ORDER : E.S. Indiresh, J. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, at the consent of the parties, petitions were clubbed and heard together and as such, disposed of by this common order. 2. It is the case of petitioners that, petitioners are the allottees of Plot at Kadakola Industrial Area, Mysuru by the respondent-KIADB during the year 2011-14. Petitioners had entered into lease-cum-sale agreement with the respondent-KIADB subject to terms and conditions to be fulfilled by petitioners so as to get the registered sale deed, after ten years from the date of execution of lease-cum-sale agreement. It is stated that the respondent-KIADB fixed the tentative price for the Plot at Rs.70,00,000/- (70.00 lakhs) per acre. It is also stated in the petitions that the respondent-KIADB issued impugned Demand Notices, enhancing the price of the Plots exorbitantly. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners presented these petitions on the ground that the respondents have not placed any material for enhancement of the price of the Plots unreasonably and that apart, no reasons have been assigned for enhancing the price of the Plots. Therefore, it is the contention of petitioners that the claim made by the respondent-KIADB is unreasonable and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India . 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Sri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the respondent- KIADB enhanced the price of Plots without providing the break-up for enhancement of the price of the Plots in question. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent-KIADB paid Rs.25,00,000/- (25.00 Lakhs) per acre to the land owners and after including the service charges and cost of development including the cost of acquisition, had raised to Rs.76.69 lakhs per acre and therefore, as there is no break-up figure shown by supporting relevant document and the respondent-KIADB is collecting totally 65.93 crores in the project, the claim made by the respondent-KIADB in the impugned Demand Notices is unjust and contrary to law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER vs. PRAKASH DAL MILL AND OTHERS reported in (2011)6 SCC 714 . 5. 5. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the entire acquisition proceedings was completed and land owners were paid compensation accordingly, and thereafter allotment commenced during the year 2013-14, which is well within a period of six years, however, the respondent-KIADB is demanding the petitioner/allottees to pay double the amount specified in the lease-cum-sale agreement. Therefore, learned counsel submits that, the respondent-KIADB being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India , shall not demand exorbitantly without reasons and therefore, impugned Demand Notices issued by the respondent-KIADB does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Ashok N. Naik, appearing for the respondent-KIADB sought to justify the impugned Demand Notices and contended that the respondent-KIADB, being a statutory Board, allotting the Plots for the industrial growth in the State of Karnataka on 'no profit - no loss' basis, however, the respondent-KIADB is collecting only services charges and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petitions. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB further contended that the allotment letters issued to the petitioners specifically mentioned about the tentative price of the land/plot, subject to adjustment of amount towards premium. By referring to Clause 6 of one such allotment letter dated 17 th May, 2012 (Annexure-A in Writ Petition No.17699 of 2021), learned Senior Counsel argued that, soon after completion of the entire project, the payment of 100% tentative cost of the land would be collected and the said aspect of the matter was reflected at Clause 1(a) and 22 of lease-cum-sale agreement dated 25 th April, 2014 (Annexure-B in W.P.No.17699 of 2021) and therefore, the petitioners cannot raise plea on challenging the Demand Notices issued by the respondent-KIADB. 8. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty that, the period was not fixed in allotment letters or in the lease-cum-sale agreements as to the completion of the project, and therefore, the grounds urged in writ petitions are untenable. 8. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty that, the period was not fixed in allotment letters or in the lease-cum-sale agreements as to the completion of the project, and therefore, the grounds urged in writ petitions are untenable. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER vs. AJAI PAL SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (1989)2 SCC 116 and in the case of STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS vs. BRIDGE & ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. reported in (1996)6 SCC 22 and argued that, writ petitions are not maintainable to challenge the impugned Demand Notices issued by the respondent-KIADB. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. WP No. 16790 of 2021 HC-KAR AND 32 OTHERS 9. Sri. Mahantesh Shetter, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State argued on similar lines as that of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB. 10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the grounds urged in writ petitions. The only grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the respondent- KIADB, though collected the sale consideration at the time of making allotment letters, demanding exorbitant sale consideration, after a lapse of 5 to 6 years in respect of the Plots in question to execute the registered Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioner/allottees. 