Per : Gupta, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1998 propounded by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 875/95, entitled Naranian Mohalla Welfare Association v. State of J&K & Ors. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and accordingly held as under:- "(i) The petitioner association has a locus standi to file this petition. (ii) That the land in question was rightly earmarked for using public park. (iii) The requirement to have a public park is a must as open space with a view to keep the air free from pollution. (iv) That once State Government formed an opinion that the land was required for public purposes i.e. making provision for the public park, then there should be cogent reasons to withdraw from the acquisition. As the reason is missing, therefore, action taken with a view to withdraw from the acquisition cannot be sustained. It is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed." 2. Against this judgment, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. Mohalla Naranian is one of the thickly populated area of old Jammu city having not been developed in a planned manner and there is a piece of land aggregating 5950 Sft covered by Khasra No. 75-min being used by the residents of the locality for performing social functions unhindered and uninterrupted besides a Playground for children and breathing space for one and all in the locality irrespective of their age. The inhabitants of the locality seek to ensure that the use of the land is not permitted to be altered and be regularized to be used as Public Park by the Government in legitimate exercise of its statutory power rationally relating to the protection of the residents of the locality from the inevitable ill effects of urbanization. 3. The admitted facts of the case emerging out of record depicted in narration are that the land in question measuring one kanal nine marlas and 7 Sft, originally a Nazool land, was transferred to Jammu Development Authority. This land was converted into three plots and allotted through an open auction in July 1978. 3. The admitted facts of the case emerging out of record depicted in narration are that the land in question measuring one kanal nine marlas and 7 Sft, originally a Nazool land, was transferred to Jammu Development Authority. This land was converted into three plots and allotted through an open auction in July 1978. It is further elicited from the record that subsequently one of allottees was allotted alternate plot in Roopnagar Housing Colony,Jammu in exchange, but the lease deeds for other two plots were executed with the allottees namely, Rajiv Puri and Romesh Gandotra. When the allottees started construction on the land, the residents of Mohalla Naranian forming a Welfare Association submitted a memorandum before the Advisor to Governor seeking resumption of the land allotted and developing into a park, as there was no park in the locality. In accepting the plea of the Association of Mohalla Naranian, the Advisor directed the cancellation of lease deeds and resumption of the land by the Jammu Development Authority. Jammu Development Authority, however, sought legal opinion from the Legal Advisor in respect of cancellation of lease deeds as desired by the Advisor to the Governor. Since the terms and conditions of lease deeds do not permit the lesser Jammu Development Authority to cancel the lease deeds except when there is a breach by the lessee of the conditions scribed by the lease deed, the Jammu Development Authority had no competency to cancel and interfere with the lease hold right of the lessee. The Government, therefore, directed that the land be acquired under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) and Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued by the Director, Land Management. The matter was referred to Revenue Department for issuance of Notification under sections 6 and 7 of the Act. 4. It may not be out of place to mention that Welfare Association of Mohalla Naranian had also preferred public interest litigation before the High Court in which Jammu Development Authority had filed an affidavit that the land is proposed to be acquired. The petition was disposed of with a direction not to raise construction on the land in question for a period of two months to facilitate the issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Act. The petition was disposed of with a direction not to raise construction on the land in question for a period of two months to facilitate the issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Act. Thereafter no construction was raised by the al ottees on the allotted land since the said land had already been notified. The allottees of the land who wanted to raise construction on the plots made representation to the Governor and highlighted their grievance that already a park is existing in the locality and there is no justification to have another park on the land allotted to them. The Government floated three alternatives to the Jammu Development Authority for consideration pertaining to the subject development of park in Mohalla Naranian and asked for a specific proposal vide communication No. UD-121-89-JDA dated 6.9.1993. For facility of reference the aforesaid communication is reproduced as under:- "I am directed to refer your letter No. JDA/Litg/219/93-94 dated 8.7.1993, regarding the subject and to say that there are alternatives for consideration (i) either land holders may be given plots at alternative place and to their satisfaction after taking an undertaking that they will not agitate the matter in the court and then only to conduct auction of the acquired land or (ii) as per commitment to establish a mini park to act as a breathing space for the nearby plots holders and a playing ground for the children or (iii) not to acquire the land and to restore the same to the original plots holders. As such you are requested kindly to furnish specific proposal out of the above alternatives." 5. Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, narrated the graphic narration of the factual position on spot in its communication No. JDA/Litg/219/93-94 dated 8.7.1993 and intimated the Government that a park covering an area of two and half kanals has already been developed by Jammu Municipality. Another Nagrota park with an area of 10 kanals of land is existing in the same vicinity. It is further pointed out that no park of a meaningful purpose can be developed on the land in question. This open space, if used as a park, could only benefit the neighbouring houses and not Mohalla Naranian as a whole by this proposed park. It was under these circumstances that the Jammu Development Authority has decided to convert them into residential plots and auctioned them. This open space, if used as a park, could only benefit the neighbouring houses and not Mohalla Naranian as a whole by this proposed park. It was under these circumstances that the Jammu Development Authority has decided to convert them into residential plots and auctioned them. It is further suggested that the land so leased out, if acquired would be at a very much higher premium since market value of land has considerably appreciated, since it was auctioned. It was for the reasons narrated in the aforesaid communication by the Jammu Development Authority, the third alternative was suggested and communicated to the Jammu Development Authority, i.e., not to acquire the land from the original plot holders. 6. Later on decision of the Government to withdraw from the acquisition by the Jammu Development Authority to develop a Public Park in Mohalla Naranian was formulated by order dated 3.4.1995 which reads as under:- "Sub:- Acquisition of land by Jammu Dev, Authority for construction of public park in Mohalla Naraina. Notification No. 60-RD of 1994 dated 26.4.1994 issued under sections 6 and 7 of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land measuring 5950 Sft comprising Kh. No. 75 min situate in estate Rehari, Jammu by the Revenue Department vide its endst. No. Rev (LAJ) 82/93 dated 26.4.1994 is hereby withdrawn." 7. It is this action of the State Government in passing an order with a view to withdraw from the acquisition, which according to the respondent-1/writ petitioner, is without any authority, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and its correctness was assailed in the petition. 8. We have heard M/s K.S. Johal and Varinder Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as well as M/s V.R. Wazir, A.G. Sheikh and Manav Gupta, Advocates for the respondents, in extenso and also perused the record meticulously. 9. Mr. K.S. Johal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently urged that the land belongs to Jammu Development Authority after its transfer from the Nazool. The land was converted into residential plots by Jammu Development Authority and put it to auction. Appellants being the highest bidder in the public auction, which took place in the year 1978, were allotted the plots. Lease deeds were executed by the Jammu Development Authority in favour of the appellants/allottees in the year 1989 and the possession of the land was handed over to them. Appellants being the highest bidder in the public auction, which took place in the year 1978, were allotted the plots. Lease deeds were executed by the Jammu Development Authority in favour of the appellants/allottees in the year 1989 and the possession of the land was handed over to them. It is also contended that the appellants continue to remain in possession after allotment of the plots and the execution of the sale deeds. The dispute arose only when the appellants/allottees started raising construction on the said land. According to Mr. Johal, the possession of the land from the appellants/allottees was never taken back by the Jammu Development Authority at any point of time after the execution of the lease deeds and withdrawal from the acquisition of the land. Whereas, on the other hand, Mr. V.R. Wazir, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-inhabitants, submitted that this open piece of land continues to be in possession of the inhabitants of the locality and is in their constant use for performing social and religious functions, as Playground for the children and breathing space for the inhabitants. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is neither the owner of the land nor the same has been allotted by the Jammu Development Authority nor claimed by it over a passage of time. A casual and occasional act of temporary user, as alleged by the respondents for social functions or condolence meetings, does not confer any legal right or title in the land. When the use of the land is not within the intention to possess, the same cannot be construed to be an action of possession nor it amounts to dispossession of actual owners. When the appellants have lawfully obtained the land in question, in open auction and executed the lease deeds with the owners and its possession handed over for residential purpose, the allottees cannot be deprived from enjoying its fruits merely on the ground that such a land has been used temporarily for performing religious functions or children park within the locality. 11. It is also relevant to point out that the respondent-1/writ petitioner has also filed a civil suit before the trial court raising the similar issue and identical plea was declined. 11. It is also relevant to point out that the respondent-1/writ petitioner has also filed a civil suit before the trial court raising the similar issue and identical plea was declined. It was also observed by the civil court that the plea raised by the Association for the land in question to be used as an open park was held to be not maintainable, as was clearly discernible from the report of the Commissioner that a park is already existing in Mohalla covering an area of two and half kanals. It is this fact which, in fact, has weighed with the government in withdrawing Notification for acquiring the said land. This park admittedly has been developed by Jammu Municipality, as is found in the report of the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority to the Government referred to above dated 8.7.1993. Even Nagrota park over 10 kanals of land is located in the vicinity of said Mohalla. It was under these circumstances that both the Government and the Acquisition authorities found that no public purpose would be achieved by developing a park on the land in question, as it would only be to the benefit of adjoining houses in the neighbourhood since a fully developed park is already existing across the lane in the vicinity. The report of the Commissioner is in detail and explicit in this regard. Sketch map when read with the report of the Commissioner clearly gives dimension and the area covered by the park and specifically indicating that children in the age group of 10 to 14 were found playing Hockey in the said park. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the arguments of Mr. Wazir. 12. Another limb of argument advanced by Mr. Wazir is that the possession of the land in question was never delivered to the allottees. It remained with the Jammu Development Authority. Acquisition proceedings once initiated for public purpose, it could not be specifically withdrawn without any authority and in arbitrary manner. In this context, it is pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that in between possession of the land was ever taken by the government from the allottees. It remained with the Jammu Development Authority. Acquisition proceedings once initiated for public purpose, it could not be specifically withdrawn without any authority and in arbitrary manner. In this context, it is pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that in between possession of the land was ever taken by the government from the allottees. This follows that once the possession of the land has not been obtained by the Government after the same was notified, there was no bar for the government to withdraw the Notification already issued for acquiring the said land. What is indisputably gatherable from the record that the Government when found from the report of the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, that there already exists a park in an area of two and half kanals, fully developed by Jammu Municipality, the land in question, even if acquired, would not be for public purpose, but to provide benefit only to few houses adjoining the said land and not to the locality as a whole, decided to withdraw the acquisition of the said land. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the government to withdraw from the acquisition of the land cannot be said to be even tainted with mala fides or without any authority. Section 46 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act clearly contemplates that the Government can withdraw from the acquisition of land of which the possession has not been taken. There is nothing in section 46 which, in any manner, limits the power of the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition of land, except that possession of the land notified should not have been taken by the Government. This power having been exercised by the Govt. in this case bona-fidely cannot be questioned. When the Government has withdrawn from the acquisition, the sufferers of the acquisition proceedings are the owners of the land in question alone who have a right to redress their grievance and none else. 13. It is further pointed out that an owner need not be given any notice of the intention of the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition and the State Government is at liberty to do so. 13. It is further pointed out that an owner need not be given any notice of the intention of the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition and the State Government is at liberty to do so. Even it is not required that the government should give reasons for its withdrawal while exercising power of withdrawal under section 46 of the Act unilaterally. There is also no necessity of hearing either the owner of the land or any other person interested before taking decision to withdraw from the acquisition. There is no particular mode or procedure for withdrawing from acquisition and it cannot be presumed or implied. That apart, the power of the Government cannot, in any way, be curtailed even by invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Land Acquisition Act itself provides in unequivocal terms as to when it becomes impossible to withdraw under section 46 of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v. M/s Godrej and Boyce, AIR 1987 SC 2421 and held that the order of withdrawal need not be backed by reasons. Opportunity of hearing to owner or any interested person is not necessary. Thus, the order of withdrawal in this case from acquisition, therefore, in our considered view, cannot be rescinded. The piece of land allotted to the appellants cannot be permitted to be used as park for the purpose other than one it was allotted, viz., residential purpose indicated in the lease deeds produced by the allottees under the circumstances detailed above. 14. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for the reasons stated above. 15. For the reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the order impugned dated 3.2.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 875/1995. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.