Demolitions in Kanpur, Prayagraj in accordance with law: UP govt informs Supreme Court
Replying to a plea by Muslim outfit Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind against the demolitions, the UP government said “the petitioner has attempted to give a malafide colour to lawful action taken by the local development authorities..."
Refuting claims that the recent “demolitions” of some private properties in Kanpur and Prayagraj were without following the due process of law, the Uttar Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court that the actions were “carried out by the Kanpur Development Authority and Prayagraj Development Authority strictly in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1972” and that they had nothing to do with the incidents of rioting.
Replying to a plea by Muslim outfit Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind against the demolitions, the UP government said “the petitioner has attempted to give a malafide colour to lawful action taken by the local development authorities as per procedure established by law by cherry-picking one-sided media reporting of a few incidents and extrapolating sleeping allegations from the same against the state”.
“The same, it is submitted, is completely false and misleading”, the reply said adding “the said demolitions…have been carried out by the Local Development Authorities, which are statutory autonomous bodies, independent of the state administration, as per law as part of their routine effort against unauthorised/illegal constructions, in accordance with” the 1972 Act.
The state said that in the case of the two demolitions in Kanpur, the builders themselves had “admitted” illegalities in the constructions in the application filed for compounding.
Jamiat had referred to some of the statements by state officials to buttress its charge that the demolition action was to target the riot accused. Countering this, the affidavit said the state “takes strong exception to the attempt by the petitioner to name the highest constitutional functionaries of the state and falsely colour and the local development authority’s lawful actions strictly complying with the…Act as “extra legal punitive measures” against accused persons targeting any particular religious community. All such allegations are absolutely false and are vehemently denied”.
The UP government urged the court to “hold the petitioner to terms for the said false allegations without basis…” and to dismiss the petition. It said that “in so far as taking action against the persons accused in rioting, the state government is taking stringent steps against them in accordance with completely different set of statutes namely” CRPC and IPC, UP Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Prevention of Public Property Damages Act and Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act, 2020.”
Explaining the action against one Ishtiaq Ahmed in Kanpur, it said, “There was commercial construction work being undertaken on the basement ground first second and third floor of the building in a residential area of about 130 square metres contrary to the plan that was sanctioned for the building on 6.7.2016”.
He was issued a show-cause notice on August 17, 2020, under the Act to stop the construction and appear for a personal hearing on August 28. But neither he nor his representative appeared for the hearing after which “several notices” duties as we sent and the property was sealed. But the seal was broken and an FIR was filed for this.
“The construction of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor and third floor was made on the site in contravention of the approved double-storey residential building map by the builder. Commercial construction was also done against the approved residential map and the projections were made in the sidestreet be completely covering all the setbacks,” the affidavit pointed out adding, therefore, a demolition notice was passed on April 19, 2022, giving 15 days time to demolish the unauthorised construction himself.
But since he failed to comply, on June 11 certain portions of the construction covering the setbacks at the site were demolished, it said.
In an application filed by Ishtiaq Ahmed’s son Iftikar Ahmed on June 17, 2022, for compounding, he said that “the non-compoundable portion of the construction will be demolished by the dependent himself”. “Thus the offence of illegal construction has been admitted by the builder himself,” the reply affidavit added.
In action against one Riyaz Ahmed in Kanpur, the UP government said he was undertaking development work for establishing a petrol pump “without any sanction or approval from the Authority”.
A stop development notice was issued on February 18, 2022. As he failed to comply, he was issued a show-cause notice on February 23 fixing a personal hearing on March 8. However, neither he nor his representative appeared for a hearing the premises was ordered to be sealed and a demolition order was passed on April 20. Subsequently, a portion of the under-construction boundary wall at the disputed site was removed by the authority on June 11.
Thereafter, Riyaz Ahmed moved an application for compounding of the construction on June 17 along with an affidavit “wherein the illegality and irregularity in the building has been admitted by the owner”, said the state.
But since he failed to comply, on June 11 certain portions of the construction covering the setbacks at the site were demolished, it said.
In an application filed by Ishtiaq Ahmed’s son Iftikar Ahmed on June 17, 2022, for compounding, he said that “the non-compoundable portion of the construction will be demolished by the dependent himself”. “Thus the offence of illegal construction has been admitted by the builder himself,” the reply affidavit added.
In action against one Riyaz Ahmed in Kanpur, the UP government said he was undertaking development work for establishing a petrol pump “without any sanction or approval from the Authority”.
A stop development notice was issued on February 18, 2022. As he failed to comply, he was issued a show-cause notice on February 23 fixing a personal hearing on March 8. However, neither he nor his representative appeared for a hearing the premises was ordered to be sealed and a demolition order was passed on April 20. Subsequently, a portion of the under-construction boundary wall at the disputed site was removed by the authority on June 11.
Thereafter, Riyaz Ahmed moved an application for compounding of the construction on June 17 along with an affidavit “wherein the illegality and irregularity in the building has been admitted by the owner”, said the state.
