Kogilu Layout demolitions: Karnataka HC questions affected residents' concerns about State rehab centres

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday expressed reservations about concerns raised by demolition-affected residents of Kogilu Layout over the quality of rehabilitation centres set up by the State [Zaiba Tabassum and ors v. State of Karnataka]..A Bench Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha also noted that photographs of the rehabilitation centre placed before it showed that they were not being used by the residents.The Court was hearing 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 without proper notice.Their counsel today argued that the rehabilitation centres set up by the State to accommodate evicted residents did not have the capacity to house even 100 persons,He added that such centres were not near enough to the Kogilu Layout. He further alleged that the State's temporary rehabilitation centres did not have adequate washrooms or proper food.The Court, however, was not persuaded by these claims after examining photographs of the rehabilitation centres placed before it by the amicus.It urged the residents to use these centres, but added that they could raise any further grievances to amicus curiae BV Vidyulatha so that corrective measures can be taken if needed."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 centres). 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," the Court said..The petitioners' counsel, however, maintained that there were lingering concerns about the quality of the government's rehab centres. He called for the production of interviews conducted by the amicus with residents at the rehabilitation centre. He indicated that these interviews would show that there are residents who use the rehabilitation centres and who are experiencing shortcomings there. .The matter is scheduled to be heard next on July 13..The PIL before the Court was filed by three residents who contended that the demolition drive that took place on December 20, 2025, had 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-kilometre radius from the demolition site. .The State had countered that the Supreme Court guidelines referred to by the petitioners were not applicable since it concerns government land. Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty also argued that the constructions on the Kogilu Layout land was contaminating groundwater. He further informed the Court that the State has set up rehabilitation centres to house those affected by the demolition. Today, he argued that the affected residents had not availed the healthcare services and food provided by the State at these rehabilitation centres."They don't want it (rehabilitation centre) 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 said. Amicus Curiae, BV Vidyulatha added that most residents have clearly expressed their hesitation to leave the Kogilu Layout area to use the rehabilitation centres as unknown people had promised that they would be rehabilitated in the same area from where they were evicted. She submitted that most of them have rented places to stay elsewhere.