Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday held that the BMC’s action of razing renovations in actor Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow at Pali Hill, Bandra, was “illegal and high-handed” and “actuated by mala fides”.

Setting aside the September 9 demolition order, a bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla said the BMC’s act had caused “substantial injury” to Ranaut and added she was entitled to compensation from the civic body. To quantify the loss, the HC appointed a valuer and sought a report by March 9 after hearing Ranaut and the BMC.

The razing had taken place after Ranaut had lashed out at the MVA government, and Ranaut had alleged “abuse of power” and “mala fide action” by the Shiv Sena-ruled BMC as a “counter blast” as she was “at loggerheads with the state over her outspoken comments”. The HC said, “Irresponsible statements, however distasteful, are best ignored.”

---------------------

Mumbai: Terming BMC’s act of razing parts of Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow as “mala fide,” the HC said, “Illegal and colourable action on part of the state or its agencies vis-à-vis a citizen, is far too serious and damaging to society to be overlooked.” Rejecting BMC’s contention that the work demolished was “ongoing,” the HC in its 166-page judgment set out photographs and said the work was “pre-existing”. The HC said civic officials invoked Section 354A of the BMC Act— meant for ongoing illegal construction, with a notice of just 24 hours, unlike Section 351which offers 7 days’ notice—for a “more sinister” purpose, “mainly to prevent her from taking legal recourse”.

“The whole attempt of the BMC and its officers was to somehow present the petitioner (Ranaut) with a fait accompli,” said the court, accepting her senior counsel Birendra Saraf’s submission that demolition notice of September 7 and order were ex-facie illegal and deserved to be quashed. “We would be perfectly justified on the basis of law stated by Supreme Court-...to order compensation,” it said. The demolition, the arrangement for which, the HC noted, had begun even before the H/ West ward officer pasted his order at 10.35 am, “was nothing but malice in law”. In other words, intentional damage sans any excuse.

The actor, 34, had petitioned HC for urgent intervention within hours of a police squad and civic team landing at her bungalow. Ranaut had sought Rs 2 crore as damages, a claim which BMC through its senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, Anil Sakhare and advocate Joel Carlos had dubbed as “bogus”. Saraf said BMC’s actions had an “ulterior motive.” The HC agreed. “An administrative authority....should never act with improper or ulterior motives,” the HC said.

The Justice Kathawalla-led bench had immediately on September 9 stayed what it observed even then was civic action “smacking of mala fides”. In its final judgment it deprecated BMC’s “delaying” tactics that day when hearing was scheduled at 12.20pm, to ensure “40%” of demolition was carried out.

Saraf said structural work on Ranaut’s bungalow was completed in May 2019, and in August last year, she received permission from her society to carry out renovation and waterproofing work. Renovation work was complete in January 2020, he said.

The BMC case was that she “unlawfully” constructed “a toilet and pantry in parking area on the ground floor, two toilets in the open chowk on the first floor with brick masonry and number of partition walls to create additional rooms”. The BMC said she was “in fact seeking to use public controversy created by her statements… to cover up the fact that she unlawfully carried out substantial alterations and additions”.

Justice Kathawalla said, “We make it clear that this court does not countenance unauthorized construction.” But HC noted, “There is material... indicating that the action of demolition smacks of malafides.”

The HC permitted Ranaut’s plea to be allowed to make her bungalow habitable again and said she is “within her rights to reconstruct” demolished portions which were as per “approved plans.” The HC recorded no finding on whether construction in the bungalow was authorised or unauthorised. It directed Ranaut can also apply to BMC to carry out restoration of demolished work, according to sanctioned plan, and on her plea, BMC has to decide it within four weeks. For portions undemolished, BMC can still take action by issuing notice under Section 351 (7 days) notice.

The HC said the actor is also allowed to apply for regularization of any undemolished portion and if she does, BMC has to first decide such plea before issuing any razing notice. 

---------------------

The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed the BMC’s notice against alleged illegal construction at actor Kangana Ranaut’s Bandra bungalow and the subsequent demolition order, saying its actions smacked of malafide. It also ordered the civic body to compensate the actor.

The HC held that the notice issued under Section 354(A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act as well the demolition “involve a clear malice in law”.

In a 166-page judgment, a division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla allowed Ranaut to make the bungalow habitable but only to the extent that is cleared by the BMC. For any additional work, she would have to take the BMC’s permission. The bench also appointed an independent valuer, who will hear both parties before drawing up an estimate of the damage.

After having chastised the BMC, the HC cautioned Ranaut to exercise restraint on social media platforms. “We do not accept as true any of the statements/allegations made by the petitioner through her tweets with regard to the alleged prevailing atmosphere in the state or the state police or against the film industry... We are of the view that the petitioner should be better advised to exercise restraint when, as a public spirited person, she airs her views regarding issues of public importance,” it said. Ahead of the demolition as well as after it, Ranaut had squared off with the Shiv Sena, the Mumbai police and an alleged “movie mafia”, and had likened Mumbai to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

On Sena leader Sanjay Raut’s threat to teach the actor a lesson for comparing Mumbai to PoK, the bench observed that in no civil society can those in power be allowed to resort to issuing threats to citizens or use “muscle power” over views against the government. It said no action, especially by the State, can contravene the law of the land, regardless of the “folly of an individual”. It offered a word of advice: Irresponsible statements made by a citizen in an individual capacity, however distasteful or wrong, are best ignored.

The BMC issued a stop work notice to Ranaut for 14 alleged violations on September 7 based on an inspection of her bungalow on Nargis Dutt Road at Pali Hill two days prior. The notice was pasted on the bungalow’s gate on September 8, giving her only 24 hours to respond. The actor’s lawyer responded to it, but it was rejected the next day. Minutes later, the demolition work began.