[Narayan Rane Juhu Bungalow] Bombay High Court directs BMC not to take coercive action till August 23

The Bombay High Court on Monday directed Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) not to take coercive action till August 23 against the alleged unauthorised constructions by Union Minister Narayan Rane in his Juhu bungalow..A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata also directed the BMC to file an affidavit clearing its stand on the maintainability of Rane's application to retain the unauthorised portions of the structure.This was the second application filed by Rane on the same issue. His first plea was rejected by BMCHence, the Court sought to know from the municipal body whether a second application on the same issue would be maintainable. The civic authority was also asked to inform whether it will apply the Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034 to the present structure, while deciding the application.“We need a clear answer on this, as this will set a precedent forever,” the Bench said..During the hearing of the matter on Monday, advocates Shardul Singh and Prerna Gandhi, appearing for Rane, informed the Court about the various provisions which dealt with regularisations and alterations on existing structures.He pointed out that a fresh application could be considered upon change in law or material circumstances which cured the defects in the first application.“I have removed the defect where they were pointing about a larger area being claimed by me. I am now claiming relief under an additional provision of DCPR. Putting a blanket ban on filing second application In fact will lead to injustice,” Singh contended..Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare, appearing for BMC, reiterated that they have not yet examined the second application yet.He clarified that while there is no bar on entertaining the second application, the deficiencies and defects of first application have to be removed in the second application.“In the second application, BMC rejected the first proposal on merits. we have not scrutinised the second application, however, we will examine on whether the new application is as per DCPR,” Sakhare submitted..Singh argued that they were not creating any commercial building, or encroaching on public property which could create hindrance to the public at large. It is a construction within a plot, it is eventually a residential house, he said..The Bench quipped that multiple judgments have held against encroachment on roads, but that does not give right to raise unauthorised structures even if on private land.The Bench posted the matter for further consideration on August 23, 2022..The petition was filed through Kaalkaa Real Estates, a company owned by Rane’s family. The company filed the fresh regularisation application before BMC under Section 342 of the MMC Act which stipulates notifying the Commissioner for making any alteration or addition to an existing building.With the new application, the company claimed benefit of the Floor Space Index (FSI) upto 4 FSI on the proposed land component as per the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR).The petitioner sought directions so that the planning department within BMC decides the new application uninfluenced by the orders passed by BMC including the rejection of the retention application.