JUDGMENT 1. - In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispensed with the preparation of the paper book. 2. The petitioner appellant has been allotted land for a sum of Rs. 2800/- in the year 1988 and the allotment was cancelled because the petitioner failed to utilise the land for setting up of the industry for which it was allotted within the stipulated period in the original allotment as well as within the extended period twice. 3. During the course of hearing, it was suggested that if he has specific attachment with the land and he is prepared to pay compensation for non-utilisation and non-development of the area by the current price of the land, he may retain the land and on being ready to set-up industry within the stipulated period on such payment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the price of the land today remains the same and fresh land can be allotted even today at the same time. Apparently technically there was no want of authority in cancelling the allotment of land for setting up of an industry within the stipulated time, when the allottee has failed to utilise the land for such purpose. It is worthwhile to notice that allotment of land at reserved price for setting up industries within stipulated period is a State Policy for providing opportunities for a planned economic development. It is only in that light the suggestion was made to the petitioner that if he intends to set up an industry he may atone the lapse on his part and. save the allotment made in his favour. 5. However, the fact that according to petitioner even after about 19 years the land Is available at a paltry sum of Rs. 2800/- only, it cannot be said that any substantial injury is caused to the petitioner, if is left free to avail this facility by seeking new allotment. 6. This Court ordinarily does not invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction if no substantial inquiry is caused to the petitioner. 7. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. This dismissal of appeal shall not come in the way of the petitioner if he wants to take fresh allotment in his favour, under the existing Rules. 8. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed - Order dismissed Petition Affirmed - Dismissal of appeal not to prevent petitioner from seeking allotment. *******