OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 4950 of 2022) RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER…APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS…RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. Chandigarh’s monumental architecture as enunciated by Le Corbusier is based on the principles of town planning concept of Sun, Space, and Verdure. In the year 1952, the Union of India, in order to regulate development in the city of Chandigarh, enacted the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1952 Act”). Chander Parkash Malhotra and Others, reversed the said judgment of the High Court to the extent it declared Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules to be ultra vires.
In the year 2010, a Committee of Experts (for short, “Expert Committee”) came to be constituted to look at both the original concept of the city of Chandigarh as well as the maintenance of important heritage buildings in the UT of Chandigarh. The said Board, after considering objections, recommended that the re- introduction of the 2001 Rules should be deleted, and re- densification of any government residential/institutional pocket in Phase-I sectors should only be done with the prior approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee (for short, “Heritage Committee”). It was sought to be contended that though the 2001 Rules were repealed, thereby prohibiting the construction of apartments on plots meant for single dwelling, and though the 1960 Rules and the 2007 Rules prohibited the fragmentation/amalgamation, some unscrupulous elements were attempting to construct and sell the apartments by indulging into illegal practices. Since, in spite of its specific stand, Chandigarh Administration was not taking any steps to prevent fragmentation/apartmentalisation of single dwelling units, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) being No 15789 of 2017 came to be filed before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 7 May 2021, disposed of the said SLP by requesting the High Court to decide the said writ petition within a period of four months. On 27 July 2021, the High Court passed an interim order directing the Chandigarh Administration to carry out an exercise whereby the properties/buildings were to be identified wherein, shares be it to the extent of 50%, 30% or 20% has been sold/transferred to a person outside the family of the original owner/shareholder. Issue No.2 – Is sale of share(s) by owner or co-owner of a residential building prohibited under the 1952 Act or Rules made thereunder?
However, the High Court held that the sale of share(s) out of a building/site by the allottee(s)/transferee(s) was not barred, and rather was permissible under the general civil law. The High Court, however, found that the real estate agent/developer/seller, in order to extract maximum premium, would tend to paint a picture to the prospective buyer that by virtue of purchase of a share in the building, he would not only be entitled to have exclusive possession but also ownership rights. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the main matter, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/
Shri Patwalia submitted that, though the 2001 Rules permitted apartmentalization, on account of hue and cry of public at large, the same were repealed in the year 2007.
He further submitted that though the Chandigarh Administration has clearly admitted that it was not permitting the construction of such apartments, and that under the law, such apartments were prohibited, it was sanctioning the building plans which ex-facie showed that they were for the construction of three apartments. Shri Patwalia submitted that through such modus operandi of the developers/builders, and inaction on the part of Chandigarh Administration, what is prohibited in law, is being permitted indirectly. Shri Ranjit Kumar also submitted that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have erred in holding that mere construction of three floors on a private plot and utilization of the same as independent units would not amount to fragmentation. He submitted that rampant developments are being permitted while expanding urban areas without taking into consideration its impact on environment. They further submitted that a direction also needs to be issued to the Chandigarh Administration to take action against the persons, who, in contravention of the Rules, are constructing apartments on single dwelling units. Shri Tewari submitted that a ‘transferee’ has been defined in the 1952 Act to mean “ a person (including a firm or, other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not) to whom a site or building is transferred in any manner whatsoever, under this Act and includes his successors and assigns ”. Shri Tewari further submitted that Rule 13 of the 2007 Rules also permits an allotment to be taken jointly by more than one person.
