Supreme Court rejects Narayan Rane plea against demolition of illegal portions of Juhu bungalow

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Bombay High Court order directing demolition of illegal portions of a bungalow belonging to the company owned by the family of Union minister Narayan Rane [Kaalkaa Real Estates Private Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai]..A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka refused to entertain the appeal filed by Rane's family company, Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd. which owns the bungalow. The Court asked Rane to demolish the illegal portions on his own within two months failing which the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has to take action. The Bombay High Court had, on September 20, ordered the BMC to demolish illegal portions of the bungalow within 2 weeks.A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata had also imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the company to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MALSA) while dismissing the petition seeking directions to BMC to consider the second regularisation application..The plea filed before the High Court by Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd, had sought directions to the BMC to consider the new application seeking regularisation of the bungalow situated at Juhu in Mumbai.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.BMC had issued a notice to Kaalkaa in March directing it to remove the alleged unauthorised work on the premises within 15 days failing which the corporation will demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/ occupiers.This notice was challenged before the High Court pursuant to which the Court had protected the structure from demolition till June 24, until the regularisation application by Rane was heard by BMC.Subsequently, the regularisation application was rejected by the BMC on June 3. Since the protection granted by the High Court was expiring soon, Rane moved the High Court seeking urgent relief.On June 23, the High Court rejected Rane’s petition challenging the rejection order. Pursuant to this, Rane filed a second regularisation application before BMC, and moved High Court for directions.When the plea in relation to second application came up for hearing, the High Court had queried whether a second such application under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act would be maintainable in the first place.BMC had responded that the company owned by Rane’s family could file a second application for regularisation which would be considered by the civic body in accordance with the provisions of existing acts and regulations.The High Court, however, was not pleased with the stand as the earlier regularisation application had not only been rejected by BMC on merits but the same had been upheld by the High Court in a detailed order.It had, therefore, dismissed the plea prompting the present appeal before the top court. .Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Advocate Shardul Singh appeared for Rane.