The Bombay High Court on Tuesday expressed displeasure over the stand taken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) that it can consider a second application filed by Union Minister Narayan Rane seeking regularisation of alleged unauthorised portions in his Aadish bungalow in Juhu.
A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata pulled up the civic body saying, "Does the order passed by this court have no sanctity? This will be never-ending. Once an order has been passed by this court, again you take a different stand. Is BMC above the court?”
The BMC informed the HC that Kalkaa Real Estate, the company owned by Rane and his family, can file a second application seeking regularisation of the alleged unauthorised portion and the corporation will consider the same afresh in accordance with the provisions of existing acts and regulations.
The stand was taken by the BMC in response to a plea filed by Rane seeking that the corporation be directed to consider his second application for regularisation.
Earlier, the BMC had rejected Rane's application for regularisation which was upheld by HC on June 23. Despite this, Rane filed a second application seeking regularisation before the BMC. As The civic body did not give a hearing, Rane approached the HC again.
During the last hearing, the HC had asked BMC whether a second application on the same issue could be maintainable.
On Tuesday, when the BMC counsel said that they could consider the second application, the judges remarked that it would be upon the court to decide whether such unauthorised construction could be allowed by the authority or not.
“Where is the opposition by the public body? We will take the task of whether a civic body can allow unauthorised construction. Closed for orders,” said Justice Dhanuka while reserving Rane’s plea for order.
BMC counsel Anil Sakhare explained that there was no bar under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act to submit proposals for retention or regularisation of existing buildings even if a proposal had been rejected earlier.
Rane's advocate Shardul Singh argued that if FSI is available for a plot then even if a larger amount of land is outside FSI, the same could be made permissible. Singh said what needs to be seen was whether FSI was available. The regularisation on the plot can be availed on payment of premium to the state government and BMC, he argued.
To this, the Court said: "What is the purpose of regularisation? If construction is permissible for 50 floors and you use some portion of FSI and thereafter the construction ends up to be beyond the FSI then will that be regularised?”
Singh said that the Rane couple will not carry out further construction or change users till the application is decided. He also said that they will ensure that all compliances are made within the statutory time and no extensions will be sought.
Dissatisfied with the argument, Justice Dhanuka asked: "This is the purpose of regularisation? That you take FSI from here and there and then regularise illegal structures? If a corporation is able to regularise everything, then large-scale illegalities will be permissible. What is the extent beyond which a case can fall outside gross irregularity?”
