ORDER : 1. Petitioners have assailed Preliminary Notification dated 4/1/2007 (Annexure-P), issued by the respondents under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the Act’, for short). By that notification, inter alia petitioners’ land bearing Sy.No. Corrected V.C.O. dated 02/04/2018, 31/1, measuring 0.22 Acres, New Sy.No.13/3 (Old No. 13/1) measuring two acres situated at Chowdahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District, has been sought to be acquired. 2. Admittedly, thereafter no declaration or final notification under Section 19 of the Act has been issued. In the circumstances, petitioners have sought quashing of preliminary notification and a declaratory relief to the effect that the entire scheme has lapsed. The lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of “Swarna Jayanthi Nagara Layout” at Mysore. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of there being no declaration or final notification issued by respondents, the scheme has lapsed and therefore, the preliminary notification would have to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 5. During the course of submission, petitioners’ counsel has drawn my attention to two decisions of this Court. The first is, judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.30044/2013 dated 10/7/2013 passed by the Circuit Bench at Dharwad, and order dated 26/11/2014 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.Nos.10917-10923/2014. He contended that, in those cases also final notification or declaration was not issued by the Development Authority, despite lapse of several years and this court had declared that the scheme had lapsed and quashed the preliminary notification. A similar order may be made in these writ petitions also, is the submission. 6. Learned counsel for respondents, however, contended that insofar as Swarna Jayanthi Nagar Layout is concerned, no such order has been passed by this Court and that there is no time frame fixed to declare final notification. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusing the material on record as well as the order and judgment passed by this court referred to above, I am of the considered view that the ratio of those decisions would squarely apply insofar as the present scheme under consideration is concerned, namely “Swarna Jayanthi Nagar Layout”. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusing the material on record as well as the order and judgment passed by this court referred to above, I am of the considered view that the ratio of those decisions would squarely apply insofar as the present scheme under consideration is concerned, namely “Swarna Jayanthi Nagar Layout”. It is noted that respondents intended to form that layout in the year 2006 and issued the preliminary notification on 4/1/2007. Eleven years have lapsed since then, a declaration or final notification has not yet been issued. This court in several cases has held that, even though there is no time frame for issuance of a declaration and final notification in the aforesaid Act, it must be done within a reasonable time and that reasonable time has been stipulated as two years. In the instant case, eight years has lapsed. The declaration has not yet been issued. In my view, the aforesaid judgment would squarely apply. Relevant portion of the W.A.No.30044/2012 reads as under: “11. The question that arises for consideration is whether the said time limit also equally applies to acquisition proceeding? The Apex Court has held that in the absence of a specific provisions in these enactment, the provision contained in the Land Acquisition Act cannot be the read into the provision and such time limit cannot be prescribed, but at the same time it is held merely because no such time limit is prescribed, the Authorities cannot take their own time to complete the acquisition proceedings. If the law do not specify the time limit within which the official acts have to be completed, it is settled law that it has to be done within a reasonable time. In that context, the Apex Court has held that even in the absence of a specific provisions a reasonable time for issuing final notification may be taken as two years. This Court following the aforesaid judgment in the case of SRI.H.N.SHIVANNA S/O LATE NANJAPPA & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER disposed of on 20TH NOVEMBER 2012 has held that even in the absence of a specific provisions, a reasonable period for issuing final notification has to be two years, though not with exact mathematical preposition. 12. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, the preliminary notification is issued on 19.04.2007. Now nearly six years have lapsed. 12. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, the preliminary notification is issued on 19.04.2007. Now nearly six years have lapsed. The Authorities want another 300 days time to complete the transaction, which is unreasonable. If there are any practical difficulties, it is open to them for issue one more preliminary notification and then issue a final notification within a reasonable time and acquire the land. Therefore, in the facts of this case, we are satisfied the delay of six years and further the request of 300 days in issuing final notification is unreasonable and therefore, the preliminary notification issued loses its value, it become non-est and the owner of the land should be at liberty to deal with the property in the manner he likes. Therefore, it is necessary to grant such declaration. However, it is made clear that still if acquiring authorities are interested in acquiring the land, this judgment would not come in the way of issuing a fresh preliminary notification and then issue a final notification within a reasonable time, in which event, the market value of the land to be acquired is to be paid on the date of fresh notification. It will give justice to the owner of the land.” 8. To the same effect is order dated 26/11/2014, passed in W.P.No.9640/2014 and connected matters by the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, in respect of Shivarama Karanth Layout”, sought to be formed by Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA). Similar orders have been passed by this Court in respect of “Shantaveri Gopalagowda Layout”, sought to be formed by respondent – MUDA. 9. In the circumstances, preliminary Notification dated 04/01/2007 issued under Section 17 of the Act is quashed insofar as the petitioners land is concerned. 10. Writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 11. Parties to bear their respective costs.