In a huge win for Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut and a blow to Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, the Bombay High Court set aside the BMC notices to Kangana Ranaut issued on 7th and 9th September, and called demolition at her place as action with “malafide intent”.
The ruling was made by Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla and as per them, there was no unauthorised construction as alleged by the BMC on Ranaut’s property, finding that it was only existing work as opposed to illegal alterations.
To assess the damage, the High Court also ordered that a valuer will be appointed to ascertain damages caused due to the demolition. Once that is complete, the report by the valuer will be submitted to the court and on that basis, the High Court will pass an order on compensation to Kangana Ranaut.
However, the court asked Kangna to show restraint while commenting on other people on social media and otherwise, and that she may take steps to make her property habitable and to regularise the same.
Kangana took to Twitter and said, “When individual stands against the government and wins, it’s not the victory of the individual but it’s the victory of the democracy. Thank you everyone who gave me courage and thanks to those who laughed at my broken dreams. Its only cause you play a villain so I can be a HERO.”
When individual stands against the government and wins, it’s not the victory of the individual but it’s the victory of the democracy.
— Kangana Ranaut (@KanganaTeam) November 27, 2020
Thank you everyone who gave me courage and thanks to those who laughed at my broken dreams.
Its only cause you play a villain so I can be a HERO. https://t.co/pYkO6OOcBr
In a clear vindication for Kangana Ranaut the court has found that the demolition of the actor’s property was a reactionary activity, in view of the happenings surrounding the demolition – the insulting remarks made by Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut against Ranaut, the ensuing visit of the BMC to Ranaut’s property, the timeline of the demolition activity and the attempts made to delay the High Court hearing in the matter which resulted in 40 per cent of the demolition being carried out.
“We would, however, refrain from giving a verdict on malice.. however.. even if one assumes that the malice does not amount to personal bias and may call for a trial, it does amount to legal malice. The manner in which the action was carried out leaves no doubt that not using Section 354 was more sinister and preventing her from taking a recourse.”