Karnataka High Court seeks State's response to PIL against Kogilu Layout demolitions

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday asked the State government to file its response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition by residents of the Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony who have alleged that their homes at Yelahanka's Kogilu Layout area were illegally demolished last month without proper notice [Zaiba Tabassum and ors v. State of Karnataka].

A Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Pooncha also recorded the State's submission that three areas have been earmarked for the rehabilitation of those affected by the demolition drive, where food and other amenities would be provided.

The Court declined to issue any immediate orders for interim relief in view of Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty's submission on the provision of such immediate rehabilitation.

It ordered the State to file its detailed response within a week's time. The case will be heard next on January 22.

The PIL before the Court was filed by three residents who contended that the demolition drive that took place on December 20, 2025, has led to illegal eviction of a large number of residents who were living in the colonies for decades. The demolition was carried out without giving them proper notice in line with Supreme Court guidelines, it was argued.

The petitioners urged the Court to order a survey to identify such affected residents, and to direct proper compensation for the allegedly illegal demolition drive.

They also sought the rehabilitation of affected residents within a 5-kilometer radius from the demolition site.

AG Shetty contended that the Supreme Court guidelines referred to by the petitioners were not applicable to this case, since it concerns government land. He argued that the constructions on the said land was contaminating the groundwater. He also submitted that rehabilitation measures were underway to aid the affected residents.

He questioned claims that these residents had been living at the layout for several decades, adding that he would produce satellite images to show exactly when the houses at the layout were constructed.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the rehabilitation measures referred to by the AG should have been in place before the demolition drive was conducted. He argued that no proper notice was given to the residents before the demolition was carried out, and that they are now homeless. He urged the Court to grant some for of interim relief for the affected residents.

The Court, however, noted that the State has now earmarked rehabilitation spaces for the residents. It proceeded to adjourn the case by two weeks after ordering the State to file its detailed response. The petitioners have been given liberty to file their rejoinder as well.

[Live Coverage]