Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court is currently hearing an important matter concerning the rehabilitation and welfare of hundreds of families displaced following a large-scale demolition drive carried out in Kogilu Layout, Bengaluru, in December 2025. The proceedings arise from a batch of writ petitions, namely Zaiba Tabassum & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others and Smt. Rabiya & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, in which former residents of Wasim Colony and Fakir Colony have challenged the legality of the demolition of their homes and sought rehabilitation, compensation, and restoration of their rights.
The case has brought into focus the recurring tension between urban development projects and the constitutional rights of economically vulnerable residents who often reside in informal settlements. The demolition was undertaken by the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) on December 20, 2025, purportedly to facilitate the establishment of a solid waste management plant. According to the affected residents, the demolition was carried out without adequate notice and in violation of legal safeguards evolved by constitutional courts for protecting persons facing eviction from informal settlements.
The matter is being heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha. During the latest hearing on June 9, 2026, the Court examined the final report submitted by Advocate B.V. Vidyulatha, who had earlier been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The report dealt extensively with the status of rehabilitation measures undertaken by the State Government and local authorities for the affected families.
The dispute has broader legal significance because it touches upon constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, particularly the right to life with dignity, the right to shelter, and the obligations of the State while carrying out eviction and rehabilitation exercises. The petitioners have relied heavily upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures as well as the Delhi High Court’s landmark decision in Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Sulia, which recognized the importance of rehabilitation before displacement of vulnerable communities.
Following the demolition, the State Government informed the Court that temporary rehabilitation facilities had been arranged and that affected persons could relocate to designated accommodation centres where food and other basic amenities would be provided. However, the petitioners consistently maintained that the facilities were inadequate and incapable of accommodating the actual number of displaced persons.
The latest hearing therefore focused not only on the legality of the demolition itself but also on the practical effectiveness of the rehabilitation measures proposed by the authorities. The Court was required to assess competing narratives regarding the condition of the rehabilitation centres and the extent to which displaced families had either accepted or rejected the temporary arrangements made available to them.
The proceedings have become an important test of how courts balance developmental objectives, environmental concerns, public infrastructure projects, and the rights of displaced communities in rapidly urbanising cities.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners, comprising former residents of Wasim Colony and Fakir Colony, challenged both the demolition process and the subsequent rehabilitation arrangements. Their primary grievance is that the demolition of their homes was undertaken without adequate notice, consultation, or compliance with constitutional and judicial safeguards governing eviction and displacement.
According to the petitioners, the demolition exercise rendered hundreds of families homeless and exposed them to severe hardship. They contend that the authorities failed to conduct a comprehensive survey identifying all affected persons and did not formulate a meaningful rehabilitation plan before carrying out the demolition.
The petitioners have sought declarations that the demolition was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court concerning demolitions and forced evictions. They further seek directions requiring the State to identify all displaced persons, assess their eligibility for rehabilitation, and provide suitable housing in accordance with established legal precedents.
A central aspect of the petitioners’ argument relates to the inadequacy of the temporary rehabilitation facilities. During the hearing, counsel appearing for the displaced residents disputed the State’s claims regarding the availability and suitability of the accommodation centres.
The petitioners argued that the actual occupancy levels at the rehabilitation centres were extremely low and did not reflect acceptance of the facilities by the affected community. They submitted that the total number of persons accommodated at the centres did not even approach one hundred individuals, despite the demolition affecting a substantially larger population.
When the Court questioned whether displaced persons had actually visited the centres, counsel for the petitioners pointed out that at least twelve affected persons had inspected the facilities on January 10, and that this fact was reflected in official records maintained by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
According to the petitioners, those who visited the centres found several shortcomings. It was argued that there were inadequate sanitation facilities, including only a single washroom at the relevant location. The authorities allegedly assured visitors that additional e-toilets would be installed before any large-scale relocation took place.
The petitioners further submitted that essential services were lacking. Counsel argued that food was not readily available at the rehabilitation centres and that visitors were directed to nearby Indira Canteens for meals. Such circumstances, according to the petitioners, undermined confidence in the temporary arrangements and raised serious concerns regarding their suitability for vulnerable families, including women, children, and elderly residents.
Particular emphasis was placed on the onset of the monsoon season. The petitioners contended that failure to provide effective rehabilitation would expose displaced persons to significant risks affecting their life, safety, and dignity. They argued that the Court must look beyond the mere existence of structures and examine whether the facilities genuinely satisfy the requirements of humane rehabilitation.
The petitioners also questioned the temporary nature of the arrangements and sought clarity regarding the long-term rehabilitation strategy. According to them, the State had not adequately explained how long the displaced residents would remain in temporary shelters or when permanent rehabilitation measures would be implemented.
On the other hand, the State Government and its agencies defended the rehabilitation efforts undertaken following the demolition. The State maintained that substantial arrangements had been made to accommodate affected persons and that designated relocation centres had been identified and prepared for occupation.
The Government pointed out that four separate locations had been earmarked for temporary accommodation of displaced residents. It further submitted that food, shelter, and basic amenities were being provided to persons willing to relocate to those centres.
