The Bombay High Court asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Friday if it always acts just as quickly to demolish other unauthorized structures as it did with actor Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow. The higher court has asked the civic body to explain why it did not proceed against Ranaut under the provisions of the law that would have required the corporation to give the actor enough time to answer the charges.
The bank also commented that Pradeep Thorat’s client (Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut) had indeed done what he said, a reference to the title of an article in Sena Saamana’s spokesperson ‘Ukhad diya’ (uprooted) that the action was seen linked from BMC to the Leader of the Seine. The article was published after parts of the actor’s Pali Hill bungalow were demolished on September 9.
The bench has asked the BMC to explain why it had carried out the demolition on the ground floor when there were no works in progress and has asked for details of the workers who were allegedly carrying out the renovations when the premises were inspected.
The court’s observations and instructions came after Kangana Ranaut’s attorney told the higher court that BMC had invoked section 354 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporations Act to initiate an action against the actor’s building that it relates to work in progress on a construction site. Lead attorney Birendra Saraf, who represented the plaintiff in the process, told the two-judge court that there was no work in progress on the premises when BMC staff claimed they detected the unauthorized construction on September 5 and 7.
The court has asked BMC to present the phone number of the mukadam who detected the unauthorized construction at the Kangana Ranaut bungalow on September 5 to verify whether the photographs of the alleged ongoing unauthorized alterations and additions were taken that day. It is reported that the unauthorized construction report prompted the BMC team to inspect the building on September 7.
Birender Saraf maintained that the real reason for the demolition was not the discovery of the unauthorized construction, but Kangana Ranaut’s dispute on social media with Shiv Sena’s spokesperson, Sanjay Raut, for denouncing the government.
The two-judge bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Judge RI Chagla are hearing Kangana Ranaut’s petition, initially filed to request a stay of the demolition on 9 September. She then sought compensation of Rs 2 crore for the damage to her property caused during the demolition. .
Kangana Ranaut told the superior court that she had photographic evidence to support her claim that the unauthorized alterations and additions alleged by the BMC in its notice were completed in 2019. This could be established by photographs taken in January 2020 during a pooja that was held finished. on the premises.
Birender Saraf told the judges that the actor was a person of public spirit and had taken to social media to criticize the government for its handling of various issues that led Shiv Sena’s main spokesperson, Sanjay Raut, to attack her. The lead attorney added that the demolition was carried out at Raut’s behest, as she had responded and confronted him on social media.
Ranaut’s team told the court that there were several discrepancies and contradictions in the two BMC affidavits filed on September 10 and 17 and asked the judges to get BMC to provide full details of the detection, inspection and arrest notices. of work issued, as well as any evidence that he was working on the bungalow in the first place.
Lead attorney Aspi Chinoy, who represented BMC along with attorney Joel Carlos, argued that the actor was attempting to improvise his arguments as he had not denied the unauthorized alterations and additions noted in BMC’s notice. Chinoy also said that while only two demolished toilets would have been exposed to the rains, the rest of the demolition was internal.
.
