New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court that the intervention applications filed by Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind, are nothing but "proxy litigation" and that owners of two partially demolished properties in Kanpur have already admitted to the illegality of construction.
The Uttar Pradesh government in an affidavit, said: "It is submitted that the present intervention applications are nothing but proxy litigation to protect illegal encroachments, and that too, not by actual affected parties, if any and respondent no. 3 state takes strong exception to the same and to the applicant's naming the state's highest constitutional functionaries and attempting to falsely label the local development authority's lawful actions as a method of collective retribution. Such allegations are absolutely false and vehemently denied."
The state government said the pleas against the demolitions were filed to mislead courts.
In June, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind had filed a plea in the Supreme Court after the administration in Prayagraj, Kanpur, and Saharanpur demolished houses of accused, who were allegedly involved in violent protests following former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma's remarks on Prophet Muhammad.
The state government said: "The two instances of demolition referred to by the applicant in the district of Saharanpur are cases of encroachment on public land and removal were strictly in accordance with law..."
The affidavit added, "The applicant in its rejoinder has failed to address the fact brought on record by the counter affidavit that the owners of the two partially removed illegal constructions in Kanpur have already admitted to the illegality of the constructions and submitted compounding applications for the same."
Jamiat's plea had sought directions that no action be taken in Kanpur against the residential or commercial property of any accused in any criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.
The Uttar Pradesh government said the Saharanpur demolitions were "lawful" and also denied the allegation that a minor boy was arrested while protesting the demolition.
"The said accused has been duly produced before the court and is being proceeded in accordance with law, and has in fact neither claimed minority nor produced any documents to show that he is minor, as alleged by the applicant...", added the affidavit, saying the applicant is only trying to sensationalise the issue.
The top court is scheduled to take up the matter later in the day.
