- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 35696 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MADAN LAL JAIN, S/O LATE, PHOOL CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. PISTHADAVI, W/O MADAN LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. PANKAJ JAIN, S/O MADAN LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. KAVITHA JAIN, W/O PANKAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. KISHORE. M, S/O MADAN LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS ARE R/O, NO 1204/2, NEW-29/2, MANASARA ROAD, ITTIGEGUDU, MYSURU-570010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LINGARAJU K.R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B ROAD, MYSURU-570 005. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSURU-570 005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. LAQ(2)CR/161/2005-2006 DATED 28-12-2006, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE -A, PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1987 FOR FORMATION OF LAYOUT KNOWN AS LALBAHADUR SHASTRI NAGAR II STAGE IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.1 BEARING SY, NO. 52/2 MEASURING 34 GUNTAS AND PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 5 LAND BEARING SY, NO. 52/1 (OLD 52/1P1) MEASURING 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS BOTH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. (SL. NO. 124 AND 122 IN THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION) IN TERMS OF ORDERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.52285/2019 (LA-UDA) DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025 22/01/2020 AND WRIT PETITION. NO 11837/2023 (LA- UDA) DATED 19/06/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE - C AND C1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘KUDA , Act’ for short), proposing to acquire the land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 34 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.52/1 (old Sy.No.52/1P1) measuring 1 acre 35 guntas situated at Chikkahalli Village, Varuna - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025 Hobali, Mysuru Taluk and District for the formation of layout known as “Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar, II stage”. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the preliminary notification was issued on 28.12.2006, for the purpose of formation of “Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar, II stage”, no further steps have been taken for completing the acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chowda Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka and Others1 (Chowda Shetty), Sri Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka and Others2 (Sri Shivanna) and similar notification being quashed in the case of Smt. 1 W.P.No.47125/2016 D.D 24.10.2016 2 W.P.No.1409/2018 D.D 06.02.2018 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025 Sunandamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others3 (Smt. Sunandamma). 6. The respondents do not dispute the fact that no subsequent steps were taken after issuance of the preliminary notification. This Court in Chowda Shetty and Sri Shivanna stated supra has held that preliminary notification issued in 2006, without any follow up action for several years cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed the acquisition on the ground of lapse. 7. The petitioners herein stand on the same footing as the petitioners in the aforesaid cases, wherein the very same notification has already been quashed. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. 3 W.P.No.11837/2023 D.D 19.06.2023 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025 ii. The impugned preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. SD/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15