Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 16

Nearly five years after raising of apartments from the debris of bungalows came under the judicial scanner, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today asked the UT Administration to file a specific affidavit on the issue of approving floor-wise building plans.

The direction came on a petition filed against the Administration and other respondents by a residents’ welfare association and another petitioner through senior advocate Puneet Bali and counsel BS Patwalia.

Appearing before the Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vivek Puri, Bali placed heavy reliance on certain documents to contend that the UT was blatantly following the practice of sanctioning floor-wise building plans. The practice, he added, ran contrary to the statement by UT senior standing counsel on February 18, 2020. “In the light of such categorical contention by senior counsel, we direct Pankaj Jain, standing counsel for the UT, to file a specific affidavit in support of his submissions that had been recorded by this court in the order dated February 18, 2020.

An order, dated May 7, by the Supreme Court in the case of “the Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation and another versus the Union Territory of Chandigarh and others” was also brought to the notice of the Bench.

The Supreme Court, in its order, had virtually set a four-month deadline for the High Court to give its ruling on the raising of apartments from the debris of bungalows in Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh.

“We request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition (on the conversion of single residential units to three-storeyed apartments) expeditiously and not later than four months from today,” the Bench had asserted.

Taking a note of the order, the High Court Bench added: “In due deference to the same, we post this matter for hearing on July 22. Chetan Mittal, senior counsel, who had been appointed amicus curiae in this matter, undertakes that prior to the fixed date for hearing, he would be filing a detailed synopsis as also suggestions for assistance of this court,” the Bench observed.

Senior advocate and the Secretary-General of the foundation, Manmohan Lal Sarin, had earlier told the High Court that one could convert Chandigarh into Delhi. But Delhi could never be converted into Chandigarh.

The petitioner-association was seeking directions for restraining the UT Administration and its respondent-functionaries from permitting conversion of residential plots into apartments. The High Court Bench had also asked for the details of the policy on disposal of properties in Chandigarh. “A subsequent vendee of a co-sharer cannot take possession till partition; and that is the crux of the matter before the court,” the Bench had asserted. “The UT does not allow partition”. The Bench had further added that increasing the number of dwelling units too was not without problems, such as pressure on the infrastructure, sewerage and car parking.