[Prayagraj Demolition] Plea Filed in Allahabad High Court By Activist’s Wife Claims Act of Demolition as Illegal, Discriminatory Against the Rule of Law.
(Judicial Quest News Service)
Praveen Fatima Argued the authorities acted extremely unfairly and completed the entire exercise within two days by allegedly mentioning previous dates in the notice dated 10.06.2022.
A plea was filed before Allahabad High Court by the Praveen Fatima wife of the activits Javeed Mohammed, accused in the Prayagraj violence case, against the decision of the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to demolish their house. [Praveen Fatima V State of UP]
The Allahabad High Court sought the reply of the UP Government and PDA on the plea.
The bench of Justices Anjani Kumar Mishra and Syed Waiz Miyan issued notices to the UP Govt and PDA and sought their reply and posted the matter for further hearing on June 30.
In this case earlier Justice Sunita Agarqwal had recused herself from hearing the case, pursuant to which, the matter was listed for hearing.
In her plea, Fatima, the wife of accused Javeed Mohammed, has averred that the land of the house was gifted to her by her father through a registered Sale Deed dated 13.06.1996 from a land developer. In pursuance of aforesaid Sale Deed, the name of Petitioner No.1 was duly mutated in the aforesaid land and name of the Petitioner No.1 was duly recorded in the Khatauni. Upon the said land, a two storied building was constructed which was used for the residential purpose.
She has further stated that the house was demolished without issuing any notice to her.
Mohammed Javeed a leader of the Welfare Party of India and the father of activist Afreen Fatima had been named a key conspirator by the Uttar Pradesh police alleging that he had given a call for the controversial statements of BJP leader on the Prophet Mohammed
The house was demolished on June, 12.
In her plea Praveen Fatima had stated that authorities did not even inquire about ownership of the house and targeted demolition only because of alleged mention of name of Javed Mohammad in the FIR. This fact also shows that the real reason was not violation of any law but the so-called stone pelting. The Petitioners also submit that clearly a minority community i.e. Muslim has been targeted by doing this illegal act.
It was further contended that the notice was pasted on the front wall of the house by the local authorities on the night of June 11, when the house was locked as she and her husband were arrested and detained.
The authorities could not issue a notice for demolition in the name of Mohammed Javeed, since he was not even the owner of the house, Fatima has stated.
The petition also reveals details of the notice issued by the authorities on June 10. In this notice, it was stated that the authorities had sent Mohammed a notice under section 27(1), of the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973 on May 10 this year. The date of hearing was fixed on May 24, but no one had appeared, the authorities claimed in the notice. Thereafter the authorities passed an order to demolish the house on May 25 and same was purportedly pasted on the house with the expectation that Mohammed would demolish the house himself by June, 9.
The petitioner, however, contended that neither she nor her husband was served any such notices.
That it is relevant to mention that, no notices of 10.05.2022, 25.05.2022 and 10.06.2022 were ever served on the owner of the house, Parveen Fatima. These notices were also not served on Javed Mohammad or any other member of his family.
It was claimed that the June,10 notice was back dated and prepared in connivance with the district administration to justify the demolition of the house.
The plea goes on to state that the reason for demolition given by the authorities was shocking, as it negated the rule of the law as well as the constitution. It was stressed that one’s house could not be demolished after a trial, let alone based on an allegation.
This is some extra constitutional authority usurped by the executive openly defying in particular the judicial institution. There is no law which permits demolition by bulldozers. In certain municipal laws, where demolition has been provided, a procedure in compliance with natural justice has been given by acknowledging that right to property is a legal and constitutional right.
Fatima has further said in her petition that there was no FIR or arrest warrant against Parveen Fatima (Petitioner No.1) and Sumaiya Fatima (Petitioner No.2) and they were taken to the police station in the mid night in gross violation of constitutional provisions, law and the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K Basu Vs UOI (supra). Their arrest and detention were wholly illegal, in violation of the provisions of CrPC and also Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
On the above mentioned grounds the petitioner prayed for government accommodation to be arranged for herself and family, reconstruction of her house, compensation for the loss of property, reputation and illegal detention, as well as disciplinary action against the officers responsible for the alleged illegal demolition.
The petitioner is being represented by Advocates KK Roy, Rajvendra Singh and Mohammed Saeed Siddique.
Last week the Uttar Pradesh government defended the demolitions stating that they were carried out by the local development authority which is an autonomous body from the State government.
Specifically regarding the demolition of the house of Javed Mohammed, the state submitted that the construction was in “violation of Pryagraj Development Authority rules” and that proceedings were initiated much “ earlier than the riots” which took place after the remark on the prophet by now suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma.
