The Uttar Pradesh government, in its counter affidavit filed by sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) Yuvraj Singh, has maintained that the demolition of Javed Mohammad's house was in accordance with the law and is not connected to the violence in Prayagraj on 10 June.
Javed Mohammad, allegedly the main conspirator in the violence in Prayagraj on 10 June following protests over inflammatory remarks by BJP leader Nupur Sharma, was arrested on 14 June.
Two days after the arrest, his house in the Kareli area in the city was demolished by Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA), citing the construction of the two-storied building without the sanction of the map.
Parveen Fatima, the wife of Javed Mohammad, has now moved to Allahabad High Court through a writ petition claiming the demolition of her house to be illegal.
In the petition, she prayed the court to direct the administration to arrange a government accommodation for her and her family till the reconstruction of her house and a direction be issued to PDA to reconstruct the illegally demolished house.
She has also pled to the court for compensation for the loss of property through demolition and loss of reputation.
UP Government Says Demolition Not Illegal
Parveen Fatima, in her writ petition, claimed she is the owner of the house, and the land was gifted to her by her father through a registered sell deed dated 13 June 1996 from a land developer.
Bulldozer being used to demolish the 'illegally constructed' residence of Javed Mohammad.
(Photo: PTI)
However, the government's counter-affidavit claimed the house was used as a party office and not for residential purposes.
"Javed Mohammed was residing in the same house, which is apparent from the nameplate affixed on the building as well as signboard of the party office which was being run by Javed Mohammed. Thus, the building was not being used for residential purposes but it was the office of welfare party of India of which Javed Mohammed was the state secretary which is apparent from the perusal of sign board affixed on the building," the counter-affidavit read.
Further, to prove her ownership, in her petition, Parveen Fatima claimed that the electricity bill, house tax, and water tax were deposited in her name. She also produced a receipt of the same.
Replying to the claim, the government, in its counter-affidavit, said, "merely by paying the house tax, water tax and electricity bill it cannot be said the building was owned by the said person, who has paid the aforesaid tax and bills. As a matter of fact, in the register of Nagar Nigam Prayagraj, name of Petitioner No 1 (Parveen Fatima) is mentioned in the column of occupier and not as the owner of the building."
Local Complainants
The counter-affidavit also put on record the complaint allegedly by locals in the Kareli area where Parveen's house was situated.
"Some complaints were made by the residence of Kareli to the Prayagraj Development Authority in respect of unauthorised office use in a residential area as well as illegal construction and encroachment. A complaint dated 04.05.2022 was made by the residents of the area in which it was stated that the construction was done without a sanction map from the development authority and the premises was being used commercially by the Welfare Party of India in the contravention of land uses norms," an excerpt in the counter affidavit read.
Copy of the complaint lodged.
(Source: Piyush Rai/ The Quint)
The complaint sent to Nodal officer, Prayagraj has "all respected presidents of the locality" as the complainant and is undersigned by three people- Sarfaraz, Noor Alam, and Mohammad Azam.
Petition Claims Demolition Notice Fabricated
Parveen Fatima maintained that neither she nor any other family member was served any notice prior to 11 June 2022 and that the letter dated 10 May 2022 and 25 May 2022 has no existence and that they are manufactured documents.
Demolition notice dated 10 May 2022.
(Source: Piyush Rai/ The Quint)
Demolition notice dated 25 May 2022.
(Source: Piyush Rai/ The Quint)
The government, in its counter-affidavit, claimed Javed's family refused to take notice and the demolition orders, which were issued in the month of May.
"Demolition order was attempted to be delivered in person at the premises but again the family members who were present refused to take the notice and the demolition order dated 25.05.2022 and the letter 25.05.022 was served in accordance with section 43 (1)(D)(2) of the Act 1973 by pasting it on the wall of the building," an excerpt in the counter affidavit read.
The government, in its reply, has also attached the show cause notice issued to Javed Mohammed by Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA), on 10 May 2022, and a demolition order issued by the same PDA officer on 25 May.
'Government Reply a Bundle of Lies': Lawyer
Lawyer KK Rai, appearing for Parveen Fatima, has called the government's reply through the counter affidavit a bundle of lies.
"We can call the 44-45 page reply as bundle of lies. They have shamelessly claimed that based on the complaint of residents of locality, a probe found that the house was illegal. There are three names as the complainant in the letter but there is no address or mobile number," Rai said while speaking to the local media in Prayagraj.
Rai, citing the high court division bench judgment, claimed the demolition could be carried out only after the expiry of the appeal period, which is one month from the date of issue of the demolition order. It was not followed in this case.
Rai also alleged that PDA has fabricated the notices and demolition order and will produce the evidence for the same in reply to the counter affidavit.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)