Allowed¶59

Sheela B, v. State of Karnataka

Land acquisition – MUDA – Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 (No.LAQ(1)BA/1/2016-17)

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026WP/34238/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MUDA preliminary notification 28.06.2016; No.LAQ(1)BA/1/2016-17; quashment for want of further steps; parity with W.P.No.19457/2023 order dated 11.09.2023; C.G.Gangadhara v. MUDA 2013 (4) KLJ 559; Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 Sections 17 and 19(1); RFCTLARR Act 2013 lapse; Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk; Survey No.9/5, 0.31 guntas; writ petition Articles 226/227; S Sunil Dutt Yadav J; HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1991.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 (Annexure-A) insofar as the petitioner's property in Survey No.9/5 measuring 0.31 guntas of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk. ¶59

Sheela B, Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 (Annexure-A) insofar as the petitioner's property in Survey No.9/5 measuring 0.31 guntas of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 issued by MUDA ought to be quashed / declared lapsed insofar as the petitioner's schedule land, given that no further steps were taken towards completing the acquisition. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

The petition is allowed; the Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 at Annexure-'A' stands quashed insofar as the property of the petitioner in Survey No.9/5 measuring 0.31 guntas of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

Since the acquisition proceedings challenged relate to the same Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 and admittedly no further steps were taken thereafter by the Authority, the same relief as granted in W.P.No.19457/2023 [LA-UDA] was extended to the petitioner on the principle ground of parity.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition — MUDA — Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 (No.LAQ(1)BA/1/2016-17) — writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the notification qua the petitioner's land, with an alternative prayer for declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — petitioner submitted that no further steps were taken after the Preliminary Notification to carry the acquisition to a logical finality — Court perused its order dated 11.09.2023 in W.P.No.19457/2023 [LA-UDA], where identical relief had been granted for the very same Preliminary Notification (that order recording reliance on C.G.Gangadhara v. MUDA, 2013 (4) KLJ 559, on delay in issuing the Final Notification under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act) — since the present challenge related to the same Preliminary Notification and admittedly no further steps followed, relief extended on the principle ground of parity — petition allowed; Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 quashed insofar as the petitioner's property in Survey No.9/5 measuring 0.31 guntas of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 34238 OF 2025 (LA-UDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHEELA B, W/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELOW MENTIONED ADDRESS, 2279, 6^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, KARNATAKA-570 012.

¶11

& PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. KUSUMA M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶17

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

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

¶19

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005.

¶24

& RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 28.06.2016, BEARING NO.LAQ(1)BA/1/2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Preliminary Notification dated 26.06.2016, copy of which is produced at Annexure-'A'. An alternative relief is also sought by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has sought for issuance of declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 has lapsed by virtue of coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Resettlement Act, 2013 insofar as the schedule land

¶35

belonging to the petitioner.

¶36

The petitioner further submits that the

¶37

Preliminary Notification was dated 28.06.2016 and till

¶38

date, no further proceedings have been taken to carry out the acquisition proceedings to a logical finality.

¶39

It is submitted that, in similar circumstances where Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 was passed and no further steps were taken, this Court has granted relief to the land owners in W.P.No.19457/2023 [LA-UDA] and the same relief was granted in the present matter also.

¶40

Perused the order dated 11.09.2023 passed W.P.No.19457/2023. It reads as follows:-

¶41

"This petition is filed seeking quash of Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

1987 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.149/1 measuring 26 guntas situated at Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore notified at Sl.No.293 of the said notification at Annexure-A.

¶46

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner in absolute possession of the aforesaid land. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land. That the respondent authority by a Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 issued under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 proposed to acquire certain lands including the land belonging to the petitioner. That no further action is taken by the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid preliminary notification.

¶47

3. Relying upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of C.G.Gangadhara Vs MUDA Mysore and anr eported 2013 (4) KLJ 559 wherein this Court has held delay of six and half years in issuing the Final Notification under Section 19(1) of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act is not condonable, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the instant case, though the preliminary notification had been issued on 28.06.2016 no further action has been initiated. Hence, sought for allowing of the petition.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

4. Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 does not dispute that no action of any nature whatsoever is initiated subsequent to issuance of preliminary notification and that the land continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.

¶52

wIn that view of the matter, petition is allowed. Preliminary Notification dated 28.06.2016 is quashed to the extent of the land measuring 26 guntas in Sy.No.149/1, of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore, belonging to the petitioner notified at Sl.No.293."

¶53

Taking note that in the present case as well the acquisition proceedings called in question relate to the same Preliminary Notification and admittedly, as no further steps has been taken thereafter by the Authority, it would be appropriate on the principle ground of parity to extend the same relief to the petitioner in the present case also.

¶54

Taking note of the observations made

¶55

hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The Preliminary

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:1991 WP No. 34238 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Notification dated 28.06.2016 at Annexure-'A' is quashed insofar as the property of the petitioner in Survey No.9/5 measuring 0.31 guntas of Ballahalli Village, Jayapura

¶60

Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶61

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶62

VGR

Sheela B, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela B, 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

M/S Patel Metal Mart Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

D. R. Manjunath Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri. S. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Travancore Minerals and Transport Company Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ENF)-10

M/S Pragathi Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sri Ganesh Kumar Veluswamy Vs Assessment Unit