On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court addressed the grievances of Kogilu Layout residents affected by a recent demolition, particularly concerning the adequacy of State-provided rehabilitation facilities. The case, Zaiba Tabassum and ors v. State of Karnataka, was presided over by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha.
The judges scrutinized photographs of the rehabilitation centers presented in court, observing that they appeared unused by the displaced residents. The proceedings were part of a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by inhabitants of Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony. They argued their homes in Yelahanka’s Kogilu Layout were demolished unlawfully, without due notice.
The petitioners’ counsel raised concerns over the limited capacity of the rehabilitation centers, arguing they could accommodate fewer than 100 individuals and were not conveniently located near Kogilu Layout. Furthermore, he criticized the facilities for lacking adequate washrooms and proper food provisions.
In contrast, the court, after reviewing the photographic evidence submitted by the amicus curiae, did not find the claims convincing. The bench encouraged affected residents to utilize the available rehabilitation centers, suggesting they could communicate any further issues to the amicus curiae, BV Vidyulatha, for potential corrective action.
Chief Justice Bakhru remarked, “The rehabilitation is available, but insistence on being on the same site (nearer to Kogilu Layout) where they have said it is also a hazard (may not be feasible). You look at the photographs (of the rehabilitation centers). There is not even one person there. This (concerns raised about the state of the rehabilitation site) is all fictional. There are 120-130 (capacity), nobody has gone there. Learned Amicus Curiae, in her submissions, has added photographs. Look at the number of mattresses available, look at the state of that building; it is a clean building. Saying that some persons will suffer because of this monsoon and will have no place to go doesn’t seem to be correct. Anybody who faces any problem can contact the Amicus Curiae, the Amicus Curiae will escalate.”
More Read
Despite these observations, the petitioners’ counsel maintained that issues persist with the quality of the government’s rehabilitation centers, urging the court to consider interviews conducted by the amicus with current residents, which purportedly highlight ongoing deficiencies.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 13. The PIL, filed by three residents, contends the December 20, 2025, demolition resulted in the unlawful eviction of numerous long-term residents, arguing it was executed without the appropriate notice in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines. The petitioners requested a survey to identify affected residents and sought compensation for the allegedly illegal demolition. They also advocated for relocating residents within a 5-kilometer radius of the demolition site.
The State, represented by Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, countered that Supreme Court guidelines cited by the petitioners were not applicable, as the land in question is government-owned. AG Shetty further argued that the demolition was necessary due to groundwater contamination caused by existing constructions. He stated that the State had established rehabilitation centers to support the displaced individuals, noting that residents had not utilized the healthcare services and food provided.
“They don’t want it (rehabilitation center) and they’re staying in some other place and they’re occupying this place only to see that they’ll get an allotment. That’s the whole zero-sum game of this,” AG Shetty commented.
Amicus Curiae BV Vidyulatha added that many residents were hesitant to leave the Kogilu Layout area due to promises of being relocated to the same site from which they were evicted. She reported that a majority have resorted to renting accommodation elsewhere.
