/2023 INSC 0019/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.         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.         OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5489 of 2022)
INDEX
I. BACKGROUND…………………………………...... Paras 3 to 12
II. PROCEEDINGS   BEFORE   THE   HIGH
COURT………………………………………………… Paras 13 to 19
III. SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANTS……………….. Paras 20 to 29
IV. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS……………. Paras 30 to 40
V. STATUTORY PROVISIONS……………………….. Paras 41 to 51
VI. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT Paras 52 to 56
VII. REPORT   OF   THE   BOARD   OF   ‘INQUIRY   AND
HEARING’…………………………………………….. Paras 57 to 63
VIII
. CHANDIGARH MASTER PLAN­2031…………… Paras 64 to 77
IX. CONSIDERATION OF CITED CASES…………… Paras 78 to 91
X. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES…………………… Paras 92 to 144
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES………………………. Paras 145 to 152
XII. CONCLUSION……………………………………….. Paras 153 to 171
1

J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. “ Let this be a new town, symbolic of freedom of India
unfettered by the traditions of the past…an expressions of the
nation’s faith in the future ”. 
These   were   the   words   of   Pandit   Jawaharlal   Nehru,
India’s   First   Prime  Minister,   while   laying   down   the   founding
principles of a new city for Capital of the State of Punjab.  
I. BACKGROUND:
3. After   India   attained   independence   in   the  year  1947,
the   Government   of   Punjab   in   consultation   with   the
Government of India approved the site for the new Capital of
the   State   in   March   1948.     The   new   city   was   designed   by
French   Architect   Le   Corbusier   in   association   with   other
architects,   namely,   Pierre   Jeanneret,   Jane   B.   Drew   and
Maxwell   Fry.     The   city   was   planned   as   a   living   example   of
urban design, landscaping and architecture.   It was a city to
be   created   with   the   use   of   ordinary   construction   materials
2

and   embellished   with   integral   works   of   art.   Chandigarh’s
monumental   architecture   as   enunciated   by   Le   Corbusier   is
based   on   the   principles   of   town   planning   concept   of   Sun,
Space, and Verdure.   Le Corbusier incorporated principles of
light,   space   and   greenery   in   the   plan   and   used   the   human
body   as   a   metaphor   –   the   ‘head’   contained   the   Capital
Complex,   the   ‘heart’   being   the   Commercial   Centre,   i.e.,
Sector 17, lungs (the leisure valley, innumerable open spaces
and sector greens), the intellect (the cultural and educational
institutions), the viscera (the industrial area), and the ‘arms’
having   academic   and   leisure   facilities   like   open   courtyards
etc.     The   circulation   system   was   conceived   as   having   seven
types of roads known as 7Vs.
4. Chandigarh has been envisaged as an administrative
city   with   hierarchical   distribution   of   population   being   such,
that   the   population   density   in   the   northern   sectors   is   low,
which   increases   towards   the   southern   sectors.     Chandigarh
has   been   planned   as   a   low­rise   city,   and   has   been   so
developed   that   even   after   sixty   years   of   its   inception,   it
3

retains the original concept to a large extent.  This is how the
concept of this “beautiful city” was born.
5. On   division   of   the   State   of   Punjab   into   States   of
Punjab   and   Haryana,   the   city   was   made   a   Union   Territory
(UT), and became the Capital for both the States.  The city of
Chandigarh   was   developed   into   two   phases,   Phase­I   having
Sectors 1 to 30 and Phase­II having Sectors 31 to 47.  Phase­
I   was   designed   for   low­rise   plotted   development   for   a   total
population of 1,50,000. Phase­II Sectors were to have a much
higher density as compared to Phase­I Sectors.
6. 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”).   In the year 1960,
the   Government   of   Punjab,   in   exercise   of   the   powers
conferred   by   Sections   5   and   22   of   the   1952   Act,   made   the
Chandigarh   (Sale   of   Sites   and   Building)   Rules,   1960
(hereinafter referred to as “the 1960 Rules”).   Rule 14 of the
1960   Rules   prohibits   fragmentation   or   amalgamation   of   any
site   or   building.     The   validity   of   Rule   14   of   the   1960   Rules
4

was   challenged   before   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   &   Haryana
(for   short,   “High   Court”)   in   the   case   of   Chander   Parkash
Malhotra v. Ved Parkash Malhotra and Others 1
.   Vide its
judgment in the said case, the High Court held the said Rule
14   to   be   ultra   vires   to   the   Constitution   of   India.     However,
this   Court,   in   the   case   of   Chandigarh   Administration   v.
Chander Parkash Malhotra and Others 2
, reversed the said
judgment of the High Court to the extent it declared Rule 14
of the 1960 Rules to be  ultra vires . 
7. In   the   year   2001,   the   Administrator,   UT   of
Chandigarh, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 5
and   22   of   the   1952   Act,   framed   the   Chandigarh   Apartment
Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2001 Rules”).  By
virtue   of   the   2001   Rules,   even   in   case   of   single   residential
units, it was permissible to sub­divide it into more than one
apartment.   The   citizens   of   UT   of   Chandigarh   vehemently
opposed  the  construction  of   apartments,  which   according  to
them,   had   the   effect   of   destroying   the   character   of   the   city.
In view of the public outcry, the 2001 Rules were repealed by
1   1991 SCC OnLine P&H 245
2   Civil Appeal No. 4974 of 1992 dated 24 th
 November 1992
5

notification   dated   1 st
  October   2007.     In   the   same   year,   i.e.,
2007, the 1960 Rules were also repealed.  The Administrator,
UT   of   Chandigarh,   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under
Section   22   of   the   1952   Act,   framed   the   Chandigarh   Estate
Rules,   2007   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   2007   Rules”)   on
7 th
  November   2007.     Rule   16   of   the   2007   Rules   again
prohibited   fragmentation/amalgamation   of   any   site   or
building.
8. In   the   year   2009,   a   Committee   for   Chandigarh
Master   Plan,   2031   (for   short,   “CMP­2031”)   came   to   be
constituted.     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.
9. In   the   Draft   CMP­2031,   the   2001   Rules   were   re­
introduced.   Prior   to   the   finalization   of   the   CMP­2031,
objections   were   invited.   A   Board   of   “Inquiry   and   Hearing”
(hereinafter referred to as, “the said Board”) was constituted
to   look   at   the   grievances   of   the   public   at   large.     One   of   the
6

major   objections   raised   to   the   draft   CMP­2031   was   with
regard to re­introduction of the 2001 Rules.  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 Phase­I sectors should only be done with the prior
approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee
(for short, “Heritage Committee”).
10. The   aforesaid   recommendations   were   accepted   by
the Central Government and all references to the apartments
in   the   Draft   CMP­2031   were   deleted   from   the   Final   CMP­
2031,   which   was   notified   under   Section   4(1)(f)   of   the   1952
Act   and   Sections   3,   4,   5   and   11   of   the   Punjab   New   Capital
(Periphery)   Control   Act,   1952   and   under   Article   239   of   the
Constitution of India.
11. Noticing that in spite of the repeal of the 2001 Rules
and   the   fact   that   further   fragmentation   of   the   property   was
prohibited as per Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, a large number
of   single   dwelling   units   were   being   surreptitiously   converted
into   apartments,   the   appellants­Association   filed   a   Public
7

Interest   Litigation   being   CWP   No.   18559   of   2016   before   the
High   Court.     It   was   the   grievance   of   the   appellants   that
certain   developers   were   purchasing   the   plots,   constructing
three apartments thereon and thereafter selling them to three
different persons. 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.     The
prayer   sought   in   the   petition   before   the   High   Court   was   for
restraining the respondents from permitting residential plots
in   the   UT   of   Chandigarh   which   were   allotted   as   single
dwelling units to be constructed or utilized as apartments.  A
prayer was also sought directing the respondent­Chandigarh
Administration   to   take   appropriate   action   against   the
offending owners for violation of the undertakings submitted
by them while applying for occupation certificate.
8

12. The   High   Court,   vide   order   dated   15 th
  September
2016,   issued   notice   in   the   said   writ   petition.     In   the   said
proceedings, an application bearing No. 16263 of 2016 came
to   be   filed   praying   for   stay   of   conversion   of   single   dwelling
units   into   apartments.     A   reply   came   to   be   filed   in   the   said
writ   petition   by   the   UT   of   Chandigarh,   stating   therein   that
the Chandigarh Administration does not permit a residential
house   to   be   converted   into   an   apartment   on   account   of   the
fact that the 2001 Rules now stand repealed.
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT:
13. 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 24 th
May 2017, allowed to withdraw the said petition.
14. The   appellants­Association   thereafter   filed   another
application   being  C.M.  No.   1580   of   2018  in   CWP  No.   18559
of   2016   seeking   appropriate   directions   to   be   issued   to   the
Chandigarh   Administration   to   restrain   percentage   sale   or
9

part of share sale of freehold residential houses.   In the said
application,   notice   came   to   be   issued   by   the   High   Court   on
5 th
  February 2018.   Since no orders were passed in the said
application,   another   application   being   C.M.   No.19649   of
2019   came   to   be   filed   on   16 th
  December   2019,   praying   for
interim   directions   to   the   Chandigarh   Administration   to
identify   the   residential   plots   which   were   fragmented   into
apartments.     On   18 th
  February   2020,   notice   came   to   be
issued   in   the   said   application.     The   appellants­Association
again   filed   SLP(Civil)   No.   6642   of   2021   before   this   Court.
This   Court,   vide   order   dated   7 th
  May   2021,   disposed   of   the
said SLP by requesting the High Court to decide the said writ
petition within a period of four months.
15. In   the   meantime,   the   High   Court   had   appointed   an
amicus   curiae   to   assist   the   court.     On   27 th
  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
10

owner/shareholder.   This was to be done on the basis of the
record   maintained   in   the   office   of   the   Estate   Officer.     The
second   step   was   to   carry   out   a   physical   inspection   of   such
identified buildings/dwelling units, to find out as to whether
the   sale   of   shares   has   actually   translated   into   the   buyer
occupying   an   independent   floor   in   the   otherwise   composite
dwelling unit, or to find out as to whether independent floors
are in the process of being constructed.
16. The   said   order   came   to   be   challenged   before   this
Court   in   SLP(Civil)   Nos.   13120   and   12562   of   2021.     The
survey which was directed to be conducted by the High Court
vide its order dated 27 th
 July 2021, came to be stayed by this
Court vide order dated 9 th
 August 2021.  This Court, on being
informed   that   the   survey   had   already   been   completed,   vide
order dated 6 th
 September 2021, clarified that the High Court
can   proceed   with   the   hearing   of   the   writ   petition   pending
before it after taking into consideration the report.
17. At   the   stage   of   hearing,   the   High   Court   considered
the following issues raised by the learned amicus:
11

“ Issue No.1  ­ What is the meaning to be assigned to
the   term   "Fragmentation"   under   the   1952   Act   and
the Rules framed thereunder? 
Issue No.2  ­ Is sale of share(s) by owner or co­owner
of   a   residential   building   prohibited   under   the   1952
Act or Rules made thereunder? 
Issue   No.3   ­   Does   sale   of   share(s)   by   owner   or   co­
owner   in   a   residential   building   amount   to
'fragmentation'? 
Issue   No.4   ­   What   is   the   status   of   a   co­owner   by
virtue   of   purchase   of   share(s)   in   a   residential
building? 
Issue   No.5   ­   Can   occupation/possession   of   a
specific   portion   of   the   joint   property   be   termed   as
apartmentalization? 
Issue   No.6   ­   Whether   the   residential   building
constructed  on  a residential plot  in  UT Chandigarh
meant   for   single   family   use   and   to   be   treated   as   a
Single Dwelling Unit?”
12

18. Vide   the   impugned   judgment   dated   23 rd
  November
2021,  the  High  Court dismissed the  writ petition.    The  High
Court held that there was no provision under the 1952 Act or
the Rules framed thereunder governing transfer of shares in
relation   to  a  site  or   building  whether   owned  singly  or  under
joint ownership.   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.     It  further   held   that
the status of such building/site, however, even after the sale
of share(s) continues to be under joint ownership.   It 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.     It
held that unless there has been a sub­division of the building
duly   recognized   by   the   Estate   Officer   along   with
proportionate share in common areas and common facilities,
the same would not amount to apartmentalization. 
13

19. 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.  The High Court observed that the
same was not permissible and the purchaser, by purchase of
share(s),   only   became   a   co­owner/co­sharer   in   the   entire
building   to   the   extent   of   shareholding.   In   the   eventuality   of
the   dispute   arising   between   the   co­sharers/co­owners,   the
only remedy would be to put the property to auction and they
would   be   only   entitled   to   the   sale   proceeds   as   per   the
share(s).     It   therefore   issued   certain   directions   to   the   UT   of
Chandigarh in order to protect the interests of such innocent
purchasers.  Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the
appellants­original writ petitioners are before this Court.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANTS:
20. We   have   heard   Shri   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   in   the   main
matter, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing
14

on behalf of the appellants in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.
5489   of   2022,   Shri   K.M.   Natraj,   learned   Additional   Solicitor
General   (ASG)   appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.1   in
both   the   appeals,   Shri   Kapil   Sibal,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.6   in   the   main   matter
and   for   respondent   Nos.   7,   8   and   9   in   appeal   arising   out   of
SLP(C)   No.   5489   of   2022   and   Shri   Gaurav   Chopra   and   Shri
Ajay   Tewari,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the applicant(s)/caveator(s) in both the appeals. 
21. Shri Patwalia submitted that, Phase­I Sectors, which
constitute   “Corbusian   Chandigarh”,   have   now   derived   a
modern heritage value.   He submitted that, if any apartment
is permitted to be constructed on single dwelling unit, it will
jeopardize   the   original   character   of   the   city.   He   further
submitted that a perusal of the report of the said Board itself
would   reveal   that,   though   the   Draft   CMP­2031   provided   for
the   re­introduction   of   the   apartments,   the   said   Board   had
recommended   against   it,   and   the   said   recommendation   was
accepted.
15

22. 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   the   1960   Rules   as   well   as   the   2007
Rules   specifically   prohibited   fragmentation   or   amalgamation
of   any   site   or   building.     However,   through   a   certain   modus
operandi ,   the   builders/developers   were   constructing   three
apartments   on   three   floors,   thereafter   selling   the   said
apartments   to   three   persons,   who   would   enter   into   a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).   Under the MoU, the
person   occupying   the   ground   floor   and   basement   would   get
50%   share   in   the   plot,   the   person   occupying   the   first   floor
would get 30%, and the person occupying the second or third
floor   would   get   20%.     He   submitted   that   therefore,   what   is
directly   prohibited   by   law,   is   being   indirectly   done   by   the
builders/developers.     He   submitted   that,   though   a   specific
undertaking   is   given   not   to   convert   the   site/building   into
apartments,   the   builders/developers   were   violating   the   said
undertaking   openly.   He   further   submitted   that   though   the
Chandigarh   Administration   has   clearly   admitted   that   it   was
not permitting the construction of such apartments, and that
16

under   the   law,   such   apartments   were   prohibited,   it   was
sanctioning   the   building   plans   which   ex­facie   showed   that
they   were   for   the   construction   of   three   apartments.   He
submitted   that   the   High   Court   itself   has   observed   that   the
Chandigarh   Administration   has   not   been   alive   to   such
illegalities   being   committed   by   the   unscrupulous
builders/developers.
23. 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.
24. Shri   Patwalia   further   submitted   that   the   CMP­2031
prohibits   construction   of   apartments.     He   submits   that
though   CMP­2031   is   binding   on   the   respondents   under
which apartmentalization is not permissible, the apartments
are   being   indirectly   permitted   to   be   constructed   and   sold,
giving rise to illegal transactions.  It is submitted that on one
hand,   the   Chandigarh   Administration   in   its   affidavit   states
that   it   does   not   permit   construction   of   apartments,   on   the
other hand, it is permitting the same indirectly.
17

