Disposed¶48

Smt.Javaramma v. State of Karnataka

Land acquisition – Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, S.17(1)

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/4604/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lapse/abandonment of land acquisition for want of progress; MUDA; KUDA Act 1987 S.17(1); Preliminary Notification LAQ (1) C.R. 81/97-98 dated 06.10.1997; Ravindranath Tagore Layout; Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru; over 26 years of inaction; parity with W.P.No.4165/2023 and W.P.No.3876/2022; quashing of preliminary notification qua petitioner's land (Sl.Nos. 27 and 92); writ under Articles 226 and 227; Javaramma v. State of Karnataka; Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav; WP No. 4604 of 2026 (LA-UDA); decided 06.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary Notification No.LAQ (1) CR 81/97-98 dated 06.10.1997 quashed insofar as petitioner's lands; acquisition proceedings declared deemed to have been abandoned qua petitioner's property. ¶48

Smt.Javaramma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18456 WP No. 4604 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2026 (LA-UDA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.JAVARAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA, NO.01 BADAGALAHUNDI, JAYAPURA HOBLI, KERGALLI, MYSORE, KARNATAKA- 570026.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARATH CHANDRA N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 435, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BHAI ROAD, MYSORE 570 005.

¶16

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BHAI ROAD, MYSORE 57005.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1;

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18456 WP No. 4604 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NUMBER LAQ (1) C.R. 81/97-98 DATED 06.10.1997 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 I.E., MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AT ANNEXURE - A AS INVALID IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHICH IS MENTIONED AT SL. NO. 27 AND 92 THEREIN, ANDVT

¶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

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Preliminary Notification dated 06.10.1997 at Annexure-A, insofar as it relates to properties of the petitioner mentioned at Sl.No.27 and 92.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that though the notification was passed on 16.10.1997, till date no action has been taken for effectuating the acquisition proceedings and there is no development further to the Preliminary Notification. Accordingly, it is submitted that the inaction on part of the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings must result in construing that the respondents

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18456 WP No. 4604 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

have abandoned the acquisition proceedings. Reliance is also placed on the order passed in W.P.No.4165/2023, wherein this Court as regards the same Preliminary Notification of 06.10.1997, has set aside the Preliminary Notification insofar as the lands of the petitioners are concerned.

¶30

The observations made in W.P.No.4165/2023 at

¶31

para-2 onwards is extracted below:

¶32

2. It is noticed that the Preliminary Notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'KUDA Act' for the sake of brevity) was passed on 06.10.1997 proposing to acquire certain lands 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.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18456 WP No. 4604 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Hence, the petitioners are entitled for relief of declaration as there is lapse of acquisition.

¶36

3. Perused the order passed in W.P.No.3876/2022, wherein this Court in an identical context dealing with the lands in the same Keragalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and District has quashed the Preliminary Notification. In 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.

¶37

Accordingly, petition is allowed and consequently, Preliminary Notification bearing No.LAQ (1) CR 81/97-98 dated 06.10.1997 is quashed insofar as petitioners' lands are concerned."

¶38

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -

¶39

MUDA submits that the order passed in W.P.No.4165/2023

¶40

is a matter of record and the petitioner would stand on parity and the Court may pass necessary orders.

¶41

In light of the same, the Preliminary Notification

¶42

bearing No.LAQ (1) CR 81/97-98 dated 06.10.1997 is

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:18456 WP No. 4604 of 2026

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

quashed insofar as petitioner's lands are concerned. It is declared that the acquisition proceedings not having progressed from the stage of Preliminary Notification are deemed to have been abandoned, insofar as the property

¶47

of the petitioner.

¶48

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶49

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶50

MCR

Smt.Javaramma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Javaramma 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

Arvind Kumar Parekh Vs the Commissioner

M/S Arunagiri Imports and Exports Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Kshema Mind Care Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Dr Swamy H L Vs the State of Karnataka

L Manjunath Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka