Chikkannamma v. State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:7676 WP(No.(551(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(9 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(551(OF(2026((LA-UDA) BETWEEN:(

1., CHIKKANNAMMA, S/O.,LATE,MALEGOWDA,,, AGED,ABOUT,82,YEARS,,, R/AT:,#129,,KERGALLI,GRAMA,,, BADAGALAHUNDI,,JAYAPURA,HOBLI,, KERGALLI,POST,, MYSORE,TALUK,,, MYSORE,-,570,026., …,PETITIONER, (BY,SMT.,KUSUMA,M.,,ADVOCATE), AND: Digitally signedtiby

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,VIDYA0G0R Location: REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,,, HIGH COURT0OF DEPARTMENT,OF,HOUSE,AND,URBAN,, KARNATAKA M.S.,BUILDING,, BANGALORE,-,560,001.,

2., MYSORE,URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,, JHANSI,LAKSHMI,BAI,ROAD,,, MYSORE,-,570,005., BY,ITS,COMMISSIONER,, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:7676 WP(No.(551(of(2026

3., SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER, MYSORE,URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,,JHANSI, LAKSHMI,BAI,ROAD,,MYSORE,-,570005., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,HARISHA,A.S.,,AGA,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI,G.B.,SHARATHGOWDA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,AND,R3), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,1.,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, NDTHE, 2 , RESPONDENT, AUTHORITY, AT, ANNEXURE, A, TO, THE, WRIT, PETITION, IN, SO, FAR, AS, SCHEDULE, PROPERTY, BELONGING,TO,THE,PETITIONER,IS,CONCERNED,AND,ETC., , 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 , The, petitioner, has, sought, for, setting, aside, of, the, Preliminary, Notification, dated, 06.10.1997, issued, by, the, respondent,Authority.,, , 2., It, is, the, case, of, the, petitioner, that, despite, Preliminary, Notification,being,passed,on, 06.10.1997,, the, acquisition, proceedings, have, not, been, effectuated, and,

there has been inaction on the part of respondent Authority.

¶3It is submitted that an inordinate delay of 28 years could be taken note of as reflecting an intention of the Authority to abandon the acquisition proceedings.

¶4Reliance is placed on order dated

30.05.2023 passed in W.P. No.10121/2023 [LA-UDA] as well as on the order dated 02.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.34253/2025.

¶5The 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."

¶6Taking 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 pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 06.10.1997. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR