[BREAKING] Sonu Sood moves Bombay High Court against BMC notice on alleged unauthorised alterations to his residential property

Sood's appeal in High Court challenges trial court's order refusing to grant him protection from BMC's actions in furtherance of their notice alleging unauthorised development on his residential property at Juhu, Mumbai
[BREAKING] Sonu Sood moves Bombay High Court against BMC notice on alleged unauthorised alterations to his residential property
BMC, Sonu Sood

Bollywood actor Sonu Sood has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the City Civil Court at Dindoshi rejecting his plea for interim relief against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from taking any action pursuant to their notice in relation to his residential property.

The notice under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP) had alleged that there were unauthorised additions and alterations carried out by Sood on his residential property beyond the approved plan of BMC.

The Dindoshi Civil Judge MI Lokwani refused to grant interim injunction on the ground that BMC had rightly detected and crystallised the illegality in the alterations and additions carried out by Sood.

It noted that Sood had carried out "unauthorised" construction and there was no pending application for retention of the unauthorised work.

Sood's plea, challenging that order, said that the Dindoshi Civil Court failed to consider that BMC's notice was issued with an intention of causing harm to Sood's property and there was non-application of mind.

The plea, filed through advocate DP Singh, claimed that the Civil judge did not consider that the notice was nothing but blackmailing tactics at the behest of one Ganesh Kusmulu who had filed a complaint before the Lokayukta.

It further stated that even if Sood was to regularise the alleged unauthorised construction, the unauthorised portion could not be identified from the notice itself.

It was also submitted that the notice was issued in total contravention of Section 53 of the MRTP within a period of 30 days, when it should have been issued after "not less than 30 days".

The judge failed to consider that the said notice is illegal and was issued without proper authority and without proper description of the premises, which could not be termed as notice under Section 53, the plea said.

The plea will be heard tomorrow by Justice PK Chavan. Advocate Amogh Singh will argue for interim relief on behalf of Sood.

Related Stories

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news