Mahadeva C Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50841 WP No. 34421 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

DIRECTION, QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 12.12.2006, BEARING NO: LAQ(6)CR 434/2005-06 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.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 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 challenging 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.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for the Mysore Urban Development Authority. Perused the records.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's

¶31

land bearing Sy. No.15/3 measuring 0.27 guntas of Sarkari Uttanahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50841 WP No. 34421 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

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 (‘KUDA Act’ for short). 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 and that similar petitions, challenging the same notification have already been considered and allowed by this Court in J.DAYANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ and in SMT. RENUKA Vs . STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS² , wherein this Court quashed the preliminary notification on identical grounds.

¶35

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

¶36

1 WP.No.14683/2023 disposed on 07.09.2023

¶37

2 WP.No.9902/2023 disposed on 05.06.2023

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:50841 WP No. 34421 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned have lapsed by efflux of time.

¶42

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶45

ii) The preliminary notification dated 12.12.2006 issued by the respondent - authority is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land bearing Sy. No.15/3 measuring 0.27 guntas of Sarkari Uttanahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District.

¶46

iii) It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land have lapsed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶49

MBM

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

Mahadeva C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeva C 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

Sri Venkateshappa M Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishakanta N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Radhika Chakrapani Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa E Vs the State of Karnataka

Chrysolite Property Developments Private Limited Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri T Kariyappa Vs Sri P v Damodar