New Delhi: A shop owned by 61-year-old Masood Ahmed in Mahsi’s Maharajganj block in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, is among around 23 properties in the area to have received an anti-encroachment notice from the Public Works Department (PWD). The notice, dated 17 October, was posted on the front of his shop Friday evening—one day later than specified.
A majority of the structures under PWD’s scanner are commercial ones with shops on rent. Several business owners in the commercial area, who felt that the PWD’s move signals impending demolitions, have begun evacuating their businesses and roadside shops.
The PWD notices have appeared less than a week after 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra was allegedly shot dead by a group of Muslim men during a confrontation on Vijayadashami, when a Hindu procession passed through a Muslim-dominated neighborhood. The incident sparked communal tensions in Bahraich.
Among those arrested in connection with the killing is Abdul Hameed, a resident of Maharajganj block who used the outer rooms of his residence as his office.
Speaking to ThePrint, Ahmed, whose house is near Hameed’s residence, said, “The accused who had committed the crime have already been arrested. What purpose will this serve?” he asked, adding that he had purchased the property in 2016.
“My shop’s area was earlier truncated due to the 28-feet rule, but now with this 60-feet rule introduced overnight, I’ll lose my shop and an important part of my livelihood. This is nothing, but collective punishment for a crime possibly committed by one person or family,” he added.
The notices, which ThePrint spotted on multiple properties, have asked owners to prove the genuineness of their properties by furnishing permission obtained from competent authorities by Sunday, or remove them from the site. Upon failure to do so, the authorities will demolish the structures, the expenses of which will be levied on property owners themselves, the notices added.
BJP leader and Mahasi MLA Sureshwar Singh denied allegations of discrimination, stating that notices will be issued to all individuals who have violated building regulations or constructed structures on government land.
“All these people had already been served notices related to their illegal structures last year only. This is the second round of notice,” he said to ThePrint. “This action is not limited to these 23 people now. This is just the first phase. All violators will get notices in due course.”
Speaking to ThePrint, Mahasi Sub-Divisional Magistrate A.K. Singh explained that the notices were issued in accordance with PWD policies, considering the road width needed for smooth traffic flow at the tri-junction.
“This is part of the process where the PWD serves notices to property owners whose structures fall within highway areas. The department has initiated proceedings with structures near the tri-junction and will extend the process to other property owners as required,” Singh said.
ThePrint reached Anupam Kumar, Assistant Engineer of PWD in Bahraich, via calls. This report will be updated if and when a response is received.
Abdul Hameed was arrested along with his two sons—Mohammad Sarfaraz and Mohammad Faheem—after being named among the accused in the case of Mishra’s murder. Mishra was allegedly killed inside Hameed’s house.
In the FIR, Hameed, his two sons and three other Muslim men were identified by Mishra’s elder brother, Harimilan.
So far, the Bahraich district police have arrested around 88 accused in a total of 10 FIRs filed at the Hardi Police station, including the five arrested in Mishra’s murder case.
Late Sunday evening, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court put a virtual stay on any action by the PWD, extending the deadline for submission of reply by 15 days. While hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Association For Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), a bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “We have no reason to believe that the order passed by the apex court shall not be carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh in letter and spirit.”
Also read: In Varanasi, demolition drive spurs row with ‘headbutting’ official, ‘religious targeting’ claim
‘Born on this land, lived here for 40 years’
According to residents, out of the approximately 23 property owners who received the notices, four belong to Hindu families, including Moon Jaiswal and his two brothers.
The house owned by 40-year-old Moon Jaiswal stands three doors left of Abdul Hameed’s. This latest notice comes as a blow, especially after the relief Jaiswal felt just a few months earlier when local authorities had marked his roadside property as “legal.”
Jaiswal has questioned why the houses east of Hameed’s house have not received any notice from the PWD, while those on the west, the general area where the brawl took place, have been put on alert.
“Are we the only ones on the limits of the road? If this is about encroachment and removing these structures from the government land, how are we the only encroachers?” he asked, speaking to ThePrint.
Jaiswal confirmed that Hameed purchased the land from his father, Ram Prasad, to construct the house from which the alleged stone pelting occurred and where Mishra was shot dead. Regarding the Hameed family, both Jaiswal and Ahmed informed ThePrint that Hameed ran a gold trading business alongside his sons, who have also been arrested as suspects in Mishra’s murder on Sunday. Hameed’s elder son, who left home and is now settled in Nepal, also runs a gold business, Jaiswal said. His daughter is married in a family in Bahraich town and his wife, they added, left town after violence erupted Sunday evening.
Last month, hearing a clutch of petitions against razing of private properties after the owners’ names surfaced in criminal cases, the apex court had halted demolition without its nod till 1 October, when the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan reserved judgment in the case. However, the bench made an exception to unauthorised structures built on public roads, streets, footpaths, railway lines, or on public places, such as water bodies.
On 1 October, the SC extended its interim order from September staying “unauthorised” demolitions and hinted at laying down pan-India guidelines to curb such demolitions of properties of accused persons in criminal cases by state governments as a punitive measure.
Jaiswal, who runs a betel shop outside his house in Maharajganj, said his house has been built on their ancestral land. “I was born here. This land was bought by my father and was later distributed among three brothers who live as neighbours. Where shall we go if this is demolished? I neither have the money nor the will to start a life afresh somewhere else,” Jaiswal said to ThePrint Saturday.
Jaiswal’s wife, Shivpyari, was in tears as she discussed the economic situation of the family. One of their two daughters is nearing marriageable age, she said. “We have worked so hard to live our lives peacefully. Where will we go, if we don’t even have a roof over our heads?” she told ThePrint.
While speaking to ThePrint, another resident Mohammed Akram, 59, attempted to demonstrate the legality of his land by presenting documents dating back to 1992, when he purchased the property from his neighbor. With all 10 of his children having been born and raised on this land, Akram expressed his sorrow over the lack of options available to him if the house were to be demolished.
“When the PWD marked cross signs on houses in the area, we calculated that only a portion of the front would be demolished, allowing for a distance of 28-30 feet from the centre of the road,” he said. “However, with this new requirement of 60 feet from the midpoint of the road, nearly the entire width of my house would be demolished.”
This is an updated version of the report
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also read: ‘Police found no evidence, still razed our homes,’ say kin of 11 booked for cow trade in MP’s Mandla
Indian judiciary has failed the common man. Cases routinely take a decade or more to be settled. Even though one does not like the concept of bulldozer justice, there is no viable alternative.
Exemplary punishment must be meted out to these communal and criminal elements.