Shah Rukh Khan's Alibaug farmhouse declared in violation of Bombay Tenancy Act, in-laws' firm fined Rs 3.09 cr

Deja Vu Farms Private Limited, the property where Shah Rukh Khan’s Alibaug farmhouse is located, has been fined Rs 3.09 crore over violations of the Bombay Tenancy Act. SRK’s mother-in-law Savita Chhiba and sister-in-law Namita Chhiba are the directors of Deja Vu Farms Private Limited. [caption id=“attachment_5722621” align=“alignnone” width=“1280”]  Shah Rukh Khan. File image[/caption] According to a report in Mirror, the first notice was issued in January 2018, which stated after the land was acquired, the additional collector of Raigad permitted agricultural activity on the plot. But the original farmhouse was razed, and a new bungalow was constructed along with amenities such as a swimming pool, a beach, and a private helipad, which is in violation of Section 63 of Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 63 bars the transfer of agricultural lands to non-agriculturist without the permission of the collector or officer authorised by the state government. Surendra Dhavale, an activist based in Mumbai, claims in a statement to the publication that despite Deja Vu Farms acquiring the land on the pretext of agriculture, no agricultural activities were carried out there. He adds the bungalow also falls under the notice of Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) of the Environment Protection Act, which prohibits constructions within 500 metres of the high tide line. SRK has hosted a number of lavish parties, including the actor’s 53rd birthday bash, in his Alibaug bungalow. The sprawling beachside property is worth Rs 146.7 million, but its market price is up to five times that amount, an IT official informs Business Standard. Khan’s farmhouse is a luxury property, and is spread over an area of 19,960 sq meters. In 2018, the income tax (IT) department provisionally attached  Deja Vu Farms Private Limited. The attachment notice was issued under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT) in December. However, the actor was later dismissed of the charge of being a beneficiary after an appellate authority under the law “revoked” the attachment order of the IT Department, calling it baseless and coloured.