Mumbai The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Union minister Narayan Rane, challenging the June 3 order of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), which dismissed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader’s plea for regularisation of unauthorised additions to his Juhu bungalow.
However, the high court stayed the civic order for six weeks to enable Rane to move the Apex Court in the matter.
The civic body had issued a notice to Kaalkaa Real Estates Ltd., a firm controlled by Rane family which owned the bungalow, for constructing in excess of the permissible FSI – floor space index.
The division bench of justice RD Dhanuka and justice MG Sewlikar, which was hearing Rane’s petition, was informed by senior advocate Aspi Chinoy and advocate Joel Crasto for the BMC that Rane’s application for regularisation had been rejected on June 3.
In March, the BMC had served a notice to the Rane-owned firm, directing it to remove alleged unauthorised constructions on the premises within 15 days, failing which the portions would be demolished and the costs would be recovered from the owners/occupiers.
Rane had challenged the notice after which HC directed the BMC not to proceed with any coercive action till the Union minister’s application for regularisation was decided by the civic authority concerned. The court had added that in the event of an adverse order, no coercive steps be taken for three weeks from the date of such an order.
Arguing for Rane, senior advocate Milind Sathe on Thursday informed the bench that the petition was challenging the rejection of the regularisation application on various grounds, including that plans for the bungalow were approved free of Floor Space Index (FSI), which is not permissible as per the Development Control Regulations (DCR).
Sathe submitted that BMC’s refusal was based on frivolous and malicious grounds and was not in consonance with provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act. “It is at the behest of a particular political party and particularly the chief minister that the action has been taken,” Sathe alleged.
He added that DCR of 1991 was applicable when Rane’s company got the plans sanctioned and DCR of 2011 had not come into force. Therefore, the later DCR could not have been applied for the construction.
Senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for BMC said that the total plot area was 2,209sqm and 1,178 sqm was leased to Rane’s company. The construction plans were approved for a built-up area of 745 sqm only and the remaining 400 sqm was meant for other buildings.
“The petitioner built up three times the sanctioned area. Spaces that were supposed to be left open were used to increase the built-up area and FSI of other buildings was also used up,” Chinoy submitted.
The bench found force in the submissions canvassed on behalf of the civic body. “There is a serious issue raised on unauthorised construction. We are afraid that we cannot accept the submission that FSI of a larger plot ought to have been considered, as the additional construction is totally unauthorised, the question of political rivalry does not arise,” said the bench.