MUMBAI: Terming BMC’s act of razing parts of Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow as “mala fide,” the Bombay high court said, “Illegal and colourable action on part of the state or its agencies vis-à-vis a citizen, is far too serious and damaging to society to be overlooked.”
Rejecting BMC’s contention that the work demolished was “ongoing,” the HC in its 166-page judgment set out photographs and said the work was “pre-existing”. The HC said civic officials invoked Section 354A of the BMC Act— meant for ongoing illegal construction, with a notice of just 24 hours, unlike Section 351which offers 7 days’ notice—for a “more sinister” purpose, “mainly to prevent her from taking legal recourse”.
“The whole attempt of the BMC and its officers was to somehow present the petitioner (Ranaut) with a fait accompli,” said the court, accepting her senior counsel Birendra Saraf’s submission that demolition notice of September 7 and order were ex-facie illegal and deserved to be quashed. “We would be perfectly justified on the basis of law stated by Supreme Court-...to order compensation,” it said. The demolition, the arrangement for which, the HC noted, had begun even before the H/ West ward officer pasted his order at 10.35am, “was nothing but malice in law”. In other words, intentional damage sans any excuse.
The actor, 34, had petitioned HC for urgent intervention within hours of a police squad and civic team landing at her bungalow. Ranaut had sought Rs 2 crore as damages, a claim which BMC through its senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, Anil Sakhare and advocate Joel Carlos had dubbed as “bogus”. Saraf said BMC’s actions had an “ulterior motive.” The HC agreed. “An administrative authority....should never act with improper or ulterior motives,” the HC said.
The Justice Kathawalla-led bench had immediately on September 9 stayed what it observed even then was civic action “smacking of mala fides”. In its final judgment it deprecated BMC’s “delaying” tactics that day when hearing was scheduled at 12.20pm, to ensure “40%” of demolition was carried out.
Saraf said structural work on Ranaut’s bungalow was completed in May 2019, and in August last year, she received permission from her society to carry out renovation and waterproofing work. Renovation work was complete in January 2020, he said.
The BMC case was that she “unlawfully” constructed “a toilet and pantry in parking area on the ground floor, two toilets in the open chowk on the first floor with brick masonry and number of partition walls to create additional rooms”. The BMC said she was “in fact seeking to use public controversy created by her statements… to cover up the fact that she unlawfully carried out substantial alterations and additions”.
Justice Kathawalla said, “We make it clear that this court does not countenance unauthorized construction.” But HC noted, “There is material... indicating that the action of demolition smacks of malafides.”
The HC permitted Ranaut’s plea to be allowed to make her bungalow habitable again and said she is “within her rights to reconstruct” demolished portions which were as per “approved plans.” The HC recorded no finding on whether construction in the bungalow was authorised or unauthorised. It directed Ranaut can also apply to BMC to carry out restoration of demolished work, according to sanctioned plan, and on her plea, BMC has to decide it within four weeks. For portions undemolished, BMC can still take action by issuing notice under Section 351(7 days’ notice.
The HC said the actor is also allowed to apply for regularization of any undemolished portion and if she does, BMC has to first decide such plea before issuing any razing notice.