[Prayagraj Demolition] Notice was back-dated, prepared in connivance with admin: Javed Mohammad's wife to Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court will hear on Tuesday a plea moved by the wife of activist Javed Mohammad, accused in the Prayagraj violence case, against the decision of the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to demolish their house earlier this month [Parveen Fatima v State of UP]..The case was to be heard on Monday by a Bench of Justices Sunita Agarwal and Vikram D Chauhan, who adjourned it to Tuesday..In her plea, Parveen Fatima claimed that she is owner of the house that was demolished by the authorities. She stated that no notice was ever issued to her prior to the demolition, and that the notice was, in fact, issued in her husband's name. "The Petitioner No.1 was, therefore, deprived of her constitutional rights under Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution besides violating the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act," the plea stated..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 Mohammad, 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 Mohammad a notice under Section 27(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban 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 the same was purportedly pasted on the house with the expectation that Mohammed would demolish the house himself by June 9.However, Fatima has contended that neither she nor her husband were not 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 is submitted that notices dated 10.05.022, 25.05.2022 are manufactured documents," the petition states.The June 10 notice, it was claimed, 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 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.".Fatima has alleged she and her 19-year-old daughter were arrested at around midnight, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as well as the directions of the Supreme Court in DK Basu v Union Of India. Further, the arrest was challenged as being illegal as there was no first information report (FIR) or arrest warrant issued against them..On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for government accommodation to be arranged for herself and her family, reconstruction of her house, compensation for 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 Mohd Saeed Siddiqui..Mohammad was taken into custody on the night of June 10 after violence erupted in Prayagraj during protests against remarks made against Islam by BJP leader Nupur Sharma. The police claimed that Mohammad instigated an incident where several Muslim youth pelted police officers with stones. Mohammad's wife Fatima and daughter Summaiya were also arrested and released a day later. During their detention, their house in Prayagraj was demolished by the local authorities on the ground that it was an illegal structure..The Supreme Court is seized of a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind challenging the recent demolition drive carried out on the houses of those who had allegedly participated in the protests. On June 16, the Court sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government in the plea, but did not grant any interim relief.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 Mohammad, the State submitted that the construction was in "violation of Prayagraj 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..Demolitions including house of Afreen Fatima in compliance with law: Uttar Pradesh government to Supreme Court