The Bombay High Court on Tuesday extended the interim protection granted to actor Kangana Ranaut against coercive action by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation in a case involving the unauthorised merger of three flats, Live Law reported.

Justice Prithviraj Chavan gave Ranaut time till Friday to clarify if she will approach the civic body to seek regularisation of the illegal portions of her property in Mumbai’s Khar area.

Ranaut’s lawyer Birendra Saraf told the court that unauthorised construction at the building was due to property developer’s fault, according to Bar and Bench. He accused the Mumbai civic body of acting out of vendetta against her.

The court asked Ranaut’s lawyer how the problem could be solved. Saraf responded by saying that regularisation appeared to be a solution. Meanwhile, BMC lawyer Aspi Chinoy pointed out that the suggestion of regularisation implied Ranaut’s lawyer had admitted to irregularities at the property.

Also read: Kangana Ranaut’s decision to merge three flats a ‘grave violation’, says Mumbai court

“Where is the question of vendetta Saraf,” the court asked Ranaut’s lawyer. After this, Saraf asked the court to grant interim protection to the actor so that he is able to get written instructions from her regarding regularisation.

Saraf added that the regularisation will also impact other residents of the building, and so they had to be consulted regarding the process. The court gave him time till February 5 to get the instructions from Ranaut.

In January this year, Ranaut had approached a civil court for protection against the demolition of her property. The court noted that merging three flats into one was in grave violation of the sanctioned plan, but gave the actor six weeks to approach the High Court for relief.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation had in March 2018 issued a notice to the actor for undertaking “unauthorised constructions” in her apartment. The civic body had asked her to restore the structure to its original position, warning that otherwise, the unauthorised portion would be demolished. Ranaut had challenged the notice, and requested the court to restrain the civic body from carrying out the demolition. The court, at the time, had ordered a status quo.