-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 8533 of 2009 Smt. Sulochana Sitaram Wede & Others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. A. V. Anturkar a/w Mr. A. A. Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent – State. Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : October 8, 2009. P. C. : 1. Heard. 2. The land of the petitioner has been acquired and Award to that effect was passed on 26th March, 1979. The possession of the land has not been taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer till date. On 31st August, 2009, the respondent No.5 had issued a notice of the Land Acquisition Act, 1895 dated 24th August, 2009, calling upon the petitioner to handover the possession of the land. The land is required for Central Road Transport Training and Research Institute, Pune, which is controlled by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. The petitioner's contention is that he has made an application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1895 and the said application is pending and -: 2 :- till the pendency of the application, notice of possession should be stayed. By filing an application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1895 the petitioner has prayed that the Government should withdraw the subject land from the acquisition. Looking to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act there is no right in the petitioner to seek directions that the Government should withdraw the subject land from acquisition. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 1027 in the matter of the Industrial Development & Investment Co., Pvt. Ltd & Anr v/.s State of Maharashtra & Others is misplaced. In the said case the acquisition was under the MRTP Act, 1966 read with the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the observations made in the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in the instant case the acquisition is purely and simply under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the above Writ Petition which is accordingly rejected. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)