SC dismisses plea against Bombay HC order to demolish unauthorised construction at Narayan Rane's bungalow

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea challenging the Bombay High Court verdict that directed the Mumbai civic body to demolish the unauthorised construction at Union minister Narayan Ranes bungalow in the Juhu area noting that there was a violation of the Floor Space Index and Coastal Regulation Zone rulesThe floor space index FSI is the maximum permissible floor area that can be built on a particular plot orpiece of landThe plea against the high court judgement was filed in the apex court by Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd a company owned by Ranes familyThe petition came up for hearing before a bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka which refused to entertain itOn September 20 the high court said There is no dispute that the petitioner has carried out large scale unauthorised construction in blatant violation of the sanctioned plan and the provisions of lawAlso Read Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking health warnings on liquor bottlesThe Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation BMC had earlier told the high court that it was willing to hear the second application for regularisation of unauthorised construction at the Juhu bungalow of Union Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Minister Narayan Rane even as the first application had been rejectedThe high court had said if the BMCs stand was accepted then any member of the public in this city can first carry out largescale unauthorised construction and then seek regularisationThe high court in its judgement had said it was astonished with this stand of the BMCIt said the BMC cannot be permitted to consider and allow the second application filed by the company seeking regularisation of the unauthorised construction as it would encourage wholesale construction of unauthorised structuresThe high court had dismissed the petition filed by Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd seeking directions to the BMC to decide their second application uninfluenced by orders passed by the civic body earlierThe BMC had in June this year rejected the regularisation application noting there were violations in the constructionThe company filed a second application in July claiming it was seeking regularisation of a smaller portion as compared to what it had sought previously and under new provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation DCPR 2034The high court had said the BMCs stand that it could consider the second application for regularisation of the construction was inconsistent with its order rejecting the first applicationThe apex court bench noted that the high court had in June this year accepted the BMCs first orderThe plea in the top court was filed by the company through the law firm Karanjawala and CoThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever