Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24349 (KAR)

SRI M RAMU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/5056/2015 · 2026-06-23

R Nataraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31427 WP No. 5056 of 2015 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. 5056 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. M. RAMU S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNSWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, CHANCHAGUTTA MAIN ROAD, (SAPTHAGIRI CUTTING TOOL FACTORY ROAD) KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560020 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.3, SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE-560070 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31427 WP No. 5056 of 2015 SRI. GOUTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BDA/SA.KA.AA/3(S)/RTI/327/2014-15 DATED 17.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 There is no representation for the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, there was a request for adjournment and the case was adjourned to today as a last chance. This petition is filed in the year 2015 and hence, there is no justification for further adjourning the case. Hence, this petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61