Kangana Ranaut committed serious violations of the sanctioned plan by consolidating three apartments and covering floor space index (FSI) free areas in habitable areas for his residence in Khar, the civil court of the city of Dindoshi observed when rejecting the petition of the plaintiff of interim restriction on Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from taking any action to demolish all modifications.
“I find that the plaintiff (Ranaut) owning three apartments turned these three units into one,” said the city’s civil court judge, LS Chavan, while rejecting Ranaut’s guilty plea on December 17.
“She has covered the sunken area, the conduit area, the common passage at her own convenience and included the free FSI area in the living area. They are the serious violation of the sanctioned plan for which the permission of the Competent Authority is required, ”added the judge in his order that was made available on December 28.
Also Read: Ex-CM Fadnavis Says Maharashtra DGP Faced State Government Interference
FSI, or Land Area Ratio (FAR), is the maximum area that can be built on a piece of land.
The actor has filed a lawsuit in the city’s civil court challenging a notice issued by BMC under section 53 (1) of the MRTP Act and three orders approved by the Competent Officer of the H / West neighborhood, in May, September and December. 2018. The directive was to remove additions and modifications made to his residence, the fifth floor of the Orchid Breeze building in Khar West, and restore the three separate apartments to their original condition, in accordance with plans sanctioned by the civic body.
Ranaut had filed a request in the lawsuit for an interim injunction against BMC, preventing the civic body from taking any action pursuant to the notice under section 53 (1).
Attorney Rizwan Siddiquee argued on her behalf that the notice and warrants were vague and did not specify the exact nature and description of the alleged unauthorized construction that took place at the facility and the schedule attached to the notice, although they also lacked of details such as plans and measurements.
Attorney Dharmesh Vyas, who represented BMC, objected to the statement. He pointed out to the court that before issuing the notice and approving the orders, a civic deputy engineer had inspected the actor’s residence and outlined eight specific violations, such as consolidating the three residential units on the fifth floor of the building, converting and covering FSI. -Free areas such as common passage to the exterior of the floors, EF and sunken planters, and conversion of chhajjas (horizontal slabs that cover windows) in closed balconies.
Vyas also noted that there are no specific fire ducts in the building, as the 16-story structure is open from all four sides. “However, all sides are covered by the plaintiff (Ranaut) at her own convenience, which can pose a serious threat to the lives of other members of society in the event of any mishap,” added Vyas.
The court accepted the arguments presented on behalf of BMC. In addition, the court also examined the floor plan attached to the March 8, 2013 copies of the deeds of sale and noted that at the time of purchase, the violations alleged by BMC did not exist. “Thus, it is clarified that the plaintiff has made all these changes after sanctioning the final occupation plan,” the court concluded.
By refusing to accept various electricity bills submitted on behalf of the plaintiff as evidence of the authorization of the additions and modifications, the court held that the plaintiff had not shown the authorization of the notification structure. “It also failed to show that the challenged notice and the orders approved by the Designated Officer are bad at law. Therefore, she is not entitled to an injunction against the accused. “
.
