Kangana Ranaut's Rs 2 crore damage compensation 'bogus', 'baseless': BMC

Guwahati: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Friday told Bombay High Court that the claims made by actor Kangana Ranaut of Rs 2 crore compensation for the partial demolition of her Pali Hill property were “bogus” and “baseless.”

Ranaut’s amended petition stated that even before the bench of Justice SI Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla stayed the demolition on September 9, BMC authorities had already razed 40% of the bungalow. These then caused severe damage to moveable objects and properties. And it is in the light of these submissions that Ranaut sought a compensation of Rs 2 crore.

Also Read: Journalist held for giving ‘classified info’ to Chinese intelligence

BMC in its additional affidavit filed in response to the amended petition stated that the actor’s claims were false and that “only the illegal and unauthorised portion of the bungalow was demolished.”. Therefore, the actor has no right to seek compensation for this.

The affidavit which was filed by Bhagyavant Late, the designated officer of H-ward, stated that Ranaut had not disputed the notice which was served to her on September 7. She also did not dispute the stop-work order which was pasted on the gate of her residence on September 8.

Also Read: Assam: Onus now on Gauhati HC to decide on Tikak mining project

This if not is a clear indication that the actor was well aware of the altercations and additions which were being made on her premises, stated the affidavit. It further added that the additions were unauthorised and not as per the sanctioned building plan.

According to Late, the notices were only served on the actor after an executive engineer and a mukadam on inspection of the premised came to conclude that substantial additions and alterations had been made to the property; that too, without the permission of the civic authority.

The affidavit stated, “The petitioner, who has undisputedly carried out substantial unlawful additions and alterations contrary to the approved plan and without applying for and obtaining any permission for the same, cannot be heard to contend that remedial action taken in respect of such unlawful acts, was either illegal or high handed or approach writ jurisdiction of HC for relief and make ‘baseless’ and ‘bogus’ claims for compensation.”

Also Read: Bundesliga: Bayern Munich shock Schalke with 8-0 in season opener