- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 34238 OF 2025 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: 1. SHEELA B, W/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELOW MENTIONED ADDRESS, 2279, 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, KARNATAKA-570 012. & PETITIONER (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. 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025 JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005. & RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 28.06.2016, BEARING NO.LAQ(1)BA/1/2016-17 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 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Preliminary Notification dated 26.06.2016, copy of which is produced at Annexure-'A'. An alternative relief is also sought by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has sought for issuance of declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 has lapsed by virtue of coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025 Resettlement Act, 2013 insofar as the schedule land belonging to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner further submits that the Preliminary Notification was dated 28.06.2016 and till date, no further proceedings have been taken to carry out the acquisition proceedings to a logical finality. 3. It is submitted that, in similar circumstances where Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 was passed and no further steps were taken, this Court has granted relief to the land owners in W.P.No.19457/2023 [LA-UDA] and the same relief was granted in the present matter also. 4. Perused the order dated 11.09.2023 passed W.P.No.19457/2023. It reads as follows:- "This petition is filed seeking quash of Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025 1987 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.149/1 measuring 26 guntas situated at Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore notified at Sl.No.293 of the said notification at Annexure-A. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner in absolute possession of the aforesaid land. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land. That the respondent authority by a Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 issued under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 proposed to acquire certain lands including the land belonging to the petitioner. That no further action is taken by the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid preliminary notification. 3. Relying upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of C.G.Gangadhara Vs MUDA Mysore and anr eported 2013 (4) KLJ 559 wherein this Court has held delay of six and half years in issuing the Final Notification under Section 19(1) of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act is not condonable, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the instant case, though the preliminary notification had been issued on 28.06.2016 no further action has been initiated. Hence, sought for allowing of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025 4. Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 does not dispute that no action of any nature whatsoever is initiated subsequent to issuance of preliminary notification and that the land continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. wIn that view of the matter, petition is allowed. Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 is quashed to the extent of the land measuring 26 guntas in Sy.No.149/1, of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore, belonging to the petitioner notified at Sl.No.293." 5. Taking note that in the present case as well the acquisition proceedings called in question relate to the same Preliminary Notification and admittedly, as no further steps has been taken thereafter by the Authority, it would be appropriate on the principle ground of parity to extend the same relief to the petitioner in the present case also. 6. Taking note of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The Preliminary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025 Notification dated 28.06.2016 at Annexure-'A' is quashed insofar as the property of the petitioner in Survey No.9/5 measuring 0.31 guntas of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR