Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt Nagaratnamma G Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt Nagaratnamma G Vs State of KarnatakaSmt Nagaratnamma G v. State of Karnataka

Dismissed¶35

Smt Nagaratnamma G v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2026WP/17934/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal disposal, not a merits ruling. NC: 2026:KHC:31459; WP No. 17934 of 2026 (LB-BMP); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; decision date 24 June 2026; Single Judge Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad. Petitioner: Smt Nagaratnamma G (advocate Sri Yashwanth Nethaji N T). Respondents: State of Karnataka (Sri Kenchegowda, AGA); Greater Bengaluru Authority and BBMP Assistant Executive Engineer, Herohalli Sub-Division (Sri Pawan Kumar); private respondent Sumithra M. Subject: mandamus under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India, to consider representation dated 22/05/2026 and act against alleged set-back-violating construction by Respondent 4 on Site Nos. 36 and 37 / Assessment Nos. 43 and 40, Lingadeeranahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Outcome: memo for withdrawal accepted; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. No issues framed, no holdings, no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition if need arises; the memo for withdrawal filed by counsel for the petitioner was accepted. ¶35

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition if need arises; the memo for withdrawal filed by counsel for the petitioner was accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) No. 17934 of 2026, High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), decided 24 June 2026 by B M Shyam Prasad, J. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a neighbouring resident seeking mandamus to direct the Greater Bengaluru Authority and the BBMP Assistant Executive Engineer to consider her representation dated 22/05/2026 and to prevent/demolish Respondent 4's alleged illegal construction without set-backs on Site Nos. 36 and 37 (Assessment Nos. 43 and 40), Lingadeeranahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli. At the preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo for withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh writ petition if need arises. Memo accepted; petition dismissed as withdrawn. No adjudication on merits; no precedents cited; no dissent.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31459 WP No. 17934 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 17934 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SMT NAGARATNAMMA G W/O KRISHNEGOWDA P K, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A PADUGUDI VILLAGE, CS PURA POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572213.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T..,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION CIRCLE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560027.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31459 WP No. 17934 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION, ANJANANAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE 560091.

SUMITHRA M, W/O GOKUL H, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A DODDASULIKERE VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561201. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.KENCHEGOWDA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXUREE DATED 22/05/2026 AND PREVENT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 FROM PUTTING UP ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT LEAVING ANY SET BACK; B. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 CORPORATION TO DEMOLISH THE VIOLATED CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN HIS PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.36 AND SITE NO.37

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31459 WP No. 17934 of 2026

HC-KAR

BEARING ASSESSMENT NUMBER 43 AND 40 SITUATED AT LINGADEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, YASHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

Sri Yashwanth Nethaji N T, the learned counsel

for the petitioner, has filed a memo for withdrawal which reads as under:

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to withdraw the above writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition in case need arises, in the interest of justice and equity.”

The memo is accepted, and the petition stands

dismissed as withdrawn.

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

The Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶23 Article 227¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 22/05/2026 (marked Annexure-E) to Respondents 2 and 3, and the writ petition sought mandamus to consider that representation, to prevent Respondent 4 from putting up construction without set-backs, and to demolish the alleged violated construction on Site Nos. 36 and 37 bearing Assessment Nos. 43 and 40.¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT NAGARATNAMMA G W/O KRISHNEGOWDA P K¶10
Yashwanth Nethaji N.T.
respondent
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT¶15
Kenchegowda
respondent
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER¶16
Pawan Kumar
respondent
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION¶20
Pawan Kumar
respondent
SUMITHRA M W/O GOKUL H¶21

Coram

AI extract

B M SHYAM PRASADauthor¶29

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 24 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 15 Jun 2026
Case no.: WP/17934/2026
CNR: KAHC010393462026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition (LB-BMP)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B M Shyam Prasad

Manjula Kashinath Vs Bhadra Landmarks Private Limited
23 Jun 2026
Jesu Navin Nishchal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
23 Jun 2026
M/S. Ameena Traders Vs the State of Karnataka
23 Jun 2026
Syed Hassed S G Vs the Chief Commissioner
24 Jun 2026
M/S.Glacio Frozen Foods (P) Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
24 Jun 2026
M/S. Star Steel Exchange Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax
24 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt Nagaratnamma G v. State of Karnataka, WP/17934/2026 (KA), decided on 24 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

The Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 227

View all statutes

Procedural history1

Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 22/05/2026 (marked Annexure-E) to Respondents 2 and 3, and the writ petition sought mandamus to consider that representation, to prevent Respondent 4 from putting up construction without set-backs, and to demolish the alleged violated construction on Site Nos. 36 and 37 bearing Assessment Nos. 43 and 40.

View full history

Bench / Coram

B M SHYAM PRASAD

Parties & counsel