1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2634 OF 2010 Anantrao Guru Anna Halgekar, through C.A. Shri B.A. Nikarge ....Petitioner V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer No.11 & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.R.S. Shekhawat for the Petitioner. Ms.S.S. Bhende, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The grievance in this Petition is that although the land has been acquired for public purpose in terms of the Notification issued on 4.3.1977 and an award has also been passed on 23.9.1986 in respect of the said land bearing C.T.S.No.239/C admeasuring 1420.30 sq.mtrs at “E” ward, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur, but the same has not been put to the use for the purpose for which it was acquired, so far. The fact remains that the property has finally been acquired and possession thereof has already been taken over by the acquiring body. The land has already vested in the acquiring body namely Respondent No.3 herein. It is for the said body to consider whether the land is required for any public purpose or otherwise. 2. The Petitioner has made the representation to the State 2 Government for releasing the said land from the acquisition. Considering Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, the question of withdrawing from acquisition of such land, at this stage, is not permissible. According to the Petitioner, however in the similar situation, the State Government has released two other lands bearing C.T.S. Nos.239/A and 239/D, which are in the neighborhood of the disputed plot. 3. We are not expressing any opinion with regard to the correctness of the said decision of the State Government. As a matter of fact, whether the land is required by the acquiring body with whom the said land is vested or otherwise is a matter which will have to be addressed by the acquiring body in the first place. It is doubtful whether the State Government can issue unilateral direction to release the land which has already vested in the acquiring body. The Petitioner has, under a mistaken belief, approached the State Government for release of the land. The Petitioner is free to make a representation to the acquiring body, if so advised, which however, will have to be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. This observation may not be considered as an expression of opinion either way as to whether such course is permissible, when land has already vested in the acquiring body. We express no final opinion on that issue. 4. The Petition, is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner, as prayed. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)