Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the Brihanmumbai Metropolitan Municipality (BMC) whether it acted in other cases of unauthorized construction as ‘swiftly’ as the Kangana Ranaut bungalow case. On September 9, a bench of Justice SJ Kathavala and Justice RI Chagla was hearing a petition filed by the BMC against demolishing a part of Kangana’s bungalow.
Senior advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for Bollywood actress Kangana, told the court that the BMC had given only 24 hours to respond to the notice. He said that BMC started taking action without giving enough time to reply. Saraf said that the details of the alleged illegal construction in Kangana’s bungalow are not in the BMC report whereas it is mandatory to tell. The lawyer also questioned the timing of the action. He claimed that “Sanjay Raut said in an interview to a news channel on September 8,” What is the law? ” Kangana needs to learn a lesson.’
Shiv Sena holds BMC
Ever since Kangana made critical remarks, the sword has been drawn between him and the Shiv Sena and the BMC has been holding the Shiv Sena. Saraf said, “At around 3:30 pm on the same day, BMC officials reached the bungalow for inspection.” On 9 September, the demolition order was passed and the relevant copy of the bungalow was passed at 10.34 pm. The entrance was chanted while BMC officials were present outside the bungalow at 10.19 pm with demolition equipment.
The bench asked senior advocate Aspi Chinoy, appearing on behalf of BMC, whether the alleged irregularity has been registered on the identity register. When the BMC counsel replied in the confession, the bench said, “We want to know whether in other cases (Identity Register) action was taken so fast.”
Justice Kathawalla then commented whether the demolition happened in the same way as an advocate Pradeep Thorat of Sanjay Raut wanted. It is noteworthy that on September 9, when Kangana approached the Bombay High Court for the first time against demolition, the court stayed the action and Justice Kathawala questioned the BMC’s prompt action.
The court had said that if the Municipal body had shown the same speed in other cases, the city would have been very different. The court asked Kangana’s lawyer to submit the next hearing photograph and other material to show that all the demolished parts were present since January 2020.
The court wants to know whether the demolished part – legal or illegal – was already under construction as it was already built because it is the main point. Under Section 354A of the BMC Act, the Municipal Corporation can only stop the construction work going on in an illegal way.
BMC allegations wrong: Kangana
Kangana in her amended petition has said that she has a picture of Pooja performed in the bungalow in January 2020 and a photo published in the magazine Eli Décor in April-May 2020 which shows that the demolished part was already in place. Kangana said in her petition that thus BMC’s allegation that the construction was going on there.
Kangana’s lawyer, senior advocate Birendra Saraf, told the bench on Friday that when the Municipal body gave notice of the demolition, only some waterproofing work was going on and permission was already given by his client. On Friday, underlining the photographs submitted by the BMC to the court, he said that it does not have a digitally printed date except the date of September 5.
The court asked senior advocate Aspi Chinoy appearing on behalf of BMC to ask that BMC officer to submit his phone in the court to ascertain when these pictures were taken. The court also took cognizance that BSM in his affidavit stated that Kangana changed the position of the entrance on the ground floor but other things on the ground floor were also demolished.
The court said, “We are thinking about how the ground floor was demolished when no construction work was going on there.” They were, then how the ground floor was broken. ”In this case, the arguments will continue on Monday.