HC dismisses Rane firm plea challenging BMC order on Juhu bungalow

However, a division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MG Sewlikar extended the protection from “coercive action” on Rane’s bungalow by six weeks, thus enabling his company to challenge the same in the Supreme Court.

The BMC had issued a notice to Kaalkaa Real Estates Ltd in March this year directing it to remove alleged unauthorised construction on the premises within 15 days, failing which the civic body said it would demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/occupiers.

The plea stated that 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 Estates in which Rane’s family holds shares. As owners of the company, the Rane family resided in the bungalow. However, as the premises was owned by the company, the plea was filed through it, the petition stated.

The notice was challenged before the high court, which directed the civic body not to proceed with any coercive action till it decides on his regularisation application.

The court had said that if an order passed by the 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 BMC rejected the regularisation application on June 3 and as the protection granted by the HC is to expire on June 24, Rane sought an urgent hearing of his plea.

Rane, in his plea, said the BMC had rejected his plea to the civic body stating that plans for the bungalow were approved free of Floor Space Index (FSI) and the same was not permissible as per the Development Control Regulations (DCR).

The plea sought to quash and set aside the rejection of the application and also an order to retain the structure.

Senior advocate Milind Sathe for the petitioner argued that the BMC’s objections refusing regularisation are “frivolous” and “malicious” and not in consonance with the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act.

“It is all engineered at the behest of a particular political party and particularly the chief minister,” Sathe said.

He added that the DCR of 1991 was applicable when Rane’s company got the plans sanctioned and the DCR of 2011 had not come into force. Rane prayed for scrutiny of the property by an independent architect appointed by the court.

However, senior advocate Aspi Chinoy, representing the BMC, opposed the plea saying that the total plot area is 2,209 square metres (sqm) and out of the same, 1,178 square metres are leased out to the petitioner. He added that construction plans by Rane’s company were approved for a built-up area of nearly 745 sqm and the remaining 400 sqm FSI is used by other buildings on the plot.

“The petitioner built up three times the sanction area. Spaces that were supposed to be left open were used to increase the built-up area,” Chinoy said, rejecting allegations of victimisation.

After hearing the submissions on both sides, the bench observed, “There is a serious issue raised on unauthorised construction and it is required to be considered. We are afraid that we cannot accept Sathe’s submission that FSI of a larger plot ought to have been considered. Since (prima facie) construction (in question) carried out is totally unauthorised, the question of political rivalry does not arise.”

It held that Rane’s plea was “devoid of merits” and dismissed the same.