Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the state government to file a comprehensive response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging last month’s demolition drive in Bengaluru, which reportedly displaced hundreds of residents without prior notice. The PIL, filed by residents of Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony in Yelahanka, alleges that approximately 300 houses were razed on December 20, 2025, in a manner that violated principles of natural justice and ignored Supreme Court guidelines on evictions.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Pooncha heard the matter and recorded the state government’s submission that it had identified three temporary rehabilitation sites for displaced residents. The government informed the court that food, water, and medical facilities were being provided at these locations. Considering these measures, the bench did not find it appropriate to grant any interim relief to the petitioners at this stage and scheduled the next hearing for January 22, 2026.

PIL Claims and Allegations

The petitioners, represented by legal counsel, argued that the December demolition drive resulted in the illegal eviction of families who had resided in the area for decades. They contended that the authorities conducted the operation without prior notice, denying residents the opportunity to be heard, and thereby violated fundamental rights as well as established Supreme Court guidelines on eviction procedures.

The PIL sought several remedies, including a direction for a survey to identify all affected residents, compensation for the allegedly unlawful demolitions, and relocation of displaced families within a five-kilometre radius from their original homes. The petitioners also requested that any relief measures or rehabilitation plans should have been implemented before the demolition, rather than after the fact.

State Government’s Stand

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appeared for the Karnataka government and contended that the Supreme Court’s guidelines on evictions did not apply to this case because the land belonged to the government. He stated that the illegal constructions in the area had adversely affected groundwater levels, necessitating their removal to protect the city’s ecological and civic interests.

Shetty informed the court that the government had earmarked three sites for temporary rehabilitation of affected residents. He assured that food, water, and medical assistance were being provided. The bench recorded this submission and noted that the state’s relief measures included “food and other amenities, including water, along with medical facilities.”

The advocate general also disputed claims that residents had lived in the area for decades and offered to produce satellite imagery to establish when the structures were built. He reiterated that the demolitions were carried out on government land and that aid and temporary housing were being provided purely on humanitarian grounds.

Court Directions

The High Court directed the state to file a detailed response within one week. The petitioners were granted liberty to submit a rejoinder within one week after the government files its response. While declining to grant interim relief at this stage, the bench carefully recorded the state’s assurances regarding rehabilitation measures and amenities for displaced residents.

Political and Administrative Context

The demolition drive in Bengaluru drew public and political attention last month, particularly due to the displacement of long-standing residents. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had announced that displaced families would receive housing and financial aid following public outcry over the manner in which the Greater Bengaluru Authority carried out the drive. The CM emphasized that the relief was being provided on humanitarian grounds and reiterated that the demolished structures were illegal.

Officials from the Bengaluru civic administration and the state government maintained that the exercise aimed to reclaim encroached government land, safeguard groundwater, and prevent environmental degradation. However, the lack of prior notice and immediate rehabilitation raised concerns among the affected communities and prompted the filing of the PIL.

Residents’ Concerns

Petitioners highlighted the human impact of the demolition, stressing that families were forced to vacate without warning, leaving them in a precarious situation. Many residents expressed anxiety about displacement, lack of permanent housing, and the disruption of daily life. Advocates for the petitioners argued that legal safeguards, including notice and the right to be heard, are fundamental to protecting citizens from arbitrary administrative actions.

Way Forward

The Karnataka High Court’s next hearing on January 22, 2026, is expected to delve into the government’s detailed response, including evidence regarding the legality of the demolitions and the adequacy of temporary rehabilitation measures. The court may also examine whether the displaced residents are entitled to additional remedies, including permanent housing, compensation, or relocation within proximity to their original neighbourhoods.

This case highlights the delicate balance between civic governance, environmental considerations, and the protection of residents’ rights. As urban development and reclamation drives accelerate in Bengaluru and other rapidly growing cities, the legal and administrative frameworks for eviction and rehabilitation continue to be tested. The PIL and ongoing court proceedings underscore the need for transparent and humane approaches to urban planning and land management, especially in densely populated residential areas.