Holding

Fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalisation of a residential unit in Phase‑I of Chandigarh is prohibited under Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules, Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules and the repeal of the 2001 Apartment Rules.

Summary

The Resident’s Welfare Association filed a public‑interest litigation alleging that developers in Phase‑I of Chandigarh were converting single‑dwelling units into three separate apartments by selling fractional shares and executing MoUs, thereby breaching the statutory prohibition on fragmentation. The High Court held that such floor‑wise sales did not amount to "fragmentation" because no subdivision was recognised by the Estate Officer, and it allowed the developers to continue. The Supreme Court reversed this view, holding that Rule 14 of the 1960 Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, Rule 16 of the 2007 Chandigarh Estate Rules and the repeal of the 2001 Apartment Rules expressly forbid any fragmentation, division, bifurcation or apartmentalisation of residential units in the heritage‑designated Phase‑I. The Court directed that the issue be examined by the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee, that the CMP‑2031 and the 2017 Building Rules be amended accordingly, and that the Central Government approve any changes. It also ordered a freeze on FAR, a three‑storey height limit for Phase‑I, and prohibited registration of MoUs effecting floor‑wise division. The appeals were allowed and comprehensive directions were issued to preserve the heritage and environmental integrity of "Corbusian" Chandigarh.

Issues considered

The legality of floor‑wise sale and conversion of a single dwelling unit into multiple apartments in Phase‑I of Chandigarh under the 1952 Act and its Rules.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that such conversions do not constitute "fragmentation" within the meaning of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules and Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules.
The applicability of the repeal of the 2001 Apartment Rules and the continuing effect of the 2007 Estate Rules on redensification in the heritage zone.
The necessity of involving the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee and the Central Government before any redensification or amendment of the Master Plan.

Legislation cited

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952s. 22, s. 2(k), s. 3, s. 5
Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001
Chandigarh Building Rules (Urban), 2017
Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007s. Rule 16
Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960s. Rule 14
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. Section 10, s. Section 44, s. Section 5, s. Section 7

Subjects

fragmentationapartmentalisationheritage conservationChandigarh Master Plan 2031urban planningenvironmental impact assessmentfloor‑wise saleredensificationLe CorbusierUNESCO heritagefloor‑wise subdivision

Judgment

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 601 601

RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER A
v.
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 274 of 2023)
JANUARY 10, 2023 B
[B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Urban Development – Town Planning – Committee for
Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031 (CMP-2031) – Issue of
redensification in Phase-I sector in the city of Chandigarh – C
Fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalization of residential
units – Held: In view of r.14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and
Building) Rules, 1960, r.16 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007
and repeal of the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001, fragmentation/
division/bifurcation/ apartmentalization of residential units in D
Phase-I sector of Chandigarh is prohibited – On facts, authorities
of the Chandigarh Administration were blindly sanctioning building
plans, when from the building plans itself it was apparent that the
same were in effect converting one dwelling unit into three apartments
– Such a haphazard growth may adversely affect the heritage status E
of Phase-I of Chandigarh – The Committee for Chandigarh Master
Plan, 2031 (CMP-2031) 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 – Fragmentation/ F
apartmentalization of single dwelling units in Phase-I of Chandigarh
will injure the ‘Lungs’ of the city as conceptualized by Le Corbusier
– For protecting the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh,
directions issued u/Art.142 of the Constitution – Issue regarding
apartmentalization to be first examined by the Chandigarh Heritage G
Conservation Committee – Chandigarh Administration to thereafter
take steps for amending the CMP-2031 and the Chandigarh Building
Rules (Urban), 2017 and subsequently, the same to be placed before
the Central Government for its consideration and final decision –
Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 – r.16 – Chandigarh (Sale of Sites H
601
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A and Building) Rules, 1960 – r. 14 – Chandigarh Building Rules
(Urban), 2017 – Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 – Constitution
of India – Arts. 142.

Urban Development – Damage to environment on account of
B haphazard developments – Necessity of proper balance between
sustainable development and environmental protection – 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.
C
Word and Phrases: “Fragment” and “Fragmentation” –
Meaning of.

Allowing the appeals and issuing directions, the Court
D HELD : 1. 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
E into either a settlement deed or a Memorandum 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
F 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. It is clear that, the parties who entered
into such an MoU, were conscious of the fact that as per the
G Rules of the Estate Office, it could not be mentioned in the sale
deed that the possession of particular floor is given to the
purchaser. It is also 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 603
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

without any hindrance, interruption, claim or demand whatsoever A
from each other. 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 B
of the parties is to construct three different units which are
disintegrated. This is nothing else but fragmentation. It is an
attempt to by-pass the statutory prohibition. [Paras 109, 111, 113
and 116][656-H; 657-A-C, E-F; 658-B-D; 659-C]
C
2. In the teeth of the undertaking which the owner is
required to furnish in an application for obtaining the occupation
certificate; 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
D
ex-facie show that they are nothing else but apartments. It is
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 of the Chandigarh Apartment
Rules, 2001 on 1st October 2007, and enactment of Rule 16 of
E
the the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, is indirectly being
permitted under the guise of sale of shares and subsequent MoUs.
[Paras 118 and 119][659-F-G]

3. Allowing a modus operandi to continue, which, in effect,
nullifies the effect of repeal of the 2001 Rules, enactment of the F
2007 Rules, and recalling an attempt to reintroduce
apartmentalization in the draft Committee for Chandigarh Master
Plan, 2031 (CMP-2031), would be permitting to do something
indirectly which is not permissible in law. In order to maintain
the “Corbusian Chandigarh” status of Phase-I of Chandigarh, no G
redensification is to be done without the permission of the
Heritage Committee. Undisputedly, permitting three apartments
to be constructed in one dwelling unit would result in increasing
the density in population in the Le Corbusier zone. This cannot
H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A be done without the same being approved by the Heritage
Committee and the Central Government. [Paras 127 and
128][663-F-H; 664-A-B]

