Sri Manjunatha Rao Vs State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2006, BEARING NO LAQ(1) CR 79/2005-06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:15523 WP No. 36086 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioner seeks permission to amend the schedule to bring it in terms with the description as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the petition.

¶37

In light of the oral request made, the amendment is permitted. Necessary amendment to be carried out.

¶38

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the preliminary notification dated 09.10.2006 issued by the respondent-authority at Annexure-A, insofar as the schedule property belonging to the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner has also sought for an appropriate writ to declare that the land acquisition proceedings as having lapsed.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶40

despite the preliminary notification dated 09.10.2006, till date no steps have been taken to effectuate the land acquisition proceedings.

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15523 WP No. 36086 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

It is further submitted that this Court, in W.P.No.5416/2023 had passed orders setting aside the preliminary notification, noticing that no steps were taken after 09.10.2006 to effectuate the acquisition and take it to a logical end.

¶44

The observations made in W.P.No.5416/2023 reads as follows:

¶45

"The petitioner is stated to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.65 measuring 3.20 guntas situated at Yadahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. It is submitted that the land came to be notified as per the Notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of brevity) for the purpose of formation of "Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar Nagara" layout. It is contended that except Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act, no further steps have been taken including passing of Final Notification or subsequent steps to complete acquisition process. Such contention is not controverted by the counsel for the respondents. Reliance is placed on the order passed in W.P.Nos.30739/2015 c/w 10916/2015 disposed of on 04.09.2015, whereby as regards to the same Layout though Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act was passed, as no steps were taken subsequently, this Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed.

¶46

2. In the light of the identical facts and position of the acquisition in the present matter, and noticing that after Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act passed on 09.10.2006, no steps have been taken to complete acquisition process in terms of the statutory scheme, it can be held that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15523 WP No. 36086 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of declaration that the acquisition proceedings in so far as it pertains to schedule land has lapsed.

¶50

3. In view of the above, petition is allowed. Notification bearing No.LAQ(1)CR79/2005-06 dated 09.10.2006 (Annexure-D) insofar as land bearing Sy.No.65 measuring 3.20 guntas situated at Yadahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District, is hereby quashed, and the acquisition proceedings are declared as having lapsed."

¶51

In light of the same and noticing that no steps

¶52

have been taken to further the acquisition proceedings after 09.10.2006, the petition deserves to be allowed, setting aside the preliminary notification dated 09.10.2006 insofar as the petitioner's lands as described in the schedule. Accordingly, the acquisition proceedings are declared as having lapsed and the preliminary notification insofar as the petitioner's scheduled lands are set aside.

¶53

In view of the above, petition is disposed of .

¶54

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶55

SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Manjunatha Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha Rao 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. S R S Electronics Vs Superintendent of Central Tax

Vachan Kumar Vs the Assessment Unit

M/S Trinayani Realtors Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Jayamma Vs the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Sri. Girigowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Girigowda Vs the State of Karnataka