This seems to be one special case of the so called *Fourier restriction problem* (see, for instance, Terry Tao's discussion: http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/the-bourgain-guth-argument-for-proving-restriction-theorems/). If $\Omega$ is a smooth, $(n-1)$-dimensional embedded submanifold (compact or not) of $\mathbb{R}^n$ ($n\geq 2$) without boundary, with induced measure $d\mu$, the measure $f d\mu$ supported in $\Omega$ has its Fourier transform lying in $L^q(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with the bound

$\|(f d\mu)^{\wedge}\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq C\|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$

only if $q\geq 2\frac{n+1}{n-1}$. As a consequence, no such bound can hold for $f$ as above if $q=2$. This is essentially shown in Lemma 3, page 707 of R. S. Strichartz, "Restrictions of Fourier Transforms to Quadratic Surfaces and Decay of Solutions of Wave Equations", Duke Math. J. 44 (1977) 705-714.

I'm not sure if replacing $L^q(\mathbb{R}^n)$ by $L^q(K)$ for some compact region $K\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ with nonvoid interior allows one to circumvent this "no-go" result, but I rather doubt it. In fact, the $L^p-L^q$ Bernstein inequalities (A.5), page 333 of Terry Tao's book "Nonlinear Dispersive Equations" (American Mathematical Society, 2006), which tell us what happens when we perform a restriction to compact regions in frequency space, go in the opposite direction. That is, you still (apparently) need $q$ to respect the above upper bound even after restricting to $K$.