Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Vijayalakshmi vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37131
WP No. 23936 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.23936 OF 2025 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
W/O. MR. T. CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/A #204/A, 9TH CROSS,
3RD STAGE GOKULAM,
VANIVILAS MOHALLA,
MYSURU - 570 002.
SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED.
2. M/S. MYSURU LAYO & INFRA LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. G M MADHU,
Digitally signed S/O LATE G MADEGOWDA,
by NAGAVENI
Location:
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
HIGH COURT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #1435,
OF
KARNATAKA 7TH B MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE,
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37131
WP No. 23936 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI (JLB) ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI (JLB) ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. T. P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE R2 & R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.LAQ(5)CR540/2005-06, DATED 03.04.2006, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 17(1) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY IS CONCERNED (SL.NO.129) AND ETC
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37131
WP No. 23936 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:
"(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Notification bearing No.LAQ(5)CR540/2005-06, dated 03.04.2006, vide ANNEXURE-A, issued by the 2nd Respondent under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, in so far as the Petitioner's property is concerned (Sl.No.129);
(b) Pass such other Order/s, grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. "
2. Heard Sri.Nishanth A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.Rajakumar, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and have perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents in unison would submit that the issue in the lis is identical to what is decided by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.7505/2014, disposed on 17.11.2020. The said order reads as follows:
-4-NC: 2025:KHC:37131 WP No. 23936 of 2025 HC-KAR "In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Endorsement/Order at Annexure-Q dated 28.09.2013 passed by the Respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer and for a Declaration that the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned Preliminary Notification at Annexure D dated 03.04.2006 issued by the Respondent No.2-Mysore Urban Development Authority(MUDA) are invalid and have lapsed in so far as the schedule property belonging to the Petitioner is concerned and for other relief's.
2. The Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property bearing Sy.No.4/P-58 measuring 15 Acres situated at Kurubarahalli Village, kasaba Hobli, Mysore, having acquired the same under a registered Codicil dated 29.09.2007 executed in favour of the Petitioner by the erstwhile owner, C.Sreedharan, brother of the Petitioner. On 03.04.2006, the Respondent No.2-
MUDA issued a preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987(for short, "the Act") proposing to acquire a total extent of 595 Acres 3 Guntas including the schedule property for the purpose of park and open space. The aforesaid C.Sreedharan submitted a representation/objections dated 29.04.2006 to the preliminary notification setting out in detail as to why the acquisition proceedings should not be continued and should be dropped. Similarly, several other land owners including persons owning lands adjacent to the schedule property also submitted representations to the State government requesting dropping of acquisition proceedings. During the period 2007-09, more than 100 acres of land including 47 Acres 30 Guntas of adjacent lands were dropped from the acquisition proceedings.
3. On 26.05.2008, respondent No.1-state wrote a letter to MUDA directing them to reconsider acquisition of land taking into consideration financial capacity and viability and recommended dropping of the proceedings. In its reply dated 27.05.2008, the MUDA also recommends to the state government to consider dropping the acquisition proceedings. Petitioner submitted one more representation dated 15.06.2013 to the MUDA requesting dropping of acquisition proceedings, particularly when even after more than 7 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:37131 WP No. 23936 of 2025 HC-KAR years, final declaration under Section 19 of the Act had not been issued and adjacent lands measuring about 47 Acres 30 Guntas had been dropped from acquisition proceedings. The MUDA issued the impugned endorsement dated 28.09.2013 intimating the petitioner that since the proposed acquisition was for the purpose of park and open space, there was no provision for dropping the acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule property. Aggrieved by the preliminary notification and the impugned endorsement, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. I have heard Sri.G.Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.M.Siddharth, learned counsel for MUDA and perused the material on record.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by him, submits that the impugned preliminary notification and acquisition proceedings as well as the impugned endorsement issued by the MUDA deserve to be quashed on the following grounds:-
(i) Though the Preliminary Notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued as long back as on 03.04.2006, no final notification/declaration as required under Section 19 of the Act has been issued even till today even after a lapse of more than 14 years; the said delay and laches on the part of the MUDA in continuing the acquisition proceedings is inordinate and unreasonable since no action/steps pursuant to the preliminary notification have been taken by the MUDA and as such, the impugned preliminary notification and acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed on the ground of laches and inordinate delay in not continuing the proceedings within reasonable time;
(ii) The acquisition proceedings in respect of other lands notified in the preliminary notification in excess of 100 Acres including lands measuring 47 Acres 30 Guntas situated adjacent to the schedule property have been dropped by MUDA which has however refused to drop the schedule property from acquisition which tantamounts to discrimination; under these circumstances, on the grounds of parity and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:37131 WP No. 23936 of 2025 HC-KAR discrimination, the impugned preliminary notification and acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed;
