Mumbai: Union minister Narayan Rane has lashed out at the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the state government after the proposal to regularise additions and alterations to his Aadish bungalow in Juhu was rejected by the civic body on April 7. The proposals for regularisation were submitted by his architect.
Speaking to the media on Monday, Rane said, “BMC’s notice is malicious. 90% of the buildings in Mumbai are unauthorised. In Behrampada, right near Matoshree, there are illegalities but this government will not dare to act against them.”
Rane also added, “I entered my house after receiving OC and all requisite permissions. There is no illegality. Still, the BMC has picked up the issue, demanding there should be a garden or that I have made unauthorised internal changes. I have received multiple notices. I replied to all the notices. In fact, I have left-over FSI from the plot. This is politics, not law-backed action. The BMC commissioner is blind to other illegalities in Mumbai.”
BMC had issued a notice to Rane’s bungalow under section 351 of the MMC act 1888 for unauthorised construction and change of use in March this year.
In a letter issued to the architect, the assistant engineer of the building proposals department of BMC listed 15 compliances that need to be submitted for the regularisation proposal to be passed. Deficiency in parking space due to the additional work that has increased the number of tenements was not taken into consideration by the architect while submitting the proposal and the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fire department for high-rise buildings was also missing.
The civic body has cited that these compliances need to be submitted within 15 days from the date of the letter, or the proposal will be deemed recorded.
In its letter to the architect, BMC said, “As per OCC Plan, the plot area is 2209 sq.mt. and permissible BUA is 2814.81 sq.mt which is consumed as per DCR 1967 in CRZ. The architect has now claimed FSI as per DCPR 2034 which is admissible on the entire plot. However, in this case, the FSI claim is on the basis of mutation entry which is not permissible as a formal subdivision of the plot is not approved. It will have an imbalance of FSI and will affect the rights of the occupants of other existing buildings on the plot under reference.”