RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO.         OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4950 of 2022) RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER           ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.         OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5489 of 2022) INDEX

Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2023.01.10 14:57:56 IST Reason: 1 J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Leave granted. “ 2. Let this be a new town, symbolic of freedom of India unfettered by the traditions of the past…an expressions of the ”.  nation’s faith in the future These were the words of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s First Prime Minister, while laying down the founding principles of a new city for Capital of the State of Punjab.   I. BACKGROUND: 3. After India attained independence in the year 1947, the   Government   of   Punjab   in   consultation   with   the Government of India approved the site for the new Capital of the State in March 1948.   The new city was designed by French   Architect   Le   Corbusier   in   association   with   other architects,   namely,   Pierre   Jeanneret,   Jane   B.   Drew   and Maxwell Fry.   The city was planned as a living example of urban design, landscaping and architecture.  It was a city to be created with the use of ordinary construction materials 2 and   embellished   with   integral   works   of   art.   Chandigarh’s monumental architecture as enunciated by Le Corbusier is based on the principles of town planning concept of Sun, Space, and Verdure.  Le Corbusier incorporated principles of light, space and greenery in the plan and used the human body   as   a   metaphor   –   the   ‘head’   contained   the   Capital Complex,   the   ‘heart’   being   the   Commercial   Centre,   i.e., Sector 17, lungs (the leisure valley, innumerable open spaces and sector greens), the intellect (the cultural and educational institutions), the viscera (the industrial area), and the ‘arms’ having academic and leisure facilities like open courtyards etc.   The circulation system was conceived as having seven types of roads known as 7Vs. 4. Chandigarh has been envisaged as an administrative city with hierarchical distribution of population being such, that the population density in the northern sectors is low, which increases towards the southern sectors.  Chandigarh has   been   planned   as   a   low­rise   city,   and   has   been   so developed   that   even   after   sixty   years   of   its   inception,   it 3 retains the original concept to a large extent.  This is how the concept of this “beautiful city” was born. 5. On   division   of   the   State   of   Punjab   into   States   of Punjab and Haryana, the city was made a Union Territory (UT), and became the Capital for both the States.  The city of Chandigarh was developed into two phases, Phase­I having Sectors 1 to 30 and Phase­II having Sectors 31 to 47.  Phase­ I was designed for low­rise plotted development for a total population of 1,50,000. Phase­II Sectors were to have a much higher density as compared to Phase­I Sectors. 6. In the year 1952, the Union of India, in order to regulate development in the city of Chandigarh, enacted the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1952 Act”).  In the year 1960, the   Government   of   Punjab,   in   exercise   of   the   powers conferred by Sections 5 and 22 of the 1952 Act, made the Chandigarh   (Sale   of   Sites   and   Building)   Rules,   1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1960 Rules”).  Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules prohibits fragmentation or amalgamation of any site or building.   The validity of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules 4 was challenged before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (for short, “High Court”) in the case of   Chander Parkash 1 .  Vide its Malhotra v. Ved Parkash Malhotra and Others judgment in the said case, the High Court held the said Rule 14 to be   ultra vires   to the Constitution of India.   However, this Court, in the case of   Chandigarh Administration v. 2 , reversed the said Chander Parkash Malhotra and Others judgment of the High Court to the extent it declared Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules to be  ultra vires .  7. In   the   year   2001,   the   Administrator,   UT   of Chandigarh, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 5 and 22 of the 1952 Act, framed the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2001 Rules”).  By virtue of the 2001 Rules, even in case of single residential units, it was permissible to sub­divide it into more than one apartment.   The   citizens   of   UT   of   Chandigarh   vehemently opposed the construction of apartments, which according to them, had the effect of destroying the character of the city. In view of the public outcry, the 2001 Rules were repealed by 1 1991 SCC OnLine P&H 245 th 2 Civil Appeal No. 4974 of 1992 dated 24  November 1992 5 st notification dated 1   October 2007.   In the same year, i.e., 2007, the 1960 Rules were also repealed.  The Administrator, UT   of   Chandigarh,   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under Section 22 of the 1952 Act, framed the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Rules”) on th 7   November   2007.     Rule   16   of   the   2007   Rules   again prohibited   fragmentation/amalgamation   of   any   site   or building. 8. In   the   year   2009,   a   Committee   for   Chandigarh Master   Plan,   2031   (for   short,   “CMP­2031”)   came   to   be constituted.   In the year 2010, a Committee of Experts (for short, “Expert Committee”) came to be constituted to look at both the original concept of the city of Chandigarh as well as the maintenance of important heritage buildings in the UT of Chandigarh. In   the   Draft   CMP­2031,   the   2001   Rules   were   re­ 9. introduced.   Prior   to   the   finalization   of   the   CMP­2031, objections were invited. A Board of “Inquiry and Hearing” (hereinafter referred to as, “the said Board”) was constituted to look at the grievances of the public at large.  One of the 6 major   objections   raised   to   the   draft   CMP­2031   was   with regard to re­introduction of the 2001 Rules.  The said Board, after   considering   objections,   recommended   that   the   re­ introduction of the 2001 Rules should be deleted, and re­ densification   of   any   government   residential/institutional pocket in Phase­I sectors should only be done with the prior approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee (for short, “Heritage Committee”). 10. The   aforesaid   recommendations   were   accepted   by the Central Government and all references to the apartments in the Draft CMP­2031 were deleted from the Final CMP­ 2031, which was notified under Section 4(1)(f) of the 1952 Act and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 11 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 and under Article 239 of the Constitution of India. Noticing that in spite of the repeal of the 2001 Rules 11. and the fact that further fragmentation of the property was prohibited as per Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, a large number of single dwelling units were being surreptitiously converted into   apartments,   the   appellants­Association   filed   a   Public 7 Interest Litigation being CWP No. 18559 of 2016 before the High   Court.     It   was   the   grievance   of   the   appellants   that certain developers were purchasing the plots, constructing three apartments thereon and thereafter selling them to three different persons. It was sought to be contended that though the   2001   Rules   were   repealed,   thereby   prohibiting   the construction   of   apartments   on   plots   meant   for   single dwelling, and though the 1960 Rules and the 2007 Rules prohibited   the   fragmentation/amalgamation,   some unscrupulous elements were attempting to construct and sell the   apartments   by   indulging   into   illegal   practices.     The prayer sought in the petition before the High Court was for restraining the respondents from permitting residential plots in   the   UT   of   Chandigarh   which   were   allotted   as   single dwelling units to be constructed or utilized as apartments.  A prayer was also sought directing the respondent­Chandigarh Administration   to   take   appropriate   action   against   the offending owners for violation of the undertakings submitted by them while applying for occupation certificate. 8 th 12. The   High   Court,   vide   order   dated   15   September 2016, issued notice in the said writ petition.   In the said proceedings, an application bearing No. 16263 of 2016 came to be filed praying for stay of conversion of single dwelling units into apartments.  A reply came to be filed in the said writ petition by the UT of Chandigarh, stating therein that the Chandigarh Administration does not permit a residential house to be converted into an apartment on account of the fact that the 2001 Rules now stand repealed. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT: 13. Since,   in   spite   of   its   specific   stand,   Chandigarh Administration   was   not   taking   any   steps   to   prevent fragmentation/apartmentalisation of single dwelling units, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) being No. 15789 of 2017 came to th be filed before this Court.  This Court, vide order dated 24 May 2017, allowed to withdraw the said petition. The   appellants­Association   thereafter   filed   another 14. application being C.M. No. 1580 of 2018 in CWP No. 18559 of 2016 seeking appropriate directions to be issued to the Chandigarh   Administration   to   restrain   percentage   sale   or 9 part of share sale of freehold residential houses.  In the said application, notice came to be issued by the High Court on th 5  February 2018.  Since no orders were passed in the said application,   another   application   being   C.M.   No.19649   of th 2019 came to be filed on 16   December 2019, praying for interim   directions   to   the   Chandigarh   Administration   to identify   the   residential   plots   which   were   fragmented   into th apartments.     