He submitted that under sub-clause (a) of Clause (22) of Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules, a ‘residential building’ is defined to be “ a building used or constructed or adapted to be used wholly or principally for human habitation and includes all garages, or other out-buildings appur thereto ”. He submitted that under the 2001 Rules, each apartment owner is entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of the apartment in accordance with the declaration. Daya Ram and Others in support of the proposition that though the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law recognized ownership of each co-parcener over the whole of joint property and over each part thereof, which bears some similarity to joint tenancy of English law; the Dayabhaga School adhered to the doctrine of ownership in specified shares in the undivided property having similar features as in tenancy in common. Shri Tewari, in a nutshell, submitted that the dwelling units cannot be construed to be the same as apartments under the 2001 Rules, and therefore it is permissible for more than one person to construct a building jointly and occupy the shares of building as per their respective shares.
Shri Tewari submitted that if the contention as raised on behalf of the appellants is accepted, then an anomalous situation would arise inasmuch as co-owners who are part of one family would be entitled to construct three apartments whereas others could not. It is therefore submitted that the CMP- 2031 itself would reveal that there was a scope for additional units in Phase-I. It is further submitted that Section 44 of the TP Act also permits one of two or more co-owners of immoveable property to transfer his share of such property or any interest therein.
He also relies on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Court in the cases of R.G. The learned ASG also submitted that when the building regulations permit construction of three floors, the relief as sought by the appellants cannot be granted. (k) “transferee” means a person (including a firm or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not) to whom a site or building is transferred in any manner whatsoever, under this Act and includes his successors and assigns.” It is sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents that ‘transferee’ as defined under the 1952 Act means a person including a firm or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, to whom a site or building is transferred in any manner whatsoever, under this Act and includes his successors and assigns. It is also submitted that under the 1973 Rules, a lease could be jointly granted to more than one person. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5 thereof, the Central Government is empowered to make rules to regulate the erection of buildings for the purpose of matters mentioned in Clauses (a) to (i) thereto. Fragmentation – [Section 3 and 22 (2)(a)] – No fragmentation or amalgamation of any site or building shall be permitted: Provided that amalgamation of two or more adjoining sites shall be permissible only in the case of commercial or industrial sites subject to the condition that the revised plans are approved by the competent authority, prior thereto.
Each sub-division along with common areas, common facilities, rights of access easements and other ownership rights shall constitute a single, distinct identified, property which may be used transferred or disposed by the owner/lessees in accordance with the applicable law and rules. Such letter of deed shall recognize the owners/lessees of the apartment as the owners/lessees thereof, who shall be liable to comply with all the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, and rules and regulations and orders framed thereunder. Such owners/lessees’s shall be fully and exclusively responsible and liable for complying with all provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, rules and orders framed thereunder, and covenants of the allotment letter and conveyance deed pertaining to the site or the building.
Sub-Division of Residential Buildings: (1) Any residential building situated on a plot size of less than 1400 square yards may be sub-divided into separate dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit on each floor of the building. In case more than one sub-division is allowed on the ground, each such sub-division may have a separate basement if building regulations so permit. Provided further that fragmentation of any site shall be allowed if such fragmentation is permitted under any scheme notified by the Administration.” It could thus be seen that Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules also does not permit fragmentation/amalgamation of any site or building. The High Court has held that fragmentation will take place only if there is a division of the site or division of the building with an element of exclusive ownership, i.e., partition by metes and bounds, which is prohibited by Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules.
The High Court held that, by virtue of sale of share(s) by a co-owner and thereafter, the purchaser/vendee occupying a specific portion of the building on the basis of an internal arrangement/understanding, sub-division of the building as provided under the 2001 Rules does not take place. As such, the High Court though holds that what was permissible under the 2001 Rules, became impermissible after its repeal and notification of the 2007 Rules, it held that construction of three different floors in a building or a site and occupation of the same by three different persons would not amount to apartmentalization as the same does not have recognition of the Estate Office.
It will further be relevant to note that Chandigarh Administration has notified the CMP-2031. It will be relevant to note that in the draft CMP-2031, there was a provision for apartments. The said Board, while submitting its report, has laid down certain guiding principles, which are thus: “ GUIDING PRINCIPLES The objections received by the Administration have been considered by the Board of Inquiry keeping in view the following guiding principles: 1. Any redevelopment in northern sectors (Phase-1) should only be done keeping the recommendations of the Expert Committee on Heritage in mind. Chandigarh has limited land and to preserve the integrity of the original concepts, it needs to be ensured that the city is not pressurized beyond its holding capacity.
It will only add residential density while ignoring other urban infrastructure thereby being detrimental to the city environment and will only lead to the long term decline of the city.” It can thus clearly be seen that the said Board has considered that Chandigarh has a heritage value and it is important to preserve and maintain the integrity of the original concepts and planning postulates of Sun, Space and Verdure. It also emphasized that the northern sectors of Chandigarh (Corbusian Chandigarh) should be preserved in their present form as far as possible. Chapter III of the said Report elaborately deals with the objections opposing redensification in Phase-I Sectors and reintroduction of the 2001 Rules in Chandigarh. Rapid growth of urban population is predicted by census and planning authorities: Chandigarh being the headquarters of Punjab and Haryana along with being a major gateway of Himachal Pradesh is uniquely positioned for exponential growth as it is an extremely attractive destination for all segn1ents of the population.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/presumption-of-genuine-endorsements-in-cheque-case/
A more careful examination of the facts will reveal that there exist several reasons why the introduction of Apartment Rules is not an appropriate solution to the city’s requirements of affordable housing. The Expert Heritage Committee has recommended that the northern sectors of Chandigarh (Corbusian in Chandigarh) should be preserved in their present form as far as possible. Individual developments of apartments in plots will result in increase in density in the areas of the city that are most profitable to the developers rather than where these housing units are required. City planners, therefore, will have no advance knowledge where and in what number the population density will increase. It will not serve MIG and LIG and will add to unplanned and unregulated growth of population density without any matching increase in social and physical infrastructure or amenities.
The Board, therefore, recommends that all references in the draft Master Plan in respect of the reintroduction of ‘Apartment Rules’ should be deleted and redensification of any government residential/institutional pocket in Phase-I sectors should only be done with the prior approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee. The said Board further considered that individual development of apartments in plots will result in increase in density in the areas of the city that are most profitable to the developers rather than where these housing units are required. It further considered that the planning for support and supply of infrastructure would not be sufficient to meet the growth in population density on account of apartmentalization.
Clause 1.2 of the CMP-2031 would reveal that the original plan of Phase-I divided the city into a grid of 30 sectors with the Capitol Complex as well as the Civic Centre. It states that the First Phase which is considered as city’s Historic Core was designed for population of 1,50,000 in low rise plotted development. Clause 1.12 of the CMP-2031 would reveal that Chandigarh has a universally acclaimed rich ‘Heritage’ and ‘Green City’ character. Each sector, with the exception of some sectors, has a size of 800m 1200m which was determined on the parameter of providing all amenities, i.e., shops, schools, health centres and places of recreation and worship within a 10-minute walking distance of the residents. Clause 5.3 of the CMP-2031 deals with density. Clause 5.3.2 of the CMP-2031 states that though Phase-I was planned to be low density development with 9000 acres of land housing 1,50,000 population, i.e., the density of 16 persons per acre, as per 2001 Census, it was 26 persons per acre. It states that by the year 2001, the density of Phase-I had already exceeded the designed density whereas that of Phase-II sectors was the same as was designed. Clause 6.3 of the CMP-2031 deals with private housing.
There are approximately 23000 private plots of all categories within the sectoral grid of the Chandigarh Master Plan. The philosophy, plans and designs propounded and used by Le Corbusier, while building the city, should not be allowed to be affected and should be kept in mind while protecting, maintaining and expanding heritage structures. Efforts should be directed to retain the essence of the original Plan of the city and as such the following is recommended: Chandigarh shall remain an Administrative City. The Committee has also made recommendations for a Master Plan for Chandigarh to ensure regulated development of the city’s Inter State Regional Plan and mechanism for its implementation, City Development Plan, Solar City, restoring the city’s strong imageability, Urban Design, restoration of Architectural Control/Frame Control, Design, Advertisement Control Order.
Prior Concept Approval for identified private and Government buildings with the principal objective to maintain a harmonious urban form of Chandigarh and in keeping with its original concept, Prior Concept Approval of new buildings and/or additions-and- alterations in old ones of identified private and government properties has been recommended. Restoration and preservation of building materials – Concrete & Brick buildings.” Clause 19.11 of the CMP-2031 talks about the inclusion of Chandigarh in the UNESCO World Heritage List due to its outstanding universal value. It will be relevant to refer to the said recommendations, which are thus: “ 19.11 INCLUSION OF CHANDIGARH IN THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST DUE TO ITS OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE It has been perceived that Chandigarh’s inscription on World heritage list would bring many benefits as the city would join a select list of other modern movement cities/urban areas currently inscribed on the UNESCO’s heritage list. The proposal needs a legal framework and a monitoring committee to examine the regional level proposals/ big developments by Constitution of an Inter State high powered “ Regional Environmental Management Board ” as per the proposal of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.” It also emphasizes that Corbusier’s Chandigarh, i.e., Phase-I of the city, which is the most representative of Le Corbusier’s thought, is truly worthy of its modern heritage value. A Local Commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition, who submitted his report on 7 February 1989. The order of the trial court came to be challenged before the High Court by way of revision. The learned Single Judge, vide its judgment dated 22 February 1991, held Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules being ultra vires to the Constitution of India and also beyond the powers of the rule-making authority. The entire Act was purposefully directed to provide a reasonable social control of the visualized by the creation of an altogether new capital city for the State from scratch. Consequently, the restriction imposed by Rule 14 in furtherance of the object of the Act has to be judged as a reasonable restriction.” This Court, vide order dated 24 November 1992 passed in the case of Chandigarh Administration (supra), observed thus: “Leave granted.
There shall be no order as to costs.” This Court specifically set aside that part of the judgment of the High Court which had held Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules to be unconstitutional. In case he fails to do so within the time that the trial court may allow for the purpose, the added respondents be allowed to pay the price of the share of Chander Prakash-appellant.” In the case of Tilak Raj Bakshi (supra), the property situated in Chandigarh was owned by one Kripa Ram Bakshi. The plaintiff had filed a suit claiming that in view of an agreement between the three brothers namely himself, the first defendant and the younger brother, the third defendant, without the concurrence of the plaintiff, the first defendant could not have sold the suit scheduled property to the second defendant. When it comes to the terms of Section 3, it contemplates power with the Central Government to transfer by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the Government in Chandigarh on such terms and conditions as may subject to any Rules that can be made under the Act, the Government thinks fit to impose. Thus, though it is open to the Central Government to transfer either land or building belonging to the Government in Chandigarh under Section 3 of the 1952 Act, the word “site” is confined to only the land which is transferred by the Central Government under Section 3. It is on the strength of the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules and Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules that the appellant would argue that the assignment of the share of the first defendant occasioned a breach of the law. It is contended by the second defendant that the sale deed in favour of Respondent 1 specifically says that the sale is in respect of one-third share in the residential House No 13 of Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. We have noted the fact that one-third share has been duly transferred and mutated in the name of the first respondent-second defendant by the Chandigarh Administration.” The second defendant has produced the communication dated 19-12-1997 which indicates the transfer of rights of site in Sector 19-A held by Vishnu Dutt Mehta (first defendant) is noted in favour of the second defendant subject to certain conditions. It also noted that the transfer of rights of site in Sector 19A held by the first defendant was duly noted in favour of the second defendant subject to certain conditions on 19 December 1997. Yet, even if it were to be presumed that a purely legal question can be raised even at this stage, with this Court itself to decide on it as a substantial question of law, I would hold that as a matter of fact legal partition of the suit property has not been sought by respondent Sangeeta Chopra once she withdrew her claim to ownership of the first floor thereof because of the statutory bar on such partition. Further, as noticed above, there is no statutory bar on possession/occupation of individual floors, as long as joint ownership is not partitioned.” It thus appears that Sangeeta Chopra withdrew her claim to ownership of the first floor of the property because of the statutory bar on such partition and restricted her claim for seeking possession of a particular floor of the property in terms of the family settlement. Whenever any share of co-owner was sold to an outsider, it was held that such a purchaser stepped into the shoes of one of the co-owners and as a co-owner, he was entitled to the share of the property. The said Rules permitted sub-division of a building duly recognized by the Estate Officer. yards were to be permitted with floor-wise sub-division into separate dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit on each floor of the building. The said Board also considered that individual developments of apartments in plots will result in increase in density in the areas of the city that are most profitable to the developers, rather than where these housing units are actually required.