4. Taking overall view of the matter, it is clear that
B permitting redensification in Phase-I, which has heritage value,
on account of being “Corbusian Chandigarh”, without the same
being approved by the Heritage Committee, is contrary to the
Committee for Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031 (CMP-2031) itself.
The CMP-2031 on one hand does not permit apartmentalization,
however, on the other hand, it estimates the number of dwelling
C
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
D
construction of three apartments in a building, the same does
not amount to apartmentalization. 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
E
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 Phase-I of Chandigarh
which is sought to be inscribed as a UNESCO’s heritage city.
[Para 153][671-B-E]
F
5. The Committee for Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031 (CMP-
2031) 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
G elements of Sun, Space and Verdure. The fragmentation/
apartmentalization of single dwelling units in Phase-I of
Chandigarh will injure the ‘Lungs’ of the city as conceptualized
by Le Corbusier. This Court is therefore inclined to issue certain
directions so as to ensure that the issue regarding
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 605
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

apartmentalization is first examined by the Heritage Committee A
so as to preserve the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh.
This Court is also inclined to direct the Chandigarh
Administration to take steps for amending the CMP-2031 and
the Chandigarh Building Rules (Urban), 2017 after the issue has
been addressed by the Heritage Committee. However, such B
important issues cannot be left only to the discretion of the
Chandigarh Administration. It is therefore necessary to direct
that after the Chandigarh Administration takes decision to amend
the provisions, the same shall be placed before the Central
Government for its consideration and final decision. For C
protecting the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh, it is
necessary to exercise powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and issue certain directions. [Paras 160 and
164][673-B-C; 674-E-G]
D
6. In view of Rule 14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and
Building) Rules, 1960, Rule 16 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules,
2007 and the repeal of the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001,
fragmentation/division/bifurcation/ apartmentalization of a
residential unit in Phase-I of Chandigarh is prohibited. [Para
E
165][674-G-H]

7. The following directions were issued: (i) The Heritage
Committee shall consider the issue of redensification in Phase-I
of the city of Chandigarh; (ii) The Heritage Committee would
take into consideration its own recommendations that the F
northern sectors of Chandigarh “(Corbusian Chandigarh)” should
be preserved in their present form; (iii)The Heritage Committee
shall also take into consideration the impact of such redensification
on the parking/traffic issues; (iv) After the Heritage Committee
considers the issues, the Chandigarh Administration would G
consider amending the CMP-2031 and the 2017 Rules insofar as
they are applicable to Phase-I in accordance with the
recommendations of the Heritage Committee; (v) Such
amendments shall be placed before the Central Government,
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B ex- 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 co-owners of a residential unit
shall be registered nor shall it be enforceable in law for the
C purpose of bifurcation or division of a single residential unit into
floor-wise apartments. (vii) The Central Government and
Chandigarh Administration will freeze FAR and shall not increase
it any further; (viii) The number of floors in Phase-I shall be
restricted to three with a uniform maximum height as deemed
D appropriate by the Heritage Committee keeping in view the
requirement to maintain the heritage status of Phase-I; and (ix)
The Chandigarh Administration shall not resort to formulate rules
or bye-laws without prior consultation of the Heritage Committee
and prior approval of the Central Government. [Para166][675-
E A-H; 676-A-B]

8. 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
F
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.
The Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the
Centre as well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions
G
for carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before
permitting urban development. [Para 167][676-B-D]

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others
v. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private
H Limited and Another (2014) 4 SCC 574- relied on.
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 607
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

New Delhi Municipal Council and Others v. Tanvi A
Trading and Credit Private Limited and Others (2008)
8 SCC 765 : [2008]12 SCR 867; J.K. Cotton Spinning
& Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others [1961] 3 SCR 185; Tilak Raj Bakshi v.
Avinash Chand Sharma (Dead) Through Legal B
Representatives and Others (2020) 15 SCC 605 : [2019]
10 SCR 251; Kochkunju Nair v. Koshy Alexander and
Others (1999) 3 SCC 482 : [1999] 2 SCR 169; Jai
Singh and Others v. Gurmej Singh (2009) 15 SCC 747
: [2009] 1 SCR 413; Chandigarh Administration v. C
Chander Parkash Malhotra and Others Civil Appeal
No. 4974 of 1992 dated 24th November 1992; Dr. K.A.
Dhairyawan and Others v. J.R. Thakur and Others
[1959] SCR 799; Rev. FR. K.C. Alexander v. State of
Kerala (1973) 2 SCC 737 : [1974] 1 SCR 399; D
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Others
(1991) 4 SCC 54 : [1991] 3 SCR 102; Shanti Sports
Club and Another v. Union of India and Others (2009)
15 SCC 705 : [2009] 13 SCR 710 - referred to.

Chander Parkash Malhotra v. Ved Parkash Malhotra E
and Others 1991 SCC OnLine P&H 245; Hardit Singh
and Others v. Gurmukh Singh and Others 1918 SCC
OnLine PC 2; Sant Ram v. Daya Ram and Others AIR
1961 P&H 528; R.G. Hiremath and Another v. T.
Krishnappa 1977 SCC OnLine Kar 96; Laxmipat F
Singhania v. Larsen and Toubro, Ltd. 1949 SCC
OnLine Bom 11; Saiffuddin v. The Commissioner of
Income Tax (129) 1985 SCC OnLine Raj 97; Sh.
Chander Parkash Malhotra v. Sh. R.B.S. Chahal 1993
SCC OnLine P&H 1179; Arvind Kapoor v. Kumud G
Kapoor and Another [Punjab & Haryana High Court -
Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 2012 dated
28.05.2019] and Dheera Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh
Admn. and Others 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21473 –
referred to. H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference

[1999] 2 SCR 169 referred to Para 34

[2009] 1 SCR 413 referred to Para 34

B [2019] 10 SCR 251 referred to Para 35

[1959] SCR 799 referred to Para 40

[1974] 1 SCR 399 referred to Para 40

[1991] 3 SCR 102 referred to Para 123
C
[2009] 13 SCR 710 referred to Para 124

[2008] 12 SCR 867 referred to Para 129

[1961] 3 SCR 185 referred to Para 134
D
(2014) 4 SCC 574 relied on Para 160

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.274 of
2023.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2021 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.18559 of
2016.

With
F Civil Appeal No.275 of 2023.

K. M. Natraj, ASG, P. S. Patwalia, Ranjit Kumar, Kapil Sibal,
Ajay Tewari, Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advs., Ashok K. Mahajan, Gaurav
Patwalia, Ms. Harsika Verma, Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Vanshdeep Dalmia,
G Sarad Kumar Singhania, Vatsal Joshi, Mohd. Akhil, Nakul Chengappa
K. K., Ms. Akiti A. Manubarwale, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Misha
Rohatgi, Ajit Joher, Aditya Chadha, Devansh Srivastava, Bharat Monga,
Nakul Mohta, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Shree Pal Singh, Ms.
Dilmrig Nayani, Tushar Bathija, Siddhant Saroha, Reshabh Bajaj, Vardaan
H Seth, Advs. for the appearing parties.
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 609
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
INDEX*
I. BACKGROUND………………………….... Paras 3 to 12
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT……………………….......... Paras 13 to 19 B
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 C
VII. REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ‘INQUIR
AND HEARING’…………………………... Paras 57 to 63
VIII. CHANDIGARH MASTER PLAN-2031…... Paras 64 to 77
IX. CONSIDERATION OF CITED CASES….. Paras 78 to 91 D
X. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES………….. Paras 92 to 144
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES………………. Paras 145 to 152
XII. CONCLUSION…………………………….. Paras 153 to 171
B. R. GAVAI, J. E
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 F
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 G
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,
*Ed. Note : Pagination in the Index is as per the original judgment. H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A landscaping and architecture. It was a city to be created with the use of
ordinary construction materials 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
B
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
C 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 low-rise city, and
D has been so developed that even after sixty years of its inception, it
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
E Capital for both the States. The city of Chandigarh was developed into
two phases, Phase-I having Sectors 1 to 30 and Phase-II having Sectors
31 to 47. Phase- I was designed for low-rise plotted development for a
total population of 1,50,000. Phase-II Sectors were to have a much
higher density as compared to Phase-I Sectors.

