Followed protocol in Nuh demolitions: Haryana govt in HC

The district administration demolished 1,208 buildings and other structures spread across 72.1 acres

Due procedure was followed while demolishing structures in Nuh district and the state government did not adopt a “pick and choose policy” based on the caste or religion of the property owners, the Haryana government submitted to the Punjab and Hayana high court on Friday.

Officials said that more properties owned by Muslims were among those razed by the administration since their proportion in the population is higher. (Parveen Kumar/HT)

Submitting a report on the demolitions that were carried out days after communal violence in Nuh, the state government said that 443 structures were razed in Nuh. The report was submitted in response to a suo motu petition initiated by the high court on August 7 after properties, mostly owned by the Muslims, were demolished by the administration.

The government asserted that at least 30% of the properties razed were owned by Hindus.

After the hearing, Haryana additional advocate general Deepak Sabherwal told reporters that more properties owned by Muslims were among those razed by the administration since their proportion in the population is higher. “The ratio of properties demolished that were owned by Hindus to those belonging to Hindus is 70:30. There was no intention of the state to give data on religious lines. It was done since the court apprehended ethnic cleansing,” he said.

HT reported on August 10 that the district administration demolished 1,208 buildings and other structures spread across 72.1 acres.The drive went on for five days and was halted on August 7, when the high court intervened and asked the state government if the administration was was indulging in “ethnic cleansing” given the one-sidedness of the demolitions before staying them.

The state government tried to submit the report during the hearing before the bench of chief justice RS Jha on Friday. However, the court adjourned the matter and directed the government to file it with the court registry. The government also said that prior notices were served to the occupants -- a claim disputed by several property owners as reported by HT.