Dismissed¶36

Sri M M Prasanna Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

KUDA Act, 1987 – S.27 – lapse of acquisition

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WP/33204/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 27 KUDA Act 1987 lapse of acquisition; substantial implementation within 5 years means at least 50%; MUDA acquisition of Sy.No.43/6 Nadahalli Village Kasaba Hobli Mysore; preliminary notification 18.12.1996; final notification 06.10.1994; general award 29.06.1998; alleged transfer of acquired land to KPTCL; writ petition dismissed for want of particulars; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution; certiorari; liberty to re-approach with full particulars; single judge R. Nataraj J.; Karnataka High Court 2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief; writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to gather full particulars of the scheme and its implementation and approach the Court afresh in accordance with law. ¶36

Sri M M Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to gather full particulars of the scheme and its implementation and approach the Court afresh in accordance with law.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition of land in Sy.No.43/6 of Nadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, has lapsed under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, 1987 on account of respondent No.2's failure to implement the scheme within five years. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, 1987, respondent No.2 is bound to substantially implement the scheme within 5 years.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The word 'substantially' in Section 27 of the KUDA Act, 1987 inheres that at least 50% of the scheme should be implemented within 5 years.

¶35

Key takeaways

The writ petition did not show the particulars of the scheme, the particulars of implementation of the scheme and how the scheme was not substantially implemented; it was therefore bereft of particulars and no indulgence could be shown to the petitioner.ratio¶36
Liberty reserved to the petitioner to obtain proper and full particulars of the scheme, its implementation and how it was not substantially implemented, and thereafter to approach the Court in accordance with law.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

KUDA Act, 1987 - S.27 - lapse of acquisition - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that acquisition of land in Sy.No.43/6, Nadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, had lapsed for non-implementation of the scheme within five years, and quashing of the preliminary notification dated 18.12.1996, final notification dated 06.10.1994 and general award dated 29.06.1998 - Held: Section 27 obliges the Authority (MUDA) to substantially implement the scheme within 5 years, the word 'substantially' importing at least 50% implementation; the writ petition disclosed neither the particulars of the scheme nor of its implementation or utilisation, and was bereft of particulars - Petition dismissed, with liberty to collect proper and full particulars and approach the Court afresh (R. Nataraj J.).

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:26025 WP No. 33204 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33204 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M M PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE C. MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.441, 8^TH MAIN, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL BODIES, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU 570 005

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:26025 WP No. 33204 of 2025

HC-KAR

MYSORE-570 001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARATION THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 43/6 HAVE LAPSED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE KUDA ACT AND QUASHING OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 18.12.1996 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND FINAL NOTIFICATIONS DATED 06.10.1994 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 29.06.1998 AS PER ANNEXURE-E, INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE PETITIONERS LAND AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking for a declaration that the acquisition in respect of land in Sy.No.43/6 situated at Nadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, has lapsed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as ‘KUDA Act, 1987’) and consequently to quash the preliminary notification dated 18.12.1996 and final notification dated 06.10.1994 and the general award dated

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26025 WP No. 33204 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

29.06.1998 and to declare that the development scheme has lapsed and that the petitioner continues to be in possession of the aforesaid land.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.43/6 of Nadahalli Village. It is his claim that respondent No.2 issued a preliminary notification dated 18.12.1996 under Section 17(1) of the KUDA Act, 1987, proposing to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of a residential layout, which was followed by a final notification dated 06.10.1994 and an award dated 29.06.1998. It is his case that the respondent No.2 without forming the layout had transferred the acquired property to the respondent No.3. It is his contention that the respondent No.2, who was bound to implement the project within 5 years had failed to implement the project and hence, the acquisition had lapsed under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, 1987.

¶31

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that for an acquisition to lapse under Section 27 of the KUDA Act, 1987, the petitioner has to place on record material documents to show as to what the scheme

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26025 WP No. 33204 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

was and how it was not substantially implemented. She submits that a perusal of the writ petition does not disclose the particulars of the scheme and the particulars of utilization of the property. She therefore submits that the acquisition cannot be set at nought on the mere say of the petitioner.

¶35

A perusal of Section 27 of the KUDA Act, 1987, makes it more than evident that respondent No.2 is bound to substantially implement the scheme within 5 years. The word substantially itself inheres that at least 50% of the scheme should be implemented within 5 years.

¶36

A perusal of the writ petition does not show the particulars of the scheme, the particulars of implementation of the scheme and how the scheme is not substantially implemented. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the writ petition is bereft of particulars and therefore no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed .

¶37