Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has called into question the proceedings initiated by the respondents – authorities for the compulsory acquisition of his/its land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas out of the total extent of 2 acres 10 guntas standing at Sy.No.74/1 of Alanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk, for the formation of the Ring Road in Mysore. The preliminary and final notifications came to be issued on 03.10.2006 and 27.02.2008 respectively. Though the petitioner has made as many as seven prayers, it proposes to confine itself to only one prayer – declaring that the Government Order, dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure-V) as illegal and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to approve the resolution passed by the second respondent on 16.02.2008 agreeing to give the alternative land to the petitioner in exchange for the land acquired from the petitioner. 2. Sri Subbanna, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is agreeable to surrender its land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas which is the subject matter of acquisition notifications without any resistance provided the respondents give the alternative land of the same dimension and in the same locality. He brings to my notice that on the petitioner’s representation, the respondent No.2 has already passed the resolution to give 1 acre 15 guntas of the adjoining land standing at Sy.No.75/2. It is not in dispute that the proposed alternative land belongs to the respondent No.2 only. He submits that the proposed allotment of the land is in lieu of the compensation. He undertakes that the petitioner would not claim any compensation for the compulsory acquisition of its land. 3. he submits that the respondent No.2 placed its resolution before the Government seeking its approval. However, it is the Government which has disapproved the second respondent’s resolution by a communication dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure-V). He submits that the Government has accorded its approval to the similarly placed land-losers. He specifically cites the precedent of the alternative land given to the APMC for acquiring its land for the very same purpose of the road formation. He submits that the denial of the same treatment to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. He specifically cites the precedent of the alternative land given to the APMC for acquiring its land for the very same purpose of the road formation. He submits that the denial of the same treatment to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, the learned AGA appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that there is no legal impediment for the petitioner to receive the compensation and apply for the allotment of land at Sy.No.75/2, which is adjacent to the acquired land. He submits that because of the filing of this petition, the time-bound road formation work is held up. He would pray for the dismissal of this writ petition. He submits that the impugned communication makes it very clear that it is open to the respondent No.2 to allot the land at Sy.No.75/2, if the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria. 5. Sri P.S.Manjunath, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the respondent No.2 has no objection to the allotment of alternative land in lieu of the acquired land, as is evident from the second respondent’s resolution dated 16.02.2008. On being specifically questioned as to the provision of law under which the respondent No.2 has sought the approval of the Government, he submits that the same is being done in the normal course. He submits that the matter is between the petitioner and the Government. 6. No specific provision is pointed out requiring the prior approval of the Government for giving alternative land in lieu of compensation to a person, who loses his land on account of its compulsory acquisition. Section 36 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘KUDA Act’ for short) makes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applicable to the acquisition of land under KUDA Act. The provisions read as follows: “36(1) The acquisition of land under this Act otherwise than by agreement within or without the urban area shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” 7. Sections 31(3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provide for making an alternative arrangement with the land losers instead of awarding the money compensation. Sections 31(3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provide for making an alternative arrangement with the land losers instead of awarding the money compensation. Sections 31(3) and (4) read as follows: “31(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may, with the sanction of the appropriate Government, instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. (4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof.” 8. Thus, sub-section (3) of Section 31 gives power to the Collector/Deputy Commissioner to safeguard the interests of certain persons with limited interest in the land. The Deputy Commissioner is empowered to grant the other lands in exchange or remission of land revenue on the other lands held under the same title instead of awarding the money compensation. 9. While sub-section (3) concerns only the limited owners, sub-section (4) deals with the full owners, who are competent to contract. The Deputy Commissioner’s power to enter into any agreement with any person, who is competent to contract to in respect of the acquired land, is in no way affected by sub-section (3). 10. The impugned communication is issued without noticing the relevant provisions of law extracted hereinabove. On the short ground of he non-consideration of the applicable, relevant provisions of law, the impugned order renders itself unsupportable and unsustainable. It is therefore quashed. The Government is directed to re-consider the issue of according approval to the second respondent’s resolution dated 16.02.2008 in the letter and spirit of the legal provisions extracted hereinabove and pass the appropriate orders within two months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today’s order. Alternatively, the respondent No.2 shall also examine whether the Government’s clearance is necessary at all for giving the alternative land in exchange for the land acquired. 11. Alternatively, the respondent No.2 shall also examine whether the Government’s clearance is necessary at all for giving the alternative land in exchange for the land acquired. 11. The authorities concerned shall determine the market value of the land acquired and of the alternative land so that nobody is unlawfully impoverished or enriched in the proposed exchange arrangement. At this juncture, it is submitted at the bar that the award is already passed in respect of the land acquired. Now what is left to be done is the determination of the market value of the alternative land, if the authorities eventually come forward to give the same in lieu of the monetary compensation. 12. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.