The petition filed by Union Minister Narayan Rane challenging the demolition order issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) against Adish Bungalow located at Juhu, Mumbai, where Rane resides, was dismissed by the Bombay High Court bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sewlikar on Thursday.
The petition was dismissed by the court when it was determined that it lacked any merit.
Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe sought a 6-week extension of the interim injunction against BMC on behalf of Rane so that Rane could file a petition with the Supreme Court, which he predicted would reopen in July.
The Court extended the protection by six weeks when BMC did not object to the same.
According to Rane’s appeal, the BMC had turned down an application for relief that Rane had submitted, saying that the bungalow’s plans had been approved without consideration of Floor Space Index (FSI), which was against Development Control Regulations.
The Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority’s (MCZMA) failure to grant pre-clearance for the intended regulation of the alleged illegal operation was another factor in the denial.
This objection, according to Sathe, should have been brought up earlier but was instead brought up only in the denial order.
Sathe provided the Court with a property card indicating that Rane owned more than 1187 square metres of land, so the Floor Space Index (FSI) of that area was to be taken into consideration. Additionally, the Development Control Regulations of 1991 were in effect at the time he received approval for his plans, not those of 2011.
He argued that BMC’s move was preplanned and ill-intentioned. He further requested that the property be examined by an impartial architect chosen by the court since “the entire act is entirely malafide and based on political warfare between Narayan Rane and Shiv Sena.”
On the other side, Rane had really built on 2,209 square metres of land, according to Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy for BMC, even though the plan he submitted for clearance was for a larger area of over 700 square metres.
Rane needed to explain why he should be granted the advantage of higher FSI after Chinoy informed the Court that he had built on three times the area that had been approved for development.
The Bench stated that it was hesitant to concur with Sathe’s arguments. The Bench also concluded that there was no chance of igniting any political rivalry because the construction was illegal.
“There is a serious issue raised on the unauthorised construction, it is required to be considered. We are afraid we cannot accept submission of Sathe that FSI of a larger plot ought to have been considered. In our view the petition is devoid of merits, it is dismissed,”
The Court Ordered
