- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15378 WP No. 6282 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6282 OF 2026 (LA-UDA) BETWEEN: SRI. PUTTARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIDEVAIAH, RESIDING AT LINGAITRA BEEDI CHIKKAHALLI, VAJAMANGAL VILLAGE AND POST, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT 570010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDAKAR BEEDI, BENGALURU 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMIBHAI ROAD, MYSORE 570005, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15378 WP No. 6282 of 2026 JHANSI LAKSHMIBHAI ROAD, MYSORE 570005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S. HARISH, 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 QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.LAQ(2)C.R.161/2005-06 DATED 28.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS PETITIONER SCHEDULE LAND IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned counsel, Smt. Poonam Patil undertakes to appear for respondents No.2 and 3. Office to delete the name of learned counsel, Sri. G.M. Ananda. 2. The petitioner has sought for direction to quash the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 issued by respondent No.2 insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in W.P.No.32402/2025, this Court in light of identical - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15378 WP No. 6282 of 2026 challenge, has taken note of inaction of the respondent in effectuating the land acquisition proceedings and has set aside the preliminary notification insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. 4. The observations made in W.P.No.32402/2025 at para-2 onwards reads as follows: "2. The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 bearing No.LAQ(2)CR 161/2005-06 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B to the writ petition, insofar as schedule property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated have lapsed. 3. It is submitted that insofar as acquisition relating to Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar 2nd Stage extension, this Court in the series of matters has set aside the notification and declared the proceedings to have lapsed, noticing that the preliminary notification was notified on 28.12.2006, however no further steps have been taken to effectuate the land acquisition proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15378 WP No. 6282 of 2026 4. Perused the order in W.P.No.11837/2023, which reads as follows: "The petitioner has 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'KUDA Act' for the sake of brevity) proposing to acquire the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.153/7 [old No.153/2] measuring an extent of 10 guntas situated in Yandahalli Village, Varuna Hobali, Mysuru Taluk and District for formation of a Layout known as "Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar II Stage". 2. The relief sought in this petition is on terms of parity in light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.52285/2019 and W.P.No.10179/2020. The uncontroverted fact being that despite Preliminary Notification having been passed on 28.12.2006 for the purpose of formation of "Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar II Stage", no steps have been taken for the purpose of completing the acquisition proceedings. 3. This Court, in the case of Chowda Shetty vs. State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.47125/2016 at Paragraph No.4 in Page 54] decided on 24.10.2016 and in the case of Sri. Shivanna vs. State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.1409/2018] disposed of on 06.02.2018, in similar factual matrix, noticing that despite the Preliminary Notification having been issued in the year 2006, no subsequent steps have been taken, has allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Preliminary Notification observing that there was lapse of acquisition. The learned counsel for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15378 WP No. 6282 of 2026 petitioner has also produced copies of the orders passed in W.P.No.10179/2020 as well as in W.P.No.52285/2019. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. 4. The petition is allowed and consequently the Preliminary Notification bearing No.LAQ(2)CR/161/2005-2006 dated 28.12.2006 is hereby quashed insofar as petitioner's land is concerned." 5. In light of parity of the petitioner with respect to the petitioner in W.P.No.11837/2023, petition deserves to be allowed. It is not controverted by the respondent that after the preliminary notification, no further action has been taken. If that were to be so, due to failure of taking action to effectuate the land acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time, the proceedings for acquisition can be construed to having been abandoned. 6. In light of the observations extracted above in W.P.No.11837/2023, petition is allowed and the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 is quashed, insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned, while making it clear that the revenue authorities may take note of the same and rectify the revenue entries appropriately, in light of the order passed by this Court." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15378 WP No. 6282 of 2026 5. In light of the observations extracted above, petition is allowed and the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 is quashed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR