ORDER : 1. We heard this matter for quite some time. 2. We have been able to get a fair idea as regards the controversy involved in this litigation. 3. The respondents - herein are the original petitioners. It is their case that their land came to be acquired for the Krishna Upper Project. 4. The total area of land that came to be acquired for the purpose of Project was 6 acres and 3 guntas. 5. It appears that for such acquisition, they were paid compensation in terms of money. However, it is the case of the original petitioners that it has been the policy of the State Government that as and when land is acquired for any Public Project, over and above the compensation that may be paid in terms of money, some alternate land is also allotted and for that a reasonable price is fixed. However, this fact is disputed by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, i.e., the Authority. It appears that the original petitioners prayed for grant of alternate land admeasuring 7 acres 39 guntas in their favour. As the same was not granted, they were constrained to go to the High Court seeking appropriate relief. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued appropriate directions. 6. The petitioners - herein, i.e., the Authority went in IntraCourt appeal. The Appeal Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge with slight modification. According to the Division Bench of the High Court, instead of 7 acres and 39 guntas, the original petitioners would be entitled to 1 acre and 33 guntas because only 1 acre of land was earlier used for non-agricultural purpose. 7. In such circumstances, referred to above, there are two petitions before us, one filed by the Bagalkot Town Development Authority & Anr. and the connected SLP by the original petitioners, being aggrieved with the reduction of the area to which they are entitled according to their claim. 8. The main issue that arises for our consideration is whether the original petitioners are entitled to any alternate land over and above the compensation which was paid to them. 9. The original petitioners are relying upon the Rules called "The Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of Industrial Sites) Rules, 1993. 10. The difficulty is that the Rules were not looked into by the High Court. 9. The original petitioners are relying upon the Rules called "The Bagalkot Town Development Authority (Allotment of Industrial Sites) Rules, 1993. 10. The difficulty is that the Rules were not looked into by the High Court. Neither the learned Single Judge looked into the rules nor the Appeal Court. However, we take notice of the observations made by the Appeal Court which reads thus:- "What emerges from the above discussion is that the petitioner being the Project Affected Entrepreneur having lost his industrial land in the acquisition, is entitled to allotment of an industrial site and accordingly, the resolutions were passed for making allotment; to this extent, there is some consensus at the Bar. However, learned Government Advocate & the Panel Counsel vociferously submit that they have an issue as to what should be the area/extent of an industrial site to be allotted to the petitioner". 11. The aforesaid is indicative of the fact that the Authority conceded before the High Court that the petitioners are entitled to 1 acre and 33 guntas. 12. We are otherwise not inclined to disturb the impugned order passed by the High Court in so far as the Writ Petition filed by the Authority is concerned. 13. We had in mind to ask the Authority to go back to the High Court and if need be file a review petition. However, having regard to the time that has elapsed, we are of the view that if the Authority is ready and wiling to consider allotment of 1 acre and 33 guntas that should bring an end to the entire litigation. 14. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the authority submitted that two weeks' may be given to them to put this before the authority and come back. 15. Let these matters be notified for further hearing on 22-12025.