Bombay High Court Directs Kangana Ranaut To Decide Whether She Is Willing To Apply For Regularization of Construction, Extends Interim Protection

Her plea for interim relief was earlier rejected by a CityCivil Court in Dindoshi in December 2020, which observed that the alterations were in "grave violation of the sanctioned plan." The court had however granted her six weeks to approach HC.

On Tuesday, Justice Prithviraj Chavan extended interim protection till Friday, "in the interest of justice," after Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing on behalf of Ranaut, sought time to take written instructions if she would want to apply for regularization. He had initially argued accused the BMC vendetta. "I realise the BMC is being nice and reasonable here," he submitted.

The BMC represented by senior advocate Aspi Chinoy and advocate Joel Carlos did not object to his prayer for time, but clarified that the actor could apply for regularization only if she accepts the BMC's notice is right and withdraws her suit. "You can't challenge the notice and also apply for regularization," Chinoy submitted.

Saraf assured the court that on the next date he would either argue against the notice or state that the actor is seeking regularization.

"A stitch in time saves nine," Justice Chavan noted about the delay in seeking regularization.

The BMC had issued Ranaut a notice followed by a demolition order under the Mumbai Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act in 2018 for the unauthorized portions. The actor approached the City Civil Court against the order, which refused her interim relief.

"She has covered the sunk area, duct area, common passage as per her own convenience and included FSI-free into habitable area. These are the grave violation of the sanctioned plan for which the permission of the Competent Authority is required," the Court noted .

In her petition before the Bombay High Court Ranaut claimed, that none of the alleged unauthorized construction has been carried out by her. And the flats are exactly in the same condition as when she was given possession.

Kangana further claimed that other flat purchasers were also given identical notices by the BMC in March 2018. "This is one of the indications that the flats in the suit building were given by the developer in the very condition in which the MCGM found them, when they came for inspection, prior to issuing notices," her plea stated.

The High Court will now hear her petition on Friday.