In a fall-out of an order passed by the Bombay High Court in a litigation between her and the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) in November last year, Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut has decided to unconditionally withdraw her suit against the BMC in the Bombay High Court over a 2018 demolition notice issued to her for certain alleged irregularities at her bungalow at Khar in north-west Mumbai.
In a submission made through her lawyer advocate Birendra Saraf before the high court, the actress said that she would withdraw her case within the next four days unconditionally and she would apply for regularisation of alleged illegal portions in her structure within four weeks.
Allowing the Kangana to withdraw the appeal, a HC single-judge bench Judge Justice Prithviraj K Chavan said “The appellant (Kangana) is permitted to apply for regularisation before the BMC within a period of four weeks”. He said that the BMC shall decide the same expeditiously and in accordance with the law.
The Judge also ruled that no coercive action be taken by the BMC till it considers and decides on the actress’ regularisation application and for two weeks thereafter to enable her to appeal in case of an adverse order on her regularisation application.
He said this case which the actress is planning to withdraw relates to her property in Orchid Breeze building at Khar in which the BMC had served a demolition notice in 2018 for certain unauthorised constructions.
In 2018, the BMC had served a demolition notice to Kangana for various unauthorized construction in the premises, which involved merging three apartments on the 5th floor, constructing more than permissible limits, and availing 50 per cent or area of the uninhabited floor space.
The Dindoshi civil court on December 22, 2020, dismissed a notice of motion filed by Ranaut against a 2018 BMC notice for alleged violation and irregularities at her Khar bungalow. The civil court had, however, extended interim protection against coercive action for another six weeks to enable her to file an appeal before the high court.
While quashing and setting aside the latest notice dated September 7 2020 and the subsequent oral demolition order, the HC bench had on November 27, 2020 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.
The HC bench said that in the event of Kangana filing an application for regularisation of any unauthorised but demolished portion of her bungalow making an application to the BMC, the BMC would decide on the application within four weeks of the receipt of the application/plan.
In its ruling on the much-discussed on the Kangana demolition case, the HC bench had held the action by the Shiv Sena-ruled BMC as “ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and highhanded and mala fide” and said that the BMC had “ignored” its statutory provisions and guidelines of the Courts as well as of its own circulars and the said action is an abuse of power and authority. “The Petitioner therefore is fully justified in approaching this Court for redressal of her grievances and the protection of her rights,” the judges observed.
On the issue of allowing Kangana to reconstruct the demolished portion, the HC bench said: “As regards allowing the Petitioner to reconstruct demolished portions of the property, we record that though parties have taken contrary positions about the authorized or unauthorized offending portions, we have not been shown any material to justify either of the contentions. We have, accordingly no occasion to decide one way or the other”
“We must accordingly leave the parties to their positions in law. If, and to the extent the demolished portions were originally created / constructed in accordance with law, that is to say, either as tenantable repairs for which no permission of MCGM was required, or simply matters of interior decoration and work for which no planning permission is required, or were authorized having regard to the approved plans, the Petitioner shall be within her rights to reconstruct the same,” the judges said.
“In case they (Kangana) require a planning permission and none exists, the Petitioner may apply for such permissions and the MCGM shall be bound to deal with such application in accordance with law,” the judges noted.
It may be recalled that on September 9, the demolition squad of the BMC pulled down a portion of Kangana Raut’s bungalow at Bandra in north-west Mumbai, which housed the office of her film production company, Manikarnika Films Pvt Ltd.
By the time Bombay High Court stayed the demolition of the process of Kangana’s bungalow, the BMC employees – who had come armed with big drill machines, hammers, sledgehammers and crowbars and a JCB machine – pulled down the allegedly illegal portions involving at the bungalow.
The BMC, which had served a notice on the actress on September 7 about the alleged “illegal” constructions at the bungalow, followed it up with demolition on September 9 after rejecting the reply provided by the actress’ lawyers and pasting a response at the door of Kangana’s bungalow.
On the portion that has not been demolished by the BMC, the high court said: “As regards the area, which is not demolished by the MCGM, if the MCGM proposes to take any action, it may issue a notice giving 7 days time to the Petitioner to respond to / comply with the same. .... the Petitioner shall also be at liberty to make an application seeking regularization of the works already carried out but not demolished under section 53 (3) of the MRTP Act, 1966”.
“In case any such application is made no further steps in response to the notice shall be taken by the MCGM before disposal of such application and a copy of the order provided to the Petitioner as well as her Advocate,” the judges had ruled.