25. Shri   Patwalia   submitted   that   when   Chandigarh   was
conceptualized,   it   was   decided   that   Phase­I   will   have
bungalows in the residential areas having a green area in the
frontyard and backyard of the houses.   However, on account
of   apartmentalisation,   the   green   areas   now   have   been
converted into concrete areas, and the very concept of having
a green city is being defeated.
26. 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, the finding
of   the   High   Court   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, is patently erroneous. He
submitted   that   the   Chandigarh   Administration   is   taking   a
totally contradictory stand. It is submitted that, on one hand
it is admitted by the Chandigarh Administration that it is not
permissible to build apartments on a plot allotted to a single
dwelling   unit   and   on   the   other   hand,   it   is   admitting
18

documents   for   registration   which,   in   effect,   permit   a   single
plot to be fragmented into three apartments.
27. Shri   Ranjit   Kumar   submitted   that   Chandigarh   has
been   included   in   the   Tentative   United   Nations   Educational,
Scientific   and   Cultural   Organization   (UNESCO)   World
Heritage List due to its outstanding universal value, and the
same   needs   to   be   maintained   by   prohibiting   haphazard
developments which will take away its distinct character.
28. Shri   Kapil   Sibal   also   supported   the   contention   as
raised   on   behalf   of   the   appellants.     He   submitted   that
rampant   developments   are   being   permitted   while   expanding
urban   areas   without   taking   into  consideration   its  impact   on
environment.     He   submitted   that   when   such   developments
are   permitted,   no   studies   are   conducted   to   find   out   as   to
whether   the   necessary   infrastructure   like   water,   sewage,
roads etc. exists.    He submitted that even in the   CMP­2031 ,
it   has   been   recommended   that   an   Effective   Environment
Management   Plan   has   to   be   devised   for   the   entire   region
including   Chandigarh,   which   includes   the   environmental
strategy,   monitoring   regulation,   institutional   capacity
19

building   and   economic   incentives.   It   is   submitted   that
though   such   a   recommendation   is   made   in   the   CMP­2031 ,
the  Chandigarh  Administration  is  permitting  construction  of
single   dwelling   units   into   apartments.     He   submitted   that
this   is   a   fit   case   wherein   this   Court   should   exercise   its
powers   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   and
direct   that   Environmental   Impact   Assessment   (for   short,
“EIA”)   is   to   be   mandatorily   carried   out   before   permitting
expansion of urban areas.
29. All the  learned counsel  therefore submitted that  the
impugned  judgment  of the  High Court  needs  to  be  set  aside
and   a   mandamus   needs   to   be   issued   to   the   respondents
restraining them from permitting construction of apartments
on   single   dwelling   units.   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.
IV. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS:
20

30. Shri Ajay Tewari, on the contrary, submitted that the
apprehension   as   raised   by   the   appellants   are   totally
unwarranted.   It is submitted that the   CMP­2031   duly takes
care   of   the   environmental   aspects   so   as   to   ensure   that   the
present   character   of   the   city   on   its   greenness   is   not
compromised.     He   submitted   that   the   CMP­2031   would
reveal that the growth of population in Chandigarh as per the
2011   Census   is   less   than   the   predicted   growth.     He
submitted   that   the   growth   rate   of   merely   17.10%   from   the
years   2001   to   2011   is   the   slowest   since   its   inception.     It   is
submitted that the population in the year 2011 is 10,54,686
with   an   addition   of   1,54,051   during   the   last   decade.     He
further   submitted   that,   as   a   matter   of   fact,   the   forest
coverage in Chandigarh has doubled in the last 20 years.  
31. 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 ”.   He   therefore   submitted   that   the   1952   Act   itself
21

permits   a   transfer   to   be   made   to   more   than   one   individual
and as such, the contention that, there cannot be more than
one   apartment   in   a   single   dwelling   unit,   is   without
substance.  
32. Shri   Tewari   further   submitted   that   Rule   4   of   the
Chandigarh   Lease­Hold   of   Sites   and   Building   Rules,   1973
(hereinafter referred to as “the 1973 Rules”) provides that the
Chandigarh   Administration   may   demise   sites   and   buildings
at Chandigarh on lease for 99 years.  It further provides that
the   lease   may   be   given   by   allotment   or   by   auction   in
accordance  with  these Rules.   He submitted that Rule  17  of
the 1973 Rules permits the lease to be taken jointly by more
than one person.  It is submitted that when the lease itself is
permitted to be taken jointly by more than one person, then
there   is   no   merit   in   the   stand   that   a   building   cannot   be
constructed on a site having more than one apartment. Shri
Tewari further submitted that Rule 13 of the  2007  Rules also
permits   an   allotment   to   be   taken   jointly   by   more   than   one
person.     The   only   requirement   in   such   a   case   is   that   the
22

liability   to   pay   premium   as   well   as   the   rent   or   any   penalty
under these Rules shall be joint and several.
33. Shri   Tewari   further   submitted   that   a   perusal   of
Chandigarh   Building   Rules   (Urban),   2017   (for   short,   “the
2017   Rules”)   which   were   enacted   in   exercise   of   the   powers
conferred   by   the  1952  Act,  would  also   show   that  more  than
one   apartment   is   permitted   to   be   constructed   on   A   single
dwelling   unit.     He   submitted   that   under   sub­clause   (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   out­buildings   appurtenant
thereto ”.   Under Clause (32) thereof, ‘dwelling unit’ has been
defined to be “ a building or a part thereof which is used or is
intended   to   be   used   by   a   person   or   family   for   habitation
comprising   of   kitchen,   toilet   and   room ”.   Clause   (82)   thereof
defines   ‘storey’   as   “ any   horizontal   division   of   a   building   so
constructed   as   to   be   capable   of   use   as   a   living   apartment,
although   such   horizontal   division   may   not   extend   over   the
whole   depth   or   width   of   the   building   but   shall   not   include
23

mezzanine   floor ”.     He   submitted   that   Rule   4   thereof   talks
about   ‘residential   use’,   which   exhaustively   deals   with   the
entire   details   with   regard   to   the   maximum   height   of   the
building, maximum area, minimum area and the courtyards.
34. Shri   Tewari   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has
rightly   held  that   an   apartment   can   be   construed  to   be  such
only if it was an apartment as per the meaning of apartment
given in the  2001  Rules.  He submitted that the provisions of
the   2001   Rules   are   similar   to  the   provisions   of   the   Haryana
Apartment   Ownership   Act,   1983.     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.   However, when  more than
one person jointly construct a building on a plot and occupy
one floor each, they are not entitled to exclusive ownership of
the   apartment   but   have   shares   in   the   joint   property.     The
learned  Senior  Counsel  relies  on  the  judgment   of  this  Court
in   the   case   of   Kochkunju   Nair   v.   Koshy   Alexander   and
Others 3
 in support of the proposition that all co­owners have
equal   rights   and   coordinate   interest   in   the   property,   though
3   (1999) 3 SCC 482
24

their   shares   may   be   either   fixed   or   indeterminate.   He
submitted  that   this   Court  has   held  that   each  co­owner   has,
in   theory,   an   interest   in   every   infinitesimal   portion   of   the
subject   matter,   and   each   has   the   right,   irrespective   of   the
quantity of his interest, to be in possession of every part and
parcel   of   the   property,   jointly   with   others.     It   is   submitted
that   as   such,   the   modus   operandi   adopted   is   wholly
permissible,   whereby,   each   of   the   co­sharers   would   be
entitled   to   be   in   possession   of   the   part   assigned   to   them
jointly   with   others.   He   relies   on   the   judgment   of   the   Privy
Council   in   the   case   of   Hardit   Singh   and   Others   v.
Gurmukh Singh and Others 4
  in support of the proposition.
35. Shri   Tewari   relies   on   the   judgment   of   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   in   the   case   of   Sant   Ram   v.   Daya
Ram and Others 5
  in support of the proposition that though
the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law recognized ownership of
each   co­parcener   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
4   1918 SCC OnLine PC 2
5   AIR 1961 P&H 528
25

doctrine   of   ownership   in   specified   shares   in   the   undivided
property having similar features as in tenancy in common.  It
is   therefore   submitted   that   the   co­sharers   are   entitled   to
jointly   construct   a   building   as   per   their   own   shares.     It   is
submitted   that   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Jai   Singh   and
Others   v.   Gurmej   Singh 6
  has   approved   this   legal   position.
Shri   Tewari   further   relies   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Tilak   Raj   Bakshi   v.   Avinash   Chand   Sharma
(Dead)   Through   Legal   Representatives   and   Others 7
  in
support   of   the   proposition   that   assignment   in   favour   of   a
party would not amount to fragmentation.
36. 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.   It is submitted that, when the Rules and
Provisions   permitting   three   storeys   are   not   challenged,   it
would   not   be   permissible   for   the   appellants   to   contend   that
6   (2009) 15 SCC 747
7   (2020) 15 SCC 605
26

the   construction   of   three   storeys,   wherein   three   different
persons reside, is not permissible in law.  It is submitted that
the   CMP­2031   has   considered   everything   and   further   that
the said  CMP­2031  has also not been challenged.
37. Shri   Tewari   submitted   that   if   the   contention   as
raised   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   is   accepted,   then   an
anomalous   situation   would   arise   inasmuch   as   co­owners
who   are   part   of   one   family   would   be   entitled   to   construct
three apartments whereas others could not. This would   lead
to a situation where some co­owners are superior to others.
38. Shri Gaurav Chopra submitted that there is nothing
in   law   which   prohibits   three   strangers   to   purchase   a   plot
from   one   person   and   then   develop   the   said   plot   by
constructing   a   building   having   three   different   floors   and
occupy the said floors.  He submitted that there is no bar for
the same either under Rule 14 of the   1960   Rules or Rule 16
of the  2007  Rules.  He submitted that if the contention of the
appellants   is   accepted,   it   would   lead   to   an   anomalous
situation   wherein   a   person,   who   has   in   a   bona   fide   manner
purchased a share of a building and consequently occupied a
27

floor   of   such   a   building,   would   be   deprived   of   selling   the
same.   He   submitted   that   such   an   inference   would   put
unreasonable restrictions on the rights of the person to deal
with   the   property.   Shri   Chopra   submitted   that   a   perusal   of
the   CMP­2031   itself   would   reveal   that   the   original   concept
itself   included   re­densification   of   Phase­I   in   order   to
accommodate   the   growing   population   of   the   city.     The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Expert Committee
constituted   for   preparation   of   CMP­2031   has   considered   all
these aspects.  He submitted that the  CMP­2031  itself would
show that Phase­I (Sectors 1 to 30) had a holding capacity of
34   persons   per   acre   whereas   the   present   density   is   only   26
persons   per   acre.     It   is   therefore   submitted   that   the   CMP­
2031  itself would reveal that there was a scope for additional
units   in   Phase­I.     He   submitted   that   when   the   CMP­2031 ,
which   is   a   result   of   an   elaborate   exercise   by   the   experts   in
the field, permits such a development, there is nothing which
would prohibit such development.
39. Shri Chopra further submitted that Section 5 of the
Transfer   of   Property   Act,   1882   (for   short,   “the   TP  Act”)  itself
28

permits   transfer   of   property   to   one   or   more   living   persons.
He submitted that Section  7 of  the TP Act  further   permits a
person to transfer such property either  wholly or in part.   It
is contended that Section 10 of the TP Act provides that any
condition   or   limitation   absolutely   restraining   the   transferee
or any other person claiming under him from parting with or
disposing of his interest in the property is void.   It is further
submitted   that   Section   44   of   the   TP   Act   also   permits   one   of
two or more co­owners of immoveable property to transfer his
share   of   such   property   or   any   interest   therein.     It   is
submitted that if the contention of the appellants is accepted,
it would be contrary to the provisions of the TP Act.
40. Shri   K.M.   Natraj   submitted   that   ownership   of   a
building  is   different   from   ownership   of  a   land.     He  therefore
submitted that it is not necessary that a person who owns a
building, would also own the land.   He submitted that there
is   nothing   in   law   which   prohibits   a   building   to   be
constructed and owned by three different persons.   He relies
on   the   judgments   of   this   Court   in   the   cases   of   Dr.   K.A.
Dhairyawan and Others v. J.R. Thakur and Others 8
  and
8   [1959] SCR 799
29

Rev. FR. K.C. Alexander v. State of Kerala 9
.   He also relies
on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, Bombay High
Court   and   Rajasthan   High   Court   in   the   cases   of   R.G.
Hiremath   and   Another   v.   T.   Krishnappa 10
,   Laxmipat
Singhania   v.   Larsen   and   Toubro,   Ltd. 11
  and     Saiffuddin
v.   The   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   (129) 12
.     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.
V. STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
41. For   appreciating   the   rival   contentions,   it   will   be
necessary to refer to certain statutory provisions.
42. The 1952 Act came to be enacted for  facilitating  the
construction   of   the   New   Capital   of   Punjab   at   Chandigarh.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1952 Act would
reveal   that   the   said   Act   was   enacted   for   vesting   legal
authority   with   the   State   Government   to   regulate   the   sale   of
building   sites   and   to   promulgate   building   rules   on   the   lines
9   (1973) 2 SCC 737
10   1977 SCC OnLine Kar 96
11   1949 SCC OnLine Bom 11
12   1985 SCC OnLine Raj 97
30

of Municipal Bye­laws so long as a properly constituted local
body   does   not   take   over   the   administration   of   the   city.
Clause   (k)   of   Section   2   of   the   1952   Act   defines   ‘transferee’,
which reads thus:
“ 2. Definitions.­  
…………..
(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.”
43. 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.     It   is   therefore   submitted   that   there   could   be   no
impediment in the construction of three apartments on three
floors   which   could   be   occupied   by   three   different   persons.
On   the   contrary,   it   is   sought   to   be   urged   on   behalf   of   the
31

appellants that the term ‘person’ has to be used applying the
principle of   ejusdem generis .    It is submitted  that  the  words
“other   body   of   individuals,   whether   incorporated   or   not”   are
preceded by a word ‘firm’ and as such, it should be construed
that   the   said   term   would   be   applicable   only   to   a   company,
corporation, society etc.
44. Section   3   of   the   1952   Act   empowers   the   Central
Government   to   sell,   lease   or   otherwise   transfer,   whether   by
auction,   allotment   or   otherwise,   any   land   or   building
belonging   to   the   Government   of   Chandigarh   on   such   terms
and   conditions   as   it   may   subject   to   any   rules   that   may   be
made under this Act, think fit to impose.  
45. Section   4   of   the   1952   Act   empowers   the   Central
Government   or   the   Chief   Administrator   to   issue   such
directions for the purpose of proper planning or development
of Chandigarh as may be considered necessary with regard to
matters mentioned  in  Clauses  (a)  to   (f) thereto.    Sub­section
(2) of Section 4 thereof provides that every transferee is liable
to comply with the said directions.
32

46. Section   5   of   the   1952   Act   provides   that   no   person
can   erect   or   occupy   any   building   at   Chandigarh   in
contravention   of   any   building   rules   made   under   sub­section
(2)   thereof.     Under   sub­section   (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.  
47. Section   22   of   the   1952   Act   also  enables   the  Central
Government   to   make   rules   for   carrying   out   the   purposes   of
the said Act.
48. The   1960   Rules   came   to   be   notified   on   8 th
  March
1960.  Rule 14 of the  1960  Rules reads thus:
“ 14.  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.
Provided further that fragmentation of sites shall
be permitted only in case of the persons applying for
conversion   under   the   “Chandigarh   Conversion   of
Land   Use   of   Industrial   Sites   into   Commercial
Activity/Services   in   Industrial   Area,   Phase­I   and   II,
Chandigarh   Scheme,   2005,   notified   vide
33

No.28/8/51­UTFI(3)­2005/6658­6662,   dated
19.09.2005.”
49. Subsequently, the  2001  Rules came to be notified on
20 th
  December   2001.   It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   certain
provisions of the said Rules, which read thus: 
“ 2. Definitions: 
(a)  "Apartment"   means   each   sub­division   of   a
building   dully   recognized   by   the   Estate   Officer,
alongwith the proportionate share in common areas
and common facilities, as well as any other property
rights   appurtenant   thereto,   shall   constitute   an
Apartment. 
(b)  "Building"   means   any   construction   or   part   of
construction   or   proposed   construction   in
Chandigarh as defined in Clause (x) of Rule 2 of the
Punjab   Capital   (Development   and   Regulation)
Building Rules, 1952.
3. Sub­division of Building: 
(1)  Every   building   subject   to   the   provisions   of   the
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act,
1952   and   the   separate   and   independent   units   in
accordance   with   these   rules.   Each   such   sub­
division   of   a   building   shall   be   recognized   as   a
distinct,   identifiable   property   to   which   the   owner
lessee   shall   have   title   along   with   proportionate
rights   in   the   declared   common   areas   and   common
facilities.   Each   sub­division   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. 
34

