- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49702 WP No. 35428 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.35428 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRABHUSWAMY S/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O, # LINGAYATHARA, VARUNA HOBALI, VIJAMANGALA POST, VTC: CHIKKAHALLI, MYSURU-570010. 2. RAJENDRA .P S/O PRABHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VARUNA HOBALI, VAJAMANGALA POST, #94, LINGAYATHARA BEEDI, CHIKKAHALLI, MYSURU-570010. 3. DAVARAJU .P S/O PRABHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, VARUNA HOBALI, VAJAMANGALA POST, #94, LINGAYATHARA BEEDI, CHIKKAHALLI, MYSURU-570010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI LINGARAJU K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49702 WP No. 35428 of 2025 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBON DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU-570 005. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSURU-570 005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION 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 PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY, NO.52/3 MEASURING 1 ACRE 4 GUNTAS SITUATED AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK & DISTRICT. (SL. NO.125 IN THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION) IN TERMS OF ORDERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.52285/2019 (LA-UDA) DATED 22/01/2020 AND WRIT PETITION NO.11837/2023 (LA-UDA) DATED 19/06/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C & C1. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49702 WP No. 35428 of 2025 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 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘KUD, Act’ for short), proposing to acquire the land bearing Sy.No.52/3 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas situated at Chikkahalli Village, Varuna 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49702 WP No. 35428 of 2025 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. 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 1 W.P.No.47125/2016 D.D 24.10.2016 2 W.P.No.1409/2018 D.D 06.02.2018 3 W.P.No.11837/2023 D.D 19.06.2023 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49702 WP No. 35428 of 2025 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. 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 AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21