Allowed¶52

Sri Madan Lal Jain v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2025WP/35696/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition lapse - quashing of stale preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 under Section 17(1) KUDA Act, 1987 issued by Mysore Development Authority for Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar II Stage layout; lands Sy.No.52/2 (34 guntas) and Sy.No.52/1 old 52/1P1 (1 acre 35 guntas), Chikkahalli Village, Varuna Hobali, Mysuru; no follow-up action for several years; writ petition allowed following Chowda Shetty (W.P.No.47125/2016), Sri Shivanna (W.P.No.1409/2018) and Smt. Sunandamma (W.P.No.11837/2023); notification quashed insofar as petitioners concerned.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 issued by respondent No.2 quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. ¶52

Sri Madan Lal Jain Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the impugned preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 issued by respondent No.2 quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, on which no further steps were taken to complete the acquisition proceedings, is liable to be quashed on the ground of lapse.

¶5

Court's answer

A preliminary notification issued in 2006 without any follow-up action for several years cannot be sustained, and the acquisition pursuant to it is liable to be quashed on the ground of lapse.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners stand on the same footing as the petitioners in the earlier cases in which the very same notification was already quashed, and are therefore entitled to similar relief.

¶7

Key takeaways

The impugned preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by five members of a family challenging the preliminary notification bearing No. LAQ(2)CR/161/2005-2006 dated 28-12-2006 issued by respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Mysore Development Authority) under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, proposing acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.52/1 (old Sy.No.52/1P1) measuring 1 acre 35 guntas at Chikkahalli Village, Varuna Hobali, Mysuru Taluk and District (Sl. Nos. 124 and 122 in the preliminary notification) for formation of the layout known as Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar II Stage. Though the preliminary notification was issued on 28.12.2006, no further steps were taken to complete the acquisition proceedings, a fact the respondents did not dispute. Relying on the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Chowda Shetty, Sri Shivanna and Smt. Sunandamma, wherein the very same notification was quashed, the Court held that a preliminary notification issued in 2006 without any follow-up action for several years cannot be sustained and the acquisition lapses. Writ petition allowed; the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 35696 OF 2025 (LA-UDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MADAN LAL JAIN, S/O LATE, PHOOL CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶9

PISTHADAVI, W/O MADAN LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶10

PANKAJ JAIN, S/O MADAN LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶11

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

¶12

KAVITHA JAIN, W/O PANKAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶13

KISHORE. M, S/O MADAN LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶14

THE PETITIONERS ARE R/O, NO 1204/2, NEW-29/2, MANASARA ROAD, ITTIGEGUDU, MYSURU-570010.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. LINGARAJU K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B ROAD, MYSURU-570 005.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSURU-570 005.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.P VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶25

THIS WP 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 PETITIONER NO.1 BEARING SY, NO. 52/2 MEASURING 34 GUNTAS AND PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 5 LAND BEARING SY, NO. 52/1 (OLD 52/1P1) MEASURING 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS BOTH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBALI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. (SL. NO. 124 AND 122 IN THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION) IN TERMS OF ORDERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.52285/2019 (LA-UDA) DATED

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

22/01/2020 AND WRIT PETITION. NO 11837/2023 (LAUDA) DATED 19/06/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE - C AND C1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶32

notice for respondent No.1.

¶33

Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel is directed

¶34

to accept notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶35

The petitioners have challenged the validity of the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2 under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘KUDA , Act’ for short), proposing to acquire the land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 34 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.52/1 (old Sy.No.52/1P1) measuring 1 acre 35 guntas situated at Chikkahalli Village, Varuna

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Hobali, Mysuru Taluk and District for the formation of layout known as “Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar, II stage ”.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶41

learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶42

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.

¶43

1 W.P.No.47125/2016 D.D 24.10.2016

¶44

2 W.P.No.1409/2018 D.D 06.02.2018

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49563 WP No. 35696 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Sunandamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others³ ( Smt. Sunandamma) .

¶48

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

¶49

Sri Shivanna stated supra has held that preliminary notification issued in 2006, without any follow up action for several years cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed the acquisition on the ground of lapse.

¶50

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:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶53