The Karnataka High Court has taken up a public interest litigation challenging a large‑scale demolition drive carried out in the Wasim Colony and Fakir Colony areas of Kogilu Layout in north Bengaluru, where numerous houses were razed by authorities in late 2025. Petitioners, who described themselves as former residents of the colonies, sought a declaration that the demolition was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, asserting that it violated established guidelines on demolition of structures and fundamental rights. They argued that the houses had been standing for decades and that the demolition, which reduced living spaces of hundreds of families and displaced thousands of people, was conducted without issuing prior notice or adhering to the principles of natural justice, including the requirement of a hearing before action affecting one’s residence.
The petition was heard by a division bench of the High Court comprising the Chief Justice and another judge, with the Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka to defend the actions of the government agencies. The Advocate General informed the High Court that the State had demarcated three areas where residents affected by the demolition could relocate on a temporary basis, and that food and other basic amenities would be provided to them at those sites. The State contended that the land in question was government land, formerly a quarry and later a water tank, and that what had grown there were unauthorised structures which were contaminating groundwater and violating land‑use norms. The Advocate General also submitted that since the land was government property and had not been regularised for residential use, the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines invoked by the petitioners did not strictly apply in the present situation.
During the hearing, the High Court acknowledged the submissions on behalf of the State but observed that even if the Supreme Court guidelines might not bind in the exact manner argued, other judicial precedents require a fair and transparent procedure to be followed prior to demolition, especially when it affects people’s homes and livelihood. The bench noted the petitioners’ allegation that they had been residing in the area for over 28 years, and the Advocate General responded by pointing to satellite images which, he said, would show when individual houses had been constructed. The High Court asked the petitioners’ counsel to clarify the relief sought, including immediate needs such as food and shelter for the displaced families, and considered the State’s assurances about relocation while recording the parties’ contentions.
The petitioners’ counsel reiterated that no notices were issued prior to the demolition, depriving the residents of an opportunity to contest the action or make arrangements in advance, and that basic principles of audi alteram partem had been ignored. They emphasised that many of the affected families were now homeless and required urgent interim relief, such as provision of blankets, food and interim shelter, pending a full hearing on the legality of the demolition. In response, the High Court recorded the State’s statement regarding provision of temporary relocation areas and services, but observed that the question of whether in‑situ rehabilitation or redevelopment should be allowed could not be resolved at that stage. Instead, the court directed that a detailed response to the petition be filed by the respondents, including a comprehensive affidavit addressing the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the demolition.
The High Court did not immediately grant the interim relief sought by the petitioners, but by recording the State’s assurances about temporary relocation, it afforded some procedural recognition of the displaced families’ immediate needs. The bench issued notice in the writ petition and listed the matter for further hearing, directing the State to file its detailed reply within a stipulated time. The next hearing was scheduled for later in January, with the petitioners also being granted liberty to file a rejoinder to the State’s response.
The litigation reflects an ongoing dispute over the legality and procedural fairness of the demolition drive in the Kogilu Layout area, where authorities reportedly cleared around 300 houses affecting approximately 3,000 people. Affected residents and activists have protested the action, alleging that it was carried out without prior notice and without adequate rehabilitation measures in place. The State, on the other hand, has justified the demolitions on grounds of illegal construction on government land and environmental concerns, and has promised temporary relocation and assistance. The High Court’s involvement centres on determining whether the demolition was carried out in accordance with legal requirements and whether the petitioners are entitled to interim and substantive relief on the grounds of procedural and constitutional violations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.