JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- The petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, the Act) on 2.9.2005 to acquire a vast track of land, including land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to a notification issued under Section 42 of the Act on 31.8.2006. Still further, award passed on 29.8.2008 has been impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners have also laid challenge to an order dated 14.7.2010 (P18), vide which, their prayer for exemption of 5 kanals of land was rejected by respondent No.2. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners. 3. It is not in dispute that after issuance of notification under Section 36 of the Act on 2.9.2005, an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners to file objections, which were heard by the Land Acquisition Collector and rejected. Admittedly, land of the petitioners, under acquisition, is lying vacant. 4. It is case of the petitioners that they are using the said land as a playground for the students who are studying in a school run by petitioner No.1 and if that land is allowed to be acquired, the school may lose its recognition given by the authorities in which it is one of the conditions that the school must maintain a playground. 5. Be that as it may, all these objections were raised by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Collector at the relevant time. Thereafter, the petitioners allowed the authorities to acquire the land by issuing a final declaration and then passing of the award on 29.8.2008. Neither notifications nor the award was challenged at an appropriate time. Respondent No.2 has taken a specific stand that after passing of the award, possession of the land was also taken. We are of the opinion that at this stage, in terms of the ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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. We are of the opinion that at this stage, in terms of the ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2764] : JT 2008 (2) SC 280, it is not possible for us to interfere at the instance of the petitioners and quash the notifications and the award passed way back in the year 2008. 6. Faced with the situation, Mr. Chopra contended that representation, filed by the petitioners, to get parity with those whose houses were exempted from acquisition vide resolution dated 24.5.2010, was wrongly rejected by the authorities vide order dated 14.7.2010. Mr.Chopra further submitted that by doing as above, the authorities have committed breach of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. We are not satisfied with the argument raised. Vide resolution dated 24.5.2010, built up houses, which were in existence before issuance of notification under Section 36 of the Act, of Ajay Kumar, Prem Kanta, Gurdev Singh etc. were exempted from acquisition whereas above said relief was not granted to one Manjit Singh in whose case it was noticed that he has constructed his house after initiation of the acquisition proceedings. If that is so, the petitioners cannot claim any parity with the above named persons because the petitioners’ land was lying vacant at the spot. It is also apparent from the reading of resolution dated 24.5.2010 that no vacant piece of land of any land owner was released from acquisition. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ---------------------