The Karnataka high court on Wednesday asked the state government to file a detailed response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against a recent demolition drive in Bengaluru, with affected residents alleging that around 300 houses were razed last month without prior notice.
A bench of chief justice Vibhu Bakhru and justice CM Pooncha, however, refused to grant any interim relief after the state submitted that it has identified three locations for the temporary rehabilitation of the displaced residents and that food, water, and medical facilities were being provided to those affected by the demolition drive. Taking the submission on record, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 22.
The PIL, filed by residents of Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony in the Yelahanka area in Bengaluru, alleged that a demolition drive was undertaken on December 20 and resulted in the illegal eviction of families that had lived in the area for decades.
Appearing for the state, advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that the Supreme Court guidelines cited by the petitioners did not apply to the present case, as the land in question belonged to the government.
The law officer submitted that the constructions at Kogilu Layout had “adversely affected groundwater” and its removal was, therefore, necessary.
The bench orally observed, that even if the specific Supreme Court judgment cited by the petitioners did not apply, “there would be other judgments and there needs to be some procedure followed while carrying out demolition,” noting the residents’ claim that they had lived at the site for over 28 years.
In response, Shetty disputed the duration of occupation, telling the court, “This statement made is factually incorrect. I have satellite images to show when each house has come up,” according to LiveLaw
Shetty further informed the court that the government had already earmarked three areas to temporarily relocate the affected residents. When the bench sought clarity on immediate relief measures, the advocate general assured that the relocated residents were receiving food, water, and medical assistance.
The court directed the state to place a detailed response on record within a week while granting liberty to the petitioners to file a rejoinder to the state’s response.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners pressed for interim relief, arguing that the rehabilitation measures cited by the state should have been in place “before the demolition.” He added that the authorities gave no notice to the residents.