Updated: November 27, 2020 12:01:00 pm
Actor Kangana Ranaut and Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut in this combined photo.
In relief to actor Kangana Ranaut, the Bombay High Court on Friday struck down and overturned the Sept. 9 order issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) ordering the demolition of the alleged alterations made to his Bandra office.
A bench in the division of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla said Ranaut was allowed to take steps to make the bungalow habitable. However, the extension of the demolished part requires a planning permit, which can be obtained from BMC.
This means that Ranaut cannot do anything contrary to the sanctioned plan, and for the non-demolished portions it can seek regularization.
“The BMC order acted out of legal malice. There is material in the allegations that smells like malafide and was made to cause substantial losses. We would be perfectly justified in ordering compensation against the respondents, ”said the bank, referring to photographs of the premises and other materials produced earlier.
The court appointed an appraiser to determine the monetary damages caused to the plaintiff and issue an appropriate order on compensation.
“We do not accept the accusations made by the petitioner (Ranaut) in view of the alleged atmosphere in the state or the film industry. The petitioner is suggested to maintain moderation on public platforms. It is better to ignore the irresponsible statements made by the citizen, ”said the bank.
“We made it clear that this court does not approve unauthorized construction … we do not approve any statement made by the petitioner,” he said.
The court added: “Whatever your statements, no action can be within the four angles of the law. The manner in which the action was carried out leaves no doubt that it was against the law and was “sinister”. BMC has done it without taking into account the rights of the citizen ”.
The court ruled on Ranaut’s petition, in which, seeking to declare the BMC’s action ‘illegal’, the actor had said that the civic body had rushed the demolition process for ‘hidden reasons’, due to its Criticism of the Maharashtra government and Mumbai Police.
The BMC, on September 7, issued a “ work stoppage ” notice to Ranaut for alleged illegal construction through renovation and finishing work under section 354 (A) of the Municipal Corporation Act of Mumbai (MMC), to stop work in progress within the premises and produce the illegal construction permit. The BMC, on September 8, posted the notice in the Bandra office of Kanagana Ranaut. He had given the actor 24 hours to submit a reply with documentary evidence. In his response to the ad, Ranaut accused BMC of trespassing on his property and making false claims.
The notice had indicated that during the inspection of the bungalow on September 5 by a Mukadam (supervisor) and another inspection by the BMC executive engineer on September 7, it was found that there were 14 unauthorized alterations and additions to the bungalow contrary to plan construction sanctioned, and it was carried out without permission of the BMC duty officer in question.
On the morning of September 9, after BMC began the demolition work, Ranaut urgently approached the HC through the defender Rizwan Siddiquee against the action of the civic body.
Through an urgent hearing, which began at 12:30 p.m. the same day, the Superior Court suspended the demolition. “If BMC acted similarly quickly on the numerous unauthorized construction, the city would be a completely different place to live,” the HC had said at the time. It prevented BMC from undertaking further demolition work on the property until new orders were received.
On September 10, BMC, through lead attorney Aspi Chinoy and attorney Joel Carlos, said that Ranaut was making “substantial alterations” to its Bandra property “contrary to the sanctioned plan”, and that the demolition was justified and without any “malafidio”.
The BMC demolished parts of the Pali Hill property of Kangana Ranaut in Bandra.
Thereafter, on September 15, Ranaut amended his statement and requested Rs. 2 crore as damages for BMC stock. On September 18, the BMC told HC that Ranaut’s claims for compensation for the partial demolition of his Pali Hill property were “unfounded” and “false.” However, on September 21, Kangana denied BMC’s allegations.
Editorial | Offer to intimidate Kangana Ranaut remembers Sena’s bad times. It also reflects widespread sexism
On September 22, the court had asked Ranaut to name Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut and Bhagyavant Late, a designated BMC H-West district official, as parties in the case. This came after the HC noted that since it had sent a DVD with the statements made by Raut, it should have a chance to be heard, and the BMC officer can also respond to the allegations.
On September 24, HC said that he “cannot leave Kangana Ranaut’s Bandra office to remain in a partially demolished state during the monsoons,” and began to regularly listen to the actor’s request from the next day.
On September 25, the HC said it would examine whether the demolished structures in the actor’s bungalow were under construction or had existed before, after the actor’s lead attorney, Birendra Saraf, informed him that “there were no works in progress” at the installations. Saraf said that BMC’s action was bad, arbitrary and that it had “ignored all provisions of the law.”
The court sought to learn why the BMC had invoked Section 354 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporations Act (MMC), related to the issuance of a “work stoppage” notice for ongoing construction or other work. on a site, and not Section 351 which refers to “unauthorized work completed” but prescribes giving sufficient notice to the property owner to file a response.
To this, the BMC had alleged that work was indeed being done on the Ranaut property during the detection and inspection on September 5 and 7, respectively, and therefore the civic authority was justified in considering it as a continuation of the alterations and additions. made in the past. and invoking Section 354 (A) of the MMC Act. Chinoy had also denied that the demolition was at Raut’s behest.
When the HC asked Ranaut to substantiate her claims that Raut had abused her, Saraf showed a clip of an interview with Raut on a television channel, where he was heard using foul language, which Saraf said was referring to Ranaut.
Raut did not mention Ranaut’s name when he used the expletive to describe a “girl,” his defense attorney Pradeep Thorat told the HC on September 28, after the court asked him to clarify whether his client had used an abusive word. against the actor. .
BMC officials at Kangana Ranaut’s office.
However, on September 29, the HC said that while it did not agree with actor Kangana Ranaut’s tweets against the Mumbai state government and police, Raut should have shown “grace” and restraint in responding to him.
The observations were made by the court after the court examined Raut’s affidavit in which he admitted that the expletive he used in an interview with a television channel was directed at Ranaut.
Lead attorney Anil Sakhare, who appeared as BMC’s designated official, said Ranaut had made vague allegations and did not have a case on the merits. He added that by not being able to prove the case on facts or laws, he alleged bad faith and tried to divert the attention of the court.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