On   18   February   2020,   notice   came   to   be issued in the said application.   The appellants­Association again filed SLP(Civil) No. 6642 of 2021 before this Court. th This Court, vide order dated 7   May 2021, disposed of the said SLP by requesting the High Court to decide the said writ petition within a period of four months. 15. In the meantime, the High Court had appointed an th amicus curiae   to assist the court.   On 27   July 2021, the High Court passed an interim order directing the Chandigarh Administration   to   carry   out   an   exercise   whereby   the properties/buildings were to be identified wherein, shares be it   to   the   extent   of   50%,   30%   or   20%   has   been sold/transferred to a person outside the family of the original 10 owner/shareholder.  This was to be done on the basis of the record maintained in the office of the Estate Officer.   The second step was to carry out a physical inspection of such identified buildings/dwelling units, to find out as to whether the   sale   of   shares   has   actually   translated   into   the   buyer occupying an independent floor in the otherwise composite dwelling unit, or to find out as to whether independent floors are in the process of being constructed. 16. The   said   order   came   to   be   challenged   before   this Court  in SLP(Civil) Nos. 13120  and  12562 of  2021.   The survey which was directed to be conducted by the High Court th vide its order dated 27  July 2021, came to be stayed by this th Court vide order dated 9  August 2021.  This Court, on being informed that the survey had already been completed, vide th order dated 6  September 2021, clarified that the High Court can proceed with the hearing of the writ petition pending before it after taking into consideration the report. 17. At the stage of hearing, the High Court considered the following issues raised by the learned amicus: 11 “Issue No.1 ­ What is the meaning to be assigned to the term "Fragmentation" under the 1952 Act and the Rules framed thereunder?  Issue No.2 ­ Is sale of share(s) by owner or co­owner of a residential building prohibited under the 1952 Act or Rules made thereunder?  Issue No.3  ­ Does sale of share(s) by owner or co­ owner   in   a   residential   building   amount   to 'fragmentation'?  Issue No.4  ­ What is the status of a co­owner by virtue   of   purchase   of   share(s)   in   a   residential building?  Issue   No.5  ­   Can   occupation/possession   of   a specific portion of the joint property be termed as apartmentalization?  Issue   No.6  ­   Whether   the   residential   building constructed on a residential plot in UT Chandigarh meant for single family use and to be treated as a Single Dwelling Unit?” 12 rd 18. Vide the impugned judgment dated 23   November 2021, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.  The High Court held that there was no provision under the 1952 Act or the Rules framed thereunder governing transfer of shares in relation to a site or building whether owned singly or under joint ownership.  However, the High Court held that the sale of   share(s)   out   of   a   building/site   by   the allottee(s)/transferee(s)   was   not   barred,   and   rather   was permissible under the general civil law.  It further held that the status of such building/site, however, even after the sale of share(s) continues to be under joint ownership.  It further held that for constituting a fragmentation, there has to be an element of permanent severance.  Mere construction of three floors   on   a   private   plot   and   utilization   of   the   same   as independent units would not amount to fragmentation.   It held that unless there has been a sub­division of the building duly   recognized   by   the   Estate   Officer   along   with proportionate share in common areas and common facilities, the same would not amount to apartmentalization.  13 19. The High Court, however, found that the real estate agent/developer/seller,   in   order   to   extract   maximum premium, would tend to paint a picture to the prospective buyer that by virtue of purchase of a share in the building, he would not only be entitled to have exclusive possession but also ownership rights.  The High Court observed that the same was not permissible and the purchaser, by purchase of share(s),   only   became   a   co­owner/co­sharer   in   the   entire building to the extent of shareholding. In the eventuality of the dispute arising between the co­sharers/co­owners, the only remedy would be to put the property to auction and they would   be   only   entitled   to   the   sale   proceeds   as   per   the share(s).   It therefore issued certain directions to the UT of Chandigarh in order to protect the interests of such innocent purchasers.  Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants­original writ petitioners are before this Court. III. SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANTS: 20. We  have heard  Shri P.S.  Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the main matter, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing 14 on behalf of the appellants in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 5489 of 2022, Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing  on  behalf   of  respondent  No.1   in both the appeals, Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 in the main matter and for respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 5489 of 2022 and Shri Gaurav Chopra and Shri Ajay Tewari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant(s)/caveator(s) in both the appeals.  21. Shri Patwalia submitted that, Phase­I Sectors, which constitute   “Corbusian   Chandigarh”,   have   now   derived   a modern heritage value.  He submitted that, if any apartment is permitted to be constructed on single dwelling unit, it will jeopardize   the   original   character   of   the   city.   He   further submitted that a perusal of the report of the said Board itself would reveal that, though the Draft CMP­2031 provided for the re­introduction of the apartments, the said Board had recommended against it, and the said recommendation was accepted. 15 22. Shri Patwalia submitted that, though the 2001 Rules permitted apartmentalization, on account of hue and cry of public at large, the same were repealed in the year 2007.  He further submitted that the 1960 Rules as well as the 2007 Rules specifically prohibited fragmentation or amalgamation of any site or building.   However, through a certain   modus operandi ,   the   builders/developers   were   constructing   three apartments   on   three   floors,   thereafter   selling   the   said apartments   to   three   persons,   who   would   enter   into   a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).  Under the MoU, the person occupying the ground floor and basement would get 50% share in the plot, the person occupying the first floor would get 30%, and the person occupying the second or third floor would get 20%.   He submitted that therefore, what is directly prohibited by law, is being indirectly done by the builders/developers.   He submitted that, though a specific undertaking  is  given  not to convert the site/building into apartments, the builders/developers were violating the said undertaking openly. He further submitted that though the Chandigarh Administration has clearly admitted that it was not permitting the construction of such apartments, and that 16 under   the   law,   such   apartments   were   prohibited,   it   was sanctioning the building plans which   ex­facie   showed that they   were   for   the   construction   of   three   apartments.   He submitted that the High Court itself has observed that the Chandigarh   Administration   has   not   been   alive   to   such illegalities   being   committed   by   the   unscrupulous builders/developers. Shri Patwalia submitted that through such   modus 23. operandi  of the developers/builders, and inaction on the part of Chandigarh Administration, what is prohibited in law, is being permitted indirectly. 24. Shri Patwalia further submitted that the CMP­2031 prohibits   construction   of   apartments.     He   submits   that though   CMP­2031   is   binding   on   the   respondents   under which apartmentalization is not permissible, the apartments are being indirectly permitted to be constructed and sold, giving rise to illegal transactions.  It is submitted that on one hand, the Chandigarh Administration in its affidavit states that it does not permit construction of apartments, on the other hand, it is permitting the same indirectly. 17 25. Shri Patwalia submitted that when Chandigarh was conceptualized,   it   was   decided   that   Phase­I   will   have bungalows in the residential areas having a green area in the frontyard and backyard of the houses.  However, on account of   apartmentalisation,   the   green   areas   now   have   been converted into concrete areas, and the very concept of having a green city is being defeated. 26. Shri Ranjit Kumar also submitted that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have erred in holding that mere construction of three floors on a private plot and utilization of the same as independent units would not amount to fragmentation.  He submitted that, the finding of the High Court that fragmentation will take place only if there is a division of the site or division of the building with an element of exclusive ownership, is patently erroneous. He submitted that the Chandigarh Administration is taking a totally contradictory stand. It is submitted that, on one hand it is admitted by the Chandigarh Administration that it is not permissible to build apartments on a plot allotted to a single dwelling   unit   and   on   the   other   hand,   it   is   admitting 18 documents for registration which, in effect, permit a single plot to be fragmented into three apartments. 27. Shri Ranjit Kumar submitted that Chandigarh has been included in the Tentative United Nations Educational, Scientific   and   Cultural   Organization   (UNESCO)   World Heritage List due to its outstanding universal value, and the same   needs   to   be   maintained   by   prohibiting   haphazard developments which will take away its distinct character. Shri Kapil Sibal also supported the contention as 28. raised   on   behalf   of   the   appellants.     He   submitted   that rampant developments are being permitted while expanding urban areas without taking into consideration its impact on environment.   He submitted that when such developments are permitted, no studies are conducted to find out as to whether   the   necessary   infrastructure   like   water,   sewage, roads etc. exists.  He submitted that even in the CMP­2031, it   has   been   recommended   that   an   Effective   Environment Management Plan has   to be  devised for  the  entire  region including   Chandigarh,   which   includes   the   environmental strategy,   monitoring   regulation,   institutional   capacity 19 building   and   economic   incentives.   It   is   submitted   that though such a recommendation is made in the  CMP­2031, the Chandigarh Administration is permitting construction of single dwelling units into apartments.   He submitted that this   is   a   fit   case   wherein   this   Court   should   exercise   its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and direct   that   Environmental   Impact   Assessment   (for   short, “EIA”)   is   to   be   mandatorily   carried   out   before   permitting expansion of urban areas. 29. All the learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court needs to be set aside and   a  mandamus   needs   to  be   issued   to  the   respondents restraining them from permitting construction of apartments on   single   dwelling   units.   They   further   submitted   that   a direction   also   needs   to   be   issued   to   the   Chandigarh Administration to take action against the persons, who, in contravention of the Rules, are constructing apartments on single dwelling units. IV. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS: 20 30. Shri Ajay Tewari, on the contrary, submitted that the apprehension   as   raised   by   the   appellants   are   totally unwarranted.  It is submitted that the CMP­2031 duly takes care of the environmental aspects so as to ensure that the present   character   of   the   city   on   its   greenness   is   not compromised.     He   submitted   that   the  CMP­2031  would reveal that the growth of population in Chandigarh as per the 2011   Census   is   less   than   the   predicted   growth.     He submitted that the growth rate of merely 17.10% from the years 2001 to 2011 is the slowest since its inception.  It is submitted that the population in the year 2011 is 10,54,686 with an addition of 1,54,051 during the last decade.   He further   submitted   that,   as   a   matter   of   fact,   the   forest coverage in Chandigarh has doubled in the last 20 years.   31. Shri Tewari submitted that a ‘transferee’ has been defined in the 1952 Act to mean “ a person (including a firm or, other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not) to whom   a   site   or   building   is   transferred   in   any   manner whatsoever, under this Act and includes his successors and assigns ”.   He   therefore   submitted   that   the   1952   Act   itself 21 permits a transfer to be made to more than one individual and as such, the contention that, there cannot be more than one   apartment   in   a   single   dwelling   unit,   is   without substance.   Shri   Tewari   further   submitted   that   Rule   4   of   the 32. Chandigarh Lease­Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1973 Rules”) provides that the Chandigarh Administration may demise sites and buildings at Chandigarh on lease for 99 years.  It further provides that the   lease   may   be   given   by   allotment   or   by   auction   in accordance with these Rules.  He submitted that Rule 17 of the 1973 Rules permits the lease to be taken jointly by more than one person.  It is submitted that when the lease itself is permitted to be taken jointly by more than one person, then there is no merit in the stand that a building cannot be constructed on a site having more than one apartment. Shri Tewari further submitted that Rule 13 of the 2007 Rules also permits an allotment to be taken jointly by more than one person.   The only requirement in such a case is that the 22 liability to pay premium as well as the rent or any penalty under these Rules shall be joint and several. 33. Shri   Tewari   further   submitted   that   a   perusal   of Chandigarh   Building   Rules   (Urban),   2017   (for   short,   “the 2017 Rules”) which were enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by the 1952 Act, would also show that more than one apartment is permitted to be constructed on A single dwelling unit.   He submitted that under sub­clause (a) of Clause   (22)   of   Rule   3   of   the   2017   Rules,   a   ‘residential building’ is defined to be “ a building used or constructed or adapted to be used wholly or principally for human habitation and includes all garages, or other out­buildings appurtenant ”.  Under Clause (32) thereof, ‘dwelling unit’ has been thereto defined to be “ a building or a part thereof which is used or is intended   to   be   used   by   a   person   or   family   for   habitation comprising of kitchen, toilet and room ”. Clause (82) thereof defines ‘storey’ as “ any horizontal division of a building so constructed as to be capable of use as a living apartment, although  such  horizontal division  may not  extend  over the whole depth or width of the building but shall not include 23 mezzanine floor ”.   He submitted that Rule 4 thereof talks about   ‘residential   use’,   which   exhaustively   deals   with   the entire   details   with   regard   to   the   maximum   height   of   the building, maximum area, minimum area and the courtyards. 34. Shri   Tewari   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has rightly held that an apartment can be construed to be such only if it was an apartment as per the meaning of apartment given in the 2001 Rules.  He submitted that the provisions of the 2001 Rules are similar to the provisions of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983.   He submitted that under the  2001  Rules,   each   apartment   owner   is   entitled   to   the exclusive   ownership   and   possession   of   the   apartment   in accordance with the declaration.  However, when more than one person jointly construct a building on a plot and occupy one floor each, they are not entitled to exclusive ownership of the apartment but have shares in the joint property.   The learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of   Kochkunju Nair v. Koshy Alexander and 3 Others  in support of the proposition that all co­owners have equal rights and coordinate interest in the property, though 3 (1999) 3 SCC 482 24 their   shares   may   be   either   fixed   or   indeterminate.   He submitted that this Court has held that each co­owner has, in theory, an interest in every infinitesimal portion of the subject matter, and each has the right, irrespective of the quantity of his interest, to be in possession of every part and parcel of the property, jointly with others.   It is submitted that   as   such,   the   modus   operandi   adopted   is   wholly permissible,   whereby,   each   of   the   co­sharers   would   be entitled to be in possession of the part assigned to them jointly with others. He relies on the judgment of the Privy Council   in   the   case   of   Hardit   Singh   and   Others   v. 4 in support of the proposition. Gurmukh Singh and Others   35. Shri Tewari relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of  Sant Ram v. Daya 5 Ram and Others  in support of the proposition that though the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law recognized ownership of each co­parcener over the whole of joint property and over each   part   thereof,   which   bears   some   similarity   to   joint tenancy of English law; the Dayabhaga School adhered to the 4 1918 SCC OnLine PC 2 5 AIR 1961 P&H 528 25 doctrine of ownership in specified shares in the undivided property having similar features as in tenancy in common.  It is   therefore   submitted   that   the   co­sharers   are   entitled   to jointly construct a building as per their own shares.   It is submitted that this  Court in the case of   Jai Singh and 6 Others v. Gurmej Singh   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 7 (Dead)   Through   Legal   Representatives   and   Others   in support of the proposition that assignment in favour of a party would not amount to fragmentation. 36. Shri   Tewari,   in   a   nutshell,   submitted   that   the dwelling   units   cannot   be   construed   to   be   the   same   as apartments   under   the  2001  Rules,  and   therefore   it   is permissible for more than one person to construct a building jointly   and   occupy   the   shares   of   building   as   per   their respective shares.  It is submitted that, when the Rules and Provisions   permitting   three   storeys   are   not   challenged,   it would not be permissible for the appellants to contend that 6 (2009) 15 SCC 747 7 (2020) 15 SCC 605 26 the   construction   of   three   storeys,   wherein   three   different persons reside, is not permissible in law.  It is submitted that the  CMP­2031  has considered everything and further that the said CMP­2031 has also not been challenged. Shri   Tewari   submitted   that   if   the   contention   as 37. raised   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   is   accepted,   then   an anomalous  situation   would   arise   inasmuch   as   co­owners who are part of one family would be entitled to construct three apartments whereas others could not. This would lead to a situation where some co­owners are superior to others. 38. Shri Gaurav Chopra submitted that there is nothing in law which prohibits three strangers to purchase a plot from   one   person   and   then   develop   the   said   plot   by constructing   a   building   having   three   different   floors   and occupy the said floors.  He submitted that there is no bar for the same either under Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules or Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules.  