6.6 C
Friday, January 27, 2023

Supreme Court Rejects Narayan Rane’s Plea against Demolition of Illegal Portions of His Bungalow

The court has asked Rane to demolish the illegal portions on his own within two months

Must read

Raju Vernekar
Raju Vernekar
Raju Vermekar is a senior Mumbai-based journalist who have worked with many daily newspapers. Raju contributes on versatile topics.

INDIA. Mumbai: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order directing the demolition of illegal portions of a bungalow located at Juhu in North West Mumbai, belonging to the company owned by the family of Union minister Narayan Rane, on Monday.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka refused to entertain the appeal filed by Rane’s family company, Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd. which owns the eight-story bungalow “Adhish” at Juhu in North West Mumbai.

- Advertisement -

The Court directed Rane to demolish the illegal portions on his own within two months failing which the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has to take action.

The Bombay High Court had, on September 20, ordered the BMC to demolish illegal portions of the bungalow within two weeks. While dismissing the petition seeking directions to BMC to consider the second regularisation application, a bench comprising Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata also imposed a fine of Rs.10 lakh on the company and directed it to deposit money with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MALSA).

- Advertisement -

The company had filed the fresh regularisation application before BMC under Section 342 of the MMC Act which stipulates notifying the Commissioner for making any alteration or addition to an existing building.

The BMC inspected the bungalow on February 21 and issued a notice to Kaalkaa in March directing it to remove the alleged unauthorized work on the premises failing which the corporation will demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/ occupiers.

- Advertisement -

This notice was challenged before the Bombay High Court. In response, the court protected the structure from demolition till June 24, until the regularisation application by Rane was heard by the BMC.

Subsequently, the regularisation application was rejected by the BMC on June 03. Since the protection granted by the High Court was expiring soon, Rane moved the High Court seeking urgent relief.

On June 23, the High Court rejected Rane’s petition challenging the rejection order. Under this, Rane filed a second regularisation application before BMC and moved the High Court for directions.

When the plea about a second application came up for hearing, the High Court queried whether a second application under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act would be maintainable in the first place.

The BMC maintained that the second application for regularisation can be filed and it could be considered by the civic body by the provisions of existing acts and regulations and under new provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034.

However, the High Court was not pleased since the earlier regularisation application was not only rejected by BMC on merits but its stand was upheld by the High Court in a detailed order.

Eventually, the plea was dismissed on September 20 by the high court prompting the present appeal before the SC.

Unauthorized construction in Juhu Bungalow
The area of plot-2209 square feet. The construction approved-745 square feet, actual construction-2244 square feet (three times more). The construction of rooms in the area is earmarked for a terrace garden on the first, second, third, fifth, and eighth flooris s, in violation of rules.

Besides the BMC noted the unauthorized underground construction. The height of the building was 32 mtrs as against the permissible limit of 11 mtrs, in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone regulations.

Unauthorized construction in a Bungalow in Malwan

The action also awaits against Rane’s bungalow “Nilratna” at Chiwla in Malwan taluka in Sindhudurg district for violation of CRZ regulations. The order for the action was given by the Central Government last year.

- Advertisement -


- Advertisement -

Trending Today