Honble PATIL, CJ.–The learned counsel for the appellant states that the area involved for acquisition was 517 bighas. Most of the land has already been consumed by the public and the acquisition ordered by the Government is not feasible. He has not utilized the land in the manner in which others have done. (2). Ends of justice would be met if the appellant is permitted to make representation to the State Government under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act) and the State Government decides the representation expeditiously. (3). The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the appellant is permitted to make such representation and status quo as it exists today is maintained, he will not press the appeal. He drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1). (4). In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is dismissed, as not pressed. The appellant is permitted to make a representation under section 48(1) of the Act to the State Government within a period of four weeks from today. If any such representation is made, the State Government will decide the same within three months of the filing of the representation. (5). During such time the State Government is ceased of the matter, if the appellant is in possession, then, the status quo as it exists today be maintained until the decision on the representation, as aforesaid. (6). With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.