The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on a plea by hardliner Kashmiri separatist and Dukhtaran-e-Millat chief Asiya Andrabi challenging the agency's decision to seize her Srinagar house..A Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal has also sought NIA's response on a similar appeal by Andrabi's alleged accomplice, Sofi Fehmeeda, challenging the seizure of her car. The matter will now be considered on September 28. .Andrabi is the chief of Dukhtaran-e-Millat, a banned terrorist organisation that advocates the secession of Jammu & Kashmir from India through violent means. Fehmeeda is also a part of this group.Andrabi has been booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.The NIA had passed orders for the seizure of Andrabi's house and Fehmeeda's car in 2019. It was alleged that these properties are proceeds of terrorism and were used for furtherance of terrorist activity. The NIA's attachment orders directing seizure of their house and car is considered to be the first such attachment of separatist property in Kashmir..Andrabi and Fehmeeda had first approached the designated authority challenging the attachment, and then the Patiala House Court, but their representation and appeals were dismissed. They have now challenged the Patiala House Court's order before the High Court. The petition has been filed through advocate Shariq Iqbal. .In her plea, Andrabi has said that the Special Judge at the Patiala House Courts, while sitting in appeal, has not decided the illegalities of the order challenged, but has given his own opinion about why the house should have been seized.She added that the Special Judge has wrongly concluded that because she gave an interview in her house, it can be treated as her office. The act of giving an interview does not come under the ambit of terrorist activity, the plea stated. "That the interpretation of the Special Judge sitting in appeal that giving an interview in the house would tantamount to an act of terrorism is completely devoid of merit because it was not the Appellant who had called the media persons at her home to take the interview but rather it was the media persons who had gone to her home to take the interviews... So it cannot be said that the appellant was using her house to spread terrorism," the plea said. .Fehmeeda has stated that the judge has wrongly decided that the act of using a car for travelling is a terrorist activity. "It is submitted that not every activity by a Proscribed Organization can be termed as a Terrorist Activity or a banned activity. The Special Judge without proof has presumed that the car was used in furtherance of terrorist activities when there is no evidence to that effect," the plea stated.