Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider his representation dated 11 March 2026 and act under Section 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

At the preliminary hearing, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, stating that certain materials had been omitted from the pleadings; a memo was filed to that effect.

1. Whether the petitioner could withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.

2. Whether the Court should consider the merits of the requested directions concerning the petitioner’s representation and Section 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and sought relief under Section 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

The Court did not discuss or apply any substantive statutory provision, precedent, or legal test; it disposed of the matter on the petitioner’s request to withdraw with liberty.

The petitioner expressly sought withdrawal on the ground that relevant materials had been omitted from the pleadings and requested liberty to file a fresh petition.

The Court accepted that request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It did not examine the merits of the representation, the applicability of Section 96, or the entitlement to the substantive writ relief.

No determination was made on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.