Allowed¶46

Sri Mallegowda v. State of Karnataka

Land acquisition – lapse/abandonment

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2026WP/32402/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abandonment/lapse of land acquisition for failure to act after preliminary notification; quashing of preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 (No.LAQ(2)CR 161/2005-06) under Section 17(1) KUDA Act, 1987; Mysore Urban Development Authority; Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar II Stage layout; Yandahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru; parity with W.P.No.11837/2023; Chowda Shetty; Shivanna; Article 226 certiorari; rectification of revenue entries; Karnataka High Court, S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J., 23.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 quashed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned; revenue authorities may take note and rectify the revenue entries appropriately in light of the order. ¶46

Sri Mallegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 bearing No.LAQ(2)CR 161/2005-06 issued by respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioner's schedule property is concerned. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

On parity with the petitioner in W.P.No.11837/2023 and in light of the observations extracted therein, the petition is allowed and the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 is quashed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned, it being made clear that revenue authorities may take note and rectify the revenue entries appropriately.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Where, after issuance of a preliminary notification, no further action is taken to effectuate the land acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time, the acquisition proceedings can be construed to have been abandoned; this was not controverted by the respondents here.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition - lapse/abandonment - Writ petition under Article 226 by landowner of Yandahalli Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore, seeking certiorari to quash preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 (No.LAQ(2)CR 161/2005-06) issued by MUDA under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 for formation of 'Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar II Stage' layout, qua his land, and a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. HELD: It was not controverted that after the preliminary notification no further action was taken; failure to effectuate acquisition within a reasonable time means the proceedings can be construed as abandoned. Following the order in W.P.No.11837/2023 on parity (itself resting on Chowda Shetty and Shivanna and the orders in W.P.No.52285/2019 and W.P.No.10179/2020), the petition was allowed and the preliminary notification dated 28.12.2006 quashed insofar as the petitioner's land, with liberty to revenue authorities to take note and rectify revenue entries appropriately.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4032 WP No. 32402 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 32402 OF 2025 (LA-UDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MALLEGOWDA S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.105, YANDAHALLI VILLAGE, LALITHADRIPURA POST, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570005, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:4032 WP No. 32402 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570005.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 28.12.2006, BEARING NO.LAQ (2) CR 161/2005-06 ISSUED THE BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri. T.P. Vivekananda accepts notice of respondents No.2 and 3.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4032 WP No. 32402 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated have lapsed.

¶30

It is submitted that insofar as acquisition relating to Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar 2^nd 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.

¶31

Perused the order in W.P.No.11837/2023, which reads as follows:

¶32

"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,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:4032 WP No. 32402 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Mysuru Taluk and District for formation of a Layout known as "Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar II Stage".

¶37

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.

¶38

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 petitioner has also produced copies of the orders passed in

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:4032 WP No. 32402 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

W.P.No.10179/2020 as well as in W.P.No.52285/2019. Accordingly, the

¶43

petitioner is entitled for the relief of declaration that the acquisition has lapsed.

¶44

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."

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:4032 WP No. 32402 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

it clear that the revenue authorities may take note of the

¶51

same and rectify the revenue entries appropriately, in light

¶52

of the order passed by this Court.

¶53