- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7392 WP No. 3014 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3014 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: SRI BASAPPA P S/O.LATE PAAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT JAYAPURA HOBLI, KERGALLI MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570026. …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. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570005. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE.N, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7392 WP No. 3014 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRYING TO QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.7.1997, BEARING NO: LAQ CR (1) PR 38/97-98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND 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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that his land in Sy.No.2 measuring 2.36 guntas situated at Keragalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and Mysuru district, was proposed to be acquired by the respondent-MUDA in terms of the preliminary notification issued under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 dated 15.07.1997. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the facts of the petition, submits that even after the lapse of 27 years after issuing preliminary notification, the respondent authorities have not issued any final - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7392 WP No. 3014 of 2025 notification. That upon the requisition made by the petitioner regarding the status of acquisition, the respondent-MUDA had issued an endorsement at Annexure-C dated 16.12.2024, wherein, except for mentioning about the issuance of preliminary notification, nothing else is mentioned. She submits that in light of there being a conspicuous silence on the part of the respondent-MUDA regarding the status of acquisition, the petitioner is not in a position to enjoy his property as an absolute owner thereon. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition granting the relief as sought for. 3. In response, Sri T P Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that after the issuance of the preliminary notification, a final notification has been issued on 29.03.2023, wherein the land of the petitioner has not been included. He submits the consequence thereof is that the land of the petitioner is left out of acquisition, as such, no separate order in this regard is required. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7392 WP No. 3014 of 2025 4. Submission taken on record. 5. Since the property belonging to the petitioner, which was though notified in the preliminary notification, has not been included in the final notification stated to have been issued on 29.03.2023, would mean that land of the petitioner is excluded from acquisition and as such no separate order in this regard is required. 6. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner, it is clarified that concerned revenue authorities shall enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue record to the aforesaid extent. 7. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE ASN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14