Juhu Bungalow row: HC grants relief to Narayan Rane, asks BMC not to take coercive action till it decides regularisation plea

The court said that in the event an order passed by the BMC is against or adverse to the petitioner, then no coercive steps be taken for three weeks from the date of receipt of such an order by the petitioner.

A division bench of Justice A A Sayed and Justice Abhay Ahuja was hearing a plea filed by Rane through his company, seeking to quash notices and speaking orders issued by the civic body.

A fresh notice in this regard was issued by the executive engineer (designated officer) of BMC’s building and factory department of K West ward (Andheri) on March 16. It had directed the former Maharashtra CM to remove unauthorised alterations made to the structure within 15 days or the BMC will initiate demolition.

The plea said the notices had been 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 Estate, in which Rane’s family holds shares. As owners of the company, the Rane family resided in Adhish bungalow. However, as the premises were owned by the company, the plea was filed through it, the petition said.

The fresh notice came after the BMC rejected Rane’s application to allow retention of the alleged illegal constructions under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Under Section 44, for any development, an application needs to be submitted before the planning authority.

The notice issued to Rane stated that an unauthorised construction had taken place in the basement of the bungalow by converting a portion into a room. Besides, open space or a garden area from the first floor to the eighth floor had been illegally converted into bedrooms, rooms and hall, the BMC alleged.

The petition filed by Kaalkaa Real Estate sought to quash and set aside notices and orders of the BMC designated officer, claiming that the same were “perverse, illegal” with “political vendetta” and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

It stated that first notice was issued on February 25 in the name of occupiers to show how the alleged unauthorised additions were not in contravention of approved plans. It added that Rane’s wife Neelam and his son Nitesh, erstwhile directors of the Artline, had responded to the notice claiming “malafide intention” as the notice had been issued after nearly nine years of completion of the building.

The company, on March 10, the date of hearing on second notice issued to the petitioner, also made an application through its architect for retention of the “unauthorised” portions, and made a payment of Rs 8,790 as stipulated by the BMC. The petitioner said there was no contravention of any rule and the questioned portions were within permissible Floor Space Index (FSI) limits.

Despite this, the plea said the designated officer of BMC, on March 11, proceeded to pass order “in haste”, directing to remove alleged unauthorised works within 15 days, failing which the BMC would demolish those portions and recover charges from the owners or occupiers. After another scheduled hearing on March 14, an identical order was passed on March 16, the plea stated.

Senior advocate Milind Sathe and advocate Amogh Singh representing the petitioner company argued that the notices were issued based on “completely erroneous reasons” without following law and the same should be set aside.

However, senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for BMC opposed the plea and said that since he has applied for regularisation, it meant that he had accepted flouting of rules and violations of civic regulations.

After Sathe sought direction to BMC to decide the regularisation application on merits and till then no coercive action be taken against the petitioner, the bench accepted the same and disposed of the plea.