Bollywoodz.net

Khan’s bunglow Mannat has always been a talk of the town. For its beautiful palatial sea-facing looks or for its tight security, guarded by a huge iron gates. A PIL alleging 32 violations of law in the construction of his heritage bungalow named as ‘MANNAT’ in Bandra was filed in the Bombay High Court on Thursday. The PIL was filed by social activist Simpreet Singh. The PIL stated that the construction behind Mannat had been carried out by merging 12 flats and 12 kitchens which were originally meant to house the poor. In this context Khan owed a specific liability under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. He also violated the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991, by wrongly considering the land to be in the relatively liberal CRZ-II area. But actually the land is in highly restrictive CRZ-I area where no construction activity is allowed.

The PIL also alleged that the construction on the open space inside the premises was not permissible under the law. Further the PIL alleged that the said construction also violated the statutory Heritage Regulations, which specified that the new building has to be of the same height as that of the old building and that it should have architectural attributes in harmony with the old structure.However, in contrast, the new building had an ultra-modern architecture and was a glass house and that its height was more than three times the height of the old Heritage Building. The impugned building was also constructed after committing a series of violations of DC Regulations. It was alleged that Khan was bringing up the structure in a space originally reserved for an art gallery. Further, to facilitate this illegal construction, a public road, constituting the lane going to the historical Mount Mary Church was deleted so that a palatial apartment could be constructed.

The facts brought before the statutory authorities were through a legal notice sent by the petitioners advocate Y P Singh in April, 2008. The PIL sought the disconnection of water and electric supply to Mannat, which is a landmark in Bandra Bandstand under section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. According to the PIL, the bungalow, which is situated on a leased Collector’s Land, was purchased by Shahrukh Khan somewhere around the year 1999 from its erstwhile owners Shri Nariman Dubash. The entire land on which the bungalow stood was reserved at the time of the sale transaction for a public purpose i.e. Art Gallery. This reservation was so done because the said place was in a thick heritage area near the historical Bandstand and facing the promenade along the sea where a large number of tourists visit.

The PIL also contended that Khan wrote a letter to the Chief Minister in 2003, seeking dereservation of the land allotted for an art gallery within the premises of Mannat. According to the PIL, Khan wrote in his letter, “Art galleries are not required in suburbs, and the same should be in the city.” He had also mentioned in his letter that a ‘Public Art Gallery’ on his bungalow compound would “disturb his privacy and affect his security.” The PIL added that in September 2003, the government accepted Khan’s letter and directed BMC to start the process of deletion of the reservation.

In 2004, Khan sought permission from the heritage committee to construct a ground plus six-storey structure on the land behind his existing bungalow, which was marked heritage property. The PIL alleged that the actor never told the panel that he had illegally demolished two heritage structures, which stood there. The PIL clearly states that fraud and cheating has been done to heritage Committee, MCGM and ULC. There were two more buildings in same compound which were silently demolished to show that in the land where proposed construction had to be done was vacant. But actually there were two more buildings and an extension of the arm of the old building, added the PIL.

The illegal change of name from the notified ‘VILLA VIENNA’ to ‘MANNAT’ is itself an infringement of the prescribed rules and regulations, states the PIL. The PIL further alleged that party respondents, including the ministry of environment and forests, state government, BMC, have all failed to exercise their powers and allowed the violation of Development Control Regulation, CRZ notifications, Environment Protection Act, 1986, and other laws.

Out of the 32 points raised by the social activist Simpreet Singh and advocate Y P Singh, following are the significant:

1. 12 small flats having 12 separate kitchens meant for mass housing under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, were merged and made into a single palatial house.
2. Public road deleted illegally so as to facilitate construction and to regularise the lack of statutorily required open spaces.
3. Land classified as liberal CRZ-II but actually it is in highly restrictive CRZ-I where such constructions are banned.
4. Even though heritage regulations prescribe new building to be in harmony with old one with reference to height and architectural style yet, new building was allowed to assume a height 3 times the old one and to bear a radically different architectural style.
5. Old heritage bungalow deprived of its mandatory rear open spaces and sprawling compound.
6. Illegal conferment of FSI on account of not deducting the area for “means of access” and Air Handling Units.
7. Office use permitted illegally on 2nd floor since land is not in the liberal R-2 area but in the restrictive R-1 area.
8. The entire land was under statutory reservation for public purpose i.e. Art Gallery – reservation deleted in an illegal manner.

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.