ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. The facts are as follows: The first petitioner was said to be the owner of land bearing Survey No. 157/2 measuring 7 acres 9 guntas and land in Survey No. 159 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas of Hoody Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore Urban District. The second petitioner is a company incorporated by the first petitioner. The State Government, had under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KIAD', for brevity), had acquired the above mentioned lands and other lands surrounding the same, for the development of an industrial area and had issued a preliminary notification dated 24-11-1998 and a final notification dated 12-8-1999. That was subject-matter of challenge by the first petitioner in writ proceedings in W.P. No. 29271 of 2001, on the ground that the first petitioner himself had desired to set up an industry on the said land. This Court, by its order dated 13-11-2006, disposed of the petition, while granting liberty to the first petitioner to make an application, for grant of an area, to set up an industry proposed by him and if any such application was to be made, it would be considered by the Board, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the disposal of the petition, a representation was made as on 28-4-2007, seeking allotment of land for the purpose of setting up an industry by the first petitioner himself, on such terms as may be proposed and further declaring that the first petitioner would not claim compensation in respect of the land of the first petitioner that was acquired, if alternative land could be granted in his favour to set up an industry as proposed. Even after one year of having made such a representation, there was no response. Therefore, yet another writ petition in W.P. No. 12205 of 2008 was filed, which was disposed of on 9-4-2009, directing the Board to consider the case of the first petitioner. It was then that the second petitioner was incorporated as a further step in the proposal of the first petitioner. It is the second petitioner, who had then made a representation to reiterate the earlier proposal. It was then that the second petitioner was incorporated as a further step in the proposal of the first petitioner. It is the second petitioner, who had then made a representation to reiterate the earlier proposal. The State Government, at the meeting of the State High Level Committee held on 13-4-2012, had approved the project proposed by the second petitioner and directed allotment of 10 acres of land in Plot No. 40 of Doddanekkundi Industrial Area, Bangalore, by an order dated 21-4-2012. Pursuant to the same, the second petitioner had sought for allotment of the land and it was also highlighted that the first petitioner, whose lands had been acquired, was entitled for allotment of the land now proposed, at the development cost and that the first petitioner had not withdrawn any amount of compensation that was awarded in respect of the land so acquired. This representation was said to have been placed before the Board, at its meeting on 26-5-2012. The Board, on consideration of the request of the petitioner, has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the land could be allotted at the development cost if the plot was in the same industrial area that was formed after the acquisition of the land of the first petitioner, but since the area that was allotted to the second petitioner was in some other industrial area, the question of allotment at development cost would not arise and that it should be at the allotment rate. It is that which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the above circumstances and would point out that in effect, the first petitioner, facing the prospect of losing the land, had mooted the establishment of an industry through the second petitioner and this proposal having been recognised by the State High Level Committee and allotment of an alternative land in favour of the first petitioner having been approved, the question was whether the cost to be paid by the first petitioner was the allotment cost or the development cost. Since the first petitioner is losing his land and he is receiving alternative land as the compensation, it would stand to reason that the first petitioner would have to foot any such expenses by way of development cost, which has been incurred by the Board and it would be unfair to demand the allotment rate, which would include the cost of acquisition as well, apart from the development cost. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the question is not whether the first petitioner is entitled to the land on payment of the development cost. The policy adopted by the Board does not contemplate the allotment of any such plot in an industrial area, which has not been formed by the acquisition of the first petitioner's land. The first petitioner's land has been acquired to form some other industrial area and since the plot that is to be allotted to the petitioner is in an area formed out of the lands acquired from others and not the first petitioner, the question of merely collecting the development cost from the first petitioner is not the policy of the Board and the first petitioner would necessarily have to pay the allotment cost. In the above circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the arrangement that has been endorsed by the State High Level Committee and has been followed through by the Board is, in effect, the exchange of land of the first petitioner that was acquired, with the land that is now to be allotted to the second petitioner. Notwithstanding that the respective lands in question are in different industrial areas, the point is as to what is it that the first petitioner would have to make good in order to complete this transaction. The cost borne by the Board in developing the acquired land into an industrial area, would have to be borne by the first petitioner, in obtaining allotment of the land in question. If construed otherwise, the result would be that the first petitioner would pay the allotment cost, in which event, the Board could not claim this as an exchange and would necessarily have to pay compensation in respect of the land of the first petitioner that is acquired. This may result in the Board being faced with a larger bill. If construed otherwise, the result would be that the first petitioner would pay the allotment cost, in which event, the Board could not claim this as an exchange and would necessarily have to pay compensation in respect of the land of the first petitioner that is acquired. This may result in the Board being faced with a larger bill. Then it would be allowing the second petitioner to pay the development cost in consideration of the allotment now proposed. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things and in public interest, if the Board should collect the development cost, without insisting on the allotment rate from the second petitioner and make the allotment forthwith. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms as above. The Board to collect the development cost applicable in respect of the land allotted to the second petitioner. This shall be complied with expeditiously, in any event, within a period of eight weeks.