One of the guiding principles that weighed with the said Board was that Chandigarh had Heritage Value, and it was important to preserve and maintain the integrity of the original concepts and planning postulates of Sun, Space and Verdure. It is important to note that the CMP-2031 itself states that Phase-I Sectors have been recommended for Heritage status, and that the re-utilization of the identified housing/institutional pockets in the first phase has to be undertaken with the prior approval of the Heritage Committee. It further observes that there are approximately 23000 private plots of all categories within the sectoral grid of the Chandigarh Master Plan.
It will be pertinent to note that in the appeal filed before this Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration (supra), which was filed by the Chandigarh Administration challenging the judgment of the High Court holding Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules to be unconstitutional, it was specifically submitted that Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules was enacted in order to restrict the further growth of Chandigarh city. That the contents of paragraph 10 as stated are wrong and denied. It is stated that an owner of a freehold residential house is permitted to sell his share or a part of the shares in the said house. It also noticed that in the subsequent affidavit dated 20 July 2021 of the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh, it was specifically deposed that no sale of defined portion/plot of building is permissible, nor any such sale has been recognized by the Chandigarh Administration except those registered during the year 2001 to 2007 when the 2001 Rules were in vogue. We find that the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents/ Chandigarh Administration as also the subsequent affidavit of the Assistant Estate Officer is totally silent on such aspect. In view of the above we direct UT Administration to forthwith carry out an exercise whereby in the first instance the properties/buildings would be identified from the office of the Estate Officer where the record of the rights is maintained wherein sale of share(s) be it to the extent of 50%, 30% or 20% has been sold/ transferred to a person outside the family of the original owner/ shareholder. To ensure that such exercise does not become overly time consuming and the object is only towards a fact finding exercise we are of the view that it ought to be a sample exercise. The Division Bench observed that the Chandigarh Administration should have carried out some kind of physical verification to ascertain as to whether the aforementioned modus operandi had been resorted to after the repeal of the 2001 Rules. It is thus clear that when the interim order was passed on 27 July 2021, the Division Bench was conscious of the fact that even according to the Chandigarh Administration, it was not permissible to construct apartments on the sites allotted and sell it to different persons. The third purchaser having 20% share of the house would be entitled to the entire second floor including the roof of the second floor but excluding the staircase. It asserts that the MoU has been executed between the parties to avoid any future misunderstanding/litigation amongst all the co-owners of the said house in respect of their respective possession in the said house in lieu of their respective shares in the said house. No doubt, it states that since the parties are owners of different portions and would be dependent upon each other in many ways, they should try to co-exist amicably with each other as brothers and sisters and family members. to disintegrate; collapse or break into fragments: The chair fragmented under his weight. to break (something) into pieces or fragments; cause to disintegrate: The vase was fragmented in shipment. When the transaction clearly shows that it is being entered into for the purpose of constructing three different apartments on each floor and also mentions that the same is not permissible under the existing rules, the intention of the parties is to construct three different units which are disintegrated. In the teeth of such an undertaking and the specific stand of Chandigarh Administration that it does not permit construction of apartments, it is difficult to appreciate as to how building plans have been sanctioned which ex-facie show that they are nothing else but apartments. The High Court in the impugned judgment though holds that it is not permissible to construct apartments in view of repeal of the 2001 Rules, goes on to hold that the said would not amount to apartmentalization, inasmuch as there is no sub-division of a building duly recognized by the Estate Officer along with the proportionate share in common areas and common facilities. Therefore, in our view, the reasoning of the High Court would not be tenable in law. It has considered that the Heritage Committee has taken a serious note of the relaxations in FAR and building controls already given earlier and has recommended that no further relaxation be given and has also recommended that the relaxations already granted should be revoked.
