- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26250 WP No. 17236 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17236 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANNA, S/O HADADODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, BADAGALHUNDI GRAMA, JAYAPURA HOBALI, KERGALLI POST, MYSORE - 570026. 2. RANJITHA, W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, BADAGALHUNDI GRAMA, JAYAPURA HOBALI, KERGALLI POST, MYSORE - 570026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH CHANDRA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26250 WP No. 17236 of 2025 435, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BHAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BHAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NUMBER LAQ.CR(1) PR38/97-98 DTD. 15.07.1997 ISSUED BY THE R-2 i.e. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AT ANNX-A AS INVALID IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN WHICH IS MENTIONED AT SL.NO.228 THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26250 WP No. 17236 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Sharath Chandra N., appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Seshu V., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the following prayer: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the portion of the preliminary notification bearing number LAQ.CR(1)PR38/97-98 dated 15.07.1997 issued by the Respondent No. 2 i.e., Mysore Urban Development Authority, at Annexure- A as invalid in so far as it relates to the property of the Petitioners herein which is mentioned at Sl. No. 228 therein, and b) Issue such other order/writ that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26250 WP No. 17236 of 2025 W.P.No.2931/2025 disposed on 19.02.2025, wherein it has held as follows: The grievance of the petitioner is that his land in Sy.No.95 later assigned with Sy.No.95/10 measuring 18 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 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 15.10.2024, 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. 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26250 WP No. 17236 of 2025 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." 4. In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra, the petition stands disposed on the same terms. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94