He submitted that if the contention of the appellants   is   accepted,   it   would   lead   to   an  anomalous situation wherein a person, who has in a  bona fide  manner purchased a share of a building and consequently occupied a 27 floor of such a building, would be deprived of selling the same.   He   submitted   that   such   an   inference   would   put unreasonable restrictions on the rights of the person to deal with the property. Shri Chopra submitted that a perusal of the  CMP­2031  itself would reveal that the original concept itself   included   re­densification   of   Phase­I   in   order   to accommodate   the   growing   population   of   the   city.     The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Expert Committee constituted for preparation of  CMP­2031  has considered all these aspects.  He submitted that the CMP­2031 itself would show that Phase­I (Sectors 1 to 30) had a holding capacity of 34 persons per acre whereas the present density is only 26 persons per acre.   It is therefore submitted that the  CMP­ 2031 itself would reveal that there was a scope for additional units in Phase­I.   He submitted that when the  CMP­2031, which is a result of an elaborate exercise by the experts in the field, permits such a development, there is nothing which would prohibit such development. 39. Shri Chopra further submitted that Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, “the TP Act”) itself 28 permits transfer of property to one or more living persons. He submitted that Section 7 of the TP Act further permits a person to transfer such property either wholly or in part.  It is contended that Section 10 of the TP Act provides that any condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any other person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property is void.  It is further submitted that Section 44 of the TP Act also permits one of two or more co­owners of immoveable property to transfer his share   of   such   property   or   any   interest   therein.     It   is submitted that if the contention of the appellants is accepted, it would be contrary to the provisions of the TP Act. 40. Shri   K.M.   Natraj   submitted   that   ownership   of   a building is different from ownership of a land.  He therefore submitted that it is not necessary that a person who owns a building, would also own the land.  He submitted that there is   nothing   in   law   which   prohibits   a   building   to   be constructed and owned by three different persons.  He relies on the judgments  of  this Court  in the  cases of   Dr. K.A. 8 and Dhairyawan and Others v. J.R. Thakur and Others   8 [1959] SCR 799 29 9 Rev. FR. K.C. Alexander v. State of Kerala .   He also relies on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, Bombay High Court   and   Rajasthan   High   Court   in   the   cases   of   R.G. 10 Hiremath   and   Another   v.   T.   Krishnappa ,   Laxmipat 11 and Singhania v. Larsen and Toubro, Ltd.      Saiffuddin 12 v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (129) .  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: For   appreciating   the   rival   contentions,   it   will   be 41. necessary to refer to certain statutory provisions. 42. The 1952 Act came to be enacted for facilitating the construction of the New Capital of Punjab at Chandigarh. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1952 Act would reveal   that   the   said   Act   was   enacted   for   vesting   legal authority with the State Government to regulate the sale of building sites and to promulgate building rules on the lines 9 (1973) 2 SCC 737 10 1977 SCC OnLine Kar 96 11 1949 SCC OnLine Bom 11 12 1985 SCC OnLine Raj 97 30 of Municipal Bye­laws so long as a properly constituted local body   does   not   take   over   the   administration   of   the   city. Clause (k) of Section 2 of the 1952 Act defines ‘transferee’, which reads thus: “   2. Definitions.­ ………….. (k)  “transferee” means a person (including a firm or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not) to whom a site or building is transferred in any manner whatsoever, under this Act and includes his successors and assigns.” 43. It is sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents that   ‘transferee’   as   defined   under   the   1952   Act   means   a person including a firm or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, to whom a site or building is transferred in any manner whatsoever, under this Act and includes his successors and assigns. It is also submitted that under the 1973 Rules, a lease could be jointly granted to more than one person.     It  is  therefore   submitted   that  there  could   be   no impediment in the construction of three apartments on three floors which could be occupied by three different persons. On the contrary, it is sought to be urged on behalf of the 31 appellants that the term ‘person’ has to be used applying the principle of  ejusdem generis .  It is submitted that the words “other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not” are preceded by a word ‘firm’ and as such, it should be construed that the said term would be applicable only to a company, corporation, society etc. 44. Section   3   of   the   1952   Act   empowers   the   Central Government to sell, lease or otherwise transfer, whether by auction,   allotment   or   otherwise,   any   land   or   building belonging to the Government of Chandigarh on such terms and conditions as it may subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think fit to impose.   Section   4   of   the   1952   Act   empowers   the   Central 45. Government   or   the   Chief   Administrator   to   issue   such directions for the purpose of proper planning or development of Chandigarh as may be considered necessary with regard to matters mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) thereto.  Sub­section (2) of Section 4 thereof provides that every transferee is liable to comply with the said directions. 32 46. Section 5 of the 1952 Act provides that no person can   erect   or   occupy   any   building   at   Chandigarh   in contravention of any building rules made under sub­section (2) thereof.   Under sub­section (2) of Section 5 thereof, the Central Government is empowered to make rules to regulate the   erection   of   buildings   for   the   purpose   of   matters mentioned in Clauses (a) to (i) thereto.   47. Section 22 of the 1952 Act also enables the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. th 48. The  1960  Rules came to be notified on 8   March 1960.  Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules reads thus: “  ­ [Section 3 and 22 (2)(a)] ­ No 14.  Fragmentation fragmentation   or   amalgamation   of   any   site   or building shall be permitted: Provided   that   amalgamation   of   two   or   more adjoining sites shall be permissible only in the case of   commercial   or   industrial   sites   subject   to   the condition that the revised plans are approved by the competent authority, prior thereto. Provided further that fragmentation of sites shall be permitted only in case of the persons applying for conversion   under   the   “Chandigarh   Conversion   of Land   Use   of   Industrial   Sites   into   Commercial Activity/Services in Industrial Area, Phase­I and II, Chandigarh   Scheme,   2005,   notified   vide 33 No.28/8/51­UTFI(3)­2005/6658­6662,   dated 19.09.2005.” 49. Subsequently, the 2001 Rules came to be notified on th 20   December 2001. It will be relevant to refer to certain provisions of the said Rules, which read thus:  “ 2. Definitions:  (a) "Apartment"   means   each   sub­division   of   a building   dully   recognized   by   the   Estate   Officer, alongwith the proportionate share in common areas and common facilities, as well as any other property rights   appurtenant   thereto,   shall   constitute   an Apartment.  (b) "Building"   means   any   construction   or   part   of construction   or   proposed   construction   in Chandigarh as defined in Clause (x) of Rule 2 of the Punjab   Capital   (Development   and   Regulation) Building Rules, 1952. 3. Sub­division of Building:  (1) Every building subject to the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the separate and independent units in accordance   with   these   rules.   Each   such   sub­ division   of   a   building   shall   be   recognized   as   a distinct,   identifiable   property   to   which   the   owner lessee   shall   have   title   along   with   proportionate rights in the declared common areas and common facilities.   Each   sub­division   along   with   common areas, common facilities, rights of access easements and other ownership rights shall constitute a single, distinct   identified,   property   which   may   be   used transferred   or   disposed   by   the   owner/lessees   in accordance with the applicable law and rules.  34 (2) A   building   may   be   sub­divided   through   a declaration   made   by   the   owners/lessees   to   the Estate Officer in the prescribed form (Form­ D). The Estate   Officer   shall,   if   he   is   satisfied   with   the completeness   and   correctness   of   information provided with the declaration and after, having the building inspected, if necessary, recognize the sub­ divisions   of   the   building   and   the   owners/lessees thereof,   upon   payment   of   such   fee   as   may   be notified by the Administration from time to time. The   recognition   of   each   sub­division   as   an apartment by the Estate Officer under these rules shall   be   accorded   by   way   of   a   fresh   letter   of allotment or a fresh conveyance deed, as the case may   be,   in   suppression   of   the   previous   letter   of allotment or conveyance deed. Such letter of deed shall recognize the owners/lessees of the apartment as the owners/lessees thereof, who shall be liable to comply   with   all   the   provisions   of   the   Capital   of Punjab   (Development   and   Regulation)   Act,   1952, and   rules   and   regulations   and   orders   framed thereunder.   