Bengaluru, Jan 08, 2026 – The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday sought a detailed response from the state government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a recent demolition drive in Bengaluru, which allegedly left hundreds of residents displaced. The PIL claims that approximately 300 homes were demolished last month without prior notice, raising concerns over procedural lapses and the rights of long-term occupants.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Pooncha heard arguments on the matter but declined to grant any interim relief to the petitioners. The bench noted the state’s assurance that temporary rehabilitation had been arranged for affected families, including provisions for food, water, and medical support. The court scheduled further proceedings for January 22, directing the state to file a comprehensive reply while allowing petitioners to submit a rejoinder.

Details of the PIL

The PIL was filed by residents of Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony, both located in Bengaluru’s Yelahanka area. The petitioners alleged that the demolition drive, carried out on December 20, 2025, resulted in the illegal eviction of families who had resided in the area for decades. They contended that the demolitions occurred without prior notice or opportunity for rehabilitation, violating their fundamental rights to shelter and due process.

The petitioners argued that the state’s actions were arbitrary and disruptive, highlighting that many families had lived in their homes for over 28 years. They contended that even if certain Supreme Court guidelines regarding eviction were not directly applicable, basic principles of procedure and fairness should have been followed. The petition emphasized that affected residents were not given adequate time to relocate or access alternative housing.

State Government’s Defense

Representing the state, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that the Supreme Court precedents cited by the petitioners were not applicable because the land where the houses were constructed belonged to the government. He further contended that the structures at Kogilu Layout had adversely impacted groundwater flow and drainage, making their removal necessary for environmental and civic reasons.

Shetty also challenged the petitioners’ claim regarding the duration of occupation, asserting, “This statement made is factually incorrect. I have satellite images to show when each house has come up,” indicating that the government had data suggesting the houses were not as longstanding as claimed.

The advocate general highlighted that the government had already identified three locations for temporary relocation of displaced residents and that the state was actively providing essential services such as food, drinking water, and medical aid. These assurances were taken on record by the court, which emphasized that clarity on immediate relief measures was crucial for families affected by the demolition.

Court Observations

While considering the state’s submission, the High Court noted that even if the specific Supreme Court judgment cited by the petitioners did not directly apply, there existed other rulings that emphasized the need to follow due procedure during evictions. The bench stressed that residents who had lived at the site for decades could not be summarily removed without following appropriate legal protocols.

The court’s direction to the state to file a detailed response within a week aims to ensure that the government addresses concerns over eviction procedures, rehabilitation measures, and compliance with environmental regulations. The petitioners were granted liberty to file a rejoinder, enabling them to respond to the government’s explanations and provide additional evidence, including affidavits and documentation of prior residence.

Petitioners’ Concerns

Counsel for the petitioners pressed for interim relief, arguing that rehabilitation measures should have been in place before the demolition. They emphasized that residents received no advance notice and were forced to leave abruptly, causing hardship to families, including elderly individuals and children. The petitioners further contended that the government’s efforts to provide temporary facilities post-demolition did not adequately address the sudden displacement or the emotional and social impact on affected residents.

The PIL also questioned whether the government had adequately assessed alternative solutions that could have preserved housing while addressing environmental concerns. Petitioners argued that more sensitive planning and prior consultation with affected communities could have mitigated the disruption caused by the demolition drive.

Broader Context

The demolition in Bengaluru forms part of a larger urban redevelopment and environmental management initiativeby the state. Authorities have cited concerns over illegal constructions, encroachments, and urban planning norms, as well as environmental risks posed by unplanned settlements. However, such drives have repeatedly faced criticism for lack of prior notice, inadequate rehabilitation, and displacement of low-income residents.

Human rights advocates have emphasized that evictions must be conducted in line with legal and humanitarian standards, balancing the need for urban development with the rights of residents. In this context, the Karnataka High Court’s intervention is seen as a step toward ensuring due process and accountability in enforcement actions.

Next Steps

The High Court’s next hearing on January 22 will focus on the state’s detailed response, including the legal justification for demolitions, the scope of rehabilitation provided, and evidence regarding environmental concerns cited by the government. Petitioners are expected to submit additional documentation, including photographs, affidavits, and satellite imagery, to substantiate claims regarding the duration of residence and the impact of the demolition.

The case is likely to set a precedent for future demolition and rehabilitation drives, as it addresses critical issues of urban governance, environmental compliance, and protection of residents’ rights. Legal experts note that the court’s deliberations could influence policy decisions and procedural guidelines for eviction and rehabilitation in Bengaluru and other urban centers in Karnataka.

---