1. I have heard Mr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The material facts, which have given rise to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as under : (i). By his letter, dated 24.9.2010, respondent No.3, namely, General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Guwahati, ('the IOC') requested the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to make available 25 acres of land for shifting LPG Bottling Plant from Kimin to Daimukh and for installing mounded bullets of 2 x 150 MT capacities along with upgradation of filing machine, which require additional land contiguous to the plant. On receiving the letter, dated 24.9.2010, aforementioned, the Minister concerned requested the respondent No.2 herein, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare district, to identify a suitable plot of land in order to make the same available to the IOC. (ii) On coming to know that the IOC would like to set up its LPG Bottling Plant at Daimukh Circle, the petitioner, along with some others, requested, in writing, respondent No.2 to acquire their land for the purpose of shifting the LPG Bottling Plant to Daimukh Circle. A Committee, constituted by the IOC, for the purpose of considering the suitability of the land, in question, accordingly visited the site of the land of the petitioner and of those others, who had made the request to the Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare district, as indicated hereinbefore, for acquisition of their land. (iii) A notice was, then, issued, under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inviting objections, if any, to the acquisition of the said land. On receiving the objections to the proposed acquisition, when the objections were heard, those, who had objected, did not press their objections and respondent No.2 herein recommended that compensation for the said land be paid at the same rate at which the Railways had acquired land. This was followed by an order, dated 22.3.2011, issued by respondent No.2, who directed the field staff to measure the land, in question, and assess compensation in respect thereof. This was followed by an order, dated 22.3.2011, issued by respondent No.2, who directed the field staff to measure the land, in question, and assess compensation in respect thereof. Acting upon the order, so issued, on 22.3.2011, a joint survey was carried out and, then, probable estimate for the cost of acquisition of the land, in question, was prepared and submitted to the IOC, whereupon a notification, under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, on 6.4.2011, acquiring the land aforementioned. (iv) However, after the final notification was published, on 6.4.2011, the IOC wrote to respondent No.2 that their Committee has found that the land was not suitable for the purpose of shifting the LPG Bottling Plant and requested to give them an alternative land, the reasons assigned by the Committee for not going ahead with the project, at the acquired land, read as under : "1. There is a level difference of almost 18 metres from the road level to the end of the plot with lot of undulation within a short span. 2. Major portion of the west side of the boundary will have to be provided with embankment, since there is a natural perennial nallah (drain) ail along the west side of the offered plot connecting to the main river at a distance of about 500 m from the plot boundary on the southern side. 3. The land is surrounded by private plots besides having irregular shape (boundary with large number of sharp corners). Furthermore, the connectivity to road/escape route is available only though the approach road, about 30 m wide and 250 m long surrounded by private plots and a SSA school is situated adjacent to the boundary of the offered plot with the revised offer of land having a narrow triangular shape with an apex (frontange of 30 m) on the main road and about 560 m inside, efforts were made to fit the facilities required as per OISD 144 and with modern equipments/facilities. However, triangular shape of the plot constraints the utility of the front portion of the plot for putting up any plant facilities." (v) The respondent No.2, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare district, on receiving the communication from the IOC about non-suitability of the land, in question, issued a press notice, on 14.9.2011, that the IOC had found the land, in question, technically not suitable and, hence, the acquisition of the land, in question, would be withdrawn and if anybody had any objection thereto, he shall submit to respondent No.2 his objections, if any, in writing within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice. (vi) Closely following the notice, dated 6.4.2011, respondent No.2 informed the IOC that another land had been identified and the IOC could choose the land if it found the land suitable for the purpose of shifting of its LPG Bottling Plant. 3. Aggrieved by the notice, dated 14.9.2011, aforementioned, the petitioner, with the help of this writ petition, made under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought for issuance of appropriate writ(s) setting aside and quashing the impugned notice, dated 14.9.2011, and also commanding the respondents to take possession of the land, which was already acquired by notice, dated 6.4.2011, the allegation of the petitioner being that it is for extraneous considerations and personal incentives that the land, which had been acquired, is not being accepted by the IOC. 4. By filing his affidavit, respondent No.2 has denied that it is for any extraneous reason or for personal incentives that the impugned notice has been issued. Respondent No.2 has also averred, in his affidavit, that the IOC has found the acquired land not suitable for setting up of its LPG Bottling Plant and respondent No.2 had to request the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to allocate a properly leveled rectangular plot of land measuring 25-30 acres for the purpose of resetting the IOC's LPG Bottling Plant. 5. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that though the petitioner has alleged that the acquired land is not being accepted by the IQC for extraneous considerations and personal incentives, what is curious to note is that particulars of such extraneous considerations and/or personal incentives of respondent No.2 and the IOC officials have not been mentioned in the writ petition. The allegations, thus, made as regard extraneous considerations or some lucrative offer having been made to respondent No.2 and/or the officials of the IOC, are too vague and merit no consideration. 6. Coming to the impugned notice, it needs to be noted that section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, gives liberty to the Government to withdraw from acquisitioning any land, which it has not taken possession of with a condition appended thereto, the condition being that whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceeding drawn thereunder and pay such amount to the person interested together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings. This liberty, which has been given to the Government by section 48, is not applicable to a proceeding under section 36, i.e., when the land acquired has been taken possession of by a Collector for temporary occupation. 7. Thus, the Government has the power, under section 48, to withdraw from acquisition the land, which the Government has not taken possession of, and this court does not, therefore, find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the impugned notice. The notice is not without jurisdiction and, in the absence of any specific particulars of extraneous considerations or personal incentives, in support of the petitioner's allegations, made against respondent No.2 and the officials of the IOC, such allegations must fail, particularly, when respondent No.2 has denied the allegations and it would, now, be a disputed question of fact, whose determination would require making of roving enquiry, which would involve taking of evidence and such a process is neither reasonable nor desirable in a proceeding of present nature. 8. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. _____________