The state on Sunday requested a one-day extension, until 4 p.m. Monday, for filing its position regarding the Migron controversy with the High Court of Justice.The request for an extension said that the state had only received all of the information it needed to finalize its legal brief on Sunday and that it needed an additional day to incorporate the new material into its brief. It is anticipated that the state will seek a 90-day delay for removing the Migron buildings, while still demanding that the residents leave by August 28.Previously, the High Court ordered the state to remove the buildings, holding that that they were built without permits what the state has classified as private Palestinian land.Migron residents initially said they had purchased some of the lots and that other portions of the outpost could be reclassified as abandoned property. The court did not uphold those claims.In July, Migron residents petitioned the court against the evacuation, claiming they had repurchased a portion of the outpost on which the homes are located.Initially, the state told the court that there was no reason to remove those homes if the court upheld the repurchase claim.But the Ministerial Settlements Committee amended that response earlier this month, after Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein found its initial stance to be legally problematic.According to a source in the committee’s meeting, the purchase claim involves three tracts of land, which the committee has referred as sections 2, 10, 23.Section 2 is completely surrounded by Palestinian property and can only be accessed through that property. In section 23, settlers were only able to buy 25 percent of the property.The committee therefore decided not to ask the court to amend its rulings regarding either tract of land. With respect to the third tract, section 10, however, it agreed to ask the court for a 90-day delay.Migron spokesman Itai Chemo said in response to the decision by the Ministerial Settlements Committee that it was clear that the land had been purchased. He said the actions of the State Attorney’s Office in pushing to destroy the outpost stemmed not from the pursuit of justice, but from a “lust for destruction.”Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report.