Bombay High Court To Pronounce Verdict In Kangana Ranaut’s Plea Against BMC’s Demolition Of Her Bungalow On Nov 27

first_imgNews UpdatesBombay High Court To Pronounce Verdict In Kangana Ranaut’s Plea Against BMC’s Demolition Of Her Bungalow On Nov 27 Nitish Kashyap23 Nov 2020 7:55 AMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court will pronounce its verdict in actor Kangana Ranaut’s petition challenging Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s demolition of parts of her bungalow turned office at Pali Hill, seeking a compensation of Rs. 2 crores for the said action on November 27.Division bench of SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla heard the matter at length over several days and reserved the verdict…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court will pronounce its verdict in actor Kangana Ranaut’s petition challenging Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s demolition of parts of her bungalow turned office at Pali Hill, seeking a compensation of Rs. 2 crores for the said action on November 27.Division bench of SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla heard the matter at length over several days and reserved the verdict last month on October 5. On September 9, the civic body started the demolition of the actor’s bungalow citing illegal alterations allegedly made by the actor while turning her bungalow into an office space, these alterations were done without requisite permission from the municipal corporation as per the municipal building laws, BMC had alleged.While Kangana’s counsel Senior Advocate Dr.Birendra Saraf who appeared along with Advocate Rizwan Siddique, had argued that BMC’s action was a vindictive response to the various critical remarks made by her against the ruling dispensation in Maharashtra. Refuting BMC’s claims, Dr.Saraf submitted that the alterations were done with all necessary approvals. He further argued that the BMC officials flouted procedural laws while carrying out the demolition without preparing the necessary sketch report, panchnama, and affixing photographs.Kangana had also added Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut as a party in the case, alleging personal mala-fides against him. She stated in her petition that the demolition followed after Raut said that Ranaut needed to be “taught a lesson”.On the other hand, BMC’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, submitted that the building had substantive structural alterations which were carried out unauthorizedly. In response to the notice sent by the BMC, the actor did not offer any explanation other than making a bland denial that no work was going on, when there was clear evidence of unauthorized works progressing with the presence of workers and work materials. In view of such a bland denial without any further explanation, Section 354A of the BMC Act was attracted, which empowers the officials to act within a period of 24 hours of the notice. Chinoy submitted.On the day of the demolition, an urgent plea was moved by the actor’s lawyer Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee and the High Court stayed the demolition, as it was progressing. Justice Kathawalla had then expressed displeasure at the action of the Corporation and observed that it prima facie “smacks of mala fide”.Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *