R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer refusing to make reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 2 ) THE reference is sought on the ground that under Sec. 48 of the Land acquisition Act. the Government has withdrawn from the acquisition and the petitioner had suffered damage on account of the acquisition and is entitled to be compensated for the same under Sec. 48 (2) and. therefore, reference ought to have been made under Sec. 48 (3) of the Act. ( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer has held that there was no withdrawal from acquisition under Sec. 48 (1) and, therefore, there is no question of awarding any compensation under Sec. 48 (2) or making any reference under Sec. 48 (3 ). ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that there was only a declaration of intention to acquire the land by notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter there is no notification under Sec. 6 of the Act. Therefore, there is no acquisition and hence there is no question of withdrawal from the acquisition. Therefore. Sec. 48 has no application to the facts of this case. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of land was taken in the year 1969. That also does not seem to be under any acquisition of land. The fact of possession having been taken is also in dispute. In any case. such transfer of possession would not make it an acquisition and consequent withdrawal of acquisition under Sec. 48 and, therefore. Sec. 48 is not applicable and there is no question of determination of any compensation under Sec. 48 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or making reference to the District Court under Sec. 48 (3) read with Sec. 18 of the Act. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Bombay high Court in the case of Ramaji B. Savarkar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, air 1974 Bom 249 . It was a case of acquisition where both the notifications under secs. 4 and 6 had been issued. Similarly, in the case of Krishnakunj Co-operative housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. 1989 (1) GLR I 17. It was a case of acquisition where both the notifications under secs. 4 and 6 had been issued. Similarly, in the case of Krishnakunj Co-operative housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. 1989 (1) GLR I 17. there were notifications under Secs. 4 and 6. Both these judgments have, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case where there is no notification under Sec. 4. Hence this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. .