The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to submit a detailed affidavit concerning a controversial demolition drive last month in Bengaluru's Yelahanka area. The court's intervention came during a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by residents whose homes were razed.
Court Hearing and Government's Stance
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha heard the petition on Wednesday. The bench has scheduled the next hearing for January 22. The PIL was filed by Zaiba Tabassum and three other affected residents of Kogilu village.
Appearing for the state, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty strongly contested the petitioners' claim that they had been living on the site for 28-30 years. He argued this was "factually incorrect" and that the government possessed satellite imagery to prove when structures in the illegal settlements—Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony—were erected on government land.
Shetty further contended that a Supreme Court order, which mandates due process including show-cause notices before eviction, was not applicable here. He clarified that the land was a government-owned quarry site used by the erstwhile BBMP (now GBA) as a landfill for dumping rubbish.
Residents' Plight and Rehabilitation Measures
The counsel for the petitioners informed the court that the December 20 demolition drive had left roughly 3,000 people from 300 families without shelter, food, and blankets in the winter. The demolition also caused severe educational disruption, destroying study materials, uniforms, and hall tickets for over 300 students.
In response, the Advocate General stated that the authorities had identified three alternative sites for temporary accommodation. He assured the court that food was being supplied through Indira Canteens and promised other necessary amenities would be provided to the displaced families.
Legal Arguments and Future Demands
The petitioners' core argument is that the demolition violated Supreme Court guidelines issued last year, which explicitly prohibit such actions without issuing prior show-cause notices. They assert that the sudden eviction infringes upon the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as it deprived people of shelter and livelihood.
In their plea, the affected residents have sought rehabilitation either at the original site or within a 5-kilometer radius to allow them to continue their livelihoods. They have also demanded the reconstruction of their homes and adequate compensation for the losses suffered due to the demolition drive.
The High Court's call for a comprehensive affidavit sets the stage for a detailed examination of the facts, the legality of the demolition process, and the urgent humanitarian needs of the displaced residents of Yelahanka.
