Kogilu Layout Demolition | 'As Per Photos Not Even 1 Person Has Gone': Karnataka HC Questions Claim On Lack Of Facilities At Rehab Centres

While hearing a plea for rehabilitation of families displaced by 2025 demolition drive in Kogilu Layout, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday orally said that the Amicus Curiae's report, photographs of rehabilitation centre showed that it is a "clean building" and that "not even one person [out of the displaced] has gone" to seek refuge there.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by former residents of Wasim Colony and Fakir Colony, whose hutments were demolished on December 20, 2025 by the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) for construction of a solid waste management plant.

As per the previous court order, Advocate B.V. Vidyulatha the amicus curiae in the matter had submitted a voluminous final report about the rehabilitation status of the families affected by the demolition drive.

When the petitioners' counsel contended that the total occupancy of these centres does not even cross 100 in numbers, and that basic amenities are lacking, the court enquired if anyone has gone to the centre.

It further orally noted: "Not even one person has gone… this is all fictional”. 

However, the counsel for the petitioners informed the court that 12 affected parties had already visited the facilities on January 10, which is on the record of BBMP. According to the petitioners, the building only had one washroom; the respondent assured the visitors that e-toilets would be placed by the time of their shifting.

“…For the rehabilitation of those people affected by respondents….the people who visited, there was no food available and they were sent to Indira canteen. People who visited there had no confidence on the temporary rehabilitation centres… since it's a monsoon season, people's life and liberty will be at stake.”, the counsel argued.

It was argued that this raises the question of how temporary the arrangements are for the displaced and what would be the next step taken by the respondents. 

At this stage the court orally said, "…Look at the state of that building. Amicus Curiae has given photographs… it's a clean building. So you are saying that there are some persons who will suffer because of monsoon? If there is any emergent position, you can go there… If anybody faces any problems, let them contact the amicus. She will escalate…”.

The State meanwhile submitted that it is the petitioners who were not inclined to the rehabilitation facilities or alternative arrangement.

After hearing the matter for some time, the court listed the matter on July 13. The court also asked the State to file its response to a connected plea . 

Previously the Karnataka government had informed the High Court that it had demarcated four areas where residents of Wasim Colony and Fakir Colony of Kogilu Layout could temporarily relocate. It was then submitted that the residents relocated to these areas would be provided with adequate food and other amenities.

Consequently, on February 4, the State placed on record a detailed affidavit indicating that temporary arrangements were made for accommodating 167 persons whose hutments were demolished. However, the petitioners' counsel expressed their dissatisfaction about the numbers by pointing out that there are more than 800 affected individuals.

About the aspect of providing in-situ rehabilitation, the State had previously submitted that it was practically impossible due to the storage of harmful effluents in the disputed area.

On February 4, Advocate B.V. Vidyulatha was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. 

The petitions filed by former residents of the colonies seek to declare that the demolition carried out without notice is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Supreme Court guidelines in In Re-Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.

The plea also seeks adequate rehabilitation to all affected persons of Fakir Colony and Wasim Colony, in accordance with the precedents in Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Sulia. In turn, the residents also pray for a direction to the State for carrying out a survey to identify all affected persons and their eligibility for rehabilitation.

Additionally, the writ petition also seeks restitution and compensation for the illegal demolition of their homes by the officials.

Case Title: Zaiba Tabassum & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others and Smt. Rabiya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 39814/2025 & WP 1458/2026