Allowed¶44

K M Achaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WP/28820/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: KUDA Act 1987, Section 17(1); Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006, No.LAQ(5)CR 540/2005-06; Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA); Special Land Acquisition Officer; abandonment/lapse for want of further proceedings; square coverage with C.Bhaskaran, WP.No.7505/2014(LA-UDA), D.D.17.11.2020; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 allowed; notification, further proceedings and declaration quashed qua petitioner's schedule property in Mysore. Useful for KUDA Act acquisitions where nothing progressed after the preliminary notification and a co-ordinate bench has already quashed the same notification.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 at Annexure-A and all further proceedings pursuant thereto and declaration, insofar as the petitioner's schedule property is concerned.

K M Achaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 at Annexure-A and all further proceedings pursuant thereto and declaration, insofar as the petitioner's schedule property is concerned.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2 under Section 17(1) of the KUDA Act is liable to be quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner's schedule property, the issue being submitted by both sides as squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in SHRI. C.BHASKARAN.

¶28

Court's answer

It was not in dispute that no further proceedings had been initiated pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Since the issue involved in the writ petition was squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in SHRI. C.BHASKARAN (WP.No.7505/2014(LA-UDA)), no further adjudication was required.

¶41

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed: the impugned Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 at Annexure-A, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto and declaration, are quashed insofar as the petitioner's schedule property is concerned.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), 07.11.2025 - WP No. 28820 of 2025 (LA-UDA), K.S. Hemalekha J.: Petitioner sought quashing of the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 bearing No.LAQ(5)CR 540/2005-06 issued by respondent No.2 (MUDA) under Section 17(1) of the KUDA Act, insofar as it related to his schedule property. Learned counsel for both sides fairly submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in SHRI. C.BHASKARAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, WP.No.7505/2014(LA-UDA), D.D.17.11.2020, wherein the same notification was declared abandoned and lapsed and quashed qua the petitioner therein, and its endorsement of 28.09.2013 was quashed. This Court recorded that it was not in dispute that no further proceedings had been initiated pursuant to the 2006 notification, held that no further adjudication was required, allowed the writ petition and quashed the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 along with all further proceedings pursuant thereto and declaration, insofar as the petitioner's schedule property is concerned.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45270 WP No. 28820 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.28820 OF 2025 (LA-UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K.M. ACHAIAH S/O K.K. MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELOW MENTIONED ADDRESS, R/O KURUBARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE-571311. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. KUSUMA M., ADVOCATE (V/C))

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,

¶16

MYSORE-570005

¶17

BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570005. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION,

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:45270 WP No. 28820 of 2025

¶22

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.04.2006, BEARING NO.LAQ(5)CR 540/2005-06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'KUDA Act'), insofar as it relates to the petitioner's schedule property.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material on record.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45270 WP No. 28820 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned counsel for both sides fairly submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SHRI. C.BHASKARAN Vs. STATE OF

¶33

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹ , wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has allowed the petition and quashed the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 issued by respondent No.2 insofar as the petitioner therein was concerned. The operative portion of C.BHASKARAN 's case ( supra ) reads as under:

¶34

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶35

(ii) The impugned preliminary notification at Annexure-D dated 03.04.2006 and acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto are declared to have been abandoned and lapsed and the same are hereby quashed insofar as the schedule property of the petitioner is concerned.

¶36

(iii) The impugned Endorsement vide Annexure-Q dated 28.09.2013 issued by respondent No.2 is also hereby quashed."

¶37

1 WP.No.7505/2014(LA-UDA), D.D.17.11.2020

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:45270 WP No. 28820 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

It is not in dispute that no further proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006. In view of the fact that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, no further adjudication is required in the present case. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶44

ii) The impugned Preliminary Notification dated 03.04.2006 at Annexure-A and all further proceedings pursuant thereto and declaration are hereby quashed , insofar as the petitioner's schedule property is concerned.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶47

CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

K M Achaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K M Achaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hassan Thermal Power Private Limited Vs the Power Company of Karnataka Ltd. (Pckl)

Sri. B. R. Sudeesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Zameer Ahmed Vs the Secretary Karnataka

Christ King English Medium High School Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pushpa M.S., Vs the Commissioner

Pratheek Ganesh Vs the Commissioner