The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to file a detailed response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the recent demolition drive at Kogilu Layout in Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The petitioners, residents of Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony, allege that their homes were razed without proper notice, rendering them homeless in violation of due process guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha heard the plea and recorded the State’s submission regarding rehabilitation efforts but declined to grant immediate interim relief at this stage.

The PIL, filed by three residents (Zaiba Tabassum and Ors. v. State of Karnataka), contends that the demolition drive conducted on December 20, 2025, led to the illegal eviction of numerous families who claim to have resided in the area for decades.

Key Arguments by Petitioners:

Lack of Notice: The petitioners argued that the authorities failed to issue proper notice prior to the demolition, violating the principles of natural justice and specific Supreme Court guidelines on evictions.
Homelessness: The sudden drive has left families without shelter.
Demands: They sought a court-ordered survey to identify affected residents, compensation for the "illegal" demolition, and rehabilitation within a 5-kilometer radius of the original site.

State’s Defense:

Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the State, countered the petitioners' claims on several grounds:

Nature of Land: The AG argued that the land in question is government property, and thus, the specific Supreme Court guidelines cited by the petitioners (often applicable to private or regularized disputes) do not apply in the same manner.
Environmental Concern: The State contended that the constructions were contaminating groundwater, necessitating their removal.
Rehabilitation: The AG submitted that three specific areas have already been earmarked for rehabilitating the displaced residents, with provisions for food and amenities.
Challenge to Tenure: Disputing the claim of "decades-long" residence, the AG stated that satellite imagery would be produced to verify when the structures were actually built.

While the petitioners' counsel argued that rehabilitation should have preceded the demolition, the Court took note of the AG's assurance that relief measures were currently underway. Consequently, the Bench:

Declined Immediate Stay/Relief: In view of the State's submission on rehabilitation, no interim order was passed.
Issued Notice: The State was ordered to file a detailed response within one week.
Next Hearing: The matter is listed for further consideration on January 22, 2026.

This case highlights the recurring conflict in urban administration: the tension between clearing encroachments on public land (often vital for ecological preservation) and the humanitarian obligation to provide housing security.

The State’s reliance on "satellite imagery" to disprove long-term residency claims signals a growing trend where digital evidence is used to counter adverse possession or settled possession arguments. However, the core legal question remains whether the procedure of eviction—specifically the alleged lack of notice—can be justified solely on the grounds that the land belongs to the government. As the Supreme Court has previously held in cases like Olga Tellis, even encroachers have a right to procedural fairness before eviction. The upcoming hearing will likely hinge on whether the State can prove it followed due process despite the "urgency" of the demolition.

Case Title: Zaiba Tabassum and Ors. v. State of Karnataka

Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha