Karnataka HC Asks State Govt To Come Out With Better Rehabilitation Scheme For People Illegally Evicted As Migrants

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said :

"On the face of it, the rehabilitation scheme is hurriedly drafted in as much as Clause 1 shows that state is not sure whether there is any litigation on the said land proposed to temporarily house the evicted people. Moreover, the scheme says the rehabilitation will be for a period of one year. We hope and trust that the state government will come out with a better scheme."

The direction was given during the hearing of the petition filed by People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) challenging that eviction drive of BBMP and police against alleged Bangladeshi immigrants. The petition states that action taken by the BBMP and police in the month of January was illegal and unconstitutional. The eviction drive was being undertaken on the basis of baseless rumors that Bangladeshi migrants were occupying the land. It claimed that the residents are migrants from North Karnataka, West Bengal, Assam, Tripura and Bihar, who are being victimized on the basis of their vulnerable socio-economic status.

Advocate Clifton Rozario appearing for the petitioner pointed out to the court the shortcoming of the scheme, he said "As per the scheme of rehabilitation of these families who were living in the middle of Bengaluru city will now be shifted to near Jigani which is dozens of kilometers away. Moreover, they have no claim on the dwellings. After one year they will have to leave the place.

The government said the people were evicted from private land and if at all they apply to the concerned authorities their cases would be considered under the relevant schemes. It was also urged that since the owners of the land are before the court they should be directed to pay compensation to the evicted persons.

To which the bench said:

"This is a very strange case, where everybody says they don't know who has demolished the structures. State is not able to tell us who demolished it. This is the failure of machinery of the state. On top of that, you are coming out with a rehabilitation scheme only for one year."

The court pointed out to the government that the police and BBMP had issued notice for vacating the dwelling and that is how the state came into the picture.

It said "As a state government action started with you. Why did the police have to issue the notice? Because they (evicted people) belong to a particular community?"

Rozario submitted that "Some affluent person in the area decided that they are Muslims or Bangladeshi so they should be evicted. Even assuming they are Bangaldeshis,  under the great jurisprudence of our country, there is a protection granted to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The bench said "In the city of Bengaluru the state government can't be a silent spectator to an act of throwing so many people out of the shelter. The government should go to the owners and work out some schemes. If the government would have been bonafide, it would have made an inquiry, it would have found out who is responsible behind the eviction. It is not rocket science to find out who carried out the demolition."

The court had earlier taken a prima facie view that since neither the BBMP nor the State Government undertook the demolition drive as is informed to the court it was done by anti-social elements, thus it is the responsibility of the state government to rehabilitate the affected person, as it ultimately is a violation of Article 21 of the affected persons.

The court will further hear the matter on October 9.