Decide on your jurisdiction: Bombay HC tells DCZMC after Narayan Rane challenges showcause notice

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik was hearing a plea by Kaalkaa Real Estate, owned by Rane’s family, challenging the notices issued to it for the unauthorised construction in his bungalow Aadhish.

Rane has challenged a communication by Mumbai Suburban Collector, which alleged violation of No Objection Certificate issued to the bungalow as per CRZ norms. The letter asked Rane and his family to show cause as to why the alleged structure ought not to be treated as unauthorised

The plea said the communication was issued in the name of Artline Properties Private Limited. As per the National Company Law Tribunal’s 2017 order, Artline was amalgamated and merged with petitioner company Kaalkaa Real Estate, in which Rane’s family holds shares. As owners of the company, the Rane family resided in the bungalow. However, as the premises were owned by the company, the plea was filed through it, the petition said.

Senior Advocate Milind Sathe for the petitioner argued that since the communication did not contain details as to which parts of the bungalow are in violation of CRZ norms, the said letter is “illegal” and the DCZMC did not have jurisdiction to issue such a notice and therefore same was “arbitrary.”

The court was informed that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation had also issued notices for demolition of alleged unauthorised construction in the said bungalow. However, another bench of the High Court had directed the civic body not to proceed with any coercive action till the civic body decides on his regularisation application.

The court had said that in the event an order passed by BMC is against or adverse to the petitioner, no coercive steps be taken for three weeks from the date of receipt of such an order by the petitioner. The said relief continues till June 24

The High Court was told that the BMC has rejected the said application and subsequently MCZMA issued the impugned notice to Rane’s firm.

Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni representing the state authority said that DCZMC has sought for the details on the structure from the BMC and based on the civic body’s report, discovered that there indeed was violation and therefore its action is justified. Kumbhakoni said that the notice was merely to show cause reasons for not taking action, and not a demolition notice as was portrayed by Rane, and hence the petition was premature.

After perusing submissions, the bench asked the DCZMC to first consider the issue of jurisdiction and then proceed on the merits in the case.

The bench held, “… We are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if after examining the claim of jurisdiction the committee itself is directed to give its ruling on the point of jurisdiction by giving a personal hearing to the applicant on June 22.”

“Once the committee decides on the point, the applicant is open to exercise its remedy in accordance with law. We make it clear that since the notice is not a notice seeking explanation as to why subject bungalow should be demolished, we hope that once the objection is spurned and the committee decides to proceed for further action to remove the offending construction, it shall issue further notice and such intention may be contained in the notice sent,” the Court added.