SC bans fragmentation of residential units in Chandigarh 

NEW DELHI: Remarking that it was necessary to strike a proper balance between sustainable development and environment protection, the Supreme Court on Tuesday prohibited fragmentation/division/ bifurcation/apartmentalization of a residential unit in Phase­ I of Chandigarh. 

Observing that it was necessary to protect the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna said in 131 page ruling said, “Number of floors in Phase­ I shall be restricted to three with a uniform maximum height as deemed appropriate by the Heritage Committee keeping in view the requirement to maintain the heritage status of Phase­I.” 

The bench also directed the Central Government and Chandigarh Administration to freeze FAR and not increase it any further. “On account of certain acts and omissions of the Chandigarh Administration, in certain areas, there has been a chaotic situation,” bench further said. 

The court also urged Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre and state level to consider damage to environment due to haphazard developments and take measures to ensure that development does not damage the environment. 

“We observe that it is high time that the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels take note of the damage to the environment on account of haphazard developments and take a call to take necessary measures to ensure that the development does not damage the environment. It is necessary that a proper balance is struck between sustainable development and environmental protection. We therefore appeal to the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions for carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before permitting urban development,” the bench said. 

The observations were made in the plea which dealt with The Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 (“the 2001 Rules”) were framed by the Administrator, UT of Chandigarh as per which it was permission to subdivide single residential units into more than one apartment. Although the rules were repealed by a notification dated October 1, 2007 but the same were reintroduced in the Draft Chandigarh Master Plan-2031.

Pursuant to the objections being considered by Board of Inquiry and Hearing, it was decided that re­ densification of any government residential/institutional pocket in Phase­I sectors could only be done with the prior approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee. Since the practice of converting large number of single dwelling units into apartment was prevalent, a plea was filed before the Punjab and Haryana HC. Since the plea was dismissed by the HC, the Residents Welfare Association approached Supreme Court. The HC had further held that for constituting a fragmentation, there has to be an element of permanent severance. Mere construction of three floors on a private plot and utilization of the same as independent units would not amount to fragmentation.

The SC court also directed the Heritage Committee to consider the issue of redensification in Phase­I of the city of Chandigarh and also take into consideration the impact of such redensification on the parking/traffic issues. 

It further barred Chandigarh Administration from resorting to formulate bye laws or rules without prior consultation of Heritage Committee and approval of Centre. 

NEW DELHI: Remarking that it was necessary to strike a proper balance between sustainable development and environment protection, the Supreme Court on Tuesday prohibited fragmentation/division/ bifurcation/apartmentalization of a residential unit in Phase­ I of Chandigarh.  Observing that it was necessary to protect the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna said in 131 page ruling said, “Number of floors in Phase­ I shall be restricted to three with a uniform maximum height as deemed appropriate by the Heritage Committee keeping in view the requirement to maintain the heritage status of Phase­I.”  The bench also directed the Central Government and Chandigarh Administration to freeze FAR and not increase it any further. “On account of certain acts and omissions of the Chandigarh Administration, in certain areas, there has been a chaotic situation,” bench further said.  The court also urged Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre and state level to consider damage to environment due to haphazard developments and take measures to ensure that development does not damage the environment.  “We observe that it is high time that the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels take note of the damage to the environment on account of haphazard developments and take a call to take necessary measures to ensure that the development does not damage the environment. It is necessary that a proper balance is struck between sustainable development and environmental protection. We therefore appeal to the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions for carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before permitting urban development,” the bench said.  The observations were made in the plea which dealt with The Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 (“the 2001 Rules”) were framed by the Administrator, UT of Chandigarh as per which it was permission to subdivide single residential units into more than one apartment. Although the rules were repealed by a notification dated October 1, 2007 but the same were reintroduced in the Draft Chandigarh Master Plan-2031. Pursuant to the objections being considered by Board of Inquiry and Hearing, it was decided that re­ densification of any government residential/institutional pocket in Phase­I sectors could only be done with the prior approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee. Since the practice of converting large number of single dwelling units into apartment was prevalent, a plea was filed before the Punjab and Haryana HC. Since the plea was dismissed by the HC, the Residents Welfare Association approached Supreme Court. The HC had further held that for constituting a fragmentation, there has to be an element of permanent severance. Mere construction of three floors on a private plot and utilization of the same as independent units would not amount to fragmentation. The SC court also directed the Heritage Committee to consider the issue of redensification in Phase­I of the city of Chandigarh and also take into consideration the impact of such redensification on the parking/traffic issues.  It further barred Chandigarh Administration from resorting to formulate bye laws or rules without prior consultation of Heritage Committee and approval of Centre.