F 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
G 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 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 Others1. Vide its judgment in the said
1
H 1991 SCC OnLine P&H 245
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 611
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

case, the High Court held the said Rule 14 to be ultra vires to the A
Constitution of India. However, this Court, in the case of Chandigarh
Administration v. Chander Parkash Malhotra and Others2, 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 B
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 sub-divide 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 C
destroying the character of the city. In view of the public outcry, the
2001 Rules were repealed by notification dated 1st 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 D
(hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Rules”) on 7th 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, “CMP-2031”) came to be constituted. In the year 2010, E
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 CMP-2031, the 2001 Rules were re- introduced. F
Prior to the finalization of the CMP-2031, 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 major objections raised to the draft CMP-2031 was with
regard to re-introduction of the 2001 Rules. The said Board, after
considering objections, recommended that the re- introduction of the G
2001 Rules should be deleted, and re- densification of any government
residential/institutional pocket in Phase-I sectors should only be done
with the prior approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation
Committee (for short, “Heritage Committee”).
2
Civil Appeal No. 4974 of 1992 dated 24 th November 1992 H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 10. The aforesaid recommendations were accepted by the Central
Government and all references to the apartments in the Draft CMP-2031
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.
B
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 appellants-Association
filed a Public Interest Litigation being CWP No. 18559 of 2016 before
C 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
D 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
E constructed or utilized as apartments. A prayer was also sought directing
the respondent-Chandigarh Administration to take appropriate action
against the offending owners for violation of the undertakings submitted
by them while applying for occupation certificate.
12. The High Court, vide order dated 15th September 2016, issued
F 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
G 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 613
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

single dwelling units, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) being No. 15789 of A
2017 came to be filed before this Court. This Court, vide order dated
24th May 2017, allowed to withdraw the said petition.
14. The appellants-Association 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 B
restrain percentage sale or part of share sale of freehold residential
houses. In the said application, notice came to be issued by the High
Court on 5th 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 16th December 2019, praying for interim directions to the
Chandigarh Administration to identify the residential plots which were C
fragmented into apartments. On 18th February 2020, notice came to be
issued in the said application. The appellants-Association again filed
SLP(Civil) No. 6642 of 2021 before this Court. This Court, vide order
dated 7th May 2021, disposed of the said SLP by requesting the High
Court to decide the said writ petition within a period of four months. D
15. In the meantime, the High Court had appointed an amicus
curiae to assist the court. On 27th 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 E
to a person outside the family of the original 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 F
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 27th July
2021, came to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 9th August 2021. G
This Court, on being informed that the survey had already been completed,
vide order dated 6th 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.
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 17. At the stage of hearing, the High Court considered the following
issues raised by the learned amicus:
“Issue No.1 - What is the meaning to be assigned to the term
“Fragmentation” under the 1952 Act and the Rules framed
thereunder?
B Issue No.2 - Is sale of share(s) by owner or co-owner of a
residential building prohibited under the 1952 Act or Rules made
thereunder?
Issue No.3 - Does sale of share(s) by owner or co- owner in a
residential building amount to ‘fragmentation’?
C
Issue No.4 - What is the status of a co-owner 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?
D 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?”
18. Vide the impugned judgment dated 23rd November 2021, the
High Court dismissed the writ petition. The High Court held that there
E 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,
F
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
G been a sub-division 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.
19. The High Court, however, found that the real estate agent/
developer/seller, in order to extract maximum premium, would tend to
H paint a picture to the prospective buyer that by virtue of purchase of a
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 615
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

share in the building, he would not only be entitled to have exclusive A
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 co-owner/co-sharer in the entire building to the extent of
shareholding. In the eventuality of the dispute arising between the
co-sharers/co-owners, the only remedy would be to put the property to
B
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 appellants-original writ
petitioners are before this Court.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANTS: C

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 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 D
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 E
appeals.
21. Shri Patwalia submitted that, Phase-I 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. F
He further submitted that a perusal of the report of the said Board itself
would reveal that, though the Draft CMP-2031 provided for the
re-introduction of the apartments, the said Board had recommended
against it, and the said recommendation was accepted.
22. Shri Patwalia submitted that, though the 2001 Rules permitted G
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
H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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,
B
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
C apartments, and that under the law, such apartments were prohibited, it
was sanctioning the building plans which ex-facie showed that they were
for the construction of three apartments. 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.
D
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 CMP-2031 prohibits
E construction of apartments. He submits that though CMP-2031 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
F indirectly.
25. Shri Patwalia submitted that when Chandigarh was
conceptualized, it was decided that Phase-I 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
G 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
H as independent units would not amount to fragmentation. He submitted
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 617
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

