Uttar Pradesh: Accused, kin get notices for demolition over June 10 violence

Last week, a local court issued non-bailable warrant (NBW) against AIMIM’s Prayagraj unit president Shah Alam (58) on an application moved by police. Shah Alam’s house is located next to his elder brother Syed Maqsood Ahmed in the Gausnagar area under Kareli police station.

“The house of Shah Alam and his brother are built on separate plots. But there is no boundary wall between the two plots. Since Syed Maqsood along with his family lives abroad for long, Shah Alam and his family were using the entire property. PDA issued notice to Syed Maqsood but it is indirectly to Shah Alam. We have come to know that Syed Maqsood’s son recently returned to India,” said a local resident.

At Gausnagar, The Indian Express found the houses of Syed Masood and Shah Alam were locked. The show-cause notice, issued on June 14 by PDA zonal officer Ajay Kumar, was pasted outside Syed Maqsood’s residence.

The notice asked Syed Maqsood to appear in person or through a lawyer before the zonal officer on June 29 and explain why a demolition order should not be issued against the construction.
AIMIM’s state spokeperson Mohammad Farhan said the Prayagraj police had falsely implicated their district president in the case and now the PDA issued notice to Shah Alam’s elder brother Syed Maqsood to harass the family.

PDA officials, including vice-chairman, could not be contacted for comment.

Also, the Saharanpur Development Authority (SDA) has issued notices to around 10 persons, including Mehraj and Mohammad Ali who were booked for the June 10 violence. The two are lodged in jail.

“Notices were issued to Mehraj and Mohammad Ali stating their house located at Thateri Wali Gali and Peer Wali Gali, were built in violation of the norms under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Ordinance, 1973. They were asked to file a reply on June 24 as why demolition order should not be issued against their residence,” said Babar Waseem, lawyer of the accused. “I filed a reply to the SDA against the notices issued to Mehraj and Mohammad Ali. I stated that the two are not owners of those properties,” said the lawyer.

SDA officials could not be contacted for comments.