Sri. Jayram vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Jayram vs The Bangalore Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jun 23, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1574480

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1574480
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: R. Nataraj
Decided On: Jun 23, 2026
Case Number: WP/575/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri. Jayram

Respondent

The Bangalore Development Authority

Excerpt

-1-in the high court of karnataka at bengalurudated this the 23rd day of june, 2026 before the hon'ble mr. justice r. nataraj writ petition no. 575 of 2024 (bda) between: sri. jayram s/o ramegowda aged about 55 years r/at no. 330, 4th cross 7th main road, kumaraswamy layout 2nd stage bangalore bengaluru -560078. …petitioner (by sri. varun r r, advocate for sri. appannagowda k., advocate) and:1. the bangalore development authority sankey road, kumara park west bangalore-560 020 rep. by its commissioner digitally signed by 2. the deputy secretary-iii hemalathaj bangalore development authority location: sankey road, kumara park west b high court bangalore -560001.of karnataka …respondents (by sri. k. krishna, advocate) this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to quash cancellationorder passed by the r-2 dated: 04.08.2022 videno.bem.a.pra/ukaa-3/naprakemba/497/2022-23 as per annexure-a and direct the respondents to consider the representation dated: 10.01.2022 (annexure-l) and -2- representation dated: 02.09.2022 (annexure-n) made by the petitioner and etc. this petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘b’ group, this day, order was made therein as under: coram: hon'ble mr. justice r. natarajoral ordera memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition.2. memo is taken on record.3. in view of the memo, this petition is dismissed aswithdrawn. however, the liberty sought to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action is rejected. if the petitioner has an independent and separate cause of action, he is always at liberty to approach this court. sd/- (r. nataraj) judge ha list no.: 1 sl no.: 10

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 575 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYRAM S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 330, 4TH CROSS 7TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 2ND STAGE BANGALORE BENGALURU -560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN R R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. APPANNAGOWDA K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-III HEMALATHA
J                  BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Location:          SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST B
HIGH COURT         BANGALORE -560001.
OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CANCELLATION

ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED: 04.08.2022 VIDE

NO.BEM.A.PRA/UKAA-3/NAPRAKEMBA/497/2022-23 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED: 10.01.2022 (ANNEXURE-L) AND -2- REPRESENTATION DATED: 02.09.2022 (ANNEXURE-N) MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

A memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition.

2. Memo is taken on record.

3. In view of the memo, this petition is dismissed as

withdrawn. However, the liberty sought to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action is rejected. If the petitioner has an independent and separate cause of action, he is always at liberty to approach this Court. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2026 Same Parties Sri. Jayram vs The Bangalore Development Authority Same Judge R. Nataraj