that, the finding of the High Court that fragmentation will take place only A
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
B
dwelling unit and on the other hand, it is admitting 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 C
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 D
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 CMP-2031, it has been
recommended that an Effective Environment Management Plan has to E
be devised for the entire region including Chandigarh, which includes
the environmental strategy, monitoring regulation, institutional capacity
building and economic incentives. It is submitted that though such a
recommendation is made in the CMP-2031, the Chandigarh
Administration is permitting construction of single dwelling units into
apartments. He submitted that this is a fit case wherein this Court should F
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 G
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. H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A IV. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS:
30. Shri Ajay Tewari, on the contrary, submitted that the
apprehension as raised by the appellants are totally unwarranted. It is
submitted that the CMP-2031 duly takes care of the environmental
aspects so as to ensure that the present character of the city on its
B greenness is not compromised. He submitted that the CMP-2031 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
C 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
D is transferred in any manner whatsoever, under this Act and includes
his successors and assigns”. He therefore submitted that the 1952
Act itself 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.
E 32. Shri Tewari further submitted that Rule 4 of the Chandigarh
Lease-Hold 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
F 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
G allotment to be taken jointly by more than one person. The only
requirement in such a case is that the 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 619
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by the 1952 Act, would A
also show that more than one apartment is permitted to be constructed
on A single dwelling unit. He submitted that under sub-clause (a) of
Clause (22) of Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules, a ‘residential building’ is defined
to be “a building used or constructed or adapted to be used wholly
or principally for human habitation and includes all garages, or
B
other out-buildings 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 C
such horizontal division may not extend over the whole depth or
width of the building but shall not include 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.
D
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 E
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 F
Nair v. Koshy Alexander and Others3 in support of the proposition
that all co-owners have equal rights and coordinate interest in the property,
though their shares may be either fixed or indeterminate. He submitted
that this Court has held that each co-owner 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 G
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 co-sharers 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
3
(1999) 3 SCC 482 H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A in the case of Hardit Singh and Others v. Gurmukh Singh and
Others4 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 Others5 in
support of the proposition that though the Mitakshara School of Hindu
B Law recognized ownership of each co-parcener over the whole of joint
property and over each part thereof, which bears some similarity to joint
tenancy of English law; the Dayabhaga School adhered to the doctrine
of ownership in specified shares in the undivided property having similar
features as in tenancy in common. It is therefore submitted that the
co-sharers are entitled to jointly construct a building as per their own
C shares. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Jai Singh and
Others v. Gurmej Singh6 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
D 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
E 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 the construction of three storeys, wherein
three different persons reside, is not permissible in law. It is submitted
that the CMP-2031 has considered everything and further that the said
CMP-2031 has also not been challenged.
F
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 co-owners 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 co-owners are superior to others.
G
38. Shri Gaurav Chopra submitted that there is nothing in law
which prohibits three strangers to purchase a plot from one person and
4
1918 SCC OnLine PC 2
5
AIR 1961 P&H 528
6
(2009) 15 SCC 747
7
H (2020) 15 SCC 605
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 621
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

then develop the said plot by constructing a building having three different A
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
B
occupied a 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 CMP-2031 itself would reveal
that the original concept itself included re-densification of Phase-I in
order to accommodate the growing population of the city. The learned C
Senior Counsel submitted that the Expert Committee constituted for
preparation of CMP-2031 has considered all these aspects. He submitted
that the CMP-2031 itself would show that Phase-I (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
D
itself would reveal that there was a scope for additional units in Phase-I.
He submitted that when the CMP-2031, 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 permits transfer of E
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 F
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 co-owners 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.
G
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
H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A judgments of this Court in the cases of Dr. K.A. Dhairyawan and
Others v. J.R. Thakur and Others8 and Rev. FR. K.C. Alexander v.
State of Kerala9. 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. Krishnappa10, Laxmipat Singhania
v. Larsen and Toubro, Ltd.11 and Saiffuddin v. The Commissioner of
B
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:
C 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
D 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 of Municipal Bye-laws 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:

E “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
F 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
G 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.
8
[1959] SCR 799
9
(1973) 2 SCC 737
10
1977 SCC OnLine Kar 96
11
1949 SCC OnLine Bom 11
12
H 1985 SCC OnLine Raj 97
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 623
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

It is therefore submitted that there could be no impediment in the A
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 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
B
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 C
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. D
Sub-section (2) of Section 4 thereof provides that every transferee is
liable to comply with the said directions.
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 sub-section (2) thereof. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5 E
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. F
48. The 1960 Rules came to be notified on 8th 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
G
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.
H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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, Phase-I and II,
Chandigarh Scheme, 2005, notified vide
B No.28/8/51-UTFI(3)-2005/6658-6662, 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:
C
(a) “Apartment” means each sub-division 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.

D (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. Sub-division of Building:
E (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
F
facilities. Each sub-division along with common areas, common
facilities, rights of access easements and other ownership rights
shall constitute a single, distinct identified, property which may be
used transferred or disposed by the owner/lessees in accordance
with the applicable law and rules.
G (2) A building may be sub-divided 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,
H recognize the sub- divisions of the building and the owners/lessees
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 625
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

thereof, upon payment of such fee as may be notified by the A
Administration from time to time.
The recognition of each sub-division 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 B
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 C
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 sub-division, after it has been recognized as an apartment
by the Estate Officer, consequent upon the filing of prescribed D
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. E
All these provisions of rules, orders and covenants shall 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 F
such as water supply, sewerage and electricity, subject to building
regulations.
(5) Where sub-divisions 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 G
sub- divisions, declare such sub-divisions as apartments, to which
the provisions of these rules shall apply.
4. Sub-Division of Residential Buildings:
(1) Any residential building situated on a plot size of less than
1400 square yards may be sub-divided into separate dwelling units H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A with not more than one dwelling unit on each floor of the building.
Each such dwelling unit shall constitute a sub-division.
(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
B one sub-division is allowed on the ground, each such sub-division
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 sub-division on floors, other,
C 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.
D
(4) A residential building on a plot of 1400 square yard or more
may be sub-divided into two dwelling units on each floor provided
that building regulations so permit.”
50. However, the 2001 Rules came to be repealed on 1st October
2007. Immediately thereafter, the 2007 Rules came to be notified on 7th
E
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.
F 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.
G 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 627
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

as commercial or industrial sites are concerned, amalgamation is permitted A
subject to the condition that the revised plans are approved by the
competent authority, prior thereto. However, the second 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: B
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 floor-wise
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 C
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. D