(2)  A   building   may   be   sub­divided   through   a
declaration   made   by   the   owners/lessees   to   the
Estate Officer in the prescribed form (Form­ D). The
Estate   Officer   shall,   if   he   is   satisfied   with   the
completeness   and   correctness   of   information
provided   with   the   declaration   and   after,   having   the
building   inspected,   if   necessary,  recognize   the   sub­
divisions   of   the   building   and   the   owners/lessees
thereof,   upon   payment   of   such   fee   as   may   be
notified by the Administration from time to time.
The   recognition   of   each   sub­division   as   an
apartment   by   the   Estate   Officer   under   these   rules
shall   be   accorded   by   way   of   a   fresh   letter   of
allotment   or   a   fresh   conveyance   deed,   as   the   case
may   be,   in   suppression   of   the   previous   letter   of
allotment   or   conveyance   deed.   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.   All   the   covenant   and   liabilities
contained in the original allotment letter and in the
conveyance   deed   pertaining   to   the   building   or   site,
shall   be   construed   to   be   contained   in   the
subsequent letter or deed, as the ease may be, even
though   no   specific   mention   may   have   been   made
therein. 
(3)  Each   sub­division,   after   it   has   been   recognized
as   an   apartment   by   the   Estate   Officer,   consequent
upon   the   filing   of   prescribed   declaration,   shall   be
the   sole   and   exclusive   property   of   the   declared
owners/lessees.   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.   All   these
provisions   of   rules,   orders   and   covenants   shall
35

apply,   pari   passu,   to   the   apartment   and   to   the
owners/lessees thereof, as they did and would have,
to   the   site   or   building   and   the   owners/lessees
thereof. 
(4)  Each   apartment   shall   be   entitled   to   separate
utility   connections   such   as   water   supply,   sewerage
and electricity, subject to building regulations. 
(5)  Where   sub­divisions   of   a   building   with   more
than one storey have been allotted, sold or leased by
the   Estate   Officer,   the   Estate   Officer   may   after
giving   notice   to   the   owners/lessees   of   such   sub­
divisions, declare such sub­divisions as apartments,
to which the provisions of these rules shall apply. 
4.  Sub­Division of Residential Buildings: 
(1)  Any residential building situated on a plot size of
less   than   1400   square   yards   may   be   sub­divided
into separate dwelling units with not more than one
dwelling   unit   on   each   floor   of   the   building.   Each
such dwelling unit shall constitute a sub­division. 
(2)  The   basement,   if   any,   allowed   in   a   residential
building   shall   not   constitute   a   separate   sub­
division. The basement shall form a part of the sub­
divisions on the ground floor. In case more than one
sub­division   is   allowed   on   the   ground,   each   such
sub­division   may   have   a   separate   basement   if
building   regulations   so   permit.   Except   in   the   case
where   the   basement   provides   for   facilities   such   as
parking   area   at   the   end   or   other   plant   and
equipment   required   for   apartments   in  the   building,
the   basement   or   portions   therein   may   constitute   a
part   of   the   sub­division   on   floors,   other,   ground
floor. 
(3)  The   garage,   servant   quarters,   outhouse,   mali
hut, store, open spaces etc. not forming  part of the
main   residential   building   shall   not   form   a   separate
sub­   division(s)   and   shall   form   part   of   one   or   more
of the apartments of the main building. 
36

(4)  A   residential   building   on   a   plot   of   1400   square
yard   or   more   may   be   sub­divided   into   two   dwelling
units   on   each   floor   provided   that   building
regulations so permit.”
50. However, the   2001   Rules came to be repealed on 1 st
October 2007.   Immediately thereafter, the   2007   Rules came
to   be   notified   on   7 th
  November   2007.     Rule   16   of   the   said
Rules reads thus:
“ 16.  Fragmentation/Amalgamation.
No fragmentation or amalgamation of any site or
building shall be permitted.
Provided   that   amalgamation   or   two   or   more
adjoining   sites   with   the   same   ownership   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.
Provided   further   that   fragmentation   of   any   site
shall   be   allowed   if   such   fragmentation   is   permitted
under any scheme notified by the Administration.”
51. It could thus be seen that Rule 16 of the  2007  Rules
also does not permit fragmentation/amalgamation of any site
or   building.     Insofar   as   commercial   or   industrial   sites   are
concerned,   amalgamation   is   permitted   subject   to   the
condition   that   the   revised   plans   are   approved   by   the
competent   authority,   prior   thereto.   However,   the   second
37

proviso   also   permits   fragmentation   of   any   site   if   such
fragmentation is permitted under any scheme notified by the
Administration.
VI. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT:
52. In   the   impugned   judgment,   what   has   been   held   by
the High Court is that, though in view of Rule 16 of the  2007
Rules,   no   floor­wise   sale   of   property   is   permissible   and
though, it does not permit a residential house to be converted
into apartments, and that though no sale of a defined portion
or   part   of   the   building   is   permissible,   however,   mere
construction of three floors on a private plot and utilization of
the   same   as   independent   units   would   not   amount   to
fragmentation.    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.
53. The   High   Court   has   held   that   for   holding   that
apartmentalization   is   being   carried   out,   certain   requisites
have   to   be   met.     In   view   of   the   High   Court,   the   following
38

factors   would   be   necessary   for   holding   that   it   amounts   to
apartmentalization:
(i) “There has to be a sub­division of a building duly
recognized   by   the   Estate   Officer   along   with
proportionate   share   in   common   areas   and
common facilities;
(ii) Each   sub­division   of   a   building   to   be   a   distinct,
identifiable   property   to   which   the   owner/lessee
shall have title;
(iii) The   recognition   of   each   sub­division   as   an
apartment   by   the   Estate   Officer   would   be
accorded by way of a fresh letter of allotment or a
fresh conveyance deed; and 
(iv) Pursuant   to   such   recognition,   such   sub­
division/apartment   to   be   the   sole   and   exclusive
property of the declared owner/lessee.”
54. The   High   Court   held   that,   in   the   present   case,   the
pre­requisites   noticed   hereinabove   were   missing.     The   High
Court   held   that,   by   virtue   of   sale   of   share(s)   by   a   co­owner
and   thereafter,   the   purchaser/vendee   occupying   a   specific
portion   of   the   building   on   the   basis   of   an   internal
arrangement/understanding,   sub­division   of   the   building   as
provided  under  the   2001   Rules  does  not  take  place.    It held
that the specific portion under the occupation of a co­owner
is   not   accorded   any   recognition   by   the   Estate   Officer   in   any
39

manner.  It also held that the co­owner also does not become
the   sole   and   exclusive   owner   of   such   specific   portion   under
his occupation.
55. 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   inasmuch   as   the   same
does not have recognition of the Estate Office.  
56. The   2001   Rules,  in  effect,  permitted  the  apartments
to   be   constructed   on   a   site   and   permitted   sub­division   of   a
building   as   a   distinct,   identifiable   property   to   which   the
owner/lessee would have title along with proportionate share
in   the   declared   common   areas   and   common   facilities.
However,   on   account   of   the   objections   of   the   residents   of
Chandigarh,   the   2001   Rules   were   repealed   so   as   to   prevent
further   apartmentalization.     However,   it   is   clear   from   the
modus   operandi   as   could   be   seen   from   the   various
documents   placed   on   record   that   the   builders/developers
40

are,   in   fact,   continuing   to   do   the   same   thing   which   was
permissible under the  2001  Rules and became impermissible
after   repeal   thereof.     The   result   of   the   judgment   of   the   High
Court   is   that,   though   the   construction   of   apartments   is
prohibited, still the construction of a building and converting
it   into   apartments   would   not   be   impermissible   since   the
same   would   not   be   apartments   within   the   meaning   of   the
2001  Rules. 
VII. REPORT   OF   THE   BOARD   OF   “INQUIRY   AND
HEARING”:
57. It   will   further   be   relevant   to   note   that   Chandigarh
Administration has notified the  CMP­2031 .  It will be relevant
to note that in the draft  CMP­2031 , there was a provision for
apartments.   For considering the objections to the provisions
made   in   the   draft   CMP­2031 ,   the   said   Board,   consisting   of
Senior   Officers   of   the   Chandigarh   Administration,   was
constituted   on   10 th
  November   2013.     The   report   of   the   said
Board   would   reveal   that   Chandigarh   was   conceived   as
“Garden   City”   and   in   view   of   the   socio­economic   conditions
and   living   habits   of   the   people,   vertical   and   high­rise
buildings   were   ruled   out.     It   would   further   reveal   that   Le
41

Corbusier   incorporated   principles   of   light,   space   and
greenery in the plan and used human body as the metaphor.
It would also  reveal that  Chandigarh  has  been  planned as a
low­rise city and has been so developed that even after sixty
years   of   its   inception,   its  original  concept   has   been   retained
to a large extent.  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. Chandigarh   being   the   capital   of   Punjab   and
Haryana   is   an   administrative   city   and   has   to
be   retained  as   such.     Industrial   growth   in   the
city needs to be limited to ensure its economic
sustainability.
2. Chandigarh   has   heritage   value   and   it   is
important   to   preserve   and   maintain   the
integrity of the original concepts and planning
postulates of sun, space and verdure.
3. The   northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh
(Corbusian   in   Chandigarh)   should   be
preserved   in   their   present   form   as   far   as
possible.     As   far   as   re­development   of   some
specific pockets is concerned, that can be done
keeping   proper   perspective   in   mind.   Any
redevelopment   in   northern   sectors   (Phase­1)
should   only   be   done   keeping   the
recommendations   of   the   Expert   Committee   on
Heritage in mind.
42

4. The   Architectural   Controls   should   be
holistically   reviewed,   if   at   all.     Any   policy   in
this   regard   should   be   universal   and   for   all
times   to   come   (till   is   reviewed)   to   avoid   any
arbitrariness & discrimination.
5. Chandigarh   being   a   landlocked   city   and   land
being scarce, available land pockets be utilized
for govt. use/public purpose on priority.
6. The same practice as followed while developing
the   New   Delhi   Municipal   area   (Lutyen’s   Delhi)
be   followed   in   respect   of   the   city   of
Chandigarh.  The efforts should be to keep the
character of the city intact.
7. The   architecture   of   the   city   needs   to   be
preserved   and   retained   in   sync   with   Le
Corbusier’s vision.  
8. The   low­rise   character   of   the   city   needs   to   be
maintained.  
9. The   focus   needs   to   be   on   building   an  efficient
public   transport   system   and   augmenting
parking spaces in the city.
10. 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.
11. The   peripheral   area   and   the   Tri­City   are
intrinsically   linked.     One   cannot   be
successfully   planned   or   implemented   without
also   looking   at   the   other.     Specific   plans   for
every   village   in   this   area   are   a   necessity   and
the   overall   plan   must   accommodate   the
growing   requirements   along   with   the
requirement   for   ecological   conservation   of   the
natural resources in the vicinity.
12. State   of   the   art   best  international   practices   in
all   aspects   of   planning   &   infrastructure
development need to be adopted.
43

13. Chandigarh   is   today   known   throughout   the
world for being  one of the best planned urban
environment. In large part, it is due to the high
proportion of open space, social facilities, civic
amenities   and   infrastructure   per   living   unit.
The   introduction   of   apartment   rules,   by   itself
does   not   have   any   provision   to   add   these
essential   services   and   facilities   within   the
existing built­up environment.   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.”
58. 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.   It also states that any
redevelopment   in   the   northern   sectors   (Phase­I)   should   only
be   done   keeping   the   recommendations   of   the   Heritage
Committee   in   mind.     It   further   provides   that   the   same
practice   as   followed   while   developing   the   New   Delhi
Municipal   area   (Lutyen’s  Delhi)   be   followed   in  respect   of  the
city   of   Chandigarh.     The   efforts   should   be   to   keep   the
44

character   of   the   city   intact.     It   further   emphasizes   that   the
architecture of the city needs to be preserved and retained in
sync   with   Le   Corbusier’s   vision.     It   states   that   the   low­rise
character   of   the   city   needs   to   be   maintained.     It   states   that
Chandigarh   is   today   known   throughout   the   world   for   being
one   of   the   best   planned   urban   environment.     It   states   that
the   introduction   of   2001   Rules   by   itself   does   not   have   any
provision to add these essential services and facilities within
the   existing   built­up   environment.     It   states   that   it   will   only
add   residential   density   while   ignoring   other   urban
infrastructure   thereby   being   detrimental   to   the   city
environment and will only lead to the long­term decline of the
city.
59. Chapter   III  of  the   said  Report  elaborately  deals  with
the   objections   opposing   redensification   in   Phase­I   Sectors
and   reintroduction   of   the   2001   Rules   in   Chandigarh.   It   will
be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   recommendations   of   the   said
Board, which read thus: 
“ CHAPTER­III:   RECOMMENDATIONS   OF   THE
BOARD
3.1. RESIDENTIAL
45

All   objections   pertaining   to   the   residential
areas   in   the   sectoral   grid   were   taken   together.   The
representationists were given oral hearing also. The
main   objection   which   has   been   raised   is   regarding
redensification   of   Phase   1   sectors   and
reintroduction   of   Apartment   Rules   in   Chandigarh.
The proposal in this regard in the draft Master Plan
is reproduced below:
"The   Chandigarh   Apartment   Rules   to   be
reintroduced:   Sub   division   of   residential
plots   of   1,000   sq.   yards   and   above   into
two   dwelling   units   on   each   floor   shall   be
permitted.   The   residential   buildings   on
plots   of   less   than   1000   sq.   yards   will   be
permitted   floor­wise   sub­division   into
separate   dwelling   units   with   not   more
than   one   dwelling   unit   on   each   floor   of
the   building.  The  above   provisions  are  to
be allowed within the prevailing  FAR and
Ground   Coverage   norms."   P­78   of   CMP­
2031
The   representationists   have   vehemently
objected   to   the   proposals   contained   in   the   Draft
Master   Plan   regarding   redensification   and
introduction   of   Apartment   Rules.   This   Board   had
detailed   deliberations   on   this   issue   and   the   views
are as following.
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.   With   rapidly
growing   population   that   lives   in   slums   and
46

unauthorised   residential   developments   within   the
periphery area along with increasingly  unaffordable
housing for lower and middle class families, we feel
that there is necessity to increase the housing stock
for the success of the city. 
Perhaps   with   this   objective   in   mind,   the   draft
master plan makes a series of recommendations for
increasing   the   housing   stock   of   the   city.   One   of
these   is   the   redensification   of   Phase   I   sectors   and
the   introduction   of   the   Apartment   Rules.   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.   To
enumerate a few:
i) Chandigarh city has a distinct heritage value
from the point of view of city architecture and
the basic concepts of sun, space and verdure
in planning. An expert committee on heritage
was   constituted   by   GoI,   whose
recommendations   have   already   been
approved   by   the   Government   of   India.   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.   Specifically   it   has   been
recommended   that   no   further   enhancement
should   be   given   in   FAR.   Therefore   the
concept   of   redensification   in   general   will   go
against  the   heritage   of   the  city.   As   for   as   re­
development   of   some   specific   pockets   is
concerned,   that   can   be   done   keeping   proper
perspective   in   mind.   General   redensification
is   not   recommended.   The   expert   committee
has taken a serious note of the relaxations in
47

FARs   and   building   controls   already   given
earlier   and   has   recommended   that   they
should be revoked.
ii) An accurate audit of existing residential plots
will   reveal   that   many   plots   are   inhabited   by
joint families, multi­generation families, have
been   internally   divided   and   rented   out   and
have legal disputes of ownership etc. Further
there   is   a   vast   majority   of   residents   who
chose   to   live   in   Chandigarh   due   to   the   sub­
urban   character   of   the   city   and   want   to   live
in   the   present   sort   of   system   without   the
arrangement   of   group   housing   or   apartment
configurations.   The   present
representationists   typically   belong   to   this
class.   All   these   properties   will   not   be
available   for   redevelopment   into   apartment
configurations   irrespective   of   what   is
proposed in the master plan.
iii) Increasing   density   and   especially   housing
density   is   an   extremely   important   task   and
challenge for the planners and administrators
of   the   city.   It   is   something   which   cannot   be
left to the vagaries of market to determine the
impact   of   density   on   the   city   and   its
infrastructure.   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.
iv) The introduction of apartment rules will most
essentially   create   apartments   in   the   higher
cost bracket of saleable units and is unlikely
to   create   any   low   income   or   mid   income
housing.   The   demand   in  the   city   is   for  lower
income   and   middle   income   housing   rather
than   housing   for   the   rich   and   affluent.   A
48

situation   like   this   will   predictably   lead   to
proliferation   of   slums   required   to   service   the
higher   density   of   highest   income   group
people.
v) Location of the redevelopment will also be an
adhoc   situation   depending   on   individual
owners'  prerogative rather  than a  formulated
or predictable distribution of apartment units
in the city. City planners, therefore, will have
no   advance   knowledge   where   and   in   what
number   the   population   density   will   increase.
The   planning   for   support   and   supply
infrastructure, therefore, will also not be able
to   anticipate   growth.   This   is,   therefore,   the
least desirable and surely the most inefficient
and   expensive   way   to   add   infrastructure   to
the city.
vi) There   is   a   strong   possibility   that   the
introduction   of   the   apartment   rules   will   lead
to   a   further   increase   in   real   estate   prices.
This   will   be   in   stark   contradiction   to   the
original   aspect   of   creating   more   affordable
housing,   whereby   the   character   of   the   city
will   be   lost   and   gains   will   also   not   be
significant.
vii) Chandigarh   is   today   known   throughout   the
world for being one of the best planned urban
environment.   In   large   part,   it   is   due   to   the
high   proportion   of   open   space,   social
facilities,   civic   amenities   and   infrastructure
per living unit. The introduction of apartment
rules, by itself does not have any provision to
add   these   essential   services   and   facilities
within   the   existing   built   up   environment.   It
will   only   add   residential   density   while
ignoring   other   urban   infrastructure   thereby
being detrimental to the city environment and
49

will   only   lead   to   the   long   term   decline   of   the
city.
Keeping   in   mind   these   elements,   it   will   be
prudent   to   annul   and   negate   any   efforts   to   revive
the   Chandigarh   Apartment   Rules   in   its   current
form. This will not serve to create a large stock of
available  housing   will  not   increase  affordability.  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 only
beneficiary   to   this   scheme   will   be   a   handful   of
developers   which   would   be   detrimental   to   the
existing   and   future   residents   of   the   city.   In
conclusion,   while   there   is   an   urgent   requirement
for   increase   of   affordable   housing   stock   in
Chandigarh,   the   Apartment   Rules   is   a   poor   and
wholly inadequate instrument for this purpose.
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
Phase­I   sectors   should   only   be   done   with   the
prior   approval   of   the   Chandigarh   Heritage
Conservation Committee. ”
60. It is thus clear that though an attempt was made in
the   draft   CMP­2031   to   permit   apartments   on   residential
plots,   the   same   was   vehemently   opposed.     The   Report
50

considered   the   recommendations   of   the   Heritage   Committee
recommending   that   the   northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh
should be preserved in their present form as far as possible.
It   has   been   recommended   that   no   further   enhancement
should be given in FAR.   It also considered that the concept
of redensification in general will go against the heritage of the
city.  It has further taken into consideration that the Heritage
Committee   has   taken   a   serious   note   of   the   relaxations   in
FARs   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. 
61. 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   introduction   of   the
2001   Rules   will   most   essentially   create   apartments   in   the
higher cost bracket of saleable units and is unlikely to create
any low income or middle income housing.  It considered that
51

the   demand   in   the   city   is   for   lower   income   and   middle­
income   housing   rather   than   housing   for   the   rich   and
affluent.   It   further   considered   that   a   situation   like   this   will
predictably   lead   to   proliferation   of   slums   required   to   service
the higher density of highest income group people.  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.   
62. The said Board also  considered that the introduction
of   the   2001   Rules   would   lead   to   further   increase   in   real
estate   prices.     It   considered   that   this   will   be   in   stark
contradiction   to   the   original   aspect   of   creating   more
affordable  housing,  whereby  the  character  of  the  city   will  be
lost, and the gains will also not be significant.   It considered
that   Chandigarh   is   today   known   throughout   the   world   for
being one of the best planned urban environment, due to the
high proportion of open space, social facilities, civic amenities
and   infrastructure   per   living   unit.     It   considered   that   the
introduction   of   the   2001   Rules   by   itself   does   not   have   any
provision to add these essential services and facilities within
52

the   existing   built­up   environment.     It   stated   that   this   will
only   add   residential   density   while   ignoring   other   urban
infrastructure   thereby   being   detrimental   to   the   city
environment,   and   will   only   lead   to   the   long­term   decline   of
the city.  
63. It could thus be seen that the Report clearly opposed
reintroduction of the   2001   Rules.   The Report has been duly
accepted   and   all   references   regarding   re­introduction   of   the
2001   Rules have been deleted in the Final   CMP­2031 , which
was notified on 23 rd
 April 2015.
VIII. CHANDIGARH MASTER PLAN­2031:
64. Clause   1.2   of   the   CMP­2031   would   reveal   that   the
original   plan   of   Phase­I   divided   the   city   into   a   grid   of   30
sectors with the Capitol Complex as well as the Civic Centre.
Sector   17   was   designed   as   the   Central   Business   District.   It
provided   that,   the   greenbelt   at   the   centre   ran   north   east   to
south   east.     Wide   roads   were   planned   in   a   systematic
hierarchy   providing   structure   to   the   city   which   has   well
planned facilities.  Landscaped green avenues give it amenity
value.     It   states   that   the   First   Phase   which   is   considered   as
53

city’s   Historic   Core   was   designed   for   population   of   1,50,000
in low rise plotted development.   Phase­II from Sectors 31 to
47   for   the   remaining   targeted   3,50,000   was   with   4­storeyed
apartments for government employees with an increase in the
ratio   of   smaller   plots/lesser   open   areas/nearly   four   times
increase   in   density.     Though   there   is   a   reference   that   the
original concept  itself included redensification  of Phase­I, no
details with regard to the same were available.  
65. A   perusal   of   the   CMP­2031   would   reveal   that   while
finalizing   the   CMP­2031 ,   the   Expert   Committee   took   into
consideration the preservation of original concept of the plan,
maintaining   the   basic   character   of   the   town,   preserving
ecology   and   environment,   heritage   status   of   the   city,
promoting   sustainable   urban   development   etc.     The   Expert
Committee   also   took   into   consideration   the   Report   of   the
Heritage   Committee   constituted   by   the   Government   of   India
under the chairmanship of His Excellency, the Administrator,
UT Chandigarh and the approved letter of the Government of
India dated 23 rd
 December 2011.
54

66. Clause   1.9   of   the   CMP­2031   provides   the   guiding
principles   for   comprehensive   CMP­2031.     Clause   (v)   thereof
states   that   Chandigarh’s   architecture   shall   preserve   the
vitality   of   all   public   and   private   buildings.     Public   open
spaces   shall   be   created   as   vibrant   community   spaces,   and
the   left­out   monuments   envisaged   by   Le   Corbusier   shall   be
completed.     Urban   design   shall   be   the   guiding   principle   for
improving   the   quality   of   inner   and   outer   spaces.     It   also
considers that one of the challenges for Chandigarh was the
high degree of traffic congestion. 
67. Clause   1.12   of   the   CMP­2031   would   reveal   that
Chandigarh   has   a   universally   acclaimed   rich   ‘Heritage’   and
‘Green City’ character.
68. Clause   4.5   of   the   CMP­2031   states   the   salient
features  of   the  Chandigarh   Plan.     It  states  that  the  function
of Living occupies primary place and has been organized into
a   cellular   system   of   sectors   based   on   the   concept   of   a
neighbourhood unit.  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,
55

schools, health centres and places of recreation and worship
within   a   10­minute   walking   distance   of   the   residents.     The
originally planned population of a sector varied between 3000
and 20,000 depending upon the size of plots, the topography
of   the   area,   and   the   urban   design   considerations.     Each
sector   is   introvert   in   character   and   permits   only   four
vehicular   entries   into   its   interior   to   provide   a   tranquil   and
serene   environment   conducive   to   the   enrichment   of   life.     It
also   emphasized   on   family   life   and   community   living.     It
states   that   Chandigarh   is   planned   as   a   green   city   with
abundance   of   open   spaces.     It   ensures   that   every   dwelling
has   its   adequate   share   of   the   three   elements   of   Sun,   Space
and   Verdure.     The   location   of   green   belt   was   in   the   north­
south   direction   to   link   all   sectors   with   the   Shivalik   range   of
hills/mountains.  The city was planned as a low­rise city and
even   after   sixty   years   of   its   inception,   it   still   retains   the
original concept to a large extent.
69. Clause   5.3   of   the   CMP­2031   deals   with   density.     It
states   that   the   population   density   during   the   last   five
decades has increased 9 fold, from 1051 to 9252 persons per
56

sq.   km.     It   states   that   Chandigarh   shall   continue   to   record
higher densities with further population growth, which poses
a   challenge   for   maintaining   the   quality   of   life   and   providing
basic   and   essential   services   even   to   its   poorest   residents   as
visioned by the city’s planners.
70. Clause   5.3.2   of   the   CMP­2031   states   that   though
Phase­I   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   Phase­I   had   already   exceeded   the   designed   density
whereas   that   of   Phase­II   sectors   was   the   same   as   was
designed.   It states that the city still has reasonable capacity
to accommodate additional population.   It further states that
the   density   pattern   is   likely   to   undergo   considerable   change
in   the   years   to   come   with   the   city   recording   higher   growth
and   development.     As   per   the   existing   trends,   the   sectors
falling   in   Phase­I   shall   continue   to   have   lower   density   as
compared to the sectors falling in Phase­II.  
57

71. Clause 5.7.4 of the  CMP­2031  deals with the holding
capacity   of   UT   Chandigarh   based   on   Master   Plan
recommendations.     It   specifically   states   that   in   order   to
maintain the basic character of the city as an administrative
city,   unnecessary   increase   in   the   population   should   be
avoided.     It   states   that   with   the   coming   up   of   new   towns   in
the periphery  of Punjab and Haryana, the excess population
can   be   easily   accommodated   in   those   towns.     It   states   that
since   the   land   stock   in   Chandigarh   is   limited,   the   uses
related to  governance and  administration  should  get priority
in the allocation of land.   It states that additional population
will   have   to   be   diverted   to   the   adjoining   settlements   by
viewing   the   entire   context   of   planning   in   the   regional
framework.     However,   the   table   in   the   said   clause,   dealing
with   private   plots,   shows   the   total   units   to   be   22,788   and
number of dwelling units as triple this number, at 68,364.  
72. Clause   6.3   of   the   CMP­2031   deals   with   private
housing.   It states that nearly 1/3 rd
  of the private plots have
an area of one kanal or above.   It states that the first phase
of the city had low density with residential plots ranging from
58

5   marlas   to   8   kanals.     The   second   Phase   has   much   higher
density with a switch mostly to three to four storey flats with
the largest plot size being 2 kanals.  
73. It   will   be   pertinent   to   refer   to   the   relevant   parts   of
Clause 6.12 of the  CMP­2031, which read thus : 
“ 6. HOUSING IN CHANDIGARH
………..
6.12 MASTER PLAN PROPOSALS
………..
Approval   of   the   Chandigarh   Heritage
Conservation Committee 
Since   Phase   I   sectors   have   been   recommended   for
Heritage   status,   the   re­utilization   of   the   identified
housing   /institutional   pockets   in   the   first   phase
shall   be   undertaken   with   the   prior   approval   of   the
Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee.
………..
ADDITIONAL   FAR   AND   GROUND   COVERAGE   TO
PRIVATE HOUSING 
The   Chandigarh   Administration   vide   notification
dated 16/10/2008 has already  permitted increased
ground   coverage   and   FAR   for   all   sizes   of   private
residential   plots   and   introduced   the   concept   of
zoning   in   place   of   frame   control.   Under   these
regulations, all private plots can build upto 3 floors
with   each   floor   having   potential   of   having   an
independent   unit.   There   are   approximately   23000
private plots of all categories within the sectoral grid
of the Chandigarh Master Plan. Assuming that each
plot will eventually be built upto 3 storeys with one
unit per  floor, the total dwelling units available will
59

be 69000  which  can  house  approximately   3,00,000
population.”
74. Clause   19.1   of   the   CMP­2031   considered   the   major
recommendations, some of which include thus:
“ 19 CHANDIGARHS HERITAGE 
………
19.1   THE   MAJOR   RECOMMENDATIONS
INCLUDE
1. The city’s monumental architecture, principles
of town planning of  Sun, Space, and Verdure ,
as   enunciated   by   Le   Corbusier,   along   with
urban design, landscaping, honesty in the use
of   construction   materials,   like   shuttered
concrete   and   exposed   brick­work,   ought   to   be
preserved   as   Modern   Heritage   of   Universal
Value   for   which   Chandigarh   has   become
known throughout the world. 
2. A   holistic   approach   towards   protection,
preservation,   and   maintenance   of   heritage
buildings and unique characteristic of the city
should be adopted. 
3. The   philosophy,   plans   and   approach
envisioned   by   Pandit   Jawahar   Lal   Nehru   with
regard to the new city should not be lost sight
of and kept in mind while taking the steps for
the above purposes. 
4. 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   preserving,   maintaining   and
expanding heritage structures. 
60

5. 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. 
₋   Chandigarh   shall   retain   the   essential
planning   postulates   of   Sun,   Space,   and
Verdure. 
₋   Chandigarh shall be a Low­Rise City. 
₋   Chandigarh shall be a Green City. 
6. Corbusian Chandigarh title   to the first phase
of   the   city   which   is  the   most   representative  of
Le Corbusier's thought and philosophy is truly
worthy  of   recognition  for   its   Modern   Heritage
Value .   The   sectors   1   to   30   planned   and
detailed out by the original team in fulfillment
of the CIAM principles of Living, Working, Care
of Body and Spirit and Circulation.   
7. Heritage   status   to   Sector   22,   built   as   the   first
typical   sector   on   the   concept   of   the
neighbourhood   and   Heritage   status   to   Sectors
7   and   8   as   a   tribute   to   the   architect   planner,
Albert Mayer.
        No development  must  be  allowed  that  may
jeopardize their original concept.
8. Preservation of the concept of a neighbourhood
unit,   no   further   enhancement   in   FAR,
supplementing the V7s with an efficient public
transport   system,   execution   of   the   pedestrian
footpaths   and   cycle   tracks,   augmenting
parking   spaces   in   the   city,   development   of
villages   and   slum   rehabilitation,   regular
upkeep.
9. 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
61

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.
10. Revitalization   of   the   City   Centre,   construction
of the Eleven Storied Tower.
11. Holistic   planning   of   Capitol   Complex   to
address   immediate   and   future   requirements,
no   scope   for   additional   buildings   within
campus   completion   of   the   incomplete   projects
of the Capitol Complex, including the Museum
of   Knowledge,   the   Martyrs’   Memorial,
revitalization of the plaza, campus lighting and
illumination   to   highlight   building   edifices,
addressing   the   security   issues   to   enable
comfortable   visitor   access   to   the   Capitol
Complex .   The concern of development on the
North   of   Chandigarh   and   the   peripheral   areas
around the Capitol Complex.
12. Redensification   of   pockets   of   Government
Housing   The   concept   of   Redensification   has
not   been   recommended   in   the   Master   Plan.
Instead   pockets   identified   by   the   Expert
Heritage   Committee   have   been   recommended
for   Reutilisation   if   required.     (see   Chapter   on
Housing).
13. 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   additions­and­
alterations   in   old   ones   of   identified   private
and   government   properties   has   been
recommended.     F ollowing  are the  parameters
for   imposing   the   regulation   of   prior   concept
approval:­
62

 Since   many   private   buildings   fall   along
important arteries, namely, V3s and V4s,
constituting   major   part   of   Chandigarh’s
urban   imageability,   there   is   an   urgent
need   to   regulate
individualistic/idiosyncratic   use   of   weird
forms, senseless geometry, garish colours
and unaesthetic materials to preserve the
original   character   of   the   city   besides
retaining   sanity   in   architectural   and
urban designs.
 The   second   criterion   is   the   building’s
architectural   importance   and   the
individual   professional   standing   of   the
architects   who   constituted   the   foreign
team of architects.
 The third parameter is the location of the
building,   which   is   crucial   because   an   ill­
designed   structure   can   become   an
eyesore   whereas   a   sensitive   design   that
respects its architectural legacy would be
a landmark asset in many ways.
 Similarly, the development/additions and
alteration   of   green   belts   should   be   done
sensitively and in the same spirit as that
of the original plant.
 Location   of   Mobile   Towers   is   very
important from the urban design point of
view   and   as   such,   this   too   has   been
recommended for prior concept approval.
14. Constitution   of   the   Chandigarh   Heritage
Conservation Committee.
15. Restoration   and   preservation   of   building
materials – Concrete & Brick buildings.”
63

75. Clause   19.11   of   the   CMP­2031   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. 
A   UNESCO   heritage   status   shall   bring   about   a
boost to domestic and international tourism   and
related   benefits   to   the   city’s   economy   and   build
public   awareness   about   the   values   of   Chandigarh’s
unique modern heritage. 
It   will   not   only   ensure   protection   of   significant
heritage   buildings   and   areas   from   neglect,   willful
destruction,   defacement,   inappropriate   alterations
but   will   also   provide   for   preparation   of   a
comprehensive   urban   development   plan   which
respects international heritage conservation criteria,
is environmentally sustainable and also handles the
future   developmental   needs   of   the   city.   The   move
was intended to train our officials for technologically
appropriate   repair   and   conservation   of   heritage
buildings. 
CHANDIGARH   SHOULD   MAKE   CONCERTED
EFFORTS   FOR   WORLD   HERITAGE   STATUS   IN
CONSULTATION  WITH THE MINISTRY OF HOME
64

