Deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar on Tuesday dismissed opposition allegations that the government was favouring minorities in its approach to clearing encroachments, insisting that no land or benefits would be handed over to illegal occupants and warning that officials who enabled unlawful settlements would face strict consequences.Speaking to reporters, Shivakumar said the administration’s policy on encroachments was uniform and anchored in law, not identity or political considerations. He underlined that public land belonged to the state and citizens collectively, and that any occupation without authorisation would be dealt with through established legal processes. The deputy chief minister rejected suggestions that selective enforcement was being applied, arguing that such claims were aimed at polarising public opinion rather than addressing the core issue of land governance.
The remarks came amid a sharp political exchange after opposition leaders accused the government of shielding certain groups during eviction drives and regularisation exercises. They alleged that decisions taken by local authorities had the effect of protecting encroachments in specific localities, while action elsewhere was swift. Shivakumar countered that the narrative ignored court orders, revenue records and the complexity of long-standing disputes over land use.
He said the government had directed district administrations to prepare updated surveys of encroached land, drawing on satellite imagery, revenue maps and municipal records. According to him, these surveys would form the basis for action, ensuring that decisions were evidence-based rather than discretionary. He added that eviction notices would be issued only after due verification, and affected parties would be given the opportunity to present documents or seek legal remedies.
At the same time, Shivakumar signalled a tougher stance against those within the system who facilitated illegal occupations. He said preliminary inquiries had pointed to collusion involving local officials, intermediaries and, in some cases, elected representatives. “Encroachments do not happen overnight. They are enabled,” he said, adding that accountability would extend beyond occupants to those who abused their authority or ignored violations.
Land administration experts note that encroachment has been a persistent challenge across urban and peri-urban areas, driven by rapid migration, housing shortages and weak enforcement. Public land earmarked for lakes, stormwater drains, roads and civic amenities has often been occupied over decades, complicating eviction efforts. Courts have repeatedly stressed the need to protect such land, particularly water bodies, given their role in flood control and environmental balance.
Shivakumar’s comments reflect an attempt to balance enforcement with legal caution. He acknowledged that abrupt demolitions could lead to humanitarian concerns and prolonged litigation, but said the answer lay in transparent procedures rather than political selectivity. The government, he said, was exploring technology-led monitoring and time-bound action plans to prevent fresh encroachments even as older cases were resolved.
The political context remains charged. Opposition parties have framed the issue as one of fairness and equal treatment, accusing the ruling establishment of using encroachment drives selectively to target critics while sparing supportive constituencies. They have demanded the release of ward-wise data on evictions and regularisations to allow public scrutiny. Some leaders have also sought legislative oversight to ensure uniformity.
Within the government, officials argue that policy decisions are constrained by court rulings and statutory frameworks. Regularisation schemes, they say, apply only in narrowly defined circumstances and are subject to eligibility criteria, fees and compliance checks. Shivakumar reiterated that there would be no “gifting” of land, a phrase he used to underline that the state would not legitimise illegal occupation through political fiat.