The Allahabad High Court today sought the reply of the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) on the plea moved by the wife of the Prayagraj Violence (June 10) accused Javed Mohammad against the demolition of their house by the district administration and PDA on June 12.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Waiz Mian issued notices to the UP Govt and PDA and sought their reply by tomorrow and has posted the matter for further hearing on June 30.
Earlier, on Monday Justice Sunita Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court had recused herself from hearing this case, pursuant to which, the matter was listed for hearing today before another bench.
About the plea
In her plea, Fatima, the wife of accused Javed Mohammad, has averred that the demolished house was in her name and was gifted to her by her father and she had all the valid documents in connection with the now-demolished house, however, she has stated, that the house was demolished without giving them any notice.
For the uninitiated, the Prayagraj Local authorities had demolished the home of Javed Mohammad, a leader of the Welfare Party of India and the father of activist Afreen Fatima on June 12.
Javed Mohammad had been named as a key conspirator by the Uttar Pradesh police alleging that he had given a call for the protest (in Prayagraj) against the controversial statements of BJP leader on the Prophet Mohammad.
He was arrested on June 10 and thereafter, his wife and daughter were also detained, however, they were released subsequently. Further, on June 11 a notice was given by the Municipal Authorities stating that the house in question shall be demolished and they should vacate the house. Consequently, on June 12, the house was demolished completely.
In her plea, Fatima has stated that the allegation of the Prayagraj Development Authority that the map of the house had not been sanctioned and as such the construction was illegal, isn't true.
In fact, she has contended that they had no occasion to reply to this allegation as they did not receive any notice. She also stressed that she had been regularly paying all the house tax, water tax, and electricity bills of the house and at no juncture, any objection was raised by the departments.
Raising questions over the way her house was demolished, she has stated in her plea thus:
"Petitioner No.1's husband – Javed Mohammad has been mentioned in the FIR, the authorities issue notice for demolition in his name when he is not the owner of the house. This act of the authorities shows that they 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. Muslims has been targeted by doing this illegal act."
Against this backdrop, the plea prays for the following directions to the respondents:
- Arrange a Government Accommodation for the Petitioner No. 1 and her family till the reconstruction of her house;
- To reconstruct the illegally demolished house of the Petitioner No. 1;
- To pay compensation to the Petitioners for the loss of property through demolition and loss of reputation;
- To take departmental and disciplinary action against the persons/officers responsible for the illegal demolition of the house of the Petitioner No. 1.
Case title - Parveen Fatima And Another v. State Of U P And 5 Others