AFFAIRS   AND   THE   ARCHEOLOGICAL   SURVEY
OF INDIA.”
76. It   will   also   be   relevant   refer   to   Clause   20.3   of   the
CMP­2031 , which reads thus:  
“ 20.3   AN   EFFECTIVE   ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT   PLAN   FOR   CHANDIGARH   AND
FOR THE REGION
It   is   recommended   that   an   Effective   Environmental
Management   Plan   be   devised   for   the   region
including   Chandigarh   which   includes
environmental   strategy,   monitoring   regulation,
institutional   capacity   building   and   economic
incentives.   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.”
77. A   perusal   of   various   clauses   in   the   CMP­2031   itself
would reveal that the CMP­2031 emphasizes on maintaining
monumental   architecture   and   principles   of   town   planning
concept   of   Sun,   Space,   and   Verdure,   as   enunciated   by   Le
Corbusier.     It   also   emphasizes   that   Corbusier’s   Chandigarh,
i.e., Phase­I of the city, which is the most representative of Le
Corbusier’s   thought,   is   truly   worthy   of   its   modern   heritage
65

value.     In   spite   of   observing   this,   it   states   that   eventually
three   storeys   with   one   dwelling   unit   per   floor   would   be
constructed on these plots.
IX. CONSIDERATION OF CITED CASES:­
78. The   provisions  of   Rule  14  of   the   1960   Rules  as  well
as   Rule   16   of   the   2007   Rules   fell   for   consideration   in   some
matters before this Court as well as before the High Court.  
79. The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   in   the
case   of   Chander   Parkash   Malhotra   (supra)   considered   a
dispute   with   regard   to   House   No.   50,   Sector   10­A,
Chandigarh,   which,   on   the   death   of   the   original   owner,   was
inherited by his sons and daughters. Some of the legal heirs,
i.e., brothers  and  sisters  of  Chander  Parkash   filed  a  suit  for
partition of the property in which a preliminary decree came
to   be   passed   by   the   trial   court   on   30 th
  September   1983.     In
appeal,   the   learned   District   Judge   modified   some   of   the
findings   recorded   by   the   trial   court.   Thereafter,   the
proceedings for passing of the final decree were taken up by
the   trial   court.     A   Local   Commissioner   was   appointed   to
suggest   the   mode   of   partition,   who   submitted   his   report   on
66

7 th
 February 1989.  The petitioner therein, Chander Prakash,
raised his objections  to the said report.   The  said objections
were   rejected   by   the   trial   court.     The   report   of   the   Local
Commissioner   was   to   the   effect   that   the   property   in   dispute
cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds.  The order of the
trial   court   came   to   be   challenged   before   the   High   Court   by
way of revision.  In the revision, the validity of Rule 14 of the
1960   Rules   was   also   challenged.    The  learned   Single   Judge,
vide its judgment dated 22 nd
  February 1991, held Rule 14 of
the   1960   Rules being   ultra vires   to  the Constitution of  India
and also beyond the powers of the rule­making authority.
80. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge came
to   be   challenged   by   the   Chandigarh   Administration   before
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chandigarh   Administration
(supra).   It will be relevant to refer to Ground ‘G’ of the said
appeal, which reads thus:
“G.     That   the   Punjab   Capital   (Development   and
Regulation)   Rules   are   framed   under   Section   22   of
the Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.
The  provisions  of  Section  22  are  constitutional  and
do   not   suffer   from   any   excessive   delegation   of
legislative   power.     It   specifically   provides   that   the
rules shall be made for carrying out the purposes of
the   Act   and   further   lays   down   the   subject   matter
67

which   the   rules   have   to   provide.     The   aims   and
objects   with   which   the   Act   is   enacted   is   to   vest   in
the State Government the legal authority to regulate
the sale of building sites and to frame building rules
on   the   pattern   of   Municipal   Bye­laws   and   for   the
planned   development   of   the   town.     The   entire   Act
was   purposefully   directed   to   provide   a   reasonable
social   control   of   the   urbanization   visualized   by   the
creation   of   an   altogether   new   capital   city   for   the
State   from   scratch.   The   pre­eminent   ideas
underlying the same were:­
(i) The need and incentive to create an altogether
new places where non existed.
(ii) That too within the shortest possible time, and
(iii) Further to ensure that it conformed to an ideal
concept   of   a   planned   city   as   against   the
haphazard   urbanization   of   the   mushroom
growth of slums which in the ultimate analysis
can   even   strangulate   an   existing   town   to
extinction.   It was to effectuate these purposes
that   the   rules   have   provided   a   ban   on
fragmentation   of   sites   and   hence   is   a
reasonable restriction on the right of property.
Keeping in view the object and the preamble of
the   Act   and   the   Rules   framed   thereunder,   the
same   have   to   be   viewed   din   a   broader
prospective.     The   fundamental   right   under
Articles  14  and  19  of  the  Constitution   are  not
absolute   rights.     The   Constitution   itself   has
imposed reasonable restrictions on its exercise
in   the   interest   of   general   public.
Consequently, the  restriction  imposed by  Rule
14   in   furtherance   of   the   object   of   the   Act   has
to be judged as a reasonable restriction.”
68

81. This   Court,   vide   order   dated   24 th
  November   1992
passed   in   the   case   of   Chandigarh   Administration   (supra),
observed thus:
“Leave granted.
In   the   present   case,   the   respondents   did   not
want   the   partitioning   of   the   plot   by   metes   and
bounds.     All   that   they   wanted   was   the   partitioning
of the building and additions and alterations therein
to  make separate living  units in  the same building.
Even   this   partition   as   well   as   addition   was   to   be
done   by   them   with   the   approval   of   the   Chandigarh
Administration   according   to   its   building   bye­laws.
Since   no   fragmentation   of   any   site   including   the
building was involved, there was no question of the
violation   of   rule   14   of   the   Chandigarh
Administration   (Sale   of   Sites   and   Buildings)   Rules,
1960.
In   the   circumstances,   it   was   not   necessary   to
declare rule 14 invalid as the High Court has done.
To   that   extent,   we   set   aside   the   order   of   the   High
Court.
It   is   made   clear   that   the   respondents   before
partitioning   the   building   or   making   additions   and
renovations in the same will take permission of the
Chandigarh   Administration   according   to   law.     The
appeal is disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no
order as to costs.”
82. 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.     It   could   also   be   seen
69

that,   in   the   said   case,   the   dispute   was   amongst   the   legal
heirs of the original allottee.
83. It   appears   that,   frustrated   by   the   litigation,   the
brothers and sisters of Chander Parkash sold the property to
R.B.   Chahal   and   Mrs.   Sukhraj   Chahal.   The   final   decree
proceedings  reached up  to   the  High  Court  by   way   of  second
appeal   in   the   case   of   Sh.   Chander   Parkash   Malhotra   v.
Sh.   R.B.S.   Chahal 13
.     An   application   was   made   by   R.B.
Chahal and Mrs. Sukhraj Chahal for their impleadment since
they had purchased shares of co­owners.  The learned Single
Judge,   while   disposing   of   second   appeal   vide   its   judgment
dated 1 st
 December 1993, observed thus:
“6.     As   already   noticed   above,   property   cannot   be
partitioned   according   to   bye­laws.     The   only
alternative left is that the parties be permitted to bid
among   themselves and  whosoever   gives the  highest
bid,   be   allowed   to   purchase   the   property.     In   case
this   mode   is   not   acceptable,   the   trial   court   should
determine the market value and given option to the
appellant   to   purchase   the   share   of   the   added
respondents.     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 Prakash­appellant.”
13   1993 SCC OnLine P&H 1179
70

84. In   the   case   of   Tilak   Raj   Bakshi   (supra),   the
property   situated   in   Chandigarh   was   owned   by   one   Kripa
Ram   Bakshi.     He   had   executed   a   registered   will   on   4 th
September 1974 in favour of the plaintiff, the first defendant
and another son who was the 3 rd
  defendant in the suit.   The
disputed   house   was   transferred   in   favour   of   the   aforesaid
three persons by the Estate Officer.   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.     The   second
defendant, who was not a part of the family, contended that
the   plaintiff   did   not   have   any   preferential   right   and   that   he
was   a   bona   fide   purchaser.     The   trial   court   found   that   the
plaintiff   was   entitled   to   specific   relief   and   declared   the   sale
unit   as   null   and   void.     The   second   defendant   appealed
against the said judgment of the trial court. The appeal of the
second defendant was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The
Appellate   Court   also   allowed   the   cross­appeal   filed   by   the
plaintiff   and   directed   the   second   defendant   to   handover
71

possession to the plaintiff.   However, the High Court allowed
the second appeal, and the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was
dismissed.  The matter thereafter reached this Court.
85. This   Court   considered   the   arguments   advanced   on
behalf   of   the   plaintiff   that   the   same   would   result   in
contravention   of   the   1960   Rules   made   under   the   1952   Act.
This Court, further considering certain provisions of the 1952
Act, observed thus:
“ 59.   From   a   perusal   of   the   aforesaid   provisions,   it
becomes   clear   that   the   word   “site”   means   any   land
which   is   transferred   under   Section   3   of   the   1952
Act.   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.   In   fact,   the   word
“building”,   as   defined   in   the   Act,   points   to   any
construction   or   part   of   construction   which   is
transferred   under   Section   3.   It   includes   outhouse,
stable, cattle shed and garage and also includes any
building   erected   on   any   land   transferred   by   the
Central   Government.   The   construction   must   be
intended   to   be   used   for   residential,   commercial,
industrial or any other purposes. A clear distinction
is   maintained   between   “site”   and   “building”.   The
72

Chandigarh   (Sale   of   Sites   and   Buildings)   Rules,
1960 came  to  be  made. Section  22  of the  1952  Act
confers   power   upon   the   Central   Government   to
make   the   rules   for   various   purposes,   which   are
mentioned   in   sub­section   (2).   It   includes   Sections
2( a ), 2( d ), 2( e ) and 2( h ) of the 1952 Act, which read
as follows:
“ 22.   (2)( a )   the   terms   and   conditions   on   which   any
land   or   building   may   be   transferred   by   the   Central
Government under this Act;
***
( d )   the   terms   and   conditions   under   which   the
transfer of any right in any  site or building may  be
permitted;
( e )   erection of any building or the use of any site;
***
( h )   the conditions with regard to the buildings to be
erected on sites transferred under this Act;””
86. After   reproducing   Rule   16   of   the   2007   Rules,   this
Court observed thus:
“ 61.   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.   The   second
defendant, on the other hand, would point out that
there   was   no   issue   of   fragmentation   ever   raised
before  the   courts   and   the   same   was   not   decided   in
the courts.
62.   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 one­third share in
the   residential   House   No.   13   of   Sector   19­A,
73

Chandigarh.   After   the   sale   deed,   it   is   contended,
one­third   share   of   the   party   was   duly   transferred
and   mutated   in   the   name   of   Respondent   1­second
defendant   by   the   Chandigarh   Administration.   The
High  Court,  in fact,  tides  over   this objection  by  the
appellant   by   pointing   out   that   once   the   second
defendant   steps   into   the   shoes   of   the   first
defendant, he became a co­owner and his remedy is
to   sue   for   partition   and   while   fragmentation   of
property,   is   not   “admissible”,   the   market   value   of
the   property   can   be   determined,   and   buying   each
other's share, as per the provisions of Sections 2, 3
and 4 of the Partition Act, 1893.
63.   While   it   may   not   be   true   that   the   issue   of
fragmentation   was   not   raised   in   the   courts,   we
would   think   that   the   appellant   is   not   able   to
persuade   us   to   hold   that   the   assignment   in   favour
of   the   second   defendant   is   vulnerable   on   the   basis
that   it   involves   fragmentation.   We   have   noticed   the
deposition   of   the   plaintiff   about   partition   of   the
house   into   three   portions.   We   have   noted   the   fact
that one­third share has been duly  transferred and
mutated in the name of the first respondent­second
defendant by the Chandigarh Administration.”
64.   The   second   defendant   has   produced   the
communication   dated   19­12­1997   which   indicates
the   transfer   of   rights   of  site   in   Sector  19­A   held   by
Vishnu   Dutt   Mehta   (first   defendant)   is   noted   in
favour   of   the   second   defendant   subject   to   certain
conditions.   This  is  obviously   before  the  2007  Rules
came into force.
65.   In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   facts,   we   cannot
permit   the   appellant   to   impugn   the   transaction   on
the said ground.”
74

87. It   could   thus   clearly   be   seen   that,   in   the   said   case
also,   the   property   was   bequeathed   to   plaintiff,   the   first
defendant and another brother who was the third defendant.
The   second   defendant   had   purchased   the   property   from   the
first   defendant   and   as   such,   he   became   a   co­owner.     The
Court   found   that   the   assignment   in   favour   of   the   second
defendant   was   not   vulnerable   on   the   basis   that   it   involved
fragmentation.     However,   it   also   noted   the   deposition   of   the
plaintiff   about   partition   of   the   house   into   three   portions.     It
also   noted   that   the   1/3 rd
  share   had   been   duly   transferred
and   mutated   in   the   name   of   the   first   respondent/second
defendant   by   the   Chandigarh   Administration.     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 th
  December
1997.  It noted that this was obviously before the  2007  Rules
came into force.  
88. In   another   second   appeal   before   the   High   Court   in
the   case   of   Arvind   Kapoor   v.   Kumud   Kapoor   and
Another 14
,   again there was a dispute between three siblings
14   Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 2012 dated 28.05.2019
75

– a brother and two sisters.   The dispute was with regard to
House   No.   2174,   Sector   44­C,   Chandigarh.     The   sisters   had
relied on the family settlement dated 13 th
 June 2000.  Arvind
Kumar   filed   a   suit   seeking   a   declaration   that   the   family
settlement dated 13 th
  June  2000 was obtained by fraud and
as   such,   not   binding   on   him.     One   of   the   sisters   namely
Sangeeta   Chopra   sought   a   declaration   that   she   was   the
owner   of   the   first   floor   of   the   said   house   and   that   she   be
given   possession   of   the   said   property   along   with   mesne
profits/damages,   as   the   brother   Arvind   Kapoor   had   illegally
occupied the same.  The other sister also supported the claim
of  Sangeeta Chopra.   With regard to scope of Rule 14 of the
1960  Rules, the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated
28 th
 May 2019, observed thus:
“ 29.   ….   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.     Seeking   possession   of   a   particular
floor   of   the   property,   in   terms   of   the   family
settlement   reached   voluntarily   between   the   parties,
would   not   legally   amount   to   partial   partition,
76

especially in the face of the fact that such partition
in   any   case   is   statutorily   barred   by   the
aforementioned rule, i.e., Rule 14 of the Chandigarh
(Sales of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960.
It   is   to   be   specifically   noticed   that   the
applicability of the said rule or the enactment under
which   the   rules   have   been   promulgated,   is   not
denied by either party.
Further,   as   noticed   above,   there   is   no   statutory
bar   on   possession/occupation   of   individual   floors,
as long as joint ownership is not partitioned.”
89. 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.  The High Court therefore held
that the same would not legally amount to partial partition. It
held that there is no statutory bar on possession/occupation
on   individual   floors,   as   long   as   joint   ownership   is   not
partitioned.
90. It is thus clear that all the aforesaid cases arose out
of the dispute between the legal heirs of the original allottee,
who   became   co­owner   of   the   property   on   the   demise   of
original allottee.  Whenever any share of co­owner was sold to
77

an   outsider,   it   was   held   that   such   a   purchaser   stepped   into
the shoes of one of the co­owners and as a co­owner, he was
entitled to the share of the property. 
91. Insofar   as   the   case   of   Tilak   Raj   Bakshi   (supra)   is
concerned,   this   Court   has   specifically   observed   that   the
rights   of   the   first   defendant   were   already   transferred   in
favour   of   the   second   defendant   prior   to   the   2007   Rules
coming into force.
X. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES:
92. Permitting co­owners of a building and site to occupy
a   particular   part   of   the   building   as   per   the   family
arrangement/settlement,   is   a   matter   totally   different   than
permitting   construction   of   a   building,   which   would   have
three apartments, and then selling the same to three different
persons.
93. It   is   relevant   to   note   that   the   2001   Rules   had
introduced   the   concept   of   apartments   in   the   city   of
Chandigarh.     The   said   Rules   permitted   sub­division   of   a
building   duly   recognized   by   the   Estate   Officer.     Each   sub­
division   of   a   building   was   recognized   as   a   distinct,
78

identifiable   property   to   which   the   owner/lessee   had   title
along   with   the   proportionate   right   in   the   declared   common
areas and common facilities.   The   2001   Rules also permitted
any   residential   building   situated   on   a   residential   plot   to   be
sub­divided into separate dwelling units, with not more than
one dwelling unit on each floor. 
94. Since   the   citizens   of   Chandigarh   opposed
apartmentalization,   the   2001   Rules   came   to   be   repealed   on
1 st
  October   2007.     Immediately   thereafter   on   7 th
  November
2007,   the   2007   Rules   came   to   be   notified.     Rule   16   of   the
2007   Rules   specifically   prohibited   fragmentation   of   a   site   or
building.     Although   fragmentation   of   any   site   could   be
allowed,   if   such   fragmentation   was   permitted   under   any
scheme   notified   by   the   Administration;   admittedly,   no   such
scheme   is   notified.     As   such,   the   effect   is   that   though   a
building   was   permitted   to   be   converted   into   apartments
between the year 2001 and 2007, the same is not permitted
after the year 2007.
95. When   the   draft   CMP­2031   was   published,   it   was
proposed to re­introduce the  2001  Rules, through which sub­
79

