- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50553 WP No. 32159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.32159 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: SRI MALLEGOWDA S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.105, YANDAHALLI VILLAGE, LALITHADRIPURA POST, VARUNA POST, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 010. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 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 R-1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50553 WP No. 32159 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 12.12.2006 BEARING NO.LAQ(6) CR 434/2005-06 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY AT ANNX-B 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Sri Harisha A.S, learned Additional Government Advocate, accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondents No.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2006 issued by second respondent - Authority and seeks a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioner's schedule property have lapsed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50553 WP No. 32159 of 2025 and learned counsel for the Mysore Urban Development Authority. Perused the records. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.47 measuring 2.08 guntas out of 35.08 guntas of Hosahundi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District was proposed for acquisition under the Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2006 issued under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. It is contended that though the said land was notified for acquisition, the proceedings were not completed and no final notification was issued even after a lapse of more than 18 years. It is submitted that the petitioner continues to remain in possession of the property. 6. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C.M.Swamy and Others vs. Mysore Urban - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50553 WP No. 32159 of 2025 Development Authority and Another1 (C.M.Swamy) has held as under: “2. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the parties, what cannot be lost sight is that the similar issue had arisen for consideration before this Court. This Court while considering the case in C.G.GANGADHAR VS. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE AND ANOTHER reported in 2013 (4) KAR.L.J. 559 in respect of the notification dated 12.12.2006, though in respect of another layout which had been proposed by the respondents, had concluded that the manner in which respondents have not proceeded further after the issue of preliminary notification will not be sustainable. Hence, this Court has quashed the notification. The said order had attained finality, the reasons assigned therein would be squarely applicable to the present case. (Emphasis supplied) 7. This Court in C.M.Swamy’s case considering an identical issue arising from the same notification, has held 1 W.P.10917-10923/2014 c/w W.P.10947-52/2014 D.D 26.11.2014 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50553 WP No. 32159 of 2025 that where only a Preliminary Notification is issued and no Final Notification is published, no award is passed and no possession is taken for decades, the acquisition cannot be sustained. The said decision followed the reasoning in C.G. Gangadhar vs. Mysore Urban Development Authority and Another2 (C.G. Gangadhar), wherein such stagnant acquisition proceedings were quashed. 8. This Court in J.DAYANAND vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA3 and in SMT. RENUKA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS4, had also quashed the Preliminary Notification on identical grounds. 9. Taking note of the fact that no steps have been taken by the respondents pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 12.12.2006, and following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the acquisition proceedings insofar as 2 2013(4) KAR LJ 559 3 WP.No.14683/2023 disposed on 07.09.2023 4 WP.No.9902/2023 disposed on 05.06.2023 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50553 WP No. 32159 of 2025 the petitioner's land is concerned have lapsed by efflux of time. 10. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The preliminary notification dated 12.12.2006 issued by the respondent - authority is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land. iii) It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land have lapsed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15