Kangana Ranaut, through senior counsel Birendra Saraf, sought to stay demolition work, stating that BMC's action against her was nothing but 'vendetta' and sought time from the court to apply for regularisation of the illegal portion of her premises. (File) The Bombay HC Tuesday continued till February 5 the civil court order dismissing actor Kangana Ranauat’s plea against a BMC notice over irregularities in her Khar home.
The Dindoshi civil court had on December 23 dismissed a notice of motion filed by Ranaut against the 2018 Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) missive, but extended interim protection against coercive action for another six weeks to enable her to file an appeal before the HC.
In 2018, the BMC served a notice to Ranaut under Section 53 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. It alleged that she had carried out unauthorised work at her residence beyond sanctioned plans approved by the civic body.
Ranaut, through senior counsel Birendra Saraf, sought to stay demolition work, stating that BMC’s action against her was nothing but ‘vendetta’ and sought time from the court to apply for regularisation of the illegal portion of her premises.
Senior Counsel Aspi Chinoy, appearing for BMC, told the Court, “She has to apply for regularisation within the period stipulated in the notice and she is already three years later, while the notice had given only 30 days. The time of application can be extended only after the Court condones the delay.”
Saraf urged the Court to keep Ranaut’s appeal pending in the Court and grant her time to apply for regularisation. I am conceding that there is no other option but I cannot do that without taking written instructions from my client and I would require two days.”
Till then, Saraf sought protection from coercive action/demolition. He submitted that time was required also because there are other occupants in the building, who are similarly affected and a meeting can be called to see if everyone is ready to apply for regularisation. “My client’s regularisation depends on consent of the other members of the building,” he said.
Justice Chavan responded, “In any case, the entire structure will have to be regularised.”
Chinoy said if Kangana was challenging the BMC notice in the court, she cannot apply for regularisation at the same time. “If she says that she will go for regularisation, then this challenge in Court will have to go. This is an individual case. Not a group case. She (Kangana) has to speak for herself and cannot seek time for everyone else.”
“BMC is being nice and reasonable here but the stay should continue for two more days,” Saraf responded.
After hearing the submissions Chavan noted, “In the interest of justice, liberty granted to Saraf to seek instructions from Ranaut as to whether a single applicant will apply for regularisation of the structure.”
The Court continued the stay granted on operation of the civil court order till February 5, when it will hear Ranaut’s plea next.