All   the   covenant   and   liabilities contained in the original allotment letter and in the conveyance deed pertaining to the building or site, shall   be   construed   to   be   contained   in   the subsequent letter or deed, as the ease may be, even though no specific mention may have been made therein.  (3) Each sub­division, after it has been recognized as an apartment by the Estate Officer, consequent upon the filing of prescribed declaration, shall be the   sole   and   exclusive   property   of   the   declared owners/lessees.   Such   owners/lessees's   shall   be fully   and   exclusively   responsible   and   liable   for complying   with   all   provisions   of   the   Capital   of Punjab   (Development   and   Regulation)   Act,   1952, rules and orders framed thereunder, and covenants of   the   allotment   letter   and   conveyance   deed pertaining   to   the   site   or   the   building.   All   these provisions   of   rules,   orders   and   covenants   shall 35 apply,   pari   passu,   to   the   apartment   and   to   the owners/lessees thereof, as they did and would have, to   the   site   or   building   and   the   owners/lessees thereof.  (4) Each   apartment   shall   be   entitled   to   separate utility connections such as water supply, sewerage and electricity, subject to building regulations.  (5) Where   sub­divisions   of   a   building   with   more than one storey have been allotted, sold or leased by the   Estate   Officer,   the   Estate   Officer   may   after giving   notice   to   the   owners/lessees   of   such   sub­ divisions, declare such sub­divisions as apartments, to which the provisions of these rules shall apply.  4.  Sub­Division of Residential Buildings:  (1) Any residential building situated on a plot size of less than 1400 square yards may be sub­divided into separate dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit on each floor of the building. Each such dwelling unit shall constitute a sub­division.  (2) The basement,  if any, allowed in a residential building   shall   not   constitute   a   separate   sub­ division. The basement shall form a part of the sub­ divisions on the ground floor. In case more than one sub­division is allowed on the ground, each such sub­division   may   have   a   separate   basement   if building regulations so permit. Except in the case where the basement provides for facilities such as parking   area   at   the   end   or   other   plant   and equipment required for apartments in the building, the basement or portions therein may constitute a part   of   the   sub­division   on   floors,   other,   ground floor.  (3) The   garage,   servant   quarters,   outhouse,   mali hut, store, open spaces etc. not forming part of the main residential building shall not form a separate sub­ division(s) and shall form part of one or more of the apartments of the main building.  36 (4) A residential building on a plot of 1400 square yard or more may be sub­divided into two dwelling units   on   each   floor   provided   that   building regulations so permit.” st 50. However, the 2001 Rules came to be repealed on 1 October 2007.  Immediately thereafter, the 2007 Rules came th to be notified on 7   November 2007.   Rule 16 of the said Rules reads thus: “ 16.  Fragmentation/Amalgamation. No fragmentation or amalgamation of any site or building shall be permitted. Provided   that   amalgamation   or   two   or   more adjoining sites with the same ownership shall be permissible   only   in   the   case   of   commercial   or industrial   sites   subject   to   the   condition   that   the revised   plans   are   approved   by   the   competent authority, prior thereto. Provided further that fragmentation of any site shall be allowed if such fragmentation is permitted under any scheme notified by the Administration.” It could thus be seen that Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules 51. also does not permit fragmentation/amalgamation of any site or building.   Insofar as commercial or industrial sites are concerned,   amalgamation   is   permitted   subject   to   the condition   that   the   revised   plans   are   approved   by   the competent   authority,   prior   thereto.   However,   the   second 37 proviso   also   permits   fragmentation   of   any   site   if   such fragmentation is permitted under any scheme notified by the Administration. VI. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT: 52. In the impugned judgment, what has been held by the High Court is that, though in view of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules,   no   floor­wise   sale   of   property   is   permissible   and though, it does not permit a residential house to be converted into apartments, and that though no sale of a defined portion or   part   of   the   building   is   permissible,   however,   mere construction of three floors on a private plot and utilization of the   same   as   independent   units   would   not   amount   to fragmentation.  The High Court has held that fragmentation will take place only if there is a division of the site or division of the building with an element of exclusive ownership, i.e., partition by metes and bounds, which is prohibited by Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules. 53. The   High   Court   has   held   that   for   holding   that apartmentalization   is   being   carried   out,   certain   requisites have to be met.   In view of the High Court, the following 38 factors would be necessary for holding that it amounts to apartmentalization: (i) “There has to be a sub­division of a building duly recognized   by   the   Estate   Officer   along   with proportionate   share   in   common   areas   and common facilities; (ii) Each sub­division of a building to be a distinct, identifiable property to which the owner/lessee shall have title; (iii) The   recognition   of   each   sub­division   as   an apartment   by   the   Estate   Officer   would   be accorded by way of a fresh letter of allotment or a fresh conveyance deed; and  (iv) Pursuant   to   such   recognition,   such   sub­ division/apartment to be the sole and exclusive property of the declared owner/lessee.” 54. The High Court held that, in the present case, the pre­requisites noticed hereinabove were missing.   The High Court held that, by virtue of sale of share(s) by a co­owner and  thereafter, the purchaser/vendee occupying a specific portion   of   the   building   on   the   basis   of   an   internal arrangement/understanding, sub­division of the building as provided under the 2001 Rules does not take place.  It held that the specific portion under the occupation of a co­owner is not accorded any recognition by the Estate Officer in any 39 manner.  It also held that the co­owner also does not become the sole and exclusive owner of such specific portion under his occupation. As such, the High Court though holds that what was 55. permissible   under   the  2001  Rules,   became   impermissible after its repeal and notification of the 2007 Rules, it held that construction of three different floors in a building or a site and occupation of the same by three different persons would not   amount   to   apartmentalization   inasmuch   as   the   same does not have recognition of the Estate Office.   56. The 2001 Rules, in effect, permitted the apartments to be constructed on a site and permitted sub­division of a building   as   a   distinct,   identifiable   property   to   which   the owner/lessee would have title along with proportionate share in   the   declared   common   areas   and   common   facilities. However, on account of the  objections of the  residents  of Chandigarh, the  2001 Rules were repealed so as to prevent further   apartmentalization.     However,   it   is   clear   from   the modus   operandi   as   could   be   seen   from   the   various documents   placed   on   record   that   the   builders/developers 40 are,   in   fact,   continuing   to   do   the   same   thing   which   was permissible under the 2001 Rules and became impermissible after repeal thereof.  The result of the judgment of the High Court   is   that,   though   the   construction   of   apartments   is prohibited, still the construction of a building and converting it   into   apartments   would   not   be   impermissible   since   the same would not be apartments within the meaning of the 2001 Rules.  VII. REPORT   OF   THE   BOARD   OF   “INQUIRY   AND HEARING”: 57. It will further be relevant to note that Chandigarh Administration has notified the CMP­2031.  It will be relevant to note that in the draft CMP­2031, there was a provision for apartments.  For considering the objections to the provisions made in the draft  CMP­2031, the said Board, consisting of Senior   Officers   of   the   Chandigarh   Administration,   was th constituted on 10   November 2013.   The report of the said Board   would   reveal   that   Chandigarh   was   conceived   as “Garden City” and in view of the socio­economic conditions and   living   habits   of   the   people,   vertical   and   high­rise buildings were ruled out.   It would further reveal that Le 41 Corbusier   incorporated   principles   of   light,   space   and greenery in the plan and used human body as the metaphor. It would also reveal that Chandigarh has been planned as a low­rise city and has been so developed that even after sixty years of its inception, its original concept has been retained to a large extent.  The said Board, while submitting its report, has laid down certain guiding principles, which are thus:  “ GUIDING PRINCIPLES The objections received by the Administration have been considered by the Board of Inquiry keeping in view the following guiding principles: 1. Chandigarh  being  the  capital of  Punjab and Haryana is an administrative city and has to be retained as such.  Industrial growth in the city needs to be limited to ensure its economic sustainability. 2. Chandigarh   has   heritage   value   and   it   is important   to   preserve   and   maintain   the integrity of the original concepts and planning postulates of sun, space and verdure. 3. The   northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh (Corbusian   in   Chandigarh)   should   be preserved   in   their   present   form   as   far   as possible.   