- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 16908 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 16713 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) IN WP No. 16908/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANCHAIAH S/O LATE.PUTTAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/1, NEAR DIPAAL SCHOOL, SAATHAGALLI, MYSORE -570 016. 2. SYED AMIR S/O SYED ARIF, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.889, RAJEEVANAGARA, 1ST PHASE, 1ST FLOOR, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE -570 019. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KUSUMA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560 001. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE 570 005. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005. 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. H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 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 08.10.1987. BEARING NO PRABHOOSWAA 3/1986-87 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE- A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED. IN WP NO. 16713/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MACHAIAH S/O LATE.PUTTAMADALAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/1, NEAR DIPAAL SCHOOL, SAATHAGALLI, MYSORE - 570 016. 2. SYED AMIR S/O SYED ARIF, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.889, RAJEEVANAGARA, 1ST PHASE, 1ST FLOOR, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570 019. ...PETITIONERS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR H G., 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 - 570 005. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 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. H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 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 08.10.1987. BEARING NO PRABHOOSWAA 3/1986-87 ISSUED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the notification issued under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the KUDA Act’ for short) in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.30/2 (later podded into Sy.No.30/4) measuring 0.05.04 guntas in W.P. No.16908/2025 and Sy.No.30/1 (podded into Sy.No.30/1A) measuring 0.02.12 guntas belonging to petitioner No.1 and 0.08.00 guntas of land belonging to petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.16713/2025 situated at Saathagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. The said land was notified for acquisition for the purpose of formation of a residential layout known as ‘Saathagalli Layout’. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed owing to non-possession and non-payment of compensation even - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 after a lapse of 37 years. It is urged that continued retention of the petitioners’ land without either compensation or utilization is arbitrary, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that, pursuant to an application filed by the petitioners, respondent No.3 issued an endorsement referring to the preliminary notification dated 08.10.1987, however, no final notification has been issued, no award has been passed, and possession of the schedule property has not been taken. Thus, non-issuance of final notification and the decision in the case of Ms. Gita Reddy Vs. The State of Karnataka and others1 (Gita Reddy), as affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.215/2022 and by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.12708/2023, the present case stands on identical footing and the petitioners are entitled to the same relief. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-MUDA submits that upon publication of 1 W.P. No.7848/2021 D.D. 17.04.2021 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 preliminary notification under Section 17 (1) of the KUDA Act, the land vests automatically in the State and therefore, the question of lapse does not arise. It is further contended that once the land vests in the State, it cannot be divested merely on account of delay or non-payment of compensation and that the acquisition was for a valid public purpose, and the delay does not nullify the proceedings. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record. 6. The notification under Section 17 (1) of the KUDA Act was issued in 1987. Even after three decades, no award has been passed, no possession has been taken, and no purpose of acquisition has been effectuated. Mere publication of notification under Section 17 (1) of the KUDA Act cannot override the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A, which mandates that no person shall - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 be deprived of property except by authority of law. In the absence of payment of compensation and passing of an award, the respondents’ claim that the land has vested automatically cannot be sustained. The statutory acquisition has remained incomplete for over 37 years, which is arbitrary, amounting to deprivation of property without authority of law. The respondents’ failure to act within a reasonable time renders the acquisition ineffective and thus, has lapsed. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SLAO, KIADB AND OTHERS Vs. K.B. LINGARAJU AND OTHERS2 (K.B. Lingaraju) has held at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under: “11. It is well settled in law that the right to hold the property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No citizen can be deprived of his property without following due process of law. It is well settled legal proposition that where a statute does 2 W.A. No.6819/2017 D.D. 28.09.2022 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 not provide for time limit of performance of an act, such act has to be performed within a reasonable time and what would be the reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the cases. (See: ‘MEHER RUSI DALAL vs. UNION OF INDIA5, P.K.SREEKANTAN vs. P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR6 and K. B. NAGUR vs. UNION OF INDIA). Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to ascertain whether the acquisition proceeding initiated by KIADB is vitiated on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the same. 12. However, in the instant case, the preliminary notification was issued on 15.09.2000 whereas, the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued on 13.05.2005. Even after a period of 7 years from the date of decision of the Division Bench of this Court, i.e. on 16.12.2010, no action was taken by KIADB to conclude the proceeding of land acquisition. No explanation has been offered for the delay of 7 years in concluding the proceeding which is fatal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in the facts of the case and in the absence of the any explanation on behalf of the appellants for the delay in concluding the land acquisition proceeding has rightly held that the land acquisition proceedings insofar as it pertains to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 lands of the respondents have lapsed on account of efflux of time.” 8. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the present case, the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1987, without any subsequent action for over three decades have lapsed on account of efflux of time, accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. The preliminary notification under Section 17 (1) of the KUDA Act dated 08.10.1987 at (Annexure-A) insofar as they relate to land bearing Sy. No.30/2 (later podded into Sy. No.30/4) measuring 0.05.04 guntas in W.P. No.16908/2025 and Sy. No.30/1 (podded into Sy. No.30/1A) measuring 0.02.12 guntas belonging to petitioner No.1 and 0.08.00 guntas of land belonging to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43596 WP No. 16908 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16713 of 2025 petitioner No.2 in W.P. No.16713/2025 situated at Saathagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District are quashed. iii. The subject land shall stand released from the acquisition and the revenue entries, if not already restored, shall be restored in the name of the petitioners. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35