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 factors would be necessary for holding that it
amounts to apartmentalization:
E
(i) “There has to be a sub-division of a building duly recognized
by the Estate Officer along with proportionate share in
common areas and common facilities;
(ii) Each sub-division of a building to be a distinct, identifiable
property to which the owner/lessee shall have title; F
(iii) The recognition of each sub-division 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/ G
lessee.”
54. The High Court held that, in the present case, the pre-requisites
noticed hereinabove were missing. The High Court held that, by virtue
of sale of share(s) by a co-owner and thereafter, the purchaser/vendee
occupying a specific portion of the building on the basis of an internal H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A arrangement/understanding, sub-division of the building as provided under
the 2001 Rules does not take place. It held that the specific portion
under the occupation of a co-owner is not accorded any recognition by
the Estate Officer in any manner. It also held that the co-owner also
does not become the sole and exclusive owner of such specific portion
under his occupation.
B
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
C 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 sub-division 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
D 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 are, in fact, continuing to do the same thing which
E 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.
F
VII. REPORT OF THE BOARD OF “INQUIRY AND
HEARING”:
57. It will further be relevant to note that Chandigarh Administration
has notified the CMP-2031. It will be relevant to note that in the draft
G CMP-2031, there was a provision for apartments. For considering the
objections to the provisions made in the draft CMP-2031, the said Board,
consisting of Senior Officers of the Chandigarh Administration, was
constituted on 10th November 2013. The report of the said Board would
reveal that Chandigarh was conceived as “Garden City” and in view of
the socio-economic conditions and living habits of the people, vertical
H and high-rise buildings were ruled out. It would further reveal that Le
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 629
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Corbusier incorporated principles of light, space and greenery in the A
plan and used human body as the metaphor. It would also reveal that
Chandigarh has been planned as a low-rise 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:
B
“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 C
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 D
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 re-development of some specific
pockets is concerned, that can be done keeping proper E
perspective in mind. Any redevelopment in northern sectors
(Phase-1) should only be done keeping the
recommendations of the Expert Committee on Heritage in
mind.
4. The Architectural Controls should be holistically reviewed, F
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 G
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. H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 7. The architecture of the city needs to be preserved and
retained in sync with Le Corbusier’s vision.
8. The low-rise 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.
B
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 Tri-City are intrinsically linked.
C 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.
D
12. State of the art best international practices in all aspects of
planning & infrastructure development need to be adopted.
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,
E
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
F 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
G 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 (Phase-I) 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 631
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi) be followed in respect of the city of A
Chandigarh. The efforts should be to keep the 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 low-rise character of the city needs to be maintained. It states that
Chandigarh is today known throughout the world for being one of the
B
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 built-up 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 long-term decline of the city. C
59. Chapter III of the said Report elaborately deals with the
objections opposing redensification in Phase-I Sectors and reintroduction
of the 2001 Rules in Chandigarh. It will be relevant to refer to the
recommendations of the said Board, which read thus:
“CHAPTER-III: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE D
BOARD
3.1. RESIDENTIAL
All objections pertaining to the residential areas in the
sectoral grid were taken together. The representationists were E
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 F
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 floor-wise sub-division into separate
dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit on each
floor of the building. The above provisions are to be allowed G
within the prevailing FAR and Ground Coverage norms.”
P-78 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 H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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 FARs and building controls already
given earlier and has recommended that they should be
H revoked.
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 633
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

ii) An accurate audit of existing residential plots will reveal A
that many plots are inhabited by joint families,
multi-generation 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
B
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. C
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 D
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 E
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 situation like this will predictably lead to
proliferation of slums required to service the higher density F
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
G
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. H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
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
C 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 will only lead
to the long term decline of the city.
D 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
E 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
F 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
G Phase-I 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
CMP-2031 to permit apartments on residential plots, the same was
vehemently opposed. The Report considered the recommendations of
H the Heritage Committee recommending that the northern sectors of
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 635
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Chandigarh should be preserved in their present form as far as possible. A
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
B
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 C
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 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 D
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 E
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, F
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
the existing built-up 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 long-term decline of the G
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 re-introduction of the 2001 Rules have been
deleted in the Final CMP-2031, which was notified on 23rd April 2015. H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A VIII. CHANDIGARH MASTER PLAN-2031:
64. Clause 1.2 of the CMP-2031 would reveal that the original
plan of Phase-I divided the city into a grid of 30 sectors with the Capitol
Complex as well as the Civic Centre. Sector 17 was designed as the
Central Business District. It provided that, the greenbelt at the centre
B 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 city’s Historic Core was designed for
population of 1,50,000 in low rise plotted development. Phase-II from
Sectors 31 to 47 for the remaining targeted 3,50,000 was with 4-storeyed
C 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 Phase-I, no details with regard to the same were
available.
D 65. A perusal of the CMP-2031 would reveal that while finalizing
the CMP-2031, 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
E 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 23rd December 2011.
66. Clause 1.9 of the CMP-2031 provides the guiding principles
for comprehensive CMP-2031. Clause (v) thereof states that
F 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 left-out 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
G
congestion.
67. Clause 1.12 of the CMP-2031 would reveal that Chandigarh
has a universally acclaimed rich ‘Heritage’ and ‘Green City’ character.
68. Clause 4.5 of the CMP-2031 states the salient features of the
Chandigarh Plan. It states that the function of Living occupies primary
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 637
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

place and has been organized into a cellular system of sectors based on A
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, schools, health centres
and places of recreation and worship within a 10-minute walking distance
of the residents. The originally planned population of a sector varied
B
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 C
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 low-rise city and
even after sixty years of its inception, it still retains the original concept
D
to a large extent.
69. Clause 5.3 of the CMP-2031 deals with density. It states that
the population density during the last five decades has increased 9 fold,
from 1051 to 9252 persons per 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 E
and essential services even to its poorest residents as visioned by the
city’s planners.
70. Clause 5.3.2 of the CMP-2031 states that though Phase-I
was planned to be low density development with 9000 acres of land
housing 1,50,000 population, i.e., the density of 16 persons per acre, as F
per 2001 Census, it was 26 persons per acre. It states that by the year
2001, the density of Phase-I had already exceeded the designed density
whereas that of Phase-II sectors was the same as was designed. 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 G
growth and development. As per the existing trends, the sectors falling
in Phase-I shall continue to have lower density as compared to the sectors
falling in Phase-II.
71. Clause 5.7.4 of the CMP-2031 deals with the holding capacity
of UT Chandigarh based on Master Plan recommendations. It H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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.
C 72. Clause 6.3 of the CMP-2031 deals with private housing. It
states that nearly 1/3rd 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 5 marlas to 8 kanals. The second Phase
has much higher density with a switch mostly to three to four storey
D 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 CMP-2031, which read thus:
“6. HOUSING IN CHANDIGARH
………..
E 6.12 MASTER PLAN PROPOSALS
………..
Approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation
Committee
Since Phase I sectors have been recommended for Heritage status,
F the re-utilization 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
G 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
H plots can build upto 3 floors with each floor having potential of
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 639
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

having an independent unit. There are approximately 23000 private A
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 be 69000 which can house approximately 3,00,000 population.”
74. Clause 19.1 of the CMP-2031 considered the major B
recommendations, some of which include thus:
“19 CHANDIGARHS HERITAGE
………
19.1 THE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE C
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 brick-work, ought to be preserved as Modern
D
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.
E
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 F
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.
5. Efforts should be directed to retain the essence of the
original Plan of the city and as such the following is G
recommended:
– Chandigarh shall remain an Administrative City.
– Chandigarh shall retain the essential planning
postulates of Sun, Space, and Verdure.
H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A – Chandigarh shall be a Low-Rise 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
B 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
C Sectors 7 and 8 as a tribute to the architect planner, Albert
Mayer.
No development must be allowed that may jeopardize
their original concept.