As  far  as re­development of  some specific pockets is concerned, that can be done keeping   proper   perspective   in   mind.   Any redevelopment   in   northern   sectors   (Phase­1) should   only   be   done   keeping   the recommendations of the Expert Committee on Heritage in mind. 42 4. The   Architectural   Controls   should   be holistically reviewed, if at all.   Any policy in this   regard   should   be   universal   and   for   all times to come (till is reviewed) to avoid any arbitrariness & discrimination. 5. Chandigarh being a landlocked city and land being scarce, available land pockets be utilized for govt. use/public purpose on priority. 6. The same practice as followed while developing the New Delhi Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi) be   followed   in   respect   of   the   city   of Chandigarh.  The efforts should be to keep the character of the city intact. 7. The   architecture   of   the   city   needs   to   be preserved   and   retained   in   sync   with   Le Corbusier’s vision.   8. The low­rise character of the city needs to be maintained.   9. The focus needs to be on building an efficient public   transport   system   and   augmenting parking spaces in the city. 10. Chandigarh has limited land and to preserve the integrity of the original concepts, it needs to be ensured that the city is not pressurized beyond its holding capacity. 11. The   peripheral   area   and   the   Tri­City   are intrinsically   linked.     One   cannot   be successfully planned or implemented without also looking at the other.   Specific plans for every village in this area are a necessity and the   overall   plan   must   accommodate   the growing   requirements   along   with   the requirement for ecological conservation of the natural resources in the vicinity. 12. State of the art best international practices in all   aspects   of   planning   &   infrastructure development need to be adopted. 43 13. Chandigarh   is   today   known   throughout   the world for being one of the best planned urban environment. In large part, it is due to the high proportion of open space, social facilities, civic amenities   and   infrastructure   per   living   unit. The introduction of apartment rules, by itself does   not   have   any   provision   to   add   these essential   services   and   facilities   within   the existing built­up environment.  It will only add residential density while ignoring other urban infrastructure thereby being detrimental to the city environment and will only lead to the long term decline of the city.” 58. It can thus clearly be seen that the said Board has considered that Chandigarh has a heritage value and it is important   to   preserve   and   maintain   the   integrity   of   the original concepts and planning postulates of Sun, Space and Verdure.   It also emphasized that the northern sectors of Chandigarh (Corbusian Chandigarh) should be preserved in their present form as far as possible.  It also states that any redevelopment in the northern sectors (Phase­I) should only be   done   keeping   the   recommendations   of   the   Heritage Committee   in   mind.     It   further   provides   that   the   same practice   as   followed   while   developing   the   New   Delhi Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi) be followed in respect of the city   of   Chandigarh.     The   efforts   should   be   to   keep   the 44 character of the city intact.   It further emphasizes that the architecture of the city needs to be preserved and retained in sync with Le Corbusier’s vision.   It states that the low­rise character of the city needs to be maintained.  It states that Chandigarh is today known throughout the world for being one of the best planned urban environment.   It states that the introduction of  2001  Rules by itself does not have any provision to add these essential services and facilities within the existing built­up environment.  It states that it will only add   residential   density   while   ignoring   other   urban infrastructure   thereby   being   detrimental   to   the   city environment and will only lead to the long­term decline of the city. 59. Chapter III of the said Report elaborately deals with the   objections   opposing   redensification   in   Phase­I   Sectors and reintroduction of the  2001 Rules in Chandigarh. It will be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   recommendations   of   the   said Board, which read thus:  “ CHAPTER­III:   RECOMMENDATIONS   OF   THE BOARD 3.1. RESIDENTIAL 45 All   objections   pertaining   to   the   residential areas in the sectoral grid were taken together. The representationists were given oral hearing also. The main objection which has been raised is regarding redensification   of   Phase   1   sectors   and reintroduction of Apartment Rules in Chandigarh. The proposal in this regard in the draft Master Plan is reproduced below: "The Chandigarh Apartment Rules to be reintroduced: Sub division of residential plots of 1,000 sq. yards and above into two dwelling units on each floor shall be permitted.   The   residential   buildings   on plots of less than 1000 sq. yards will be permitted   floor­wise   sub­division   into separate   dwelling   units   with   not   more than one dwelling unit on each floor of the building. The above provisions are to be allowed within the prevailing FAR and Ground Coverage norms." P­78 of CMP­ 2031 The   representationists   have   vehemently objected   to   the   proposals   contained   in   the   Draft Master   Plan   regarding   redensification   and introduction of Apartment Rules. This Board had detailed deliberations on this issue and the views are as following. Rapid growth of urban population is predicted by   census   and   planning   authorities:   Chandigarh being   the   headquarters   of   Punjab   and   Haryana along   with   being   a   major   gateway   of   Himachal Pradesh   is   uniquely   positioned   for   exponential growth as it is an extremely attractive destination for   all   segn1ents   of   the   population.   With   rapidly growing   population   that   lives   in   slums   and 46 unauthorised   residential   developments   within   the periphery area along with increasingly unaffordable housing for lower and middle class families, we feel that there is necessity to increase the housing stock for the success of the city.  Perhaps with this objective in mind, the draft master plan makes a series of recommendations for increasing   the   housing   stock   of   the   city.   One   of these is the redensification of Phase I sectors and the  introduction of the Apartment Rules. A more careful   examination   of   the   facts   will   reveal   that there exist several reasons why the introduction of Apartment Rules is not an appropriate solution to the   city's   requirements   of   affordable   housing.   To enumerate a few: i) Chandigarh city has a distinct heritage value from the point of view of city architecture and the basic concepts of sun, space and verdure in planning. An expert committee on heritage was   constituted   by   GoI,   whose recommendations   have   already   been approved   by   the   Government   of   India.   The Expert   Heritage   Committee   has recommended   that   the   northern   sectors   of Chandigarh   (Corbusian   in   Chandigarh) should be preserved in their present form as far   as   possible.   Specifically   it   has   been recommended that no further enhancement should   be   given   in   FAR.   Therefore   the concept of redensification in general will go against the heritage of the city. As for as re­ development   of   some   specific   pockets   is concerned, that can be done keeping proper perspective in mind. General redensification is not recommended. The expert committee has taken a serious note of the relaxations in 47 FARs   and   building   controls   already   given earlier   and   has   recommended   that   they should be revoked. ii) An accurate audit of existing residential plots will reveal that many plots are inhabited by joint families, multi­generation families, have been internally divided and rented out and have legal disputes of ownership etc. Further there   is   a   vast   majority   of   residents   who chose to live in Chandigarh due to the sub­ urban character of the city and want to live in   the   present   sort   of   system   without   the arrangement of group housing or apartment configurations.   The   present representationists   typically   belong   to   this class.   All   these   properties   will   not   be available   for   redevelopment   into   apartment configurations   irrespective   of   what   is proposed in the master plan. iii) Increasing   density   and   especially   housing density is an extremely important task and challenge for the planners and administrators of the city. It is something which cannot be left to the vagaries of market to determine the impact   of   density   on   the   city   and   its infrastructure.   Individual   developments   of apartments in plots will result in increase in density in the areas of the city that are most profitable to the developers rather than where these housing units are required. iv) The introduction of apartment rules will most essentially   create   apartments   in  the   higher cost bracket of saleable units and is unlikely to   create   any   low   income   or   mid   income housing. The demand in the city is for lower income   and   middle   income   housing   rather than   housing   for   the   rich   and   affluent.   