Additional Advocate General Prathima Honnapur, appearing for the government, said the authorities had not allotted the disputed land to any individual and had not issued title deeds. She also told the court that several residents had refused to move to rehabilitation centres and were attempting to rebuild huts on the cleared site. According to the government, documents submitted by six residents were examined under Section 94CC and found to be not genuine. Documents submitted by another eight residents, it said, related to different parcels of land and not the area cleared during the demolition. The government further maintained that there were no permanent houses on the disputed land and that only hut-like structures had been removed during the eviction.