Juhu bungalow: Bombay High Court questions BMC’s readiness to consider Rane’s 2nd regularisation plea – The Indian Express

In June, the BMC had rejected an application for regularisation by Rane’s company, a decision the HC had accepted after the company had approached the court.

After the BMC informed the court that there is no bar on considering a second regularisation application filed by Rane’s company, the HC asked to what extent it can allow regularisation of constructions in Mumbai.

A division bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice Kamal R Khata asked, “Does the order passed by this court has no sanctity? Is the corporation above the High Court? Again, we will pass some order and again you will take a different stand. It will be endless otherwise. Now, this is your stand, we will have to examine it.”

Notably, the Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government was in power in Maharashtra when the first application was rejected by the BMC. The Thackeray government collapsed in the last week of June following a rebellion by Eknath Shinde, the current chief minister.

On June 23, the HC had dismissed a plea filed by Kaalkaa Real Estates Limited, a firm owned by Rane and his family, which challenged the BMC’s order that had refused permission to retain the bungalow with its alleged unauthorised structures. On July 25, the HC had directed the BMC not to take action against the bungalow till further orders and also asked the minister to not carry out further constructions till August 23.

As per the firm’s plea, the architect had filed a new application for regularisation in view of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034, considering the floor space index (FSI) of the entire plot, as was originally factored for granting the first permission to get an Occupation Certificate. The firm said the same was not part of the first application.

The BMC told the court that the second application can be considered under the new DCPR-2034 and there was no restriction on submitting a proposal for regularisation of the existing building once the earlier proposal was rejected.

Senior advocate Anil Sakhare said that the second application “is not disturbing BMC’s earlier decision” and the civic body’s concerned authority can deliberate if such regularisation is permissible.

The BMC’s affidavit specified that while additional FSI can be claimed by paying a premium to the state, additional TDR can be purchased from the market. Advocate Shardul Singh, representing the firm, assured HC that it would pay the premium and give requisite undertakings for regularisation within 60 days.

The HC asked BMC, “If a party buys a plot of land in Mumbai, can he/she construct a 100-storey building without going to BMC and then wait for permissions to come and then satisfy the corporation to that extent? Can they just pay the corporation the premium and get it done? Is it the purpose of regularisation?”

“Since there is no opposition as per BMC affidavit, we will analyse to what extent the regularisation can be allowed,” Justice Dhanuka said.