A 48 situation   like   this   will   predictably   lead   to proliferation of slums required to service the higher   density   of   highest   income   group people. v) Location of the redevelopment will also be an adhoc   situation   depending   on   individual owners' prerogative rather than a formulated or predictable distribution of apartment units in the city. City planners, therefore, will have no   advance   knowledge   where   and   in   what number the population density will increase. The   planning   for   support   and   supply infrastructure, therefore, will also not be able to anticipate growth. This is, therefore, the least desirable and surely the most inefficient and expensive way to add infrastructure to the city. vi) There   is   a   strong   possibility   that   the introduction of the apartment rules will lead to   a   further   increase   in   real   estate   prices. This   will   be   in   stark   contradiction   to   the original   aspect   of   creating   more   affordable housing,   whereby   the   character   of   the   city will   be   lost   and   gains   will   also   not   be significant. vii) Chandigarh is today known throughout the world for being one of the best planned urban environment. In large part, it is due to the high   proportion   of   open   space,   social facilities,   civic   amenities   and   infrastructure per living unit. The introduction of apartment rules, by itself does not have any provision to add   these   essential   services   and   facilities within the existing built up environment. It will   only   add   residential   density   while ignoring other urban infrastructure thereby being detrimental to the city environment and 49 will only lead to the long term decline of the city. Keeping  in mind   these  elements,   it will  be prudent to annul and negate any efforts to revive the   Chandigarh   Apartment   Rules   in   its   current form. This will not serve to create a large stock of available housing will not increase affordability. It will   not   serve   MIG   and   LIG   and   will   add   to unplanned and unregulated growth of population density without any matching increase in social and physical infrastructure or amenities. The only beneficiary   to   this   scheme   will   be   a   handful   of developers   which   would   be   detrimental   to   the existing   and   future   residents   of   the   city.   In conclusion, while there is an urgent requirement for   increase   of   affordable   housing   stock   in Chandigarh, the Apartment Rules is a poor and wholly inadequate instrument for this purpose. The Board, therefore, recommends that all references in the draft Master Plan in respect of   the   reintroduction   of   'Apartment   Rules' should   be   deleted   and   redensification   of   any government residential/institutional pocket in Phase­I sectors should only be done with the prior   approval   of   the   Chandigarh   Heritage ” Conservation Committee. 60. It is thus clear that though an attempt was made in the   draft  CMP­2031  to   permit   apartments   on   residential plots,   the   same   was   vehemently   opposed.     The   Report 50 considered the recommendations of the Heritage Committee recommending   that   the   northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh should be preserved in their present form as far as possible. It   has   been   recommended   that   no   further   enhancement should be given in FAR.  It also considered that the concept of redensification in general will go against the heritage of the city.  It has further taken into consideration that the Heritage Committee has taken a serious note of the relaxations in FARs   and   building   controls   already   given  earlier   and   has recommended that no further relaxation be given and has also   recommended   that   the   relaxations   already   granted should be revoked.  61. The   said   Board   further   considered   that  individual development of apartments in plots will result in increase in density in the areas of the city that are most profitable to the developers   rather   than   where   these   housing   units   are required.   It further considered that the introduction of the 2001  Rules will most essentially create apartments in the higher cost bracket of saleable units and is unlikely to create any low income or middle income housing.  It considered that 51 the   demand   in   the   city   is   for   lower   income   and   middle­ income   housing   rather   than   housing   for   the   rich   and affluent. It further considered that a situation like this will predictably lead to proliferation of slums required to service the higher density of highest income group people.  It further considered   that   the   planning   for   support   and   supply   of infrastructure would not be sufficient to meet the growth in population density on account of apartmentalization.    The said Board also considered that the introduction 62. of  the  2001  Rules   would   lead   to   further   increase   in   real estate   prices.     It   considered   that   this   will   be   in   stark contradiction   to   the   original   aspect   of   creating   more affordable housing, whereby the character of the city will be lost, and the gains will also not be significant.  It considered that Chandigarh is today known throughout the world for being one of the best planned urban environment, due to the high proportion of open space, social facilities, civic amenities and infrastructure per living unit.   It considered that the introduction of the  2001  Rules by itself does not have any provision to add these essential services and facilities within 52 the existing built­up environment.   It stated that this will only   add   residential   density   while   ignoring   other   urban infrastructure   thereby   being   detrimental   to   the   city environment, and will only lead to the long­term decline of the city.   63. It could thus be seen that the Report clearly opposed reintroduction of the 2001 Rules.  The Report has been duly accepted and all references regarding re­introduction of the 2001 Rules have been deleted in the Final CMP­2031, which rd was notified on 23  April 2015. VIII. CHANDIGARH MASTER PLAN­2031: Clause 1.2 of the  CMP­2031  would reveal that the 64. original plan of Phase­I divided the city into a grid of 30 sectors with the Capitol Complex as well as the Civic Centre. Sector 17 was designed as the Central Business District. It provided that, the greenbelt at the centre ran north east to south   east.     Wide   roads   were   planned   in   a   systematic hierarchy   providing   structure   to   the   city   which   has   well planned facilities.  Landscaped green avenues give it amenity value.  It states that the First Phase which is considered as 53 city’s Historic Core was designed for population of 1,50,000 in low rise plotted development.  Phase­II from Sectors 31 to 47 for the remaining targeted 3,50,000 was with 4­storeyed apartments for government employees with an increase in the ratio   of   smaller   plots/lesser   open   areas/nearly   four   times increase in density.   Though there is a reference that the original concept itself included redensification of Phase­I, no details with regard to the same were available.   65. A perusal of the  CMP­2031  would reveal that while finalizing   the  CMP­2031,   the   Expert   Committee   took   into consideration the preservation of original concept of the plan, maintaining   the   basic   character   of   the   town,   preserving ecology   and   environment,   heritage   status   of   the   city, promoting sustainable urban development etc.   The Expert Committee   also   took   into   consideration   the   Report   of   the Heritage Committee constituted by the Government of India under the chairmanship of His Excellency, the Administrator, UT Chandigarh and the approved letter of the Government of rd India dated 23  December 2011. 54 66. Clause  1.9  of  the  CMP­2031  provides  the   guiding principles for comprehensive CMP­2031.   Clause (v) thereof states   that   Chandigarh’s   architecture   shall   preserve   the vitality   of   all   public   and   private   buildings.     Public   open spaces shall be created as vibrant community spaces, and the left­out monuments envisaged by Le Corbusier shall be completed.   Urban design shall be the guiding principle for improving   the   quality   of   inner   and   outer   spaces.     It  also considers that one of the challenges for Chandigarh was the high degree of traffic congestion.  67. Clause   1.12   of   the  CMP­2031  would   reveal   that Chandigarh has a universally acclaimed rich ‘Heritage’ and ‘Green City’ character. Clause   4.5   of   the  CMP­2031  states   the   salient 68. features of the Chandigarh Plan.  It states that the function of Living occupies primary place and has been organized into a   cellular   system   of   sectors   based   on   the   concept   of   a neighbourhood unit.  Each sector, with the exception of some sectors, has a size of 800m × 1200m which was determined on   the   parameter   of   providing   all   amenities,   i.e.,   shops, 55 schools, health centres and places of recreation and worship within a 10­minute walking distance of the residents.   The originally planned population of a sector varied between 3000 and 20,000 depending upon the size of plots, the topography of   the   area,   and   the   urban   design   considerations.     Each sector   is   introvert   in   character   and   permits   only   four vehicular entries into its interior to provide a tranquil and serene environment conducive to the enrichment of life.   It also   emphasized   on   family   life   and   community   living.     It states   that   Chandigarh   is   planned   as   a   green   city   with abundance of open spaces.   It ensures that every dwelling has its adequate share of the three elements of Sun, Space and Verdure.   The location of green belt was in the north­ south direction to link all sectors with the Shivalik range of hills/mountains.  The city was planned as a low­rise city and even   after   sixty   years   of   its   inception,   it   still   retains   the original concept to a large extent. Clause 5.3 of the  CMP­2031  deals with density.   It 69. states   that   the   population   density   during   the   last   five decades has increased 9 fold, from 1051 to 9252 persons per 56 sq. km.   It states that Chandigarh shall continue to record higher densities with further population growth, which poses a challenge for maintaining the quality of life and providing basic and essential services even to its poorest residents as visioned by the city’s planners. 70. Clause  5.3.2  of  the  CMP­2031  states that though Phase­I   was   planned   to   be   low   density   development   with 9000 acres  of  land  housing  1,50,000  population,  i.e.,  the density of 16 persons per acre, as per 2001 Census, it was 26 persons per acre.  