Kangana Ranaut committed grave violations of the sanctioned plan by consolidating three flats and covering floor space index (FSI)-free areas into habitable areas for her residence at Khar, the city civil court at Dindoshi observed while rejecting the actor’s plea for interim restraint on Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from taking any action for demolishing all the modifications.
“I find that the plaintiff (Ranaut) being an owner of three flats converted these three units into one unit,” said the city civil court judge, LS Chavan, while rejecting Ranaut’s plea on December 17.
“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 judge added in his order that became available on December 28.
FSI, or floor area ratio (FAR), is the maximum area that can be constructed on a piece of land.
The actor has filed a suit in the city civil court challenging a notice issued by BMC under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act and three orders passed by the Competent Officer of H/West ward, in May, September and December 2018. The directive was to remove the additions and alterations made at her residence, fifth floor of Orchid Breeze building at Khar west, and restore the three separate flats to their original condition, as per plans sanctioned by the civic body.
Ranaut had filed an application in the suit for interim injunction against BMC, restraining the civic body from taking any action pursuant to the notice under section 53(1).
Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee argued on her behalf that the notice and the orders were vague and did not specify the exact nature and description of the alleged unauthorised construction carried in the premises and the schedule appended to the notice, while also lacking particulars like blueprints and measurements.
Advocate Dharmesh Vyas, who represented BMC, opposed the plea. He pointed out to the court that before issuing the notice and passing the orders, a civic sub-engineer had surveyed the actor’s residence and delineated eight specific violations, like consolidating all three residential units on the fifth floor of the building, converting and covering FSI-free areas like common passage outside the flats, EF and planter sunks, and converting chhajjas (horizontal slabs covering windows) into closed balconies.
Vyas also pointed out that there are no specific fire ducts in the building, as the 16-storied structure is open from all four sides. “However, all the sides are covered by the plaintiff (Ranaut) as per her own convenience which can cause grave threat to the lives of the other members of the society in case of any mishap,” Vyas had added.
The court accepted the arguments advanced on behalf of BMC. Besides, the court also perused the floor plan annexed to copies of sale deeds of March 8, 2013 and noted that at the time of purchase, the violations alleged by BMC did not exist. “Thus, it clears that the plaintiff has carried out all these changes after the final occupation plan was sanctioned,” the court concluded.
Refusing to accept several electricity bills submitted on behalf of the actor as proof of authorisation of the additions and alterations, the court held that the actor had failed to show the authorisation of the notice structure. “She also failed to demonstrate that the impugned notice and orders passed by the Designated Officer are bad in law. Therefore, she is not entitled for the relief of injunction against the defendants.”
