Illegal sale of independent floors in Chandigarh: Supreme Court stays UT survey

Read Order: MAMTA GUPTA v. RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, August 11, 2021 : The Supreme Court has stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s direction to hold a survey whereby properties/buildings were to be identified from the office of the Estate Officer wherein shares to the extent of 50 %, 30 % or 20 % were sold or transferred to a person outside the family of the original owner/shareholder.

The High Court had passed these directions in its order dated July 27, 2021 pursuant to a petition contending that there had been illegal sale of independent floors in Chandigarh in violation of the UT’s rules.

The petition in question was filed by different Resident Welfare Associations seeking issuance of directions to restrain the official respondents from permitting residential plots in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, which are single dwelling units, to be constructed or utilised as apartments.

The petitioners projected that such activity is not permitted and is rather expressly barred under the existing rules, regulations and by-laws of the UT Administration.

However, few city residents filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the said HC order.

In its order, the SC stated, “We are informed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the writ petition is listed for hearing before the High Court on 11.08.2021. The pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not deter the High Court from continuing with the hearing of the writ petition.  However, the direction issued by the High Court for conducting a physical survey of properties/buildings to be identified by the Estate Officer where there has been transfer of shares is stayed.”

What was the HC order?

Read Order: Residents Welfare Association and Anr v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors

This petition was filed seeking issuance of directions to restrain the official respondents from permitting residential plots in the Union Territory of Chandigarh which are single dwelling units to be constructed or utilised as apartments.

The stand taken by the petitioners pertained to the fact that there was a huge outcry against the provision for having apartments, on the ground that such activity would completely alter and finish the character of the City and the existing infrastructure in terms of sewerage, water, electricity, parking, traffic etc. was wholly insufficient to take on the extra load. Under such a situation the Apartment Rules of 2001 were repealed vide notification dated 01.10.2007.

It was submitted also that a large number of single dwelling units are being surreptitiously converted into apartments. The precise contention raised was that residential plots being self-contained independent units cannot be further subdivided into separate units, and  sale of independent units even floor wise is not liable to be permitted.

On the contrary, in the joint written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it was averred that submission of building plans or revised building plans are to be considered and passed as a single unit and not floor wise. Still further in a subsequent affidavit of the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh it had been deposed that no sale of defined portion/plot of building is permissible, nor any such sale has been recognised by the Chandigarh Administration except those registered during 2001 to 2007 when the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 were in vogue.

The HC had passed the directions after the submission was made that in the year 2001, the Chandigarh Administration notified Rules called the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 whereby even single residential units wherever they existed in the city of Chandigarh could be subdivided into apartments.

While ordering the survey, the HC had asked the UT estate department to carry out a physical inspection of such identified buildings/dwelling units to find out as to whether the sale of share(s) 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.

The Division Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vivek Puri had clarified that 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. It was further directed that this entire exercise be carried out under the supervision of the Chief Architect, UT Chandigarh.

The HC bench held that this was to ensure that such exercise does not become overly time consuming and the object was only towards a fact finding exercise with the view that it ought to be a sample exercise. The same was confined from the date of filing of the instant petition till 31.12.2019. Still further the exercise was to confine only with regard to residential buildings.