Now SRK's Mannat courts trouble

Another court battle is on the cards for actor Shah Rukh Khan. A PIL alleging 32 violations of law in the construction of his bungalow in Bandra was filed in Bombay High Court on Thursday.

The PIL, filed by social activist Simpreet Singh, sought the disconnection of water and electric supply to Mannat — Khan’s home, which is a landmark in Bandra Bandstand. It stated that the construction behind Mannat had been carried out by merging 12 flats, originally meant to house the poor. The PIL also alleged that the construction on the open space inside the premises was not permissible under law.

It was alleged that Khan was bringing up the structure in a space originally reserved for an art gallery. Also, as per the PIL, the land Khan’s property stands on had been wrongly notified as a liberal Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)-II, even though it fell within the highly restrictive CRZ-I.

The petition stated that it “stems from the grievance of the petitioners, whereby people holding substantial power and sway in the society are able to mould and then flout the laws meant for the society’s benefit for their own pecuniary gain.”

YP Singh, advocate for the petitioner said, “We will mention the PIL before a division bench next week and it will be heard subsequently.”

The PIL also contended that Khan, who purchased the property from Nariman Dubash in 2000, wrote a letter to the Chief Minister in 2003, seeking dereservation of the land earmarked for an art gallery within the premises of Mannat. Khan, the PIL stated, wrote in his letter, “Art galleries are not required in suburbs, and the same should be in the city.” He had also mentioned in the letter that a ‘Public Art Gallery’ on his bungalow compound would “disturb his privacy and affect his security.” In September 2003, the government accepted Khan’s letter and directed BMC to start the process of deletion of the reservation, the PIL added.

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 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.

Mayura Janwalkar, DNA India