Prayagraj Development Authority defends demolition of accused Javed's house
Prayagraj Development Authority has said that Javed’s house was demolished as it was illegal construction, reports IANS.
- Prayagraj Development Authority has said that Javed’s house was demolished as it was illegal construction.
- The house, which is registered in the name of Javed`s wife Parveen Fatima, was demolished two days after June 10 protests.
- This has triggered accusations that it was a targeted act in which due procedure was not followed.
Stung by criticism over the demolition of the house of Javed Mohammad, the alleged ‘mastermind’ of the June 10 violence in Prayagraj, the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) has said that the house was demolished as it was built against the provisions of the UP State Planning and Development Rules of 1973 and was illegal construction. The house, which is registered in the name of Javed`s wife Parveen Fatima, was demolished two days after a June 10 protest against objectionable comments made by now-suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma against Prophet Muhammad turned violent.
This has triggered accusations that it was a targeted act in which due procedure was not followed.
In a statement, the PDA said that on May 4, 2022, some residents of J.K. Ashiana Colony, Kareli, complained that a two-storey building had been constructed by Javed without getting building plans approved by the development authority and that he was running the Welfare Party of India office there.
"People would visit the office at odd hours and were parking vehicles illegally all over the road which was creating problems for residents. Some anti-social elements were also visiting the party office which was spoiling the environment of the colony. Running an office in a residential area was leading to problems for the residents and the development authority was also facing losses since the plan was not approved. Therefore, an appeal was made to get the building investigated and take legal action," the note said.
The PDA statement further said that on the basis of the complaint, a site inspection was carried out where it was found that no setback had been left in the building, which was on a corner plot, and that it had been constructed on additional land.