JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. All these petitions involve common questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. In these petitions, challenge is made to the award dated 29.03.2008 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat by which the land belonging to the petitioners came to be acquired. 3. Mr. D.K. Nakrani learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the time span between the issuance of Notifications under section 4 and under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is very long and that the authority has not followed the procedure prescribed under section 8 & 9 of the said Act. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent-authority is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decision rendered in the case of Raghbir Singh Sherawat v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 1 SCC 792 . 4. Learned AGP submitted that the authority has followed necessary procedure prescribed under the Act while acquiring the land in question. He placed relianced upon the decisions of Apex Court in the cases of Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 10 SCC 01 and May George v. Special Tahsildar and others, (2010) 13 SCC 98 . 5. Mr. D.G. Nanavati learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that this Court has already held the impugned award to be proper vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7217 of 2008. Hence, these petitions may not be entertained and they deserve to be rejected. 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the documents on record. It is a matter of fact that the impugned award has been held to be just and legal by this Court vide judgment and order passed in SCA No. 7217/2008 dated 06.08.2008. In May George's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that once the award is passed and possession is taken, the land stood vested in State free from all encumbrances and it cannot be divested even if some irregularity is found in the award. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle rendered in the above decision, we find no merits in the present petitions. 7. In view of the above, the petitions stand rejected. Rule is discharged. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle rendered in the above decision, we find no merits in the present petitions. 7. In view of the above, the petitions stand rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Petition rejected.