division of residential plots of 1000 sq. yards and above into
two   dwelling   units   on   each   floor   was   to   be   permitted.     The
residential   buildings   on   plots   of   less   than   1000   sq.   yards
were   to   be   permitted   with   floor­wise   sub­division   into
separate dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit
on each floor of the building.  The said Board was constituted
to   consider   the   objections/suggestions   to   the   draft   CMP­
2031.     The   said   Board   considered   various   aspects   such   as
recommendations   of   the   Heritage   Committee,   which   were
accepted   by   the   Government   of   India.     It   also   considered
recommendations   of   the   Heritage   Committee   that   the
northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh   (Corbusian   Chandigarh)
should be preserved in their present form as far as possible,
that   no   further   enhancement   should   be   given   in   FAR.   The
said   Board   considered   that   the   concept   of   redensification   in
general would go against the heritage of the city.  
96. 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
80

actually required.  It considered that introduction of the  2001
Rules   will   most   essentially   create   apartments   in   the   higher
cost   bracket   of   saleable   units,   and   is   unlikely   to   create   any
low   income   or   mid   income   housing.     It   also   considered   that
the   demand   in   the   city   was   for   lower   income   and   middle­
income   housing   rather   than   housing   for   the   rich   and
affluent.   It   also   considered   that   if   the   re­introduction   of   the
2001   Rules is permitted, it will lead to proliferation of slums
required   to   service   the   higher   density   of   highest   income
group people.  
97. It is to be noted that one of the salient features of Le
Corbusier’s   design   was   that   the   population   density   in   the
northern sectors was to be low, which increases towards the
southern   sectors.     Chandigarh   city   has   been   planned   as   a
low­rise city and has been so developed that even after sixty
years of its inception, it retains its original concept to a large
extent.
98. 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
81

original concepts and planning postulates of Sun, Space and
Verdure.  Another principle that weighed with the said Board
was   that   any   redevelopment   in   northern   sectors   (Phase­I)
should   only   be   done   keeping   the   recommendations   of   the
Heritage   Committee   in   mind.     Another   guiding   factor   was
that the same practices as followed while developing the New
Delhi Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi) be followed in respect of
the city of Chandigarh.  The architecture of the city was to be
preserved   and   retained   in   sync   with   Le   Corbusier’s   vision.
The   low­rise   character   of   the   city   needs   to   be   maintained.
The   recommendations   of   the   said   Board   had   been   accepted
while notifying the  CMP­2031 .
99. It   is   important   to   note   that   the   CMP­2031   itself
states   that   Phase­I   Sectors   have   been   recommended   for
Heritage   status,   and   that   the   re­utilization   of   the   identified
housing/institutional   pockets   in   the   first   phase   has   to   be
undertaken   with   the   prior   approval   of   the   Heritage
Committee. Having observed this at one place, it is difficult to
apprehend as to how, though the  CMP­2031  observed that by
the   year   2001   itself,   the   planned   density   of   16   per   acre   in
82

Phase­I has been exceeded, it estimated the holding capacity
to  be 34 per   acre.    It  also  records  that  as per  2001  Census,
the density in Phase­I was 26 per acre.
100. The   CMP­2031   thereafter   observes   that   under   the
regulations, all private plots can build up to three floors with
each   floor   having   the   potential   of   having   an   independent
unit. It further  observes  that  there are approximately   23000
private   plots   of   all   categories   within   the   sectoral   grid   of   the
Chandigarh   Master   Plan.   It   assumes   that   each   plot   will
eventually   be   built   upto   3   storeys   with   one   unit   per   floor,
taking the number of dwelling units to 69000 approximately.
101. It   also   recognized   that   the   “Corbusian   Chandigarh”
title   given   to   Phase­I   of   the   city,   which   is   the   most
representative   of   Le   Corbusier's   thought   and   philosophy,   is
truly   worthy   of   recognition   for   its   Modern   Heritage   Value.   It
further records that Sectors 1 to 30 are planned and detailed
out by the original team in fulfillment of the CIAM principles
of Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit and Circulation.   
102. The   CMP­2031   also   recommends   that   concerted
efforts   should   be   made   for   getting   the   world   heritage   status
83

for   Chandigarh   in   consultation   with   the   Ministry   of   Home
Affairs and the Archeological Survey of India.   It also records
that   it   has   been   perceived   that   Chandigarh’s   inscription   on
the 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.
103. 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.  It had been submitted that the   1960   Rules
provide   a   ban   on   fragmentation   of   sites   and   as   such,   was   a
reasonable restriction on the right of property.  It is further to
be   noted   that   even   in   the   reply   filed   on   behalf   of   the
Chandigarh Administration in the present proceedings before
the High Court, it had been averred thus: 
84

“10. That the contents of paragraph 10 as stated are
wrong   and   denied.   The   Chandigarh   Administration
does not permit a residential house to be converted
into   an   apartment   on   account   of   the   fact   that   "The
Chandigarh   Apartment   Rules   2001"   now   stand
repealed.   However,   the   architectural   controls   and
building bye­laws are of the highest standards, even
otherwise   the   Estate   Office   maintains   a   strict   vigil
on   the   construction   activities/   compliance   of   Rules
and   Building   Bye­Laws   in   UT   Chandigarh.
Therefore,   contrary   to   the   claims   of   the   petitioner,
the character of Chandigarh is intact. 
11. That the contents of paragraph 11 as stated are
wrong   and   denied.   However,   there   is   no   bar   on
alienation/transfer   of   a   share   in   a   property   by   a
true owner, as it is permissible as per the provisions
of   the   enactments   and   the   recognized   principles   of
civil   law   referred   above.   Therefore,   an   owner   of   a
freehold   residential   house   is   permitted   to   sell   his
share or a part of the shares in the said house. It is
further submitted that no floor wise sale of property
is   permissible   under   the   Capital   of   Punjab
(Development   &   Regulations)"   Act,   1952.   The
contents of the preliminary objections as well as the
preliminary submissions may also be read as a part
and parcel of this paragraph.”
104. It   can   thus   clearly   be   seen   that   Chandigarh
Administration   has   reiterated   its   stand   that   it   does   not
permit   residential   house   to   be   converted   into   an   apartment
on   account   of   the   fact   that   the   2001   Rules   now   stand
repealed.   It   however   stated   that   there   is   no   bar   on
alienation/transfer of a share in a property by a true owner,
85

as   it   is   permissible   as   per   the   provisions   of   the   enactments
and the recognized principles of civil law.  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.   However, it
is reiterated that no floor­wise sale of property is permissible
under the 1952 Act.
105. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   vide   an
interim   order   dated  27 th
  July   2021,  reproduced  the   stand   of
Chandigarh   Administration.     It   also   noticed   that   in   the
subsequent   affidavit   dated   20 th
  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.
106. Since the Division Bench was seized of the matter, it
thought   it   was   appropriate   to   scan   through   the
advertisements   that   were   published   in   news   dailies   in   the
recent   past,   having   circulation   in   the   city,   so   as   to   find   out
whether any floor­wise sale of dwelling units is advertised.  It
86

noticed   that   in   the   Sunday   Tribune   dated   25 th
  July   2021
itself, as many as 24 advertisements were published inviting
the purchasers/investors to purchase independent floors.  In
this   order   itself,   the   High   Court   has   reproduced   such
advertisements.    After   reproducing  such  advertisements,  the
Division Bench observed thus: 
“The   afore­reproduced   advertisement(s)   lend
credence   to   the   assertion   raised   on   behalf   of   the
petitioners   that   under   the   garb   of   sale   of   certain
percentage   share   of   a   residential   unit   independent
floors are being sold. 
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 our view, the Chandigarh Administration
ought   to   have   been   alive   to   such   situation   and
particularly   when   there   were   specific   averments
made   in   the   present   petition   which   was   filed   way
back in the year 2016. Being in a state of denial on
paper would not suffice. In the fitness of things, the
Administration   should   have   carried   out   some   kind
of   physical   verification   to   ascertain   as   to   whether
such   modus   operandi   had   been   resorted   to   after
repeal   of   the   Apartment   Rules,   2001.   Mr.   Pankaj
Jain, learned Senior Standing  counsel on a specific
query   having   been   put,   concedes   that   no   such
verification has been carried out. 
We   are   constrained   to   observe   that   UT
Administration has chosen to skirt a vital issue that
has   been   raised   in   the   instant   petition.   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
87

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. The second step would
be   to   carry   out   a   physical   inspection   of   such
identified buildings/dwelling  units  to  find out  as to
whether the sale of share(s) has actually  translated
into   the   buyer   occupying   an   independent   floor   in
the otherwise composite dwelling unit or to find out
as to whether independent floors are in the process
of   being   constructed   commensurate   to   the   share(s)
that   has   been   purchased   in   such   dwelling   unit.   It
would   be   open   for   the   official   respondents   to   seek
the cooperation/ assistance of the concerned police
authorities/law   enforcement   agencies   to   facilitate
the   carrying   out   of   the   physical   inspection   of   the
premises   in   question.   We   further   direct   that   this
entire exercise be carried out under the supervision
of the Chief Architect, UT Chandigarh. 
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  same   be
confined   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   instant
petition  till  31.12.2019.  Still  further   the  exercise  to
confine only with regard to residential buildings.”
107. It   is   thus   clear   that   the   Division   Bench   found   that
the   written   statement   filed   on   behalf   of   the   Chandigarh
Administration   as   also   the   subsequent   affidavit   of   the
Assistant   Estate   Officer,   Chandigarh   is   totally   silent   on   the
aspect   of   advertisements   of   sale   of   independent   floors.     It
88

observed   that,   Chandigarh   Administration   ought   to   have
been   alive   to   such   situation,   and   particularly   when   there
were   specific   averments   made   to   that   effect   in   the   writ
petition   which   was   filed   way   back   in   the   year   2016.     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.   The
High   Court   recorded   the   contention   of   the   Senior   Standing
Counsel on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration that no
such   verification   has   been   carried   out.     The   Division   Bench
thereafter   issued   a   direction   to   the   Chandigarh
Administration   to   forthwith   carry   out   an   exercise   in   two
steps.     In   the   first   step,   the   properties/buildings   were   to   be
identified   from   the   office   of   the   Estate   Officer   where   the
record   of   the   rights   is   maintained   wherein   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.   The   second   step   was   to   carry   out
physical   inspection   of   such   identified   buildings/dwelling
units   to   find   out   as   to   whether   the   sale   of   share(s)   has
89

actually translated into the buyer occupying an independent
floor   in   the   otherwise   composite   dwelling   unit   or   to   find   out
as to whether independent floors are in the process of being
constructed,   commensurate   to   the   share(s)   that   has   been
purchased in such dwelling unit.
108. It   is   thus   clear   that   when   the   interim   order   was
passed on 27 th
  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.     It   is   informed   that,   in   pursuance   to   the   directions
of   the   High   Court   dated   27 th
  July   2021,   a   survey   was
conducted   and   it   was   found   that   891   sites   were   converted
into three apartments each.
109. From   the   material   placed   on   record,   it   appears   that
the   modus operandi   that is devised by the developers is that
the   allottee   of   the   house   would   convey   50%   of   the   share   to
the first purchaser, 30% to the second purchaser and 20% to
the   third   purchaser.   Thereafter,   all   the   three   purchasers
would enter into either a settlement deed or a Memorandum
90

of   Understanding   (MoU)   under   which   the   party   having   50%
share of the house is entitled to the entire ground floor with
basement   including   the   back   courtyard   but   excluding   the
front   courtyard   and   the   staircase.     The   second   purchaser
having 30% share in the house would be entitled to the entire
first   floor   excluding   the   staircase.     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.  
110. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   recitals   in   one   of
such settlement deeds executed on 2 nd
 May 2013, which read
thus:
“Whereas   as   per   the   present   rules   of   the   Estate
Office it could not been mentioned in the Sale Deed
that the possession of which floor/portion/area has
been  given   to  the  purchaser  so  this   MOU  has  been
executed   between   the   parties   to   avoid   any   future
misunderstanding/litigation   among   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   so   this
MOU has been executed between the parties and all
the   parties   have   agreed   with   each   other   on   the
following terms and conditions.”
111. It   is   thus   clear   that,   the   parties   who   entered   into
such   an   MoU,   were   conscious   of   the   fact   that   as   per   the
Rules   of   the   Estate   Office,   it   could   not   be   mentioned   in   the
91

sale   deed   that   the   possession   of   particular   floor   is   given   to
the   purchaser.     It   asserts   that   the   MoU   has   been   executed
between   the   parties   to   avoid   any   future
misunderstanding/litigation amongst all the co­owners of the
said   house   in   respect   of   their   respective   possession   in   the
said   house   in   lieu   of   their   respective   shares   in   the   said
house.  
112. It   will   also   be   relevant   to   refer   to   Clause   12   of   the
said Settlement Deed dated 2 nd
 May 2013, which reads thus: 
“12.     That   from   now   on   all   the   parties   shall
hereafter   peacefully   hold,   use   and   enjoy   their
respective   portions   as   their   own   property   without
any   hindrance,   interruption,   claim   or   demand
whatsoever from each other.   But as the parties are
owners   of   different   portions   in   one   common   house,
they   will   be   dependent   upon   each   other   in   many
ways in their day to day lives.  So they should try to
co­exist   amicably   with   each   other   as   brothers   and
sisters and family members, always keeping in mind
the necessities, comforts, rights and feelings of each
other   and   try   to   sort   out   any   differences,
discomforts   and   dissatisfactions   in   a   peaceful   and
dignified manner.”
 
113. It   is   thus   clear   that   the   MoU   clearly   states   that   all
the   parties,   after   entering   into   such   a   document,   would
peacefully   hold,   use   and   enjoy   their   respective   portions   as
their   own   property   without   any   hindrance,   interruption,
92

claim   or   demand   whatsoever   from   each   other.     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   co­exist   amicably   with   each   other   as   brothers
and sisters and family members.
114. According   to   the   High   Court,   the   said   does   not
amount   to   fragmentation,   which   is   prohibited   by   Rule   16   of
the  2007  Rules.  The High Court has held that fragmentation
will   take   place   only   where   there   is   a   division   of   the   plot   or
division   of   the   building   with   an   element   of   exclusive
ownership that is by partition by metes and bounds.  
115. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   meaning   of
“fragment”   and   “fragmentation”,   as   per   Webster’s
Encyclopedic   Unabridged   Dictionary   of   the   English
Language, which reads thus:
“ Frag.ment   (frag’ment), n. –   1.   a part broken off or
detached: scattered fragments of rock.   2.   a portion
that   is   unfinished   or   incomplete:   Fragments   of   his
latest novel were penciled in odd places.    3.    an odd
piece, bit, or scrap. – v.i.  4.   to disintegrate; collapse
or   break   into   fragments:   The   chair   fragmented
under his weight. – v.t.   5.   to break (something) into
pieces or fragments; cause to disintegrate: The vase
was   fragmented   in   shipment.     Outside   influences
93

soon   fragmented   the   culture.     6.     to   divide   into
fragments;   disunify.     [ME   <   L   fragment   (um)   a
broken   piece,   remnant,   equiv.   to   frag   –   (s.   of
frangere to break) + ­ mentum – MENT]
Frag.men.ta.tion   (frag’men’ta’shen),   n.   –   1.   act   or
process   of   fragmenting;   state   of   being   fragmented.
2.     the   disintegration,   collapse,   or   breakdown   of
norms   of   thought,   behavior,   or   social   relationship.
3.   the pieces of an exploded fragmentation bomb or
grenade. [FRAGMENT + ­ ATION]”
116. A   perusal   of   the   aforesaid   clauses   from   the
settlement   deeds,   which   have   been   reproduced   hereinabove,
it is clear that the understanding between the parties is that
they are independent owners of different floors.  It would also
reveal that as per their understanding also, the present Rules
of the Estate Office, would not permit to mention in the sale
deed   that   the   possession   of   which   floor/portion/area   has
been given the purchaser.  In any case, what is to be found is
the   real   intention   behind   the   transaction.   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.   This
94

