[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Saraswati W/O Rajanikant Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
WP No. 100542 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.100542 OF 2026 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATI W/O. RAJANIKANT DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.148,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR, LAKSHMI LAYOUT,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
2. HUBBALLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
MANJANNA NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
E DIST. DHARWAD-580021.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1;
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Date: 2026.02.21
11:31:20 +0530
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 23-
07-2010 BEARING NO.SAM.HU.DHA.NA.PRA.BHUSWA-2/C.AR-4/2009-
10, 1/1565, ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 17(1) AND 17(3) OF THE
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987,
INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER'S LANDS BEARING SY.
NO. 82/2 MEASURING 4 ACRES 8 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.82/3
MEASURING 2 ACRES 20 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT GABBUR VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
WP No. 100542 of 2026
HC-KAR
HUBBALLI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H;
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for
the following prayers.
"a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the
Preliminary Notification dated 23-07-2010
bearing No. SAM.HU.DHA.NA.PRA.BHUSWA-2/C.AR-
4/2009-10, 1/1565 issued under Sections 17(1)
and 17(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1987 insofar as it relates to the
petitioner's lands bearing Sy.No.82/2 measuring
4 Acres 8 Guntas and Sy.No.82/3 measuring 2
Acres 20 Guntas, situated at Gabbur Village,
Hubballi Taluk, Dharwad District, produced as
Annexure-H;
b. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the
endorsement bearing No.Hu.Da.Na.Pra:Bhu.
Swa/2024-25/E-180395 dated 06.12.2025
issued by Respondent No.2, produced as
Annexure-K;
c. Declare that the entire acquisition proceedings
initiated pursuant to the Preliminary Notification
dated 23-07-2010 have lapsed, on account of
inordinate delay, abandonment, non-issuance of
final notification, non-passing of award, non-
payment of compensation, non-taking of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
possession, absence of subsisting public purpose
and by operation of law, including under Section
24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013;
d. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court
deems fit under the circumstances of the present
case including an order for costs may kindly be
passed in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner has called in question the
preliminary notification dated 23.07.2010 issued under
Sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the Karnataka Urban
Development Authorities Act, 1987 ("the Act" for short)
(Annexure-H) in respect of the petitioner's land bearing
Sy.No.82/2 measuring 4 Acres 8 Guntas and Sy.No.82/3
measuring 2 Acres 20 Guntas, both are situated at Gabbur
Village, Hubballi Taluk, Dharwad District.
3. Respondent No.2 thereafter by a resolution dated
06.08.2016 (Annexure-J), resolved to drop the entire
scheme pertaining to the Gabbur village and recommended
respondent No.1-State to drop the acquisition proceedings.
However, no further action was taken by the State
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
Government pursuant to the said resolution. No final
declaration under Section 19 (1) of the Act was issued.
Aggrieved by the inaction and continuation of the
preliminary notification, the petitioner has approached this
Court in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Scheme was never implemented, no final notification
under Section 19 (1) of the Act has been issued. Neither
award has been passed nor possession taken and the
respondent No.2 itself resolved to drop the Scheme on
06.08.2016. It is submitted that under similar
circumstances, this Court in the case of Kamal Trading
Corporation Vs. The State of Karnataka and another1
("Kamal Trading Corporation") has quashed the notification,
holding that the Scheme had lapsed under Section 27 of the
Act. It is contended that in view of the statutory mandate
W.P.No.106010/2023 dated 12.10.2023
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
under Section 27 and the admitted resolution to drop the
scheme, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not
dispute:
i. the passing of resolution dated 06.08.2016;
ii. Recommendation made to the State Government
to drop the scheme.
6. It is also not disputed that no final declaration
under Section 19 (1) of the Act has been issued.
7. The question that falls for consideration is:
"Whether the acquisition proceedings
initiated under the preliminary notification dated
23.07.2010 have lapsed in view of Section 27 of
the Act?"
8. Section 27 of the Act mandates that the
Authority shall execute the scheme within 5 years from the
date of publication of the final declaration under Section
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
19(1) of the Act. Failure to adhere to the statutory time
line, results in lapse of the scheme.
9. In the present case:
i. The preliminary notification was issued on
23.07.2010;
ii. No final declaration under Section 19 (1) has
been issued.
iii. Respondent No.2 in its meeting dated
06.08.2016 resolved to drop the Scheme and
recommended the same to the State
Government.
iv. The competent authority itself found the lands
not feasible for implementation of the Scheme.
10. This Court in the case of Kamal Trading
Corporation has held at paragraph No.3, which reads as
under:
"3. It is borne out from the records that
respondent No.2 issued preliminary notification on
23.07.2010. However, respondent No.2 has
recommended to drop the scheme. If preliminary
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
notification was issued in 2010 and respondent No.2
being a competent development authority has
recommended to drop the scheme, the scheme
prepared by respondent No.2 even otherwise would
lapse. Section 27 of the Act clearly contemplates that
the Authority has to execute the scheme within five
years from the date of publication of final declaration
issued under sub-section 1 to Section 19 of the Act.
In the present case on hand, respondent No.2 has
found that the petition lands are not feasible for
development scheme and therefore,
recommendation is sent. The captioned petition
needs to be allowed on two counts. Firstly,
respondent No.2 being competent development
authority has resolved to drop the proceedings on
the ground that the petition lands are not feasible to
implement the scheme. Secondly, the preliminary
notification is also liable to be quashed as
respondents 1 and 2 have not resolved to issue final
declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. Since
there is failure to adhere to time schedule prescribed
under Section 27 of the Act, the scheme has
automatically lapsed and therefore, the sanction
granted by respondent No.1 to implement the
scheme prepared by respondent No.2 also does not
survive for consideration. For the reasons stated
supra, I pass the following:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsements vide Annexure-E
dated 19.12.2009 issued by respondent No.1
and Annexure-F dated 23.07.2010 issued by
respondent No.2, insofar as petition lands are
concerned, are hereby quashed by holding that
the acquisition has lapsed under Section 27 of
the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities
Act.
iii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed of
accordingly."
11. Thus, from the facts narrated above, where the
Development Authority resolves to drop the Scheme, and
fails to proceed further within the statutory time line, the
Scheme automatically lapses under Section 27 of the Act
and both the ingredients are satisfied in the present writ
petition and the scheme cannot be permitted to subsists
indefinitely. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration
is answered and this Court pass the following:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The preliminary notification dated
23.07.2010 (Annexure-H) is hereby
quashed issued under Sections 17(1) and
17(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1987 insofar as it relates to
the petitioner's lands bearing Sy.No.82/2
measuring 4 Acres 8 Guntas and
Sy.No.82/3 measuring 2 Acres 20 Guntas,
situated at Gabbur Village, Hubballi Taluk,
Dharwad District. Consequently, the
impugned endorsement dated 06.12.2025
(Annexure-K) issued by respondent No.2,
is hereby quashed.
iii. It is held that the acquisition proceedings
have lapsed under Section 27 of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2275
HC-KAR
Karnataka Urban Development Authorities
Act, 1987.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
AM/-
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
