Denial of allegations of illegal demolition of private property in the state after violent protests over statements about the Prophetgovernment of Uttar Pradesh told the Supreme Court this action was “carried out by the Kanpur Development Authority and the Prayagraj Development Authority in strict accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1972” and “had nothing to do with the riots”.
In an application filed in response to Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind statement With regard to the demolition, the state government stated: “The Complainant attempted to cast a bad faith connotation on legitimate action taken by local development agencies in accordance with statutory procedure by picking cherries from lopsided media reports of several incidents. and the extrapolation of sweeping accusations of the same against the State… The same appears to be completely false and misleading. Said demolitions were carried out by local development authorities, which are statutory autonomous bodies independent of the public administration, in accordance with the law, as part of their routine fight against unauthorized / illegal constructions in accordance with the “Act of 1972”.
Regarding the two demolitions in Kanpur, the UP government said that the owners of the houses “admitted” illegal actions during the construction.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind cited statements by some government officials to support her accusation that the demolition targets were those allegedly involved in the protests.
In response, the UP government stated that it “strongly objects to the applicant’s attempt to name the highest constitutional officials of the state and falsely present … the lawful actions of the local development authority, strictly in accordance with the Law, as “additional legal punitive measures” against the accused persons, directed against what any particular religious community. All such claims are absolutely false and are categorically rejected.”
“In regards to taking action against individuals accused of rioting, the state government is taking strict action against them under a completely different set of laws,” reads the post, which lists CRPC, IPC, UP Gangster and Anti Social Activity (Prevention) 1986 d., Public Property Damage Prevention Act and Uttar Pradesh Public and Private Property Indemnity Act 2020.
Listing specific cases, the affidavit states that in the case of Ishtiaq Ahmed in Kanpur, “commercial construction work was carried out on the basement, first, second and third floors of a building in a residential area of about 130 square meters. contrary to the plan approved for the building on 07/06/2016.
According to the affidavit, Ishtiaq Ahmed was given advance notice on 17 August 2020 to stop construction and to appear for a hearing on 28 August. But neither he nor his representative showed up for the hearing, after which “several notices” were sent. and the property was sealed. The seal was broken, after which FIR was filed.
“Construction … was carried out on the site in violation of the two-story residential development scheme approved by the developer. Commercial construction was also carried out in accordance with the approved residential map, ”the report said, adding that the demolition notice was sent on April 19 this year, which gives the owner of the house 15 days to demolish the unauthorized structure. Because he did not comply, parts of the structure were demolished on June 11, the sworn letter said.
In a statement filed on June 17, Ishtiaq Ahmed’s son, Iftikar Ahmed, said that “the non-compoundable part of the structure will be demolished by the dependent himself … Thus, the offense of illegal construction was recognized by the developer himself,” the report says. affidavit.
In the case of Riyaz Ahmed in Kanpur, the affidavit states, he performed the work of installing a gas station “without any authorization or approval from the authorities.” The notice was sent on 18 February, followed by a notice on 23 February scheduling a hearing for 8 March. However, since he did not appear at the hearing, the premises were ordered to be sealed, and on April 20 a demolition order was issued. Subsequently, part of the boundary wall under construction was dismantled on June 11, the sworn letter said.
After that, on June 17, Riyaz Ahmed filed an application for compounding the construction, along with an affidavit “in which the owner acknowledged the illegality and violation of the rules in the building,” the report said.
“Thus, an examination of the above facts shows that the two cases of demolition of unauthorized illegal structures in Kanpur by the Kanpur Development Authority on June 11 were part of an ongoing campaign to demolish encroachment and illegal structures and had nothing to do with the riots, as falsely claimed. the applicant. The Complainant deliberately confused the true facts to paint a nefarious picture of alleged bad faith actions on the part of the administration, and this too without any facts being stated in the affidavit,” the state government said.
The state government said that in the case of Javed Mohammed in Prayagraj, the lawsuit for “illegal construction without any sanctions … (and) unauthorized use of residential land as an office was initiated before the riots broke out.”
“There was a marble plaque on the boundary wall of the building saying ‘Javed M’ and above the boundary there was a sign saying ‘Welfare Party of India’ which had the name of Mr. Javed Mohammed, State General. Secretary, it was written, ”the letter says under oath.
The Prayagraj Development Authority has received several complaints from residents of the area “regarding the unauthorized use of an office in a residential area, as well as illegal construction and encroachment on said property,” the report said.
On May 10, a formal notice was issued, and on May 24, a personal hearing was scheduled. “They tried to deliver the notice personally to the premises; however, the server reported that although family members were present at the scene, they refused to accept the notice,” the sworn letter reads, after which the notice was pasted on the wall of the building.
Neither Javed Mohammed nor his representative showed up for the hearing and was asked to demolish the unauthorized structure within 15 days, by June 9, the report said.
“Only after proper maintenance and proper opportunity in accordance with the Law, the illegal structure was demolished by the Prayagraj Development Authority on June 12 following due process, and this had nothing to do with the riot incident,” the report said. .
The state government urged the court to “arbitrarily award conditions to the applicant for these false statements” and to dismiss the application.