Any unauthorised deviation from the duly sanctioned scheme by sacrificing the public interest in the preservation and protection of the environment by means of open space for parks and play grounds and’ventilation’ will be contrary to the legislative intent, and an abuse of the statutory power vested in the authorities…” 24. ……. Emphasis on open air and greenery has multiplied and the city or town planning or development Acts of different States require even private house owners to leave open space in front and back for lawn and fresh air…….” 124. It was further observed that the people of developed countries had greatly contributed to the concept of planned development of cities by strictly adhering to the planning laws, the Master Plan etc. The people belonging to this class do not realize that the constructions made in violation of the relevant laws, master plan or zonal development plan or sanctioned building plan or the building is used for a purpose other than the one specified in the relevant statute or the master plan etc., such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage etc. As and when the courts have passed orders or the officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance of laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the illegal/unauthorized constructions, those in power have come forward to protect the wrong doers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularization of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the name of compassion and hardship.
It has been submitted that the 2017 Rules clearly permit construction of three storeys. Another aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is that the CMP-2031 as well as the report of the said Board emphasizes that in order to maintain the “Corbusian Chandigarh” status of Phase-I of Chandigarh, no redensification is to be done without the permission of the Heritage Committee. Insofar as the practices that were followed while developing New Delhi Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi), a Bench consisting of three learned Judges of this Court had an occasion to consider the same in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council and Others v.
Vide the said judgment of the High Court, the New Delhi Municipal Council was directed to return the building plans submitted by the respondents with an endorsement “sanctioned” within the time specified in the order. Though, it may not be strictly possible to adhere to the practices that are followed in LBZ, when the report of the said Board as well as the CMP-2031 emphasizes on the approval of the Heritage Committee before permitting any redensification in the Le Corbusier zone, the Chandigarh Administration could not have made the provisions in the CMP-2031 permitting redensification without the approval of the Heritage Committee. In our view, permitting anything which would have an adverse effect on the heritage status of the city without the approval of the Heritage Committee itself would be contrary to the CMP-2031 and the report of the said Board.
We may also gainfully refer to the observations of a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Dheera Singh v. Taking into consideration the importance of the matter, we had directed the Estate Officer to remain present during the proceedings of the hearing. One aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is that though under the 2017 Rules, one dwelling unit is being permitted to be converted into three dwelling units, there is no adequate provision for parking. It has been recommended that to prevent undue change or damage to the historic and cultural value of Le Corbusier’s urbanism, interim orders must not be issued to make any modifications in the heritage areas approved by the Government of India, the circulation structure, the generic sector, architectural control and the plantations.
It will be interesting to note that while planning the said city, urban living as promoted by Le Corbusier and his treatise titled “ How to Conceive Urbanism ” served as an inspiration. It is possible based on the still undeveloped areas around Brasilia, the surrounding green spaces, and the location’s topography, to clearly distinguish the city’s limits from the territorial expanse in which it was introduced, singular attributes that enable analysis of the site without losing any of the basic information critical to transmitting its continued Outstanding Universal Value.” 140.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/medical-negligence-and-compensation-a-landmark-decision/
We find that similar steps need to be taken by the Chandigarh Administration as well as the Government of India for protecting the heritage status of Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh. Undisputedly, Phase-I of Chandigarh, i.e., Corbusian Chandigarh, even according to the respondent-authorities, possesses a heritage status.
