The purpose of using section 354A of the BMC Act (aimed at illegal construction in progress) was “more sinister” and “mainly to avoid a legal recourse being taken for … preventive action,” the HC said.
Ranuat had filed a petition challenging as “illegal” the demolition carried out by BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on parts of his bungalow in Pali Hill, Bandra, alleging unauthorized construction in progress. He said that he had completed the renovations earlier and alleged “abuse of power” and “bad faith action” by the BMC-ruled Shiv Sena.
The HC court of judges SJ Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla who delivered their ruling said that “we submitted photographs and said that they are all existing works.” We make it clear that this court does not approve unauthorized construction … we do not approve any statement made by the petitioner … of the atmosphere in the state. You better hold back … ”
The HC said: “It is better to ignore irresponsible statements, however unpleasant they may be.” It said: “Whatever the madness of an individual … no action against such an individual by anyone, much less by the state … must lie.”
“We believe that the material before us is a solid case of ‘malice of fact’, we refrain from making a statement, since we have discovered that there is ‘malice of law,’ ” the judges said reading parts of the Trial.
The demolition notice of September 7 and the demolition order of September 9 are annulled and annulled by the HC.
He is allowed to make his bungalow habitable again and also to make a request to BMC to carry out the restoration of the demolished work, but according to the sanctioned plan and BMC has to decide within a week, if he makes such a request, he said. . the BMC. For parts not demolished, BMC can still take action by issuing a notice under section 351 of the Act that provides seven days for a response.
The HC said that the plaintiff can also submit a request for regularization for any part if necessary.
The HC said that since the demolition was illegal, their claim for compensation is allowed.
HC appointed appraisers to assess the damages and allow the HC to quantify the compensation and award the damages. The exercise can be done in 3 months.
On November 3, the HC had received written submissions and reserved the matter for trial.
The civic body had said that the actress was “ making vague and unsubstantiated allegations of malafides only to obfuscate and cover up the fact that she has been blatantly and illegally performing work ” and, while seeking the dismissal of her petition, added that Even if the court rules that a 24-hour notice should not have been invoked under section 354A of the BMC Act since the work was ‘not in progress’, Ranaut should not be able to rebuild the demolished parts.
Ranaut said that Shiv Sena ruled that BMC gave him only a 24-hour notice to deny him the opportunity to obtain legal remedies and violated his fundamental rights. Her plea was that her social media posts had not gone well with the party and therefore she was attacked and her bungalow
BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) said its claim for damages of Rs 2 crore cannot be considered by the HC under its power to ensure fair justice, as it raised “controversial factual issues”.
In their submissions, the BMC through lead advocates Aspi Chinoy, AY Sakhare and advocate Joel Carlos said, although he denied in his reply affidavit that the alteration work was ongoing on September 5 and 7, “it did not indicate when the illegal additions and alterations were carried out and completed “.
The BMC case was that it “illegally” built “a toilet and pantry in the parking area on the ground floor, two toilets in the open dining room on the first floor with brick masonry and several partition walls to create additional rooms.”
BMC said it was “in fact seeking to use the public controversy created by its statements … to cover up the fact that it illegally carried out substantial modifications and additions to the Bungalow contrary to the Construction Plan.”
In her written submissions made through lead attorney Birendra Saraf and advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, the actress said structural work on her bungalow was completed in May 2019 and received permission from her society last August, at the request of the president of the Chetak Housing Cooperative Society. to carry out renovation and waterproofing works. Renovation work was completed in January 2020 and your bungalow was also featured in magazine articles in April-May.
On 9 September, the HC had criticized the BMC and, in directing the immediate suspension of the demolition, said its conduct “smelled of bad faith.”
Ranaut’s allegation was that the BMC took “inconsistent allegations and tried to improvise his case” since the hearing advanced with the rights from September 10 when he first presented an affidavit until September 2 with his “contrary position to various documents ”. While he first said ‘the detection report was prepared on September 5’ ‘by the Mukadam, he later said that’ he had taken note of these facts’ and BMC ‘never submitted the detection report of September 5’ and he offered no explanation. Far from why the online record shows detection on September 7 and some other “discrepancies”.
Timeline in HC
- September 9: A few hours after a civic squad arrived on her property, actress Kangana Ranaut requested an urgent hearing before the Bombay High Court against the allegedly “illegal and in bad faith” demolition of an allegedly unauthorized construction in her Bandra bungalow.
- The HC court of Judges SJ Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla ordered an immediate suspension, found it to be prima facie “malafide”.
- September 10: Lead attorney Aspi Chinoy and BMC attorney Joel Carlos submitted to the HC that Ranaut had been carrying out “substantial alterations contrary to the sanctioned plan.” They said the demolition was without malice and justified.
- September 15: Ranaut amended his statement and requested Rs 2 crore as damages for the “illegal” civic action.
- September 18: BMC in its response said that its claim for compensation was “unfounded” and “false
- September 21: Ranaut filed another affidavit denying BMC’s allegations. He presented a DVD of statements made by Shiv Sena’s deputy Sanjay Raut against him.
- September 22: The HC asked Ranaut to add as parties to its petition, Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut, and Bhagyavant Late, a designated official (district officer) from the H-West district who approved the demolition.
- September 24: “I cannot leave the Bandra office of Kangana Ranaut to remain in a partially demolished state during the monsoons,” said HC and released the matter for hearing on September 25.
- September 25: The actor’s lawyers said construction was not in progress; HC said it will examine whether the demolished structures had existed before.
- Chinoy said the detection was made on Sept. 5 when work was underway and the demolition was not at Raut’s request.
- September 28: Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut did not mention actor Kangana Ranaut’s name when he used an expletive to describe a “girl,” his defense attorney Pradeep Thorat reported to the HC on September 28, after the The court asked him to clarify whether his client had used an abusive word against the actor.
.
