JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the acquisition of the land of the petitioners vide notifications Annexures P2 and P4 by which the State Government has acquired the land for a project to be set up by respondent No.3. 2. The State of Punjab has issued notifications on 31.5.2005 and 5.9.2005 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and acquired approximately 438 kanal 6 marla of land for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of MEGA PROJECT- expansion of Yarn Mill and Establishment of Garment Project by M/s Abhishek Industries Limited. 3. When the case came up for hearing on 24.4.2006, petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 10 to 14 prayed that the writ petition qua them be dismissed as withdrawn as possession has already been taken from them and they have also received compensation. 4. Mr. Nagra, counsel for the petitioners, contends that the objections filed by the petitioners have not been considered properly by the Land Acquisition Collector. He has further argued that respondent No.3 owns a large chunk of land adjoining to the acquired land which is being used by them for agricultural purposes. It is contended that the expansion work can easily be undertaken by respondent No. 3 in the land already owned by them and which is adjacent to the acquired land and, therefore, the land of the petitioners is liable to be released from acquisition and the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Sarin, counsel for respondent No.3, states that award been passed on 17.2.2006 and possession of the land in question was also taken on the same day. He further submits that the entire compensation haseither been paid or deposited. Learned counsel has further argued that once possession has been taken, then the land vests in the State Government andis free from all encumbrances and the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be quashed. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments in JT 1995 (8) S.C. 193 ( The General Manager Telecommunication and another v. Dr. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments in JT 1995 (8) S.C. 193 ( The General Manager Telecommunication and another v. Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan and others etc.), JT 1995 (6) S.C. 248 (Awadh Bihari Yadav and others v. State of Bihari and others) and PLR 1985(1) 358 FB (Narinjan Singh and another v. The State of Punjab). 6. As the award in the present case has been passed on 17.2.2006 and possession has also been taken by the Collector and thereafter transferred to respondent No.3, then the petitioners have no right to challenge the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. In view of the judgments relied on by the counsel for respondent No.3 above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.