Mumbai: The city civil court in Dindoshi has held that actor Kangana Ranaut, who converted her three flats into one unit in a Khar building, is in “grave violation of the sanctioned plan for which the permission of the competent authority is required”.

“She has covered the sunk area, duct area, common passage as per her own convenience and included free FSI into habitable,” said the court in its reasons for dismissing her interim application to stay a 2018 notice issued by the BMC over the alleged unauthorised modifications to her flats in the 16-storey D B Breeze building, opposite Khar Gymkhana.

Dindoshi court judge L S Chavan, in his operative order on December 22, however, continued the interim relief of status quo granted in January 2019 in her favour, for six more weeks.

In its reasoned order released on December 28, the court said Ranaut “failed to show the authorisation” and “also failed to demonstrate that the impugned notice and orders passed by the designated BMC officer are bad in law”. Therefore, she is not entitled for the relief sought, said the court.

Ranaut’s lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee, who had argued that the initial civic notice was “vague”, on Sunday said: “We will pursue the action against this order as available in the legal process.”

Ranaut denied having made any alterations or structural changes to her flats.

In March 2018, the BMC had issued Ranaut a notice under the Mumbai Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act and said she could apply for regularisation of the work within a month. The actress claimed that while she was in the process of filing a reply, the BMC issued an order in May 2018, directing her to restore the flats to their original sanctioned plans within seven days failing which they would be demolished. The BMC order said, “on perusal of record I find that the structure is unauthorised…beyond the plan”. Ranaut then challenged the notice and order.

The BMC lawyer, Dharmesh Vyas, said the notice and order of the BMC were lawful.

The judge did not find the BMC notice vague. The court also found no substance in Ranaut’s plea that the BMC failed to follow the standard operating procedure (SOP), and take photographs and measure the dimensions of the alleged unauthorised structure. The court said the BMC had pasted “one photo” on the inspection report. The court order said that SOP are civic guidelines and any error would be a “a procedural defect”. “Plaintiff will not be entitled to get relief merely on the grounds of a procedural defect, unless she establishes authenticity of structure,” it said.

The court also dismissed a plea by the owner of 12 other flats in the Khar building, RKW Construction Facility Management Pvt Ltd, holding that it too had merged apartments in “grave violation of sanctioned plans”.