The State also referred to its earlier affidavit placed before the Court, wherein it had stated that accommodation had been arranged for 167 persons whose dwellings were affected by the demolition drive. According to the authorities, the rehabilitation measures reflected genuine efforts to address the needs of displaced families within the constraints imposed by the circumstances.
An important aspect of the State’s position was that many displaced persons had not chosen to utilise the available facilities. During the hearing, the State suggested that the reluctance to relocate stemmed not from inadequacies in the rehabilitation centres but from the petitioners’ unwillingness to accept the alternative arrangements offered by the authorities.
The State also reiterated its earlier stand regarding in-situ rehabilitation. According to the authorities, the area in question was earmarked for activities involving storage and treatment of harmful waste and effluents. Consequently, permitting residential occupation at the same location was neither feasible nor safe from a public health perspective.
The State therefore maintained that temporary relocation and subsequent rehabilitation measures represented the most practical solution available under the circumstances.
Court’s Judgment:
At the present stage, the Karnataka High Court has not delivered a final judgment on the legality of the demolition or the adequacy of rehabilitation measures. However, the observations made during the latest hearing provide important insight into the Court’s assessment of the competing claims advanced by the parties.
A significant feature of the proceedings was the Court’s consideration of the final report submitted by Advocate B.V. Vidyulatha, who had been appointed as Amicus Curiae earlier in the case. The appointment of an amicus reflected the Court’s recognition that the dispute involved complex factual and humanitarian issues requiring independent assessment.
The report reportedly contained detailed findings regarding the rehabilitation process and was accompanied by photographs depicting the condition of the temporary accommodation facilities.
While hearing the matter, the Division Bench expressed concern regarding the apparent discrepancy between the petitioners’ criticism of the rehabilitation centres and the evidence gathered by the Amicus Curiae. Referring to the report and accompanying photographs, the Court orally observed that the buildings appeared to be clean and maintained.
The Bench specifically questioned the petitioners’ assertion that the rehabilitation facilities were inadequate by noting that, according to the available information, very few displaced persons had actually chosen to occupy the centres.
One of the Court’s most notable oral observations was its remark that “not even one person has gone” to seek refuge in the facilities and that some of the allegations appeared inconsistent with the material placed before the Court. The observation reflected judicial concern regarding whether the criticisms of the rehabilitation centres were supported by actual utilisation and firsthand experience.
At the same time, the Court did not completely disregard the concerns raised by the petitioners. When counsel highlighted the difficulties allegedly experienced by individuals who visited the centres, the Bench acknowledged that practical issues could arise and indicated that any emergent concerns should be promptly brought to attention.
The Court specifically referred to the role of the Amicus Curiae and observed that affected persons facing genuine difficulties could approach the amicus, who would then escalate the issues before the appropriate authorities or the Court itself.
This aspect of the proceedings demonstrates the Court’s attempt to establish a practical monitoring mechanism rather than merely relying upon competing allegations made by the parties.
The Bench also appeared mindful of the broader humanitarian dimensions of the dispute. While expressing skepticism regarding certain allegations, the Court did not dismiss the rehabilitation concerns outright. Instead, it sought to distinguish between unsupported assertions and genuine grievances capable of verification.
The proceedings further highlight the Court’s continuing effort to balance competing considerations. On one side lies the State’s responsibility to undertake infrastructure and waste-management projects in the public interest. On the other lies the constitutional obligation to ensure that vulnerable citizens are not rendered homeless or deprived of basic dignity during the course of such projects.
The Court’s earlier appointment of an independent Amicus Curiae, its repeated monitoring of rehabilitation efforts, and its insistence on detailed reports indicate a commitment to ensuring that displacement does not occur without corresponding protective measures.
Importantly, the Court has not yet adjudicated the principal legal issues raised in the writ petitions. Questions concerning the legality of the demolition, compliance with Supreme Court guidelines, entitlement to compensation, and the scope of rehabilitation obligations remain pending for determination.
The petitioners continue to seek declarations that the demolition was unconstitutional and contrary to established judicial precedents. They also seek comprehensive rehabilitation and restitution measures. The State, meanwhile, maintains that it has acted within the bounds of law and has undertaken reasonable efforts to assist displaced families.
Recognising that several factual and legal issues remain unresolved, the Division Bench refrained from passing any final directions at this stage. Instead, after hearing submissions from all sides, the Court adjourned the matter for further consideration and listed it for hearing on July 13, 2026.
The forthcoming proceedings are likely to focus on a closer examination of the rehabilitation process, the adequacy of temporary and permanent housing measures, and the extent to which constitutional and judicial safeguards were observed during the demolition exercise.
The case thus remains an important example of judicial scrutiny of displacement-related actions undertaken in the course of urban development projects. Its eventual outcome is expected to contribute significantly to the evolving jurisprudence concerning housing rights, rehabilitation obligations, and the protection of vulnerable communities facing eviction in India’s rapidly expanding urban centres.