Less than a month after the Bombay High Court quashed the demolition notice issued to Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut and dubbed the subsequent demolition of portions of her bungalow as “a clear malice in law”, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) on Wednesday summoned Mumbai Municipal Commissioner Iqbal Chahal to appear before on January 20, 2021 in connection with the much-discussed demolition.
Hearing a petition filed by Advocate Aditya Mishra against the demolition of a portion of Kanga’s Bandra Bungalow saying it as an act of “human violation”, the MSHRC admitted the petition and ordered issuance of summons to Chahal to appear on January 20 to depose before it connection with the petition.
The petitioner has relied on the order of the Bombay High Court which had on November 27 quashed the demolition notice issued by the BMC to the Bollywood actress in September this year, terming both the notice and the subsequent demolition of a portion of her Bandra Bungalow were “actuated by malafides” and they involved “a clear malice in law” and ordered compensation for her.
In his petition filed before the MSHRC, Mishra cited a Supreme Court ruling that declared the right to private property to be a human right. Quoting the apex court’s order, the petitioner said that if any act by the state or its agencies pertaining to someone’s private property was found to be illegal, then it was a violation of human rights.
“When the act of BMC is found to be illegal by the Bombay High Court, then it’s a crystal clear case of violation of human rights, which warrants the intervention of the commission,” the petitioner said.
It may be recalled that on September 9, the demolition squad of the BMC pulled down a portion of Kangana Raut’s buingalow at Bandra in north-west Mumbai, which housed the office of her film production company, Manikarnika Films Pvt Ltd.
In their order passed, a HC division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla ruled: “As we have come to a clear conclusion that the impugned notice under section 354A of the Act and the action of demolition following it, are actuated by malafides, in any event, involve a clear malice in law, causing a substantial injury to the Petitioner”.
“We would be perfectly justified on the basis of the law stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunbeam Hightech Developers (supra), to order compensation against responsible Respondents,” the judges had noted, adding that the quantum of compensation would be decided only after the preparation of an estimate by the approved valuer.
On the compensation, the judges had ruled: “Both parties, i.e. the Petitioner and the MCGM (as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation is also known) shall be heard by the valuer whilst making his report of valuation.”
“We would reserve our further Orders on such reports being submitted by the valuer. We would also pass appropriate Orders on recovery of any part of such compensation from individual officers of the MCGM when ordering for payment of such compensation,” the judges had ruled.
While quashing and setting aside the notice dated September 7 2020 and the subsequent oral demolition order, the HC bench allowed Kangana to take such steps as were required to make the said bungalow “habitable” so that the Petitioner can immediately start occupying and using the same.