Karnataka High Court Seeks State Reply on PIL Over Alleged Illegal Demolition in Kogilu Layout

The Karnataka High Court has asked the State government to file its reply to a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging illegal demolition of houses in Kogilu Layout, Yelahanka. The petition claims that several homes were demolished without giving proper notice to residents.

The PIL has been filed by Zaiba Tabassum and other residents of Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony. According to the petitioners, a demolition drive carried out on December 20, 2025, led to the eviction of families who had been living in the area for many years. They argued that the authorities did not follow due legal process or the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court before demolishing the houses.

The petitioners also told the Court that no lawful notices were served before the demolition and that the action left many families homeless. They requested the Court to order a detailed survey to identify all affected persons and to grant compensation for the alleged illegal demolition. They further sought rehabilitation within a five-kilometre radius of the site, stating that relocation far away would disrupt livelihoods, education, and access to basic services.

During the hearing, the State government informed the Court that three locations have already been identified to rehabilitate the affected residents. It was also assured that food and other basic facilities would be provided at these sites. Based on this submission, the Court did not grant any interim relief at this stage.

The Advocate General, appearing for the State, argued that the Supreme Court guidelines cited by the petitioners were not applicable since the land belongs to the government. He also submitted that the constructions were polluting groundwater, which made action necessary. The State further questioned the claim that residents had lived there for decades and stated that satellite images would be produced to show when the houses were constructed.

On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners argued that rehabilitation should have been arranged before the demolition. He submitted that residents were removed without warning and are currently without shelter, urging the Court to grant interim protection.

Taking note of the State’s assurance on rehabilitation, the High Court directed the government to file a detailed response within one week. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 22, after which the petitioners may file their rejoinder.

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