is   nothing   else   but   fragmentation.   In   our   view,   it   is   an
attempt to by­pass the statutory prohibition. 
117. It   will   also   be   relevant   to   refer   to   an   undertaking
which   the   owner   is   required   to   furnish   in   an   application   for
obtaining the occupation certificate:
“ UNDERTAKING OF OWNER
……….
6. I/We do hereby certify that buildings will be used
for   residential   purposes   as   per   allotment   letter   and
its   use   will   not   be   changed   or   converted   into
Apartments   without   obtaining   written   permission
from the competent authority.”
118. The   application   which   is   to   be   made   in   the   said
format is still in vogue.   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   ex­facie   show   that   they   are   nothing   else   but
apartments.
119. It   is   thus   clear   that   the   modus   operandi   of   the
developers   is,   in   effect,   resulting   into   apartmentalization   of
the buildings. What is not permissible in law after the repeal
95

of  2001  Rules on 1 st
 October 2007, and enactment of Rule 16
of   the   2007   Rules,   is   indirectly   being   permitted   under   the
guise of sale of shares and subsequent MoUs. It is also to be
noted   that   though   an   attempt   was   made   in   the   draft   CMP­
2031   to   reintroduce   the   provision   for   apartments,   after
considering the objections, it was decided to delete the same
from the final CMP­2031.   As already stated hereinabove, on
account   of   such   transactions,   number   of   sites   have   been
purchased   through   the   aforesaid   modus   operandi ;   buildings
were   demolished   and   three   apartments   were   constructed
thereon.
120. 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 sub­division of a building duly recognized by the Estate
Officer   along   with   the   proportionate   share   in   common   areas
and   common   facilities.     It   holds   that   by   virtue   of   sale   of
share(s) by a co­owner and thereafter, the purchaser/vendee
occupying a specific portion of the building on the basis of an
96

internal   arrangement/understanding,   “sub­division   of
building”   as   contemplated   under   the   2001   Rules   does   not
take place.  In our considered view, the said reasoning is not
sustainable in the teeth of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules.
121. If the reasoning which is adopted by the High Court
is to be accepted, then it will lead to a situation wherein, as
aforementioned,   what   is   not   directly   permissible   in   law,   is
being   indirectly   permitted.   Therefore,   in   our   view,   the
reasoning of the High Court would not be tenable in law.
122. As   stated   hereinabove,   the   CMP­2031   itself   states
that   since   Phase­I   Sectors   have   been   recommended   for
heritage   status,   the   re­utilization   of   the   identified
housing/institutional   pockets   in   the   first   Phase   has   to   be
undertaken   only   with   the   prior   approval   of   the   Heritage
Committee.  Even in the report of the said Board, it has been
specifically   stated   that   the   Heritage   Committee   has
recommended   that   northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh
(Corbusian Chandigarh) should be preserved in their present
form   as   far   as   possible.     It   is   also   stated   that   general
redensification   is   not   recommended.     It   has   considered   that
97

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.
123. This Court in the  case of   Bangalore  Medical  Trust
v.   B.S.   Muddappa   and   Others 15
,   while   considering   the
provisions   of   Bangalore   Development   Authority   Act,   1976,
has   considered   an   issue   with   regard   to   deviation   from   duly
sanctioned   scheme   thereby   sacrificing   the   public   interest   in
the   preservation   and   protection   of   environment.     It   will   be
apposite   to   reproduce   certain   observations   made   in   the
aforesaid judgment, which read thus: 
“ 18.   ….…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.  Protection of the environment, open spaces
for   recreation   and   fresh   air,   play   grounds   for
children,   promenade   for   the   residents,   and
other conveniences or amenities are matters of
great public concern and of vital interest to be
15   (1991) 4 SCC 54
98

taken   care   of   in   a   development   scheme.   It   is
that   public   interest   which   is   sought   to   be
promoted   by   the   Act   by   establishing  the   BDA.
The   public   interest   in   the   reservation   and
preservation of open spaces for parks and play
grounds   cannot   be   sacrificed   by   leasing   or
selling   such   sites   to   private   persons   for
conversion   to   some   other   user.   Any   such   act
would be contrary to the legislative intent and
inconsistent   with   the   statutory   requirements.
Furthermore, it would be in direct conflict with
the constitutional mandate to ensure that any
State   action   is   inspired   by   the   basic   values   of
individual   freedom   and   dignity   and   addressed
to   the   attainment   of   a   quality   of   life   which
makes   the   guaranteed   rights   a   reality   for   all
the citizens.
36.   …….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. In   the   case   of   Shanti   Sports   Club   and   Another   v.
Union   of   India   and   Others 16
,   this   Court   enunciated   the
difference between developed and developing countries   vis­à­
vis   planned   development   and   observed   that   the   object   of
planned   development   had   been   achieved   by   developed
countries   by   rigorous   enforcement   of   master   plans   prepared
after careful study of complex issues, scientific research and
16   (2009) 15 SCC 705
99

rationalisation   of   laws   and   concluded   that   developed
countries   had   laid   great   emphasis   on   the   planned
development of cities. 
125. 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.   and   that   they   respect   the   laws
enacted by the legislature for regulating planned development
of   the   cities   and   seldom   is   there   a   complaint   of   violation   of
Master Plan   etc. in the construction of buildings, residential,
institutional or  commercial. On the other  hand, the scenario
in   developing   countries   like   ours  was  substantially   different.
Though,   the   competent   legislatures   have,   from   time   to   time,
enacted   laws   for   ensuring   planned   development   of   the   cities
and   urban   areas,   enforcement   thereof   has   been   extremely
poor   and   the   people   have   violated   the   master   plans,   zoning
plans   and   building   regulations   and   bye­laws   with   impunity.
This Court observed as under:
“ 74.   …………. In most  of  the  cases  of  illegal
or unauthorized constructions, the officers
of   the   municipal   and   other   regulatory
bodies   turn   a   blind   eye   either   due   to   the
100

influence   of   higher   functionaries   of   the
State   or   other   extraneous   reasons.   Those
who construct buildings in violation of the
relevant   statutory   provisions,   master   plan
etc.   and   those   who   directly   or   indirectly
abet   such   violations   are   totally   unmindful
of   the   grave   consequences   of   their   actions
and/or omissions on the present as well as
future   generations   of   the   country   which
will   be   forced   to   live   in   unplanned   cities
and   urban   areas.   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. apart from
creating chaos on the roads ………
75.   Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments
by   this   Court   and   High   Courts,   the   builders
and   other   affluent   people   engaged   in   the
construction   activities,   who   have,   over   the
years   shown   scant   respect   for   regulatory
mechanism   envisaged   in   the   municipal   and
other   similar   laws,   as   also   the   master   plans,
zonal   development   plans,   sanctioned   plans
etc., have received encouragement and support
from   the   State   apparatus.   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
101

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.   Such
actions   have   done   irreparable   harm   to   the
concept   of   planned   development   of   the   cities
and   urban   areas.   It   is   high   time   that   the
executive   and   political   apparatus   of   the
State   take   serious   view   of   the   menace   of
illegal   and   unauthorized   constructions
and   stop   their   support   to   the   lobbies   of
affluent   class   of   builders   and   others,   else
even   the   rural   areas   of   the   country   will
soon witness similar chaotic conditions. ”
[ Emphasis supplied ]
126. A   strong   reliance   has   been   placed   on   behalf   of   the
respondents on the provisions of the 2017 Rules.  It has been
submitted that the 2017 Rules clearly permit construction of
three   storeys.     It   is   submitted   that   ‘storey’   has   been   defined
to mean any horizontal division of a building so constructed
as to be capable of use as a living apartment, although such
horizontal   division   may   not   extend   over   the   whole   depth   or
width   of   the   building   but   shall   not   include   mezzanine   floor.
It   is   therefore   submitted   that   when   the   2017   Rules   itself
permit   construction   of   three   storeys   having   independent
kitchens etc. and the 2017 Rules having not been challenged,
102

it   is   not   permissible   for   the   appellants   to   argue   that   three
persons   cannot   be   permitted   to   occupy   three   different
dwelling units on each storey.
127. We   are   unable   to   accept   the   said   argument.     It   is   a
different   matter   that   three   co­sharers   decide   to   construct   a
building for residential house and construct three storeys for
occupation   by   each   of   the   co­sharers.     However,   allowing
such   modus   operandi   to   continue,   which,   in   effect,   nullifies
the effect of repeal of the   2001   Rules, enactment of the   2007
Rules,   and   recalling   an   attempt   to   reintroduce
apartmentalization   in   the   draft   CMP­2031,   would   be
permitting   to   do   something   indirectly   which   is   not
permissible in law.
128. Another   aspect   that   needs   to   be   taken   into
consideration   is   that   the   CMP­2031   as   well   as   the   report   of
the   said   Board   emphasizes   that   in   order   to   maintain   the
“Corbusian Chandigarh” status of Phase­I of Chandigarh, no
redensification   is   to   be   done   without   the   permission   of   the
Heritage   Committee.   Undisputedly,   permitting   three
apartments   to   be   constructed   in   one   dwelling   unit   would
103

result   in   increasing   the   density   in   population   in   the   Le
Corbusier   zone.     This,   in   our   view,   cannot   be   done   without
the same being approved by the Heritage Committee and the
Central Government.
129. It   further   needs   to   be   noted   that   one   of   the   guiding
principles that has been taken into consideration by the said
Board   is   that   the   same   practices   which   were   followed   while
developing   the  New  Delhi  Municipal   area  (Lutyen’s  Delhi)  be
followed in respect of the city of Chandigarh.   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. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited and
Others 17
, wherein this Court observed thus: 
“ 6.   On   1­8­1990,   the   Master   Plan,   2001   was
approved wherein it was specifically mentioned that
the   bungalow   character   of   LBZ   needs   to   be
preserved. The Master Plan even without specifically
mentioning   LBZ   guidelines   visualised   similar
treatment of LBZ  so as to  maintain the  low density
area   without   in  any  manner   adversely   affecting   the
17   (2008) 8 SCC 765
104

green   cover   in   the   area.   On   27­7­1993   objections
were invited to the Zonal Development Plan whereas
on 25­5­1994 the New Delhi Municipal Council Act,
1994 came into force.”
130. In   the   said   case,   this   Court   was   considering   an
appeal challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High   Court   vide   which   it   was   held   that   the   order   rejecting
building   plans   submitted   by   the   respondents   for   the
construction   of   a   15   storeyed   building   in   the   Lutyens
Bungalow Zone (LBZ) was illegal.   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.     This   Court,   however,   vide
judgment dated 28 th
  August 2008, set aside the judgment of
the High Court and allowed the appeal in the following terms:
“ 47.   On   the   facts   and   in   the   circumstances   of   the
case,   this   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that   the
respondents   would   be   entitled   to   construct
bungalow   on   their   plot   of   land,   in   terms   of
guidelines  dated  8­2­1988   and  that   they   would   not
be entitled to construct fifteen dwelling units which
is   quite   contrary   to   those   guidelines.   The   record
does   not   indicate   that   the   building   plans   of   the
respondents   are   fully   compliant   with   the
requirements   of   the   Delhi   Master   Plan,   2001   and
105

the   Delhi   Bye­Laws,   1983   and,   therefore,   the
impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.”
131. 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   CMP­2031   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
CMP­2031 permitting redensification without the approval of
the Heritage Committee.  
132. A   perusal   of   the   CMP­2031   itself   would   reveal   that
the Expert Committee observes that Chandigarh’s inscription
on UNESCO’s World Heritage list would bring many  benefits
as   the   city   would   join   a   select   list   of   other   modern
cities/urban areas currently  inscribed on it.   In our view, in
this background, providing something which would adversely
affect   the   heritage   status   of   the   Le   Corbusier   Zone,   without
the   approval   of   the   Heritage   Committee,   would   not   be
permissible.
106

133. The   material   placed   on   record   would   clearly   reveal
that Phase­I was designed for a low­rise plotted development
with   a   greenbelt   at   the   Centre   running   north   east   to   south
east.   Wide   roads   planned   in   a   systematic   hierarchy   provide
structure   to   the   city   which   has   well   planned   facilities.
Landscaped   green   avenues   give   it   amenity   value.     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 CMP­2031
and the report of the said Board.
134. Insofar   as   the   contention   raised   on   behalf   of   the
respondents that the restriction on transfer of property would
not   be   permissible   in   view   of   the   provisions   of   the   TP   Act   is
concerned,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   in   the   case   of   Chander
Parkash Malhotra  (supra), the High Court had held Rule 14
of   the   1960   Rules   to   be   ultra   vires   to   the   Constitution   of
India.     However,   in   an   appeal   filed   by   the   Chandigarh
Administration,   this   Court   set   aside   the   said   order   of   the
High Court.  Apart from that, it is to be noted that Rule 14 of
the   1960   Rules   and   Rule   16   of   the   2007   Rules   have   been
107

enacted under the 1952 Act.  It is a settled law that in case of
a   conflict   between   a   special   provision   and   a   general
provision,   the   special   provision   prevails   over   the   general
provision   and   the   general   provision   applies   only   to   such
cases   which   are   not   covered   by   the   special   provision.
Reliance in this respect is to be made to the judgment of this
Court in the case of  J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills
Co.,   Ltd.   v.   The   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   Others 18
,
which has been consistently followed by this Court.
135. 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. U.T. Chandigarh Admn. and Others 19
,
wherein the Full Bench has held that “The Parliament, in no
uncertain   terms,   has   expressed   through   a   non   obstante
clause   contained   in   Section   424­A   of   the   Punjab   Municipal
Corporation   (Extension   to   Chandigarh)   Act,   1994   that   the
provisions   of   the   1952   Act   shall   operate   and   have   an
overriding  effect.”   We respectfully agree with the view taken
by the Full Bench.
18   [1961] 3 SCR 185
19   2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21473
108

136. Another   aspect   that   needs   to   be   taken   into
consideration is that, as observed in the interim order of the
High   Court   dated   27 th
  July   2021,   the   Chandigarh
Administration   has   not   been   alive   to   the   situation.     Taking
into   consideration   the   importance   of   the   matter,   we   had
directed   the   Estate   Officer   to   remain   present   during   the
proceedings   of   the   hearing.     Accordingly,   Shri   Vinay   Pratap
Singh,   Estate   Officer,   was   personally   present.     The   Estate
Officer   also   agreed   that   though   CMP­2031   is   opposed   to
apartmentalization   and   redensification,   under   the   2017
Rules there was no restriction to construct three independent
units by  co­owners.   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.
The Estate Officer also agreed that there was a huge problem
of   parking   in   the   city   of   Chandigarh.     This   aspect   had   also
not   been   taken   into   consideration   while   notifying   the   2017
Rules.  It is difficult to appreciate as to how on one hand, the
Chandigarh   Administration   is   taking   a   stand   that
apartmentalization is not permissible and on the other hand,
109

turning   Nelson’s   eye   when   plans,   which   ex­facie   amount   to
apartmentalization,   are   being   submitted   and   sanctioned
under its very nose. 
137. It   is   further   pertinent   to  note   that   in   the  CMP­2031
itself, the Expert Committee has recommended thus:
“ Master Plan Committees’ recommendation
Preparation   and   notification   of   Heritage
Regulations   should   be   prioritized.     The   earlier
approved Draft Notification prepared at the time
of   preparation   of   the   UNESCO   Nomination
Dossier   and   the   Model   Heritage   Regulations
issued by the GOI can be used as a reference.
To   prevent   undue   change   or   damage   to   the
historic   and   cultural   value   of   Le   Corbusier’s
urbanism,   interim   orders   must   be   issued   not   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   till   such
time as heritage regulations are finalized.” 
138. 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. 
110

139. Judicial   notice   can   be   taken   of   the   creation   of   the
city   of   Brasilia  as   the   capital   of   Brazil.    From   the   website  of
the   “UNESCO   World   Heritage   Convention”,   it   could   be   seen
that the city was planned by urban planner Lucio Costa and
architect   Oscar   Niemeyer.     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 worthwhile to note that in spite
of   various   changes,   Lucio   Costa’s   Pilot   Project   (Plano   Piloto)
still   remains   preserved.   It   will   be   apposite   to   refer   to   the
following extract from the said website:
“The urban framework of Brasilia includes all of the
elements   required   to   demonstrate   outstanding
universal   value.   A   city   that   is   at   once   urbs   and
civitas,   Brasilia   has   preserved   its   original   guiding
principles intact, as reflected in the protection of its
urban   scales,   legally   protected   by   local   and   federal
organisms of government of the country.  
The  city   finds  itself  today  in  the  midst  of  a  process
of   consolidation,   in   accordance   with   its   dual
function as city and capital, through the continuing
implementation   of   new   urban   services   and
structures.   The   World   Heritage   property   is
vulnerable to urban development pressure including
increased traffic and public transport requirements.
The   city’s   various   sectors,   as   laid   out   in   the   initial
plan, are now in the process of being supplemented
and,   indeed,   concluded,   in   line   with   the   original
urban   principles.   These   changes   in   no   way
111

jeopardize   the   singular   and   outstanding   value   of
Lucio   Costa’s   Pilot   Project   (Plano   Piloto),   which
remains   wholly   preserved,   both   physically   and
symbolically.  
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. It   will   also   be   relevant   to   extract   the   following
passage   from   the   said   website,   which   would   show   the   steps
taken for protection of the urban framework of Brasilia:
“Protection   of   the   Urban   Framework   of   Brasilia   is
governed   by   a   series   of   legal   instruments   intended
to   ensure   its   preservation   on   three   operational
levels: local, federal, and global. At the local level, a
set   normative   instruments   consisting   of   specific
laws aimed at protecting the heritage site as well as
highly   complex   body   of   technical   and   operational
urban   legislation   based   on   the   Federal   District’s
Urban and Land Settlement Policy have been put in
place.”
 