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent-KIADB had allotted Plots of different dimensions to the petitioners as per the allotment letters issued during the year 2011-14. On perusal of allotment letters, the same would indicate that the respondent-KIADB fixed the tentative price of the land at Rs.70,00,000/- (Rs.70.00 Lakhs) per acre. The terms and conditions in the allotment letter provides for payment of entire tentative cost of the land and thereafter, the possession certificate would be issued in favour of the allottees. It is also not in dispute that the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed by the respondent-KIADB in favour of the petitioner/allottees and the terms and conditions theein provide that the allotment of respective plots, wherein, sale consideration is fixed tentatively. It is also not in dispute that the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed by the respondent-KIADB in favour of the petitioner/allottees and the terms and conditions theein provide that the allotment of respective plots, wherein, sale consideration is fixed tentatively. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-KIADB is claiming sale consideration exorbitantly and on the other hand, the arguments of the respondent-KIADB that the total cost of the land would be calculated based on the final acquisition cost, development of the land including the conversion charges and other statutory dues. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRAKASH DAL MILL (supra) had an occasion to consider Regulation 7 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Regulations, 1969 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations-1969'). 12. I have carefully perused the Regulations-1969. Regulation 5 provides for manner of disposal of land; Regulation 8 provides for Deposit to be made by the applicants towards cost of land and development charges on allotment and such deposit shall be adjusted towards the cost of land and such other incidental expenses incurred by the respondent-KIADB after the completion of entire project as a whole. It is clearly mentioned in the Regulation 8 that the deposit that may be made by the applicant/allottees at the time of issuance of allotment letter and lease-cum-sale agreement is only the probable cost of the land and same is not conclusive. Regulation 10 provides for allotment of Plot to applicant/allottees. Regulation 11 provides for decision of the Board as to allot Plots/land in favour of such allottees. Regulation 15 provides that, after a issuance of allotment letter, the allottee will be considered as licensee till the execution of lease-cum-sale agreement to be entered into with the respondent-KIADB. On perusal of the allotment letters and lease-cum-sale agreement referred to above, wherein, it is clearly stated as to fix the tentative price for the land/plot and same has been accepted by the allottes much less the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, petitioners being accepted the terms and conditions in the allotment letter and entered into a registered lease-cum-sale agreement, cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the price of the plot/land is exorbitantly enhanced by the respondent-KIADB. In that view of the matter, petitioners being accepted the terms and conditions in the allotment letter and entered into a registered lease-cum-sale agreement, cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the price of the plot/land is exorbitantly enhanced by the respondent-KIADB. It is pertinent to mention here that the object of the respondent-KIADB is to make special provision for securing the establishment of industrial areas in the State of Karnataka to promote and develop industries. The respondent-KIADB being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India , is facilitating the industrial entrepreneurs for establishment of industry and working on 'no profit - no loss' basis. Therefore, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioners in these petitions cannot be accepted. 13. It is well established principle in law that, when instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India entered into contract with the private parties, the parties are governed by the terms of the contract and this Court is having limited jurisdiction to interfere with the contractual obligations between the parties. The said aspect of the matter was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJAI PAL SING (supra) and in the case of BRIDGE & ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. (supra). 14. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUBODH KUMAR SINGH RATHOUR vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2024 SC 3784 , it is held that, although disputes arising purely out of contracts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, considering obligation of the State to act fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously, when contractual power is being used for public purpose, it is amenable to judicial review. In the present case, as the respondent-KIADB, after completion of project has calculated the expenses incurred for acquisition of land, development and payment of statutory dues etc., this Court is declined to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent-KIADB, to issue impugned demand notices to the petitioners. In the result, writ petitions fail and accordingly, dismissed as devoid of merits.