BMC has demolished “40 percent” of the bungalow “including valuable personal property such as chandeliers, sofas, rare works of art.” She contested the “premeditated and flawed” demolition carried out by a civic squad, 24 hours after issuing a notice. She questioned the absence of any detection reports from September 5 according to the BMC. Last Thursday, her defender Rizwan Siddiquee had informed the HC that by Monday she would amend the 29-page petition hurriedly filed on Wednesday against the demolition notice. Your petition filed before midnight is now 92 pages long.
His petition seeks an order to overturn the September 7 demolition notice and the September 9 order and to “prevent” the BMC from taking further steps to implement the September 9 demolition order. The order was posted on the door of her bungalow at 10.35 am. that day, it said. She has requested interim orders to allow her “to take the necessary steps to make the bungalow fit for use.”
His attorney had sent a response on September 8 to BMC’s demolition notice under section 354A. His amended petition says that although his response was rejected at 10.35 a.m. M., BMC and the police officers “were already present outside the bungalow long before the time of the contested order. which can be proven by the petitioner’s tweet at 10:19 am on September 9, 2020. The photograph clearly shows that the officers … along with the police officers and the entire team as they were ready to demolish said Bungalow, showing that BMC always had bad intentions and ulterior motives to demolish the Bungalow and they were ready even before the Contested Order to demolish was passed. ”
He said that when Siddiquee went to the Bungalow on September 9 to give the H / W room officer a copy of his petition and said the matter was scheduled to be heard at 12.30 pm that day, the BMC officer “closed ”The bungalow from inside. “Ignoring the lawyer” and the demolition continued.
His petition now also says that although the BMC claimed that a mukadam had “detected” his “unauthorized construction on September 5 at 1 pm”, there is “no record of the report” filed with the HC. He also said that there is an “absolute contradiction” in the first inspection report that talks about “unauthorized construction / additions / alterations / amalgam works in progress” with the “handwritten inspection report that” simply records the discrepancies in the “Internal renovation, completion work in progress.” The actor has not requested restoration orders, BMC defender Joel Carlos said.
Shiv Sena ruled that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had begun the demolition of alleged unauthorized constructions of the actor’s recently renovated bungalow a few hours before his scheduled arrival in the city last Wednesday. He said it was because he had recently been in “disagreement with the Maharashtra government” regarding their views on certain issues.
A couple of hours after the demolition began, the HC in a scathing order ordered BMC to immediately halt the demolition on September 9. A bench of justices SJ Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla said that “the way BMC proceeded with the demolition … it smelled bad fide.”
The next day in court, BMC lined up with two senior advisers, Aspi Chinoy and Anil Sakhare, flatly denying any bad faith in their action against the continued “illegal additions and alterations contrary to sanctioned plans” by the actor at the facility. from your bungalow. BMC’s attorney regrets that she has not attached any sanctioned plan to her petition and this shows that she was aware that her structure was illegal and that BMC had acted against the illegal party.
The HC, postponing the matter, had given Siddiquee until September 14 to broadly amend the petition. The final hearing will be on September 22 and the HC continued the demolition suspension until then.
.
