Tanisha Rana
Published on: September 26, 2022 at 20:16 IST
In Kaalkaa Real Estates Private Limited vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition appealing a Bombay High Court judgment ordering the demolition of illegal portions of a mansion belonging to the business run by the family of Union Minister Narayan Rane.
The bungalow’s owner, Rane’s family business Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd., appealed, but a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka declined to hear it.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) must take action if Rane fails to remove the illegal pieces on his own within two months, according to the court.
On September 20, the Bombay High Court issued an injunction directing the BMC to remove the bungalow’s illegally constructed areas within two weeks.
In addition, the company was ordered by a bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata to pay Rs. 10 lakh in costs, which must be submitted with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MALSA), in order to dismiss the lawsuit asking the BMC to consider the second regularisation application.
Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd. asked the High Court in a petition for directions to the BMC to consider a new application for regularisation of a house in Mumbai’s Juhu neighbourhood.
According to Section 342 of the MMC Act, which requires alerting the Commissioner before making any alterations or additions to an existing building, the company submitted a new regularisation application to BMC.
In March, BMC sent Kaalkaa a letter demanding that it stop any allegedly illegal construction on the property within 15 days, failing which the corporation will demolish the affected areas and penalise the owners/occupiers for the costs.
This notice was contested in front of the High Court, and as a result, the building was spared from demolition until June 24 while BMC heard Rane’s regularisation plea.
The BMC then denied the request for regularisation on June 3.
Rane petitioned the High Court for immediate redress because the High Court’s protection was about to expire. His plea to overturn the rejection ruling was denied by the High Court on June 23.
Rane then requested guidance from the High Court and submitted a second regularisation application to the BMC as a result.
The High Court had questioned whether a second similar application under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act would even be maintainable when the plea in respect to the second application came up for consideration.
The corporation controlled by Rane’s family might submit a second application for regularisation, to which BMC had responded that the civic body could give consideration in accordance with the terms of current laws and regulations.
The earlier regularisation application had not only been denied on the merits by BMC, but it had also been upheld by the High Court in a thorough ruling, therefore the High Court was not happy with the stand.
As a result, it had rejected the plea that had prompted the top court to hear this appeal.