Karnataka HC seeks state govt’s response to PIL against Bengaluru demolitions

The Karnataka high court on Wednesday asked the state government to file a detailed response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against a demolition drive in Bengaluru last month. Affected Residents moved the court after around 300 houses were allegedly razed without prior notice.

A bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Pooncha recorded the state’s submission that it has identified three locations for the temporary rehabilitation of the displaced residents and that food, water, and medical facilities were being provided to them. It cited the state’s submissions and said it did not think it fit to grant any interim relief to the petitioners at this stage. The bench posted the matter for hearing on January 22.

In their PIL, residents of Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony in Bengaluru’s Yelahanka said the demolition drive on December 20 resulted in the illegal eviction of families who had lived there for decades. The petitioners alleged that the authorities conducted the demolition without issuing proper notice or following the principles of natural justice, violating Supreme Court guidelines on evictions.

Advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that the guidelines did not apply to the present case, as the land in question belonged to the government. He said the constructions had “adversely affected groundwater,” and their removal was necessary.

Shetty told the government had earmarked three areas to temporarily relocate the affected residents. He assured the bench that the relocated residents were receiving food, water, and medical assistance when the court sought clarity on immediate relief measures.

The bench recorded the statement, noting that “food and other amenities, including water,” were being provided, “along with medical facilities.” It directed the state to place a detailed response on record within one week. The bench granted liberty to the petitioners to file a rejoinder within one week after the state files its response.

The petitioners’ lawyer pressed for interim relief, arguing that the rehabilitation measures cited should have been in place before the demolition. He added that the authorities gave no notice to the residents and denied them an opportunity to be heard before demolishing their homes.

The petitioners sought a direction for a survey to identify all affected residents, compensation for the allegedly illegal demolition, and rehabilitation within a five-kilometre radius.

Shetty disputed the petitioners’ claim that residents lived in the area for decades. He added that the state was willing to produce satellite images to establish when the structures came up.

The Karnataka government last month announced that those displaced would be provided places to live after the Greater Bengaluru Authority carried out the drive to reclaim the civic body’s encroached land.

Chief minister Siddaramaiah promised aid and housing for displaced residents following an outcry. He maintained that the aid was being provided purely on “humanitarian grounds” and that the demolished structures were illegal.