- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4344 OF 2001 ... Laxman Govind Kale ...Petitioner v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer(2) Pune & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.P.N.Karlekar for the Petitioner. Mr.A.H.Palekar, AGP for Respondents Nos 1 to 4. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 22ND JANUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the - 2 - order passed by the Commissioner under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act holding that the application filed under Section 48 is not maintainable because possession of the land, which was compulsorily acquired, was already taken. The learned Counsel submitted before us that there is no notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring his land. If, there is no Section 6 notification issued acquiring the land of the Petitioner, then his application under Section 48 will not be maintainable, because Section 48 gives power to the State Government to withdraw the land from acquisition of which the possession has not been taken. Therefore, power under Section 48 becomes available to the Government only if there is acquisition of the land. On showing of the Petitioner himself that notification under Section 6 is not issued, there is no question of State Government withdrawing that land from the acquisition. Therefore, as according to the Petitioner himself notification under Section 6 is not issued acquiring his land, his application under Section 48 is not maintainable. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of the Commissioner dismissing his application. - 3 - 2. Then, it was submitted relying on the letter dated 29-9-2000 that no award is made and therefore Section 4 notification has lapsed. If that is so, again the application under Section 48 will not be maintainable. 3. Taking overall view of the matter, as per the case of the petitioner himself, his application under Section 48 was not maintainable and therefore, in our opinion, no exception can be taken to the order of the Commissioner rejecting the application of the Petitioner. 4. Petition is, therefore, disposed of. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)