Kangana Ranaut house demolition case: Bombay HC asks BMC about other 'swift demolitions', hearing on September 28

During Kangana Ranaut's case hearing on September 25, at 3 pm, the Bombay High Court questioned how the ground floor of her bungalow-cum-office was demolished even when there were no altercations made there.

The division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla heard Kangana's counsel Senior Advocate Dr.Birendra Saraf and BMC's counsel Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy. The court accepted Kangana's writ petition, and heard the case.

"This is a mala fide action against me as I have a difference of opinion and ideology with those in power having authority. The timing of the action taken by the Corporation supports my case and clearly shows that there is malice in fact and law on part of MCGM authorities" Saraf argued.

"The building was purchased in 2017. In 2018, she made an application for structural repair of the building as it was 42 years old. A structural audit of the building placed it in the C2B category. In October 2018, MCGM sent a letter to the petitioner stating that proposed structural repairs were major and should be carried out to the satisfaction of the Structural Consultant. In May 2019, Kangana sent a letter to the BMC enclosing the letter of the consultant certifying the building fit for inhabitation after structural repairs. She was later granted permission for renovation works. At every stage, she proceeded with necessary permissions, after consultations with experts," Dr.Saraf said.

He argued that the petitioner is at loggerheads with the Maharashtra Government and received life threats. Saraf also said that Sanjay Raut commented that Kangana needed to be taught a lesson. "On the same day when Raut made remarks, an officer (a mukadam) from the BMC visited and entered the property without prior notice. The timing of the visit assumes relevance. As per the mukadam's report, he just saw the gate (of the demolished property) open and just walked in. Thereafter, on September 7, officials from MCGM visited the property around noon. They took some measurements and made handwritten notes. They also roughed up the security guards and others working at the bungalow and even threatened them," he argued.

On September 8, a notice was issued by the MCGM seeking for documents, etc regarding alterations carried out at the property. At the first opportunity my client got, she has denied all allegations made by the Corporation and categorically stated that no work was going on at the property. Thereafter, on September 9, the order of demolition was passed. Although the order of demolition was pasted on the property's door at 10:34 am, the officials of the Corporation along with the requisite machinery was present at the site in full force at 10:19 am," Dr.Saraf submitted.

He then presented the first inspection report, after which Justice Kathawalla asked, "There is no ongoing work on the ground floor. Even according to the Corporation, except for the entrance gate, nothing was changed. Then how was the ground floor demolished?" "It could not have been demolished under Section 354A," Justice Kathawalla noted.

Saraf, thereafter, referred to the BMC circular and said:

1. There should be an entry in the detection register on the same day when an unauthorized construction is detected.

2. They have to get photographs of the site.

3. Panchnama to be prepared of the materials, machinery etc.

"There is non-compliance of the circular. There is no sketch, no photographs, no entry in the detection register", he submitted.

Justice Kathawalla asked Sr Advocate Chinoy about some other entries, which will be addressed in the next hearing.

"We want to know if the demolition has taken place in those cases with the same swiftness?", Justice Kathawalla said.

The matter was adjourned and will come up for hearing on September 28 at 11 am.