141. The said website would also show that similar steps
have been taken for protecting the White City of Tel­Aviv and
the city of Le Havre, rebuilt by Auguste Perret.
112

142. 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.
143. In   this   respect,   we   may   also   refer   to   the   Directive
Principles   contained   in   Articles   49   and   51A(f)   and   (g)   of   the
Constitution of India, which read thus:
“ 49.   Protection   of   monuments   and   places
and objects of national importance . – It shall
be   the   obligation   of   the   State   to   protect   every
monument   or   place   or   object   of   artistic   or
historic   interest,   declared   by   or   under   law
made   by   Parliament   to   be   of   national
importance,   from   spoliation,   disfigurement,
destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the
case may be.
51A.   Fundamental   duties.   –   It   shall   be   the
duty of every citizen of India – 
……..
(f)   to   value   and   preserve   the   rich   heritage   of
our composite culture; 
(g)   to   protect   and   improve   the   natural
environment   including   forests,   lakes,   rivers
and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures;”
144. A  conjoint  reading   of the  aforesaid provisions would
reveal  that a responsibility  is cast upon  the State as well as
the   citizens   to   protect   and   conserve   the   heritage.
113

Undisputedly,   Phase­I   of   Chandigarh,   i.e.,   Corbusian
Chandigarh,   even   according   to   the   respondent­authorities,
possesses   a   heritage   status.     The   CMP­2031   itself
emphasizes   that   Chandigarh   should   be   included   in   the
UNESCO’s   World   Heritage   List   due   to   its   outstanding
universal   value.     As   already   discussed   hereinabove,   the
fragmentation/apartmentalization   of   residential   units   in
Phase­I   of   Chandigarh   is   destructive   of   the   vision   of   Le
Corbusier.  It is also opposed to the concept of protecting and
preserving the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh.   As
such,   it   is   necessary   that   the   respondent­authorities   must
take every possible step for preserving the heritage status of
Corbusian Chandigarh.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
145. One another important aspect that needs to be taken
into   consideration   is   the   adverse   impact   on   environment   on
account   of   haphazard   urbanization.     It   will   be   relevant   to
refer to Clause 20.3 of the CMP­2031 which we have already
reproduced   hereinabove.     It   has   been   recommended   that   an
Effective Environmental Management Plan be devised for the
114

region   including   Chandigarh,   which   includes   environmental
strategy,   monitoring   regulation,   institutional   capacity
building   and   economic   incentives.   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.
146. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
notes in its publication titled “ Integrating the  Environment in
Urban   Planning   and   Management   –   Key   Principles   and
Approaches for Cities in the 21 st
 Century ” that more than half
of   the   world’s   population   is   now   living   in   urban   areas.     It
further noted that by the year 2050, more than half of Africa
and   Asia’s   population   will   live   in   towns   and   cities.     It
recognized   that   City   Development   Strategies   (CDSs)   have
shown how to integrate environmental concerns in long­term
city   visioning   exercises.     It   states   that   environmental
mainstreaming   can   help   to   incorporate   relevant
115

environmental   concerns   into   the   decisions   of   institutions,
while   emerging   ideas   about   the   green   urban   economy   show
how   density   can   generate   environmental   and   social
opportunities.     It   states   that   the   strategies   need   to   be
underpinned   with   governance   structures   that   facilitate
integration   of   environmental   concerns   in   the   planning
process.
147. The   said   publication   defines   EIA   to   be   an   analytical
process   or   procedure   that   systematically   examines   the
possible   environmental   consequences   of   the   implementation
of   a   given   activity   (project).     It   is   aimed   to   ensure   that   the
environmental   implications   of   decisions   related   to   a   given
activity are taken into account before the decisions are made.
148. Judicial   notice   is   also   taken   of   the   cover   story
published   in   the   weekly,   “India   Today”,   dated   24 th
  October
2022, titled as “ Bengaluru – How to Ruin India’s Best City ” by
Raj   Chengappa   with   Ajay   Sukumaran.     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
116

development.     It   takes   note   of   as   to   how   on   account   of   one
major spell of rain in the September of 2022, the city bore the
brunt   of   nature’s   fury.   Various   areas   of   the   city   were
inundated with heavy rains.  The loss the flood caused to the
Outer Ring road tech corridor alone was estimated to be over
Rs.225 crore.
149. 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.
150. The article further notes that rapid expansion of the
city   with   no   appropriate   thought   given   towards
transportation   and   ease   of   mobility   has   led   to   nightmarish
traffic   jams   on   its   arterial   roads.     It   notes   that,   almost
overnight,  Bengaluru's  municipal  jurisdiction  grew  from  200
sq.   km.   to   800   sq.   km.     It   observes   that   the   only   one   to
benefit was the politician­businessman­builder nexus, which
has   thrived.   It   further   noted   that   though   posh   colonies
mushroomed   in   new   areas,   the   infrastructure   lagged,   as
117

roads remained narrow, the drainage poor, and no adequate
provision for garbage disposal too.
151. The   article   notes   that   the   primary   canals   known
locally   as   rajakaluves   were   once   natural   rain­fed   streams
across   which   farmers   built   small   bunds   over   time,   to   arrest
the flow of water and create lakes.  It further notes that these
interlinked   man­made   lakes   worked   as   a   storm­water   drain
network.  However, in order to meet the demand for space for
construction and roads, the administrators allowed the lakes
to be breached regularly.  The lakes, which once numbered a
thousand­odd, are now reduced to a paltry number.   Worse,
the   rajakaluves   that   channelized   the   storm   water   had
buildings built over them.
152. The   warning   flagged   by   the   city   of   Bengaluru   needs
to be given due attention by the legislature, executive and the
policy   makers.     It   is   high   time   that   before   permitting   urban
development, EIA of such development needs to be done.
XII. CONCLUSION:
118

153. Taking   overall   view   of   the   matter,   we   are   of   the
considered   view   that   permitting   redensification   in   Phase­I,
which   has   heritage   value,   on   account   of   being   “Corbusian
Chandigarh”,   without   the   same   being   approved   by   the
Heritage   Committee,   is   contrary  to   the   CMP­2031  itself.   The
CMP­2031  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.   Though on
account of repeal of the   2001   Rules in the year 2007 and on
account   of   Rule   16   of   the   2007   Rules,   the   High   Court   itself
holds that apartmentalization is not permissible; it goes on to
hold   that   though   the   developers/builders   are   in   effect
indulging into construction of three apartments in a building,
the   same   does   not   amount   to   apartmentalization.     In   our
view,   this   would   amount   to   permitting   something   indirectly
which   is   not   permitted   directly.     The   authorities   of   the
Chandigarh   Administration   are   blindly   sanctioning   building
plans, when from the building plans itself it is apparent that
the same are in effect converting one dwelling unit into three
apartments.   Such a haphazard growth may  adversely  affect
the heritage status of Phase­I of Chandigarh which is sought
119

to be inscribed as a UNESCO’s heritage city.   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.   With the increase in number of dwelling units, a
corresponding   increase   in   the   vehicles   is   bound   to   be   there.
However,   without   considering   the   said   aspect,   one   dwelling
unit is permitted to be converted into three apartments.
154. We   find   that   the   High   Court   has   failed   to   take   into
consideration all these aspects. No doubt that the High Court
has   issued   certain   directions   so   as   to   protect   the   interest   of
home   buyers.   It   has   also   observed   that   “Chandigarh
Administration   chooses   to   stay   smug,   taking   a   stand   on
paper   that   floor­wise   sale   of   residential   building   is   not
permissible   while   residential   floors   are   being   advertised   for
sale   right   under   its   nose”.   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
120

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.     It   further
directed   to   mention   in   the   said   notice   that   the   Chandigarh
Administration does not recognize ownership rights over any
floor/part of any site/building by virtue of such transactions.
A word of caution was also directed to be put, that in case a
dispute   arises   between   the   co­sharers/co­owners,   the   only
remedy would be to put the property to auction and the sale
proceeds   thereafter   be   distributed   inasmuch   the
fragmentation/division   of   the   building/site   by   metes   and
bounds is specifically prohibited.
155. In   our   view,   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have
stopped   at   that.   Having   noted   the   stand   of   the   Chandigarh
Administration   that   the   construction   and   floor­wise   sale   of
residential building was not permissible in view of Rule 16 of
the   2007   Rules,   the  High   Court   ought   to   have  held   that   the
statutory   rules   framed   under   1952   Act   expressly   prohibits
fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalization   of   a
121

residential   unit   in   Phase­I   of   Chandigarh.     The   legislative
intent as found in Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules has been clearly
reiterated   in   Rule   16   of   the   2007   Rules,   which   has   been
enacted   under   Section   5   read   with   Section   22   of   the   1952
Act.   We are of  the considered view that  the High  Court has
erred in not considering the same.
156. Shri   Patwalia   fairly   conceded   that   the   said   exercise
has   acted   as   a   deterrent   and   number   of   such   transactions
amounting to apartmentalization have substantially reduced.
157. No doubt that the High Court has rightly  issued the
directions   to   safeguard   the   interest   of   the   home   buyers.
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.     In   any   case,   taking
into   consideration   the   heritage   status   of   Phase­I,   the   High
Court   ought   to   have   considered   the   matter   in   correct
perspective.  
122

158. We   may   gainfully   refer   to   an   article   by   Jonathan
Glancey   dated   11 th
  December   2015   titled   “ Is   this   the   perfect
city? ”, 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   self­contained
neighbourhoods,   more   trees   than   perhaps   any
Indian   city   and   a   way   of   life   that   juggles   tradition
with   modernity.     While   history   tells   us   ideal   cities
are mostly best left on paper, Chandigarh – perhaps
one   of   the   least   likely   appears   to   have   succeeded
against the grain.”
159. As   could   be   seen   from   the   said   article,   Chandigarh
has   done   remarkably   well,   offering   striking   monumental
architecture,   a   grid   of   self­contained   neighbourhoods,   more
trees   than   perhaps   any   Indian   city   and   a   way   of   life   that
juggles tradition with modernity.
160. At   the   cost   of   repetition,   it   must   be   noted   that   the
CMP­2031   itself,   at   more   than   one   place,   states   that
Chandigarh   has   been   planned   as   a   green   city   with
abundance   of   open   space   and   to   ensure   that   every   dwelling
has   its   adequate   share   of   the   three   elements   of   Sun,   Space
and Verdure. The fragmentation/apartmentalization of single
123

dwelling   units   in   Phase­I   of   Chandigarh,   in   our   view,   will
injure   the   ‘Lungs’   of   the   city   as   conceptualized   by   Le
Corbusier.     In   this   regard,   the   observations   of   this   Court   in
the case of  Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and
Others   v.   Kohinoor   CTNL   Infrastructure   Company
Private   Limited   and   Another 20
,   are   highly   instructive.     In
the   said   case,   this   Court   held   as   follows,   regarding   the
implications of overcrowding of cities:
“ 13.   ……When   the   cities   are   overcrowded,   the
roads are narrow  and  the  traffic is increasing,
the   situation   will   be   extremely   hazardous   for
the   children   and   senior   citizens.   There   will   be
no  greens  in  the  buildings  and  the  people  will
always   crave   for   fresh   and   pure   air.   The
buildings   without   greens   will   add   to   the   ever
increasing   temperature   of   the   overcrowded
cities and urban areas. To put it differently, all
constructions   without   adequate   green   and
recreational   areas   will   have   serious   impact   on
the environment and human life…….”
161. The   High   Court   ought   to   have   been   alive   to   the
unique status of Chandigarh and considered the matter from
that perspective.
20   (2014) 4 SCC 574
124

162. One   other   aspect   that   needs   to   be   taken   into
consideration   is   that   on   account   of   certain   acts   and
omissions   of   the   Chandigarh   Administration,   in   certain
areas, there has been a chaotic situation.  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.   In
view of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, there is a specific bar on
fragmentation of sites or buildings.  It is the specific stand of
the   Chandigarh   Administration   that   construction   of
apartments is not permissible.   On the other hand, the 2017
Rules   are   enacted   in   such   a   way   that   there   is   scope   for   the
construction   of   apartments.   Not   only   that,   but   the
Chandigarh   Administration   is   sanctioning   plans   which,   in
effect, permit apartmentalization.  
163. We   may   gainfully   refer   to   the   following   observations
made   by   the   Full   Bench   of   the   High   Court   in   the   case   of
Dheera Singh  (supra), which read thus:
“ 103.   The   Executive   has   in   the   instant   case,   with
reference   to   the   1952   Act,   failed   to   live­up   to   the
expectations   of   the   residents   as   instead   of
approaching the Ministry concerned with a concrete
proposal   on   data­based   information   for   onward
consideration   of   the   Legislature   to   rejuvenate   the
125

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.   Strangely,   the   amount   of   penalty   or   fine   fixed
by   the   Legislature   in   the   year   1952  (Sections   8,   13
& 15) has not been got revised even after the expiry
of 60 years.
104.   The   principles   governing   the   powers   of
delegated legislation are fairly settled. Such a power
is exercisable to implement and achieve the objects
of   a   Statute   within   the   framework   of   the   legislative
policy; every delegate is subject to the authority and
control   of   the   principal   who   can   always   direct,
correct   or   cancel   the   action   of   the   subordinate
legislation; the delegate in the garb of making rules
cannot legislate on the fields covered by the Act.”
164. 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   are   also
inclined   to   direct   the   Chandigarh   Administration   to   take
steps   for   amending   the   CMP­2031   and   the   2017   Rules   after
the   issue   has   been   addressed   by   the   Heritage   Committee.
However,   we   feel   that   such   important   issues   cannot   be   left
only to the discretion of the Chandigarh Administration.   We
therefore find it necessary to direct that after the Chandigarh
126

Administration   takes   decision   to   amend   the   provisions,   the
same   shall   be   placed   before   the   Central   Government   for   its
consideration and final decision.   We find that for protecting
the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh, it is necessary
that we should  exercise our  powers under  Article 142 of  the
Constitution of India and issue certain directions.
165. In   that   view   of   the   matter,   we   hold   that   in   view   of
Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules, Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules and the
repeal   of   the   2001   Rules,   fragmentation/division/
bifurcation/apartmentalization of a residential unit in Phase­
I of Chandigarh is prohibited.  
166. We further issue the following directions:
(i) The Heritage Committee is directed to consider the
issue   of   redensification   in   Phase­I   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
127

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   CMP­2031   and   the   2017   Rules
insofar   as   they   are   applicable   to   Phase­I   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
128

facie   appears   to   be   a   modus   operandi   to
convert   a   single   dwelling   unit   into   three
different   apartments   occupied   by   three
strangers; and
b. no   Memorandum   of   Understanding   (MoU)   or
agreement   or   settlement   amongst   co­owners
of   a   residential   unit   shall   be   registered   nor
shall it be enforceable in law for the purpose
of   bifurcation   or   division   of   a   single
residential unit into floor­wise apartments.
(vii) We   further   direct   that   hereinafter,   the   Central
Government   and   Chandigarh   Administration   will
freeze FAR and shall not increase it any further;
(viii) That   the   number   of   floors   in   Phase­I   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; and
(ix) That   the   Chandigarh   Administration   shall   not
resort to formulate rules or bye­laws without prior
129

consultation   of   the   Heritage   Committee   and   prior
approval of the Central Government.
167. Before we part with the judgment, 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. 
168. We direct the copy of this judgment to be forwarded
to the Cabinet Secretary to the Union of India and the Chief
Secretaries   to   all   the   States   to   take   note   of   the   aforesaid
observations.  We hope that the Union of India as well as the
State Governments will take earnest steps in that regard.
130

169. We   must   place   on   record   our   deep   appreciation   for
the   valuable   assistance   rendered   by   Shri   P.S.   Patwalia   and
Shri   Ranjit   Kumar,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Shri   K.M.   Natraj,   learned   ASG,
Shri   Kapil   Sibal,   Shri   Ajay   Tewari   and   Shri   Gaurav   Chopra,
learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents.
170. In the result, the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
171. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
in the above terms.  No order as to costs.
…..….......................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
…….......................J.       
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 10, 2023
131