It states that by the year 2001, the density of   Phase­I   had   already   exceeded   the   designed   density whereas   that   of   Phase­II   sectors   was   the   same   as   was designed.  It states that the city still has reasonable capacity to accommodate additional population.  It further states that the density pattern is likely to undergo considerable change in the years to come with the city recording higher growth and development.   As per the existing trends, the sectors falling  in Phase­I  shall continue  to  have  lower  density  as compared to the sectors falling in Phase­II.   57 71. Clause 5.7.4 of the CMP­2031 deals with the holding capacity   of   UT   Chandigarh   based   on   Master   Plan recommendations.     It   specifically   states   that   in   order   to maintain the basic character of the city as an administrative city,   unnecessary   increase   in   the   population   should   be avoided.  It states that with the coming up of new towns in the periphery of Punjab and Haryana, the excess population can be easily accommodated in those towns.   It states that since   the   land   stock   in   Chandigarh   is   limited,   the   uses related to governance and administration should get priority in the allocation of land.  It states that additional population will   have   to   be   diverted   to   the   adjoining   settlements   by viewing   the   entire   context   of   planning   in   the   regional framework.   However, the table in the said clause, dealing with private plots, shows the total units to be 22,788 and number of dwelling units as triple this number, at 68,364.   72. Clause   6.3   of   the  CMP­2031  deals   with   private rd housing.  It states that nearly 1/3  of the private plots have an area of one kanal or above.  It states that the first phase of the city had low density with residential plots ranging from 58 5 marlas to 8 kanals.   The second Phase has much higher density with a switch mostly to three to four storey flats with the largest plot size being 2 kanals.   It will be pertinent to refer to the relevant parts of 73. Clause 6.12 of the CMP­2031, which read thus:  “ 6. HOUSING IN CHANDIGARH ……….. 6.12 MASTER PLAN PROPOSALS ……….. Approval   of   the   Chandigarh   Heritage Conservation Committee  Since Phase I sectors have been recommended for Heritage status, the re­utilization of the identified housing   /institutional   pockets   in   the   first   phase shall be undertaken with the prior approval of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee. ……….. ADDITIONAL FAR AND GROUND COVERAGE TO PRIVATE HOUSING  The   Chandigarh   Administration   vide   notification dated 16/10/2008 has already permitted increased ground   coverage   and   FAR   for   all   sizes   of   private residential   plots   and   introduced   the   concept   of zoning   in   place   of   frame   control.   Under   these regulations, all private plots can build upto 3 floors with   each   floor   having   potential   of   having   an independent unit. There are approximately 23000 private plots of all categories within the sectoral grid of the Chandigarh Master Plan. Assuming that each plot will eventually be built upto 3 storeys with one unit per floor, the total dwelling units available will 59 be 69000 which can house approximately 3,00,000 population.” Clause 19.1 of the  CMP­2031  considered the major 74. recommendations, some of which include thus: “ 19 CHANDIGARHS HERITAGE  ……… 19.1   THE   MAJOR   RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE 1. The city’s monumental architecture, principles of town planning of  Sun, Space, and Verdure , as   enunciated   by   Le   Corbusier,   along   with urban design, landscaping, honesty in the use of   construction   materials,   like   shuttered concrete and exposed brick­work, ought to be preserved  as   Modern Heritage of Universal Value   for   which   Chandigarh   has   become known throughout the world.  2. A   holistic   approach   towards   protection, preservation,   and   maintenance   of   heritage buildings and unique characteristic of the city should be adopted.  3. The   philosophy,   plans   and   approach envisioned by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru with regard to the new city should not be lost sight of and kept in mind while taking the steps for the above purposes.  4. The   philosophy,   plans   and   designs propounded and used by Le Corbusier, while building the city, should not be allowed to be affected   and   should   be   kept   in   mind   while protecting   preserving,   maintaining   and expanding heritage structures.  60 5. Efforts should be directed to retain the essence of the original Plan of the city and as such the following is recommended:  ₋   Chandigarh   shall   remain   an Administrative  City.  ₋   Chandigarh   shall   retain   the   essential planning postulates of Sun, Space, and Verdure.  ₋   Chandigarh shall be a Low­Rise City.  ₋   Chandigarh shall be a Green City.  6. Corbusian Chandigarh title  to the first phase of the city which is the most representative of Le Corbusier's thought and philosophy is truly worthy of recognition for its  Modern Heritage .   The   sectors   1   to   30   planned   and Value detailed out by the original team in fulfillment of the CIAM principles of Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit and Circulation.    7. Heritage status to Sector 22, built as the first typical   sector   on   the   concept   of   the neighbourhood and Heritage status to Sectors 7 and 8 as a tribute to the architect planner, Albert Mayer.      No development must be allowed that may jeopardize their original concept. 8. Preservation of the concept of a neighbourhood unit,   no   further   enhancement   in   FAR, supplementing the V7s with an efficient public transport system, execution of the pedestrian footpaths   and   cycle   tracks,   augmenting parking   spaces   in   the   city,   development   of villages   and   slum   rehabilitation,   regular upkeep. 9. The   Committee   has   also   made recommendations   for   a   Master   Plan   for Chandigarh to ensure regulated development of   the   city’s   Inter   State   Regional   Plan   and 61 mechanism   for   its   implementation,   City Development   Plan,   Solar   City,   restoring   the city’s   strong   imageability,   Urban   Design, restoration   of   Architectural   Control/Frame Control, Design, Advertisement Control Order. 10. Revitalization of the City Centre, construction of the Eleven Storied Tower. 11. Holistic   planning   of   Capitol   Complex   to address   immediate   and   future   requirements, no   scope   for   additional   buildings   within campus completion of the incomplete projects of the Capitol Complex, including the Museum of   Knowledge,   the   Martyrs’   Memorial, revitalization of the plaza, campus lighting and illumination   to   highlight   building   edifices, addressing   the   security   issues   to   enable comfortable   visitor   access   to   the   Capitol Complex .  The concern of development on the North of Chandigarh and the peripheral areas around the Capitol Complex. 12. Redensification   of   pockets   of   Government Housing   The   concept   of   Redensification   has not   been   recommended   in   the   Master   Plan. Instead   pockets   identified   by   the   Expert Heritage Committee have been recommended for Reutilisation if required.   (see Chapter on Housing). 13. Prior   Concept   Approval   for   identified   private and Government buildings with the principal objective   to   maintain   a   harmonious   urban form  of  Chandigarh  and  in keeping  with its original concept,   Prior Concept Approval   of new   buildings   and/or   additions­and­ alterations in old ones   of identified private and   government   properties   has   been recommended.    Following are the parameters for   imposing   the   regulation   of   prior   concept approval:­ 62  Since   many   private   buildings   fall  along important arteries, namely, V3s and V4s, constituting  major part of  Chandigarh’s urban   imageability,   there   is   an   urgent need   to   regulate individualistic/idiosyncratic use of weird forms, senseless geometry, garish colours and unaesthetic materials to preserve the original   character   of   the   city   besides retaining   sanity   in   architectural   and urban designs.  The   second   criterion   is   the   building’s architectural   importance   and   the individual   professional   standing   of   the architects   who   constituted   the   foreign team of architects.  The third parameter is the location of the building, which is crucial because an ill­ designed   structure   can   become   an eyesore whereas a sensitive design that respects its architectural legacy would be a landmark asset in many ways.  Similarly, the development/additions and alteration of green belts should be done sensitively and in the same spirit as that of the original plant.  Location   of   Mobile   Towers   is   very important from the urban design point of view   and   as   such,   this   too   has   been recommended for prior concept approval. 14. Constitution   of   the   Chandigarh   Heritage Conservation Committee. 15. Restoration   and   preservation   of   building materials – Concrete & Brick buildings.” 63 75. Clause   19.11   of   the  CMP­2031  talks   about   the inclusion of Chandigarh in the UNESCO World Heritage List due to its outstanding universal value.  It will be relevant to refer to the said recommendations, which are thus:  “ 19.11   INCLUSION   OF   CHANDIGARH   IN   THE UNESCO WORLD  HERITAGE  LIST  DUE  TO  ITS OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE RECOMMENDATION   OF   THE   MASTER   PLAN COMMITTEE   It has been perceived that Chandigarh’s inscription on World heritage list would bring many benefits as the   city   would   join   a  select  list  of   other   modern movement cities/urban areas currently inscribed on the UNESCO’s heritage list.  A   UNESCO   heritage   status   shall   bring   about   a  and boost to domestic and international tourism related   benefits   to   the   city’s   economy   and   build