Swati Deshpande (THE TIMES OF INDIA; September 16, 2020)

Mumbai: Actor Kangana Ranaut has sought Rs 2 crore in damages for the loss suffered due to the ‘illegal’ demolition by the BMC on her Pali Hill bungalow last week, reports Swati Deshpande.

In her amended petition served on the BMC before midnight on Monday, Ranaut claimed the demolition was “premeditated...with malice” and for “extraneous political reasons”. The BMC razed “40%” of the bungalow “including valuable chandeliers, sofa and rare artworks’’, the actor said, adding that as she used the space for work, her fundamental right to work is violated, as is her constitutional right to property.
-----------------------------
Mumbai: Challenging BMC’s 24-hour demolition notice as “hasty and high-handed…illegal and an abuse of power”, actor Kangana Ranaut questioned the absence of the civic body’s ‘detection report’ dated September 5 in her amended petition. She contended that the same day, she had “stirred a controversy” by making a statement “critical of Mumbai Police”. Ranaut said her statements had “caused angst to a political party, which is part of the state government”. “The same party is the ruling party in the municipal corporation”, said the petition.

On September 9, the Shiv Sena-ruled BMC had started demolition of alleged unauthorised constructions at Ranaut’s Bandra bungalow a few hours before her scheduled arrival to Mumbai. On Monday, she returned to her hometown in Himachal Pradesh.

On September 10, Ranaut’s advocate Rizwan Siddiquee had informed the HC that he would, by Monday, amend the 29-page petition filed hastily against the demolition notice.

In the 92-page amended petition, Ranaut has not sought restoration by the BMC, but an interim order to permit her to “make the bungalow capable of use”. The actor’s plea is also to quash the “perverse’’ and “false and vague’’ demolition notice of September 7 and demolition order of September 9 and restrain the municipal body from following through.

She said that the intention to “illegally” invoke section 354A, which empowers the BMC to stop ongoing work and provides for a 24-hour notice, was “to deprive her of a fair opportunity to respond to the notice” or pursue legal rights for regularisation, if required. The BMC said “unlawful work was ongoing”. She denied it.

Under Section 351 of the BMC Act, action can be taken against “completed work”, Ranaut’s petition said.

She added that though BMC alleged 14 illegal works, it shows only one person carrying out “waterproofing work”. Citing “stark contradiction’’ between the inspection report and handwritten notes, she said the report said “unauthorised construction…amalgamation work in progress”, while the notes “merely record internal renovation, finishing work is found in progress”.