D 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.
E
9. The Committee hasalso made recommendations for a
Master Plan for Chandigarh to ensure regulated
development of the city’s Inter State Regional Plan and
mechanism for its implementation, City Development Plan,
Solar City, restoring the city’s strong imageability, Urban
F 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
G 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,
H addressing the security issues to enable comfortable
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 641
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

visitor access to the Capitol Complex. The concern of A
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 B
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 C
its original concept, Prior Concept Approval of new
buildings and/or additions-and- alterations in old ones of
identified private and government properties has been
recommended. Following are the parameters for imposing
the regulation of prior concept approval:-
D
• 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 E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A • 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.
B 15. Restoration and preservation of building materials –
Concrete & Brick buildings.”
75. Clause 19.11 of the CMP-2031 talks about the inclusion of
Chandigarh in the UNESCO World Heritage List due to its outstanding
universal value. It will be relevant to refer to the said recommendations,
C 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
D 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.
E 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
F 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
G
technologically appropriate repair and conservation of heritage
buildings.
CHANDIGARH SHOULD MAKE CONCERTED
EFFORTS FOR WORLD HERITAGE STATUS IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF HOME
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 643
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

AFFAIRS AND THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A
INDIA.”
76. It will also be relevant refer to Clause 20.3 of the CMP-2031,
which reads thus:
“20.3AN EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR CHANDIGARH AND FOR THE REGION B

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 C
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 CMP-2031 itself would D
reveal that the CMP-2031 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., Phase-I of the city, which is the most
representative of Le Corbusier’s thought, is truly worthy of its modern E
heritage 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 F
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 10-A, Chandigarh, which, on the death of the G
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 30th September 1983. In appeal, the learned District
Judge modified some of the findings recorded by the trial court.
H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 7th 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
B
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 22nd February 1991,
held Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules being ultra vires to the Constitution of
C India and also beyond the powers of the rule-making 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:
D “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
E made for carrying out the purposes of the Act and further lays
down the subject matter 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
Bye-laws and for the planned development of the town. The entire
F 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
pre-eminent ideas underlying the same were:-
(i) The need and incentive to create an altogether new places
G 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 645
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

can even strangulate an existing town to extinction. It was A
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
B
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 C
restriction.”
81. This Court, vide order dated 24th November 1992 passed in
the case of Chandigarh Administration (supra), observed thus:
“Leave granted.
D
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 E
bye-laws. 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 F
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. G
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
H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A unconstitutional. It could also be seen 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
B Court by way of second appeal in the case of Sh. Chander Parkash
Malhotra v. Sh. R.B.S. Chahal13. An application was made by R.B.
Chahal and Mrs. Sukhraj Chahal for their impleadment since they had
purchased shares of co-owners. The learned Single Judge, while
disposing of second appeal vide its judgment dated 1st December 1993,
observed thus:
C
“6. As already noticed above, property cannot be partitioned
according to bye-laws. 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
D 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
Prakash-appellant.”
E 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 4th September 1974 in favour of the plaintiff, the first
defendant and another son who was the 3rd defendant in the suit. The
disputed house was transferred in favour of the aforesaid three persons
F 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
G 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
13
H 1993 SCC OnLine P&H 1179
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 647
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

also allowed the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff and directed the second A
defendant to handover 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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 Chandigarh (Sale
of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 came to be made. Section 22 F
of the 1952 Act confers power upon the Central Government to
make the rules for various purposes, which are mentioned in
sub-section (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 G
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;
H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A (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
B
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
C 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
D of one-third share in the residential House No. 13 of Sector 19-A,
Chandigarh. After the sale deed, it is contended, one-third share
of the party was duly transferred and mutated in the name of
Respondent 1-second 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
E
of the first defendant, he became a co-owner 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.
F 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
G partition of the house into three portions. We have noted the fact
that one-third share has been duly transferred and mutated in the
name of the first respondent-second defendant by the Chandigarh
Administration.”
64. The second defendant has produced the communication dated
H 19-12-1997 which indicates the transfer of rights of site in Sector
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 649
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

19-A held by Vishnu Dutt Mehta (first defendant) is noted in favour A
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.”
87. It could thus clearly be seen that, in the said case also, the B
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 co-owner. The Court found that the assignment in favour of the second
defendant was not vulnerable on the basis that it involved fragmentation. C
However, it also noted the deposition of the plaintiff about partition of
the house into three portions. It also noted that the 1/3rd 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 D
on 19th 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 Another14, again there was a
dispute between three siblings – a brother and two sisters. The dispute E
was with regard to House No. 2174, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. The
sisters had relied on the family settlement dated 13th June 2000. Arvind
Kumar filed a suit seeking a declaration that the family settlement dated
13th 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 F
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 28th May 2019, observed thus: G
“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
14
Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 2012 dated 28.05.2019 H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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,
especially in the face of the fact that such partition in any case is
B
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.
C
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
D
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.
E 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
co-owner of the property on the demise of original allottee. Whenever
any share of co-owner was sold to an outsider, it was held that such a
purchaser stepped into the shoes of one of the co-owners and as a
F co-owner, 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.
G X. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES:
92. Permitting co-owners 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
H different persons.
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 651
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

93. It is relevant to note that the 2001 Rules had introduced the A
concept of apartments in the city of Chandigarh. The said Rules permitted
sub-division of a building duly recognized by the Estate Officer. Each
sub-division of a building was recognized as a distinct, identifiable
property to which the owner/lessee had title along with the proportionate
right in the declared common areas and common facilities. The 2001
B
Rules also permitted any residential building situated on a residential plot
to be sub-divided 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 1st October 2007. Immediately
thereafter on 7th November 2007, the 2007 Rules came to be notified. C
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 D
between the year 2001 and 2007, the same is not permitted after the
year 2007.
95. When the draft CMP-2031 was published, it was proposed to
re-introduce the 2001 Rules, through which sub-division of residential
plots of 1000 sq. yards and above into two dwelling units on each floor E
was to be permitted. The residential buildings on plots of less than 1000
sq. yards were to be permitted with floor-wise sub-division into separate
dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit on each floor of the
building. The said Board 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 F
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 G
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 actually required. It considered that introduction of the
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 re-introduction of the
2001 Rules is permitted, it will lead to proliferation of slums required to
B
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 low-rise city and has been so developed that
C 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 original concepts and planning postulates
D of Sun, Space and Verdure. Another principle that weighed with the said
Board was that any redevelopment in northern sectors (Phase-I) 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
E city was to be preserved and retained in sync with Le Corbusier’s vision.
The low-rise character of the city needs to be maintained. The
recommendations of the said Board had been accepted while notifying
the CMP-2031.
99. It is important to note that the CMP-2031 itself states that
F Phase-I Sectors have been recommended for Heritage status, and that
the re-utilization of the identified housing/institutional pockets in the first
phase has to be undertaken with the prior approval of the Heritage
Committee. Having observed this at one place, it is difficult to apprehend
as to how, though the CMP-2031 observed that by the year 2001 itself,
the planned density of 16 per acre in Phase-I has been exceeded, it
G
estimated the holding capacity to be 34 per acre. It also records that as
per 2001 Census, the density in Phase-I was 26 per acre.
100. The CMP-2031 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 653
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

are approximately 23000 private plots of all categories within the sectoral A
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 Phase-I of the city, which is the most representative of Le Corbusier’s B
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 CMP-2031 also recommends that concerted efforts C
should be made for getting the world heritage status 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. D

