B.V. Nagarathna, J.

1. Petitioner is stated to be a developer and construction company. It has challenged endorsement dated 16-5-2014 bearing No. MUDA/Town Planning/Conversion/71/13-14 (Annexure-K), issued by the 2nd respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the MUDA" for the sake of brevity). Petitioner has also sought a declaration that preliminary notification bearing No. LAQ(1)/CR.81/97-98, dated 6-10-1997 (Annexure-M), issued by the 2nd respondent-MUDA is non est or in the alternative to declare that the acquisition in respect of the scheduled lands has lapsed. A direction is also sought to 2nd respondent-MUDA to furnish its concurrence or opinion for conversion of scheduled lands from agricultural to non-agricultural, residential use as set out in Annexures-E, E1 to E5, dated 23-6-2012, 17-7-2012 and 25-7-2012. It is the case of petitioner that pursuant to the policy of Government of Karnataka permitting private participation in housing sector, it entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 23-1-2004 with the 5th respondent-Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the KHB" for the sake of brevity). Petitioner was to develop a residential project on lands, which had been acquired in Mysuru City. According to petitioner, it has raised a loan of Rs. 30.00 crores from HUDCO for the purpose of development of the project. The entire project of the petitioner is in three stages and it has made necessary payments towards the layout plans in respect of the initial 15 acres 34 guntas. Petitioner was also required to seek change of land use, which had been recommended by 2nd respondent-MUDA. Though according to petitioner, in view of the joint development agreement with the KHB, the lands proposed for project were deemed to have been converted. Nevertheless, on the insistence of MUDA, the scheduled lands had to be converted for non-agricultural purpose, for which petitioner had paid conversion charges. When the applications of petitioner for conversion of scheduled land was under consideration by 4th respondent, opinion of MUDA was sought in that regard. It is in that context, Annexure-K endorsement has been issued by MUDA, which is assailed in these writ petitions.

2. The background to the endorsement at Annexure-K1 is the fact that the scheduled lands were subject-matter of preliminary notification issued by MUDA on 6-10-1997. It is stated that since then, MUDA has not issued declaration for final notification. Subsequent to the issuance of preliminary notification in the year 2002 and thereafter on various dates, petitioner purchased the scheduled lands for the purpose of implementation of the project envisaged by KHB. Under those circumstances, promoters of the petitioner-company have purchased the lands. In this context, petitioner has sought a declaration that preliminary notification dated 6-10-1997 has become non est and a direction is sought to MUDA to furnish its concurrence for conversion of the scheduled lands.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents as well as perused the material on record.

4. During the course of submission, learned Counsel for petitioner pointed out that the endorsement dated 16-5-2014 enclosed as Annexure-K is incorrect and that subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification dated 6-10-1997, no declaration of final notification has been issued by MUDA. In such circumstances, it has to be inferred that MUDA has given up or abandoned its proposal to acquire the scheduled lands and therefore, in the absence of the declaration of final notification, MUDA can make no reference to the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of declining the grant of conversion of the scheduled lands. In this context, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 26-11-2014 passed in W.P. Nos. 10917 to 10928 of 2014 and connected matters and contended that a similar order may be made in the instant case also by