Sri Channegowda, v. State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:5670 WP(No.(34253(of(2025 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( NDDATED(THIS(THE(2 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(34253(OF(2025((LA-UDA) BETWEEN:( SRI,CHANNEGOWDA, S/O.,LATE,CHANNEGOWDA, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, R/AT,NO.143,,KERAGALLI,VILLAGE, JAYAPURA,HOBLI,,MYSORE,TALUK, MYSORE,-,570,026., …PETITIONER, (BY,SMT.,KUSUMA,M.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT,OF,HOUSE,AND,URBAN, M.,S.,BUILDING,,BANGALORE,-,560001., Digitallytisigned 2., MYSORE,URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY, by0VIJAYA0P JHANSI,LAKSHMI,BAI,ROAD, Location:0HIGH COURT0OF MYSORE,-,570,005, KARNATAKA BY,ITS,COMMISSIONER.,

3., SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER, MYSORE,URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY, JHANSI,LAKSHMI,BAI,ROAD, MYSORE,-,570,005., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,HARISHA,A.,S.,,AGA,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI.,SACHIN,V.,R.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,&,R3), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE,A,WRIT,OF,

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED

06.10.1997, BEARING NO.LAQ(1)CR/81/97-98 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997 at Annexure-A and in alternative, has sought for declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997 has lapsed.

¶2Petitioner claims to be the owner of property measuring 0.25.08 acres in Sy. No. 220/2A of Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. It is submitted that the said land falls within the ambit of preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997. It is further submitted that despite such preliminary notification issued on 06.10.1997, till date no action has been taken by the

respondent - Authorities to effectuate acquisition proceedings and take it to a logical end.

¶3Reliance is placed on the order passed in W.P.No.10121/2023 in which this Court has set aside the preliminary notification noticing the inaction of the respondent - Authorities to proceed with the acquisition proceedings.

¶4The order passed in W.P.No.10121/2023 dated

30.05.2023 reads as follows: "ORDER The petitioners have challenged the validity of the Preliminary Notification dated 06.10.1997 issued by respondent No.2 annexed at Annexure-A and in the alternative has sought for declaration that acquisition proceedings pursuant to the Notification dated 06.10.1997 has lapsed.

¶2It is noticed that Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'KUDA Act' for the sake of brevity) was passed on 06.10.1997 proposing to acquire certain land at Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk

and District for the purpose of formation of residential layout known as "Ravindranath Tagore Layout". It is admitted that pursuant to the Preliminary Notification, no further steps have been taken to complete the acquisition process in terms of the statutory scheme as more than 26 years have lapsed since the date of Preliminary Notification. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for relief of declaration as there is lapse of acquisition.

¶3Perused order passed in W.P.No.3876/2022, wherein this Court in an identical context dealing with land in the same Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District has quashed the Preliminary Notification. In the light of the undisputed facts that no steps have been taken pursuant to the Preliminary Notification, petitioners are entitled for declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. Accordingly, petition is allowed and consequently, Preliminary Notification bearing No.LAQ (1) CR 81/97-98 dated 06.10.1997 is quashed insofar as petitioners' land is concerned."

¶5Taking note of the identical contentions raised in the present matter also, as well as the undisputed fact that the respondent - Authorities have not proceeded to take any steps to effectuate acquisition proceedings, it would be appropriate to declare that the acquisition

proceedings has been abandoned and lapsed insofar as the petitioner's property is concerned as regards pursuant to preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997.

¶6Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP