Allowed¶48

K Javaregowda v. State of Karnataka

Land acquisition – urban development

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2026WP/1438/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preliminary notification lapse; abandonment of acquisition proceedings; Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, Section 17(1); Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA); Special Land Acquisition Officer; Ravindranath Tagore Layout; Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk; Sy.No.194; Sy.No.239/9; inaction of acquiring authority; declaration that acquisition lapsed; W.P.No.10121/2023; W.P.No.3876/2022; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the land acquisition pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997 stands abandoned and lapsed insofar as the petitioner's property is concerned; writ petition allowed. ¶48

K Javaregowda Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:5671 WP No. 1438 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 1438 OF 2026 (LA-UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K. JAVAREGOWDA S/O KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BADAGALA HUNDI JAYAPURA HOBLI KERAGALLI POST MYSORE TALUK MYSORE - 570 026.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. KUSUMA M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN

¶15

M. S. BUILDING

¶16

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE - 570 005 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD MYSORE - 570 005.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A. S., AGA FOR R1;

¶20

SRI. T. P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5671 WP No. 1438 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 06.10.1997, BEARING NO.LAQ(1)CR/81/97-98 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997 at Annexure-A and in alternative, has sought for declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997 has lapsed.

¶28

Petitioner claims to be the owner of property measuring 1.20 acres in Sy. No.194 and 0.02 guntas in Sy. No. 239/9 of Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. It is submitted that the said lands fall within the ambit of preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997. It is further submitted that despite such

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5671 WP No. 1438 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

preliminary notification issued on 06.10.1997, till date no action has been taken by the respondent - Authorities to effectuate acquisition proceedings and take it to a logical end.

¶32

Reliance is placed on the order passed in W.P.No.10121/2023 in which this Court has set aside the preliminary notification noticing the inaction of the respondent - Authorities to proceed with the acquisition proceedings.

¶33

The order passed in W.P.No.10121/2023 dated 30.05.2023 reads as follows:

¶34

"ORDER

¶35

The petitioners have challenged the validity of the Preliminary Notification dated 06.10.1997 issued by respondent No.2 annexed at Annexure-A and in the alternative has sought for declaration that the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the Notification dated 06.10.1997 has lapsed.

¶36

2. It is noticed that the Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:5671 WP No. 1438 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

referred to as 'KUDA Act' for the sake of brevity) was passed on 06.10.1997 proposing to acquire certain land at Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District for the purpose of formation of residential layout known as "Ravindranath Tagore Layout". It is admitted that pursuant to the Preliminary Notification, no further steps have been taken to complete the acquisition process in terms of the statutory scheme as more than 26 years have lapsed since the date of Preliminary Notification. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for relief of declaration as there is lapse of acquisition.

¶41

3. Perused the order passed in W.P.No.3876/2022, wherein this Court in an identical context dealing with land in the same Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District has quashed the Preliminary Notification. In the light of the undisputed facts that no steps have been taken pursuant to the Preliminary Notification, petitioners are entitled for declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. Accordingly, petition is allowed and consequently, Preliminary Notification bearing No.LAQ (1) CR 81/9798 dated 06.10.1997 is quashed insofar as petitioners' land is concerned."

¶42

5. Taking note of the identical contentions raised

¶43

in the present matter also, as well as the undisputed fact that the respondent - Authorities have not proceeded to

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:5671 WP No. 1438 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

take any steps to effectuate acquisition proceedings, it would be appropriate to declare that the acquisition proceedings has been abandoned and lapsed insofar as the petitioner's property is concerned as regards pursuant to preliminary notification dated 06.10.1997.

¶48

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶49

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶50

K Javaregowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Javaregowda 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

Smt. Manikyamma Vs Union of India

Sri. Sadananda. C Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G S Geetha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Channegowda, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Subbalakshmi S Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

Smt Muniyamma Vs State of Karnataka