has held that the writ petition filed after 25 years of completion of acquisition is not maintainable since the land stand vested in the State Government after the Collector has made the award and the Government takes possession of the land. It has been held that the acquisition cannot be quashed on the ground that the acquired land has not been utilised by the State Government. 14. Since the writ petition has been filed after the award was announced and thus, the land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, therefore, we are not examining the alternative argument raised by the learned State counsel that the failure to issue declaration within one year will not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, keeping in view the above cited judicial precedents, we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable as the land vested in the State Government. Therefore, keeping in view the above cited judicial precedents, we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable as the land vested in the State Government. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.