It is observed that the proposal needs a legal framework and a monitoring committee to examine the regional level proposals/big developments by the constitution of an Inter State high powered Regional Environmental Management Board, as per the proposal of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. It states that environmental mainstreaming can help to incorporate relevant environmental concerns into the decisions of institutions, while emerging ideas about the green urban economy show how density can generate environmental and social opportunities. The said article depicts the sorry state of affairs as to how the city of Bengaluru, once considered to be one of India’s best cities, a ‘Garden city’ has been ruined on account of haphazard urban development. The article notes that, while on one hand, on account of heavy rains, many of the houses were submerged in water, on the other hand, the city faced a huge shortage of drinking water. The CMP-2031 on one hand does not permit apartmentalization, however, on the other hand, it estimates the number of dwelling units to be triple of the plots available. It is further to be noted that though the Chandigarh Administration is permitting one dwelling unit to be converted into three apartments, its adverse effect on traffic has not been addressed.
It therefore directed the Chandigarh Administration to issue a notice to be published at periodic intervals in the newspapers for the purposes of sounding a word of caution and educating such home buyers who have already purchased a share in a residential building/site as also the prospective home buyers. The High Court also directed the Chandigarh Administration to mention in the said notice that fragmentation of site/building is specifically prohibited under the 2007 Rules. However, we find that the High Court itself having found that after the repeal of the 2001 Rules and enactment of the 2007 Rules, apartmentalization was not permissible, it ought not to have permitted a modus operandi which indirectly permits to do what was not permissible in law.
”, published by the BBC, which reads thus: “Of all the world’s ideal cities, Chandigarh has done remarkably well, offering striking monumental architecture, a grid of self-contained neighbourhoods, more trees than perhaps any Indian city and a way of life that juggles tradition with modernity. The buildings without greens will add to the ever increasing temperature of the overcrowded cities and urban areas. As already pointed out herein, on one hand, the 2001 Rules have been repealed in the year 2007 and the 2007 Rules have been enacted.
The Executive has in the instant case, with reference to the 1952 Act, failed to live-up to the expectations of the residents as instead of approaching the Ministry concerned with a concrete proposal on data-based information for onward consideration of the Legislature to rejuvenate the 1952 Act and make it more vibrant and alive to the issues in praesentia or in future, it has gone for ad hoc solutions taking refuge under Section 22 of the Act. We are therefore inclined to issue certain directions so as to ensure that the issue regarding apartmentalization is first examined by the Heritage Committee so as to preserve the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh. We further issue the following directions: (i) The Heritage Committee is directed to consider the issue of redensification in Phase-I of the city of Chandigarh; (ii) Needless to state that the Heritage Committee would take into consideration its own recommendations that the northern sectors of Chandigarh “(Corbusian Chandigarh)” should be preserved in their present form; (iii) The Heritage Committee shall also take into consideration the impact of such redensification on the parking/traffic issues; (iv) After the Heritage Committee considers the issues, the Chandigarh Administration would consider amending the CMP-2031 and the 2017 Rules insofar as they are applicable to Phase-I in accordance with the recommendations of the Heritage Committee; (v) Such amendments shall be placed before the Central Government, which shall take a decision with regard to approval of such amendments keeping in view the requirement of maintaining the heritage status of Le Corbusier zone; (vi) Till a final decision as aforesaid is taken by the Central Government: a. the Chandigarh Administration shall not sanction any plan of a building which ex- facie appears to be a modus operandi to convert a single dwelling unit into three different apartments occupied by three strangers; and b.
Case Title: RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH (2023 INSC 22)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000274-000274 / 2023