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 E
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 F
been averred thus:
“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 G
repealed. However, the architectural controls and building bye-laws
are of the highest standards, even otherwise the Estate Office
maintains a strict vigil on the construction activities/ compliance
of Rules and Building Bye-Laws in UT Chandigarh. Therefore,
contrary to the claims of the petitioner, the character of Chandigarh
is intact. H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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.”
C 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, as it is permissible as
D 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 floor-wise sale of property is permissible
under the 1952 Act.
E 105. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide an interim order
dated 27th 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
F 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
G find out whether any floor-wise sale of dwelling units is advertised. It
noticed that in the Sunday Tribune dated 25th 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,
H the Division Bench observed thus:
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 655
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

“The afore-reproduced advertisement(s) lend credence to A
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 B
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 C
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. D
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 the office of the Estate
Officer where the record of the rights is maintained wherein sale E
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 F
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 G
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 H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
actually translated into the buyer occupying an independent floor in the
otherwise composite dwelling unit or to find out as to whether independent
F 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
27th July 2021, the Division Bench was conscious of the fact that even
according to the Chandigarh Administration, it was not permissible to
G 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
27th 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
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 657
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

house would convey 50% of the share to the first purchaser, 30% to the A
second purchaser and 20% to the third purchaser. Thereafter, all the
three purchasers would enter into either a settlement deed or a
Memorandum 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
B
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 C
settlement deeds executed on 2nd 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 D
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.” E
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 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/ F
litigation amongst all the co-owners of the said house in respect of their
respective possession in the said house in lieu of their respective shares
in the said house.
112. It will also be relevant to refer to Clause 12 of the said
Settlement Deed dated 2nd May 2013, which reads thus: G
“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
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A many ways in their day to day lives. So they should try to co-exist
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.”
B
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, claim or demand whatsoever from each other.
No doubt, it states that since the parties are owners of different portions
C and would be dependent upon each other in many ways, they should try
to co-exist amicably with each other as brothers and sisters and family
members.
114. According to the High Court, the said does not amount to
fragmentation, which is prohibited by Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules. The
D 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
E 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;
F 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 soon fragmented the culture. 6. to divide into
fragments; disunify. [ME < L fragment (um) a broken piece,
G 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]”
H
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 659
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

116. A perusal of the aforesaid clauses from the settlement deeds, A
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
B
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 is nothing else but C
fragmentation. In our view, it is an attempt to by-pass 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: D
“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 E
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 F
apartments, it is difficult to appreciate as to how building plans have
been sanctioned which ex-facie show that they are nothing else but
apartments.
119. It is thus clear that the modus operandi of the developers is,
in effect, resulting into apartmentalization of the buildings. What is not
G
permissible in law after the repeal of 2001 Rules on 1st 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 CMP-2031. As already H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B Rules, goes on to hold that the said would not amount to
apartmentalization, inasmuch as there is no sub-division of a building
duly recognized by the Estate Officer along with the proportionate share
in common areas and common facilities. It holds that by virtue of sale of
share(s) by a co-owner and thereafter, the purchaser/vendee occupying
a specific portion of the building on the basis of an internal arrangement/
C understanding, “sub-division 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,
D 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 CMP-2031 itself states that since
Phase-I Sectors have been recommended for heritage status, the
E re-utilization 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
F their present form as far as possible. It is also stated that general
redensification is not recommended. It has considered that the Heritage
Committee has taken a serious note of the relaxations in FAR and building
controls already given earlier and has recommended that no further
relaxation be given and has also recommended that the relaxations already
granted should be revoked.
G 123. This Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.
Muddappa and Others15, 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
15
H (1991) 4 SCC 54
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 661
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

apposite to reproduce certain observations made in the aforesaid A
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 B
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 taken care of in a C
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. D
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. E
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 F
India and Others16, this Court enunciated the difference between
developed and developing countries vis-à- 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 G
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
16
(2009) 15 SCC 705 H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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 bye-laws with impunity. This Court observed as
under:
C “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
influence of higher functionaries of the State or other
extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation
D 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
E 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/
F 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
G 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
H action for ensuring rigorous compliance of laws relating to planned
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 663
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions A
for demolition of the illegal/unauthorized constructions, those in
power have come forward to protect the wrong doers either by
issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularization
of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the name of compassion
and hardship. Such actions have done irreparable harm to the
B
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 C
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 D
‘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 1permit construction of three storeys E
having independent kitchens etc. and the 2017 Rules having not been
challenged, 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 F
matter that three co-sharers decide to construct a building for residential
house and construct three storeys for occupation by each of the
co-sharers. 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 CMP-2031, would be permitting to do something indirectly G
which is not permissible in law.
128. Another aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is
that the CMP-2031 as well as the report of the said Board emphasizes
that in order to maintain the “Corbusian Chandigarh” status of Phase-I
H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 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.
B
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
C 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 Others17, wherein this Court observed thus:
“6. On 1-8-1990, the Master Plan, 2001 was approved wherein it
D 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 green cover in the area. On 27-7-1993
E objections were invited to the Zonal Development Plan whereas
on 25-5-1994 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
F 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
G dated 28th 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
17
H (2008) 8 SCC 765
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 665
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

bungalow on their plot of land, in terms of guidelines dated 8-2-1988 A
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 the Delhi Bye-Laws, 1983 and, therefore, the impugned
B
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 CMP-2031 emphasizes on the approval of the Heritage
Committee before permitting any redensification in the Le Corbusier
zone, the Chandigarh Administration could not have made the provisions C
in the CMP-2031 permitting redensification without the approval of the
Heritage Committee.
132. A perusal of the CMP-2031 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 D
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.
133. The material placed on record would clearly reveal that E
Phase-I was designed for a low-rise 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 F
status of the city without the approval of the Heritage Committee itself
would be contrary to the CMP-2031 and the report of the said Board.
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
G
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
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A Rules have been 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.
B
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others18, 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 Others19, wherein the Full Bench
C has held that “The Parliament, in no uncertain terms, has expressed
through a non obstante clause contained in Section 424-A 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.
D 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.
E Accordingly, Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, Estate Officer, was personally
present. The Estate Officer also agreed that though CMP-2031 is
opposed to apartmentalization and redensification, under the 2017 Rules
there was no restriction to construct three independent units by
co-owners. One aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is that
though under the 2017 Rules, one dwelling unit is being permitted to be
F 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, turning
G
Nelson’s eye when plans, which ex-facie amount to apartmentalization,
are being submitted and sanctioned under its very nose.
137. It is further pertinent to note that in the CMP-2031 itself, the
Expert Committee has recommended thus:
18
[1961] 3 SCR 185
H 19
2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21473
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 667
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

