WP(C) 7144/2000 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners an d Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the notices No.DRA/8/ 2000/9; No.DRA/9/2000/9 and No.DRA/ 11/2000/9 all dated 1st S eptember, 2000 issued by the Collector, Dibrugarh district under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the 1894 Act ) pursuant to the noti fication No.RLA.129/ 2000/3 dated 29th August, 2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the said Act basically on the ground of non formulation of non-rehabilitation p ackage and payment of compensation. This Court initially passed an interim order on 3rd Janu ary, 2001 to the effect that the petitioners may not be dispossessed from the la nd in question. The said interim order, however, was vacated vide order dated 2 4th January, 2001 passed in Misc. Case No.103/2001 filed by the respondents. Sub mission of the learned Additional Advocate General to the effect that a concrete proposal for the rehabilitation of the petitioners shall be initiated and the n ecessary compensation under the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall be paid, h ave been recorded. It is an admitted position of fact that possession of th e land in respect of which notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued has already been taken over and the Gas Cracker Project is under construction. That being the position, the challenge to the aforesaid notices dated 1st September, 2000 does not survive. However, if the petitioners still have any grievance relating to non formulation of the rehabilitation pack age or payment of compensation, they may approach the appropriate authority vent ilating their grievances. It is needless to say that if the petitioners are aggrie ved by any further order, that may be pass by the authority, it is open to them to approach this Court again. The writ petition is accordingly closed.