JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The owner of certain property where an industry was proposed to be located is the Petitioner aggrieved by the order of refusal of the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation. 2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the civil revision are the following: On 19-4-1963, there was a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act notifying the intention of the State Government to acquire certain properties. Thereafter there were series of inter-departmental correspondence regarding the propriety of acquiring the land where an industry is proposed to be set up. By this process there was delay. In the meantime came the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Others, where the process of withholding notification u/s 6 of the Act indefinitely was criticized. The Central Government came with an Ordinance fixing the upper limit of 3 years between the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the notification envisaged in Section 6 thereof and prohibited making the declarations u/s 6 in respect of notifications u/s 4(1) after lapse of, three years. The Ordinance in due course came into the Statute book by way of amendment under Central Act 13 of 1967. In the instant case, as a sequel to the Amending Act, no declaration could be made and, therefore, the acquisition automatically did not proceed. According to the Petitioner soon after the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had called upon him not to make any improvement on the property. Petitioner's case is that on account of the prohibition and the consequences of delaying the acquisition proceeding, serious loss is caused to the Petitioner. He maintains that the matter comes within the ambit of Section 48 of the Act and in view of Sub-section (3) thereof, the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act applied and when a reference was asked for it should have been made. This Court, has, therefore, been moved u/s 18(3) of the Act as amended in Orissa for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to, make a reference. 3. This Court, has, therefore, been moved u/s 18(3) of the Act as amended in Orissa for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to, make a reference. 3. Two questions arise, namely (i) whether under the scheme of the Act, before the stage of Section 9 has been reached, Section 48 of the Act would at all be applicable; and (ii) keeping the language of Section 48(1) of the Act in view, whether it can be said to be a case of withdrawal from acquisition so as to probabilise a claim of compensation under that section. 4. Reliance is placed by the learned Government Advocate certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case already referred to above. Sarkar, J., as the learned Judge then was wrote a separate judgment supporting the dismissal of the appeal while Wanchoo, J., as the learned-Judge then was, spoke for the majority. The conclusion was a common one. In the majority view, it was observed: ...It seems that Section 48 refers to the stage after the Collector has been asked to take order for acquisition u/s 7 and has issued notice u/s 9(1). It does not refer to the stage prior to the issue of the declaration u/s 6. Section 5 says that the officer taking action u/s 4(2) shall payor tender payment for all necessary damage done by his acting u/s 4(2). Therefore, the damage if any caused after the notification u/s 4(1) is provided in Section 5. Section 48(2) provides for compensation after notice has been issued u/s 9(1) and the Collector has taken proceedings for acquisition of the land by virtue of the direction u/s 7. Section 48(1) thus gives power to Government to withdraw from the acquisition without cancelling the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 after notice u/s 9(1) has been issued and before possession is taken.... Section 4(1) of the Act puts people on notice of the intention of the State to acquire certain lands in exercise of the power of right of eminent domain and unless the special powers u/s 17 are invoked, there is right of objection. It is only when the objection is heard and ultimately a declaration is made, in continuity of the intention to acquire, no positive step in the matter of acquisition is said to have been taken. It is only when the objection is heard and ultimately a declaration is made, in continuity of the intention to acquire, no positive step in the matter of acquisition is said to have been taken. It is open to Government while disposing of an objection u/s 5-A of the Act to hold that steps for acquisition shall not be taken. Thereupon the land automatically gets released from the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. In view of what has been categorically stated by the Supreme Court, it must follow that until the stage of Section 9 is reached, the question of applying Section 48 of the Act does not arise. It is true, as Mr. Mohapatra for the Petitioner contends, there may be some cases where even if there is no entry into the property for the purposes of facilitating acquisition proceeding, there may be scope to contend that there has been a sufferance of damage on other ground. But on an analysis of the provisions of the Act, it does not seem to have been contemplated that at the preliminary stage such damage, if any, should be compensated. The statute prohibits a suit in respect of matters provided therein and if the scheme is comprehensive as to the manner of payment of compensation at different stages of the acquisition proceeding, it must follow that the bar of suit covers such matters, it is indeed unnecessary to express any view finally on that aspect of the matter as the question which is mooted in the present revision application does not relate to it. 5. In view of what has been specifically stated by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Others I must hold that until the stage of Section 9 had been reached, there is no scope to bring the matter within the purview of Section 48 of the Act. Legislature intends to compensate only in such manner as Section 4(2) envisaged and, therefore, compensation, if any, for loss as alleged by the Petitioner to have been suffered by him cannot be the subject matter of 'compensation' as envisaged in Section 48 of the Act. 6. Coming to the second question, Section 48(1) enables the Government to withdraw from acquisition at any stage before possession has been taken. "Withdraw" is relatable to an act of choice. 6. Coming to the second question, Section 48(1) enables the Government to withdraw from acquisition at any stage before possession has been taken. "Withdraw" is relatable to an act of choice. I It may be a positive act; it may be the outcome of inaction, but either to act or not to act in a given situation must he within the ambit of liberty to be exercised by the authority in whom statutory power is vested, In the instant case, even if the State was anxious to make a notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Acts on account of the three-year limit, the statutory bar became operative and debarred further action of Government in the matter of pursuing the acquisition I do not that a case where there IS no scope for volition to apply, Section 48(1) is intended to cover. Mr. Mohapatra had relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Doongarsee and Sons and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others and also on a later decision in the case of Khadim Hussain Vs. State of U.P. and Others both the cases had occasion to refer to State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Others they were actually considering a different aspect and, not a question similar to that as arises in this case. In the Circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by referring to those two decisions. 7. On either count, medicated above, Mr. Mohapatra's contentions must fail. Mr. Mohapatra next contended relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Chintada Kasiviswanadham Vs. Sub-Collector and Another, that the matter should be referred to the Court and the Court should be allowed to adjudicate the dispute. That was a case where the Court came to hold that all the pre-requisites were satisfied and, therefore reference had to be made and what would be its results should be left to be adjudicated by the Court. Here, the statutory authority has declined to make a reference by taking the view that the Act did not require a reference. Until I can find that there is a statutory obligation to make a reference, I do not think, there would be scope for interfering with the impugned order. Here, the statutory authority has declined to make a reference by taking the view that the Act did not require a reference. Until I can find that there is a statutory obligation to make a reference, I do not think, there would be scope for interfering with the impugned order. As I have come to hold that the situation is not covered by Section 48 of the Act, I do not think, there is power in this Court to invoke the provision of Section 48(1) of the Act to make a direction for reference. The revision application accordingly fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. Final Result : Dismissed