ORDER : R. DEVDAS J. The petitioners are seeking quashment of the preliminary notification bearing No.LAQ(1)CR 86/2005-06 dated 04.01.2007 on the ground that though the preliminary notification was issued in the year 2007, final notification has not been issued till date and the very same notification was called in question by some other land owners and this Court in W.P.Nos.10715-716/2016 in the case of Smt.H.L.Veena and another vs. State of Karnataka and others, which was decided on 7.12.2017 has quashed the preliminary notification. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore prays for similar orders. 2. As seen in the case of Smt.H.L.Veena(supra), the coordinate bench has considered the submissions of the petitioners as well as the respondents. However it was noticed that in an earlier W.P.No.26550/2014, which was decided on 10.04.2015, the very same contentions were heard and the preliminary notification was quashed. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.26550/2014 reads as under: “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. Eight 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 aforesaid judgment reads as under: “11. The question that arises for consideration is whether the said time limit also equally applies to acquisition proceeding? 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 aforesaid judgment 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. 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 nonest 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. 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 petitioner’s land is concerned. 10. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 11. Parties to bear their respective costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA submits that no doubt the preliminary notification has been quashed, however the respondent-MUDA has written to the State Government to approve the scheme. 4. The said submission does not take the case of the respondent any further. Since the preliminary notification has already been quashed by this Court, the question of approval of the scheme at this stage would not arise. 5. Therefore, in view of the above preliminary notification dated 04.01.2007 at Annexure-A issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 in so far as the petitioners lands are concerned is quashed. The petitions are accordingly allowed.