https://www.salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/advertisment/1756994003_header_Screenshot 2025-09-04 182836.png

Karnataka HC says Kogilu evictees’ concerns about rehab centre “fictional”

Residents told the HC the demolition violated SC rules and rendered families homeless.

Agencies

https://www.salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/newsimages/maannewsimage09062026_214700_maannewsimage19042026_172212_378694-karnataka-hc.webp
  • Residents said the rehabilitation centre is far from Kogilu and lacks basic amenities (PTI)

Bengaluru, 9 June


A Karnataka High Court bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha on Tuesday said concerns raised by residents of Yelahanka's Kogilu Layout about the quality of the rehabilitation centre provided by the state after their houses were demolished were "fictional".


The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by residents of the Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony who said that the 20 December, 2025 demolition drive in the area violated Supreme Court guidelines and left those who had lived there for decades homeless. They asked for a survey of, and compensation for, affected residents, Bar and Bench reported.


Their counsel added that the centre is too far away from Kogilu Layout, could barely house 100 people, and does not have proper washrooms. The counsel further added that the court’s amicus curiae, BV Vidyulatha, 's interviews with residents who had actually used the centre will show further issues.


The bench said that photographs of the centre did not show them being used by residents, though it had a capacity to house around 130 people. It also added that many mattresses were available and that it "is a clean building”.


The bench added that it may not be "feasible" to find such a centre closer to Kogilu Layout, and claiming that people will suffer in the monsoon and will have no place to go, doesn't seem to be incorrect.  It added that they could raise further grievances with Vidyulatha.


The State's Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, however, argued that the top court's guidelines are not applicable here as it concerns government land, and that food and healthcare have been provided to the evicted residents at the centres. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *