- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22367-DB WP No. 11834 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 11834 OF 2026 (KLGP-) BETWEEN: SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY V, SON OF VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BRINDAVANA LAYOUT, MUTHASANDRA ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASHILDHAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 016. 2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, SON OF G. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, FARMHOUSE, MUTHASANDRA ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22367-DB WP No. 11834 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION, AND BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED:06.02.2026 PASSED IN LGC (P) NO.506/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU (COURT HALL-1) ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, at Bengaluru (Court Hall-I) in LGC(P)No.506/2023. Vide impugned order, the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court has rejected the objection statement filed by the petitioner to the complaint and declined to discharge the petitioner and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22367-DB WP No. 11834 of 2026 cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 9(7) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would like to withdraw this writ petition and face the trial. 3. We therefore, dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn, however, we make it clear that the petitioner is entitled to take all contentions which may be available in his defence. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn