-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4706 OF 2010 Hayachand Babasaheb Desai ... Petitioner vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and others ...Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR , JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2010. P.C. The land of the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose. The petitioner thereafter approached the State Government by filing an application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter “the Act”), for releasing the same from acquisition. The Divisional Commissioner who has been delegated the powers of the State Government decided the said application and rejected the application of the petitioner on 9th March, 2010. Various reasons have been given for rejecting the said application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons given for rejecting the application are contrary to record and, therefore, the order impugned herein is required to be set aside. So far as powers under Section 48 -2- of the Act are concerned, in our view, it is for the State Government or the Divisional Commissioner in the instant case who has been delegated the power to decide as to whether power under Section 48 of the Act can be exercised or not. There is no statutory right available to a citizen in getting the application adjudicated under Section 48 of the Act. The Supreme Court has held that such powers are not justiciable and this Court cannot in a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution direct the Government that the land of a particular person should be released from acquisition. Whether it should be released or not is a pure discretion of the State Government. In our view, this Court cannot consider the merits of the order passed under Section 48 of the Act and to point out as to whether the land of the petitioner should be released from acquisition. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.