“Master Plan Committees’ recommendation A
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.
B
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.” C
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.
D
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” E
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 F
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 G
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 H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A changes in no way 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
B
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
C 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
D
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 Tel-Aviv and the city of Le
E Havre, rebuilt by Auguste Perret.
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
F 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
G 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 –
……..
H (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 669
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, A
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. Undisputedly, Phase-I of Chandigarh,
B
i.e., Corbusian Chandigarh, even according to the respondent-authorities,
possesses a heritage status. The CMP-2031 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 Phase-I of
Chandigarh is destructive of the vision of Le Corbusier. It is also opposed C
to the concept of protecting and preserving the heritage status of
Corbusian Chandigarh. As such, it is necessary that the
respondent-authorities must take every possible step for preserving the
heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
D
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
CMP-2031 which we have already reproduced hereinabove. It has been
recommended that an Effective Environmental Management Plan be
devised for the region including Chandigarh, which includes environmental E
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. F
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 21st 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
G
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 long-term city visioning exercises.
It states that environmental mainstreaming can help to incorporate
relevant environmental concerns into the decisions of institutions, while
emerging ideas about the green urban economy show how density can H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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 24th October 2022, titled as “Bengaluru
– How to Ruin India’s Best City” by Raj Chengappa with Ajay
C 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
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
D 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.
E 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
politician-businessman-builder nexus, which has thrived. It further noted
F that though posh colonies mushroomed in new areas, the infrastructure
lagged, as 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 rain-fed streams across which farmers
G built small bunds over time, to arrest the flow of water and create lakes.
It further notes that these interlinked man-made lakes worked as a
storm-water 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 thousand-odd,
are now reduced to a paltry number. Worse, the rajakaluves that
H channelized the storm water had buildings built over them.
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 671
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

152. The warning flagged by the city of Bengaluru needs to be A
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:
153. Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the considered B
view that permitting redensification in Phase-I, which has heritage value,
on account of being “Corbusian Chandigarh”, without the same being
approved by the Heritage Committee, is contrary to the CMP-2031 itself.
The CMP-2031 on one hand does not permit apartmentalization, however,
on the other hand, it estimates the number of dwelling units to be triple of
the plots available. Though on account of repeal of the 2001 Rules in the C
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 D
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 Phase-I of Chandigarh which is
sought to be inscribed as a UNESCO’s heritage city. It is further to be
E
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. F
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 floor-wise sale of residential building is not
permissible while residential floors are being advertised for sale right G
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 building/site
as also the prospective home buyers. The High Court also directed the
H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 co-sharers/co-owners, the
B 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
C construction and floor-wise 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 residential unit
in Phase-I 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,
D 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.
E
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
F to do what was not permissible in law. In any case, taking into consideration
the heritage status of Phase-I, the High Court ought to have considered
the matter in correct perspective.
158. We may gainfully refer to an article by Jonathan Glancey
dated 11th December 2015 titled “Is this the perfect city?”, published
by the BBC, which reads thus:
G
“Of all the world’s ideal cities, Chandigarh has done remarkably
well, offering striking monumental architecture, a grid of
self-contained neighbourhoods, more trees than perhaps any Indian
city and a way of life that juggles tradition with modernity. While
history tells us ideal cities are mostly best left on paper, Chandigarh
H – perhaps one of the least likely appears to have succeeded against
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 673
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

the grain.” A
159. As could be seen from the said article, Chandigarh has done
remarkably well, offering striking monumental architecture, a grid of
self-contained neighbourhoods, more trees than perhaps any Indian city
and a way of life that juggles tradition with modernity.
160. At the cost of repetition, it must be noted that the CMP-2031 B
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 dwelling units
in Phase-I of Chandigarh, in our view, will injure the ‘Lungs’ of the city
as conceptualized by Le Corbusier. In this regard, the observations of C
this Court in
the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and
Others v. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited
and Another20, are highly instructive. In the said case, this Court held as
follows, regarding the implications of overcrowding of cities:
D
“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. E
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.
F
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 G
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
20
(2014) 4 SCC 574
H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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:
B “103. The Executive has in the instant case, with reference to
the 1952 Act, failed to live-up to the expectations of the residents
as instead of approaching the Ministry concerned with a concrete
proposal on data-based information for onward consideration of
the Legislature to rejuvenate the 1952 Act and make it more vibrant
and alive to the issues in praesentia or in future, it has gone for
C 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
D
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.”
E 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 CMP-2031 and the 2017 Rules after the
issue has been addressed by the Heritage Committee. However, we
F 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 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
G
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
H residential unit in Phase- I of Chandigarh is prohibited.
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. 675
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

166. We further issue the following directions: A
(i) The Heritage Committee is directed to consider the issue
of redensification in Phase-I of the city of Chandigarh;
(ii) Needless to state that the Heritage Committee would take
into consideration its own recommendations that the
northern sectors of Chandigarh “(Corbusian Chandigarh)” B
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 C
CMP-2031 and the 2017 Rules insofar as they are applicable
to Phase-I in accordance with the recommendations of the
Heritage Committee;
(v) Such amendments shall be placed before the Central
Government, which shall take a decision with regard to D
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:
E
a. the Chandigarh Administration shall not sanction
any plan of a building which ex-facie appears to
be a modus operandi to convert a single dwelling
unit into three different apartments occupied by
three strangers; and
b. no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or F
agreement or settlement amongst co-owners 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 floor-wise
apartments.
G
(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 Phase-I shall be restricted to
three with a uniform maximum height as deemed appropriate
by the Heritage Committee keeping in view the requirement H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A to maintain the heritage status of Phase-I; and
(ix) That the Chandigarh Administration shall not resort to
formulate rules or bye-laws without prior consultation of
the Heritage Committee and prior approval of the Central
Government.
B 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
C 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
D
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.
169. We must place on record our deep appreciation for the
E 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.
F
171. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the
above terms. No order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals allowed and directions issued.
(Assisted by : Shubhanshu Das, LCRA)
G

H