Bengaluru: The high court Wednesday sought a comprehensive affidavit on the last month’s demolition drive in Yelahanka’s Kogilu village as the state govt disputed the claim made by the affected residents that they were living in the demolished area for the past 28 years.A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha, posted the public interest litigation (PIL) on the issue, filed by Zaiba Tabassum and three others, for the next hearing on Jan 22.
The state advocate general, Shashikiran Shetty, appearing in the court on behalf of the state govt and other authorities, submitted that the claim made on behalf of the petitioners was “factually incorrect”. According to him, satellite images were available to show when each of the houses in illegal settlements – Waseem Layout and Fakir Colony of the village – was built on the govt land. He added the Supreme Court’s decision relied upon by the petitioners, vis-a-vis following due process of law in the process of demolition/eviction, was not applicable to this case, as the land in question was basically govt land, ie, a quarry site, used by the the erstwhile BBMP (now GBA) as a landfill site for dumping rubbish.The advocate general also submitted that the authorities had identified three alternative sites for providing temporary accommodation to the residents displaced by the demolition drive. At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that 3,000 displaced persons from the 300 families needed food and blankets. Responding to it, the advocate general said food was being provided through Indira Canteen and assured that other amenities would also be provided. Petitioners’ contention According to the petitioners, the Dec 20 demolition drive violated the guidelines issued by the SC last year, wherein it had clearly specified that no demolition should be undertaken without issuing prior show-cause notice. They added the affected persons were living there for about 30 years and were deprived of shelter and livelihood, thereby violating their right to life under Article 21.The demolition had caused irreparable loss of educational materials, textbooks, notebooks, school uniforms, and hall tickets belonging to over 300 students, thereby, infringing their constitutional rights, the petitioners said, as they sought rehabilitation at the same site or, in the alternative, within 5km from the place to enable them to continue their livelihood. The petitioners also sought reconstruction of the demolished houses and provision of adequate compensation to affected families/persons.
