On Monday, the Bombay High Court reserved its order on actor Kangana Ranaut’s petition seeking compensation for damages for the demolition of his bungalow in Mumbai by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation last month.
The actress had also alleged that the demolition was a counterattack to the tweets exchanged between her and Shiv Sena’s main spokesperson, Sanjay Raut, after their criticism of the Maharashtra government and the Mumbai police.
The Mumbai civic body and Raut had refuted the actor’s claims, arguing that the demolition was carried out after 14 unauthorized additions and alterations were detected in the bungalow that did not conform to sanctioned plans in the bungalow on 5 May. September.
On Monday, advocates for all parties informed the bench of judges’ division SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla that they had submitted written submissions in accordance with the court’s instructions on September 25. The briefs elaborated the arguments submitted by the respective parties during the hearing that began on September 9.
After Kangana Ranaut approached the court, he ordered to suspend any further demolition exercises at the actor’s Pali Hill bungalow. It also allowed the actress to amend his petition since the previous one was not presented in the proper format and was incomplete.
In the amended petition, he requested not only a stay on the demolition, but also Rs 2 million compensation for the damage caused to the bungalow.
The lead attorney, the actor’s Dr. Birendra Saraf, had argued that the demolition was illegal as she was only given 24 hours to respond to the work stoppage notice issued by the designated officer on September 8 and, although she had responded to the notice, the civic authority ignored and went ahead with the demolition. Dr. Saraf had claimed that the demolition was premeditated and undertaken at Raut’s urging.
Dr. Saraf had also alleged that the invocation of section 354 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act by the civic body was not valid as there was no ongoing work on the bungalow except for the Waterproofing and the alterations and additions claimed by the BMC were completed in January.
However, BMC Senior Advisers Aspi Chinoy and Joel Carlos refuted the allegations, claiming that the Sept. 5 detection and Sept. 7 inspection had revealed that work was underway to complete the illegal alteration and addition made by the actor. They also argued that since the actor had not shown any permission to do the same, the BMC was justified in demolishing the structure and was notified 24 hours in advance.
The BMC also denied that the demolition was at Raut’s urging, claiming that the Sept. 5 detection took place at 1 p.m. and the Twitter feud between the actor and Raut began at 5 p.m.
Raut, in his affidavit filed through attorney Pradeep Thorat, refuted the actor’s accusation that he was behind the demolition. Although he admitted that he had referred to the actor in a television interview, he did not abuse her, but only meant that she was dishonest as she spoke out against Mumbai and Maharashtra.
Lead counsel Anil Sakhare for Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation District H West designated official Bhagyawant Late had alleged that the plaintiff’s allegation of malice was unfounded and that claims for compensation could not be addressed in the writ. He said the actor has the option to sue for claims.
After listening to all parties, the court had observed that the BMC had shown exceptional speed in the execution of the demolition and, had it been so efficient in other cases, Mumbai would have been very different. The court then asked all parties to present their arguments in writing. After receiving the written submissions Monday, the court said the order was reserved.
.
