The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea challenging the Bombay High Court order which directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish unauthorised construction at Union minister Narayan Rane’s bungalow in Mumbai’s Juhu.
The Supreme Court dismissed the plea and gave three months time to Rane to comply with the laws relating to construction. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Satish Manshinde argued the matter on behalf of Narayan Rane along with lawyers Shardul Singh, Prerna Gandhi, Shreeyas Lalit Advocates and Karanjawala and Co-Senior Partner Ruby Singh Ahuja and advocates Deepti Sarin, Hancy Maini, Lakshya Khanna, Narayan Rane, Union Minister has approached the Apex Court seeking a stay of the demolition of alleged unauthorised structures carried out in a residential premise namely ‘Aadish Bungalow’ situated at Juhu, Mumbai.
The petition was filed by Rane’s family-owned company, Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., seeking interim directions that a stay be granted against order of Bombay HC on June 23 and September 20 this year. This petition was also filed against Municipal Corporation.
The petition is concerned with the land situated at Juhu, Mumbai totally admeasuring 2209 square meters of which the Petitioner owns 1187.84 square meters. After obtaining necessary permissions from the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM), Kaalkaa Real Estates carried out construction of residential premises known as ‘Aadish Bungalow’. After completion of the said construction, an Occupation Certificate was issued on January 23 in 2013.
MCGM issued various Notices under Section 351 (IA) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1881 alleging that some parts of the Bungalow were unauthorised and alleging a change of user of the said parts. The same was contested by the petitioner and MCGM passed orders on March 11 and 16 this year. These orders were not in favour of the petitioner and were thus challenged in a writ petition before the High Court. Various Petitions were filed challenging subsequent notices and orders and the Petitioner now left with no recourse was constrained to approach the SC, the petitioner said.