(i) The material on record, in particular the correspondence between MUDA and the State Government indicates that MUDA does not have the financial capacity to implement the scheme/project at huge cost in an extent of more than 500 Acres and MUDA is not in a position to pay compensation to any of the land owners, especially the higher rate of compensation which is liable to be paid by the MUDA under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; under the CDP, only 9 Acres 7 Guntas has been reserved for park and the remaining extent is reserved for residential, commercial, public, semi- public, transportation etc.; under these circumstances, the acquisition proceedings have become impracticable and infructuous and deserve to be quashed
(ii) In the light of the indubitable fact that no steps have been taken by MUDA in relation to the layout proposed to be formed by MUDA pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification from the year 2006 onwards, the impugned acquisition proceedings have been abandoned and stand lapsed and the preliminary notification and acquisition deserve to be quashed;
(iii) The impugned Endorsement dated 28.09.2013 issued by MUDA to the petitioner suffers from several legal infirmities in addition being a cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking order without any application of mind and being contrary to the material on record, the same deserves to be quashed;
(iv) The impugned notification and acquisition proceedings are also contrary to Sections 15 to 17 of the Act and the same are vitiated on this ground also Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions:
i) Nitya Gopal Babshet & Others Vs. State of Karnataka - W.A.No.30044-50/2013, dated 10.07.2013;
ii) C.G. Gangadhar Vs. Mysore Urban Development Authority - 2013 SCC Online KAR 10350;-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:37131 WP No. 23936 of 2025 HC-KAR
iii) K.S. Shivakumar Vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.45100- 101/2015 dated 15.10.2015;
iv) C. Rangegowda Vs. State of Karnataka - (2015) 4 KAR L.J. 64;
v) BEML Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka - AIR 2004 SC 5054;
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 - MUDA submits that there is no merit in any of the contentions urged in the petition and that the petition liable to be rejected. In addition thereto, he submits that there are several defects and lacuna in the title of the petitioner over the schedule property and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief's sought for by him in the present petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. As rightly contended by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, though the Preliminary Notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued as long back as on 03.04.2006, no final notification/declaration as required under Section 19 of the Act has been issued even till today even after a lapse of more than 14 years; the said delay and laches on the part of the MUDA in continuing the acquisition proceedings is inordinate and unreasonable since no action/steps pursuant to the preliminary notification have been taken by the MUDA and as such, the impugned preliminary notification and acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed on the ground of laches and inordinate delay in not continuing the proceedings within reasonable time.
9. It is also relevant to state that the acquisition proceedings in respect of other lands notified in the preliminary notification in excess of 100 Acres including lands measuring 47 Acres 30 Guntas situated adjacent to the schedule property have been dropped by MUDA. The conduct of MUDA in refusing to drop the schedule property from acquisition clearly tantamounts to discrimination and under these circumstances, on the grounds of parity and discrimination also, the impugned -8- NC: 2025:KHC:37131 WP No. 23936 of 2025 HC-KAR preliminary notification and acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed.
10. Learned Senior Counsel is also correct in his submission that the material on record, in particular the correspondence between MUDA and the State Government indicates that MUDA does not have the financial capacity to implement the scheme/project at huge cost in an extent of more than 500 Acres and MUDA is not in a position to pay compensation to any of the land owners, especially the higher rate of compensation which is liable to be paid by the MUDA under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Further, under the CDP, only 9 Acres 7 Guntas has been reserved for park and the remaining extent is reserved for residential, commercial, public, semi- public, transportation etc., It is therefore clear that the acquisition proceedings have become impracticable and infructuous and deserve to be quashed.
11. The material on record also indicates that indisputably, no steps have been taken by MUDA in relation to the layout proposed to be formed by MUDA pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification from the year 2006 onwards and consequently, the impugned acquisition proceedings have been abandoned and stand lapsed and the preliminary notification and acquisition deserve to be quashed on this ground also.
12. The impugned Endorsement dated 28.09.2013 issued by MUDA to the petitioner suffers from several legal infirmities in addition being a cryptic, unreasoned and nonspeaking order without any application of mind and being contrary to the material on record, the same deserves to be quashed.
13. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 with regard to defect in the title of the petitioner over the schedule property is concerned, the said contention having not been urged by the MUDA so far which has instead issued the impugned endorsement dated 28.09.2013 in favour of the petitioner without putting forth the sais contention and as such, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
14. In the result, I pass the following:-
-9-NC: 2025:KHC:37131 WP No. 23936 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned preliminary notification at Annexure-D dated 03.04.2006 and acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto are declared to have been abandoned and lapsed and the same are hereby quashed insofar as the schedule property of the petitioner is concerned. (iii) The impugned Endorsement vide Annexure-Q dated 28.09.2013 issued by respondent No.2 is also hereby quashed. No costs."
Therefore, the issues as answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court supra and in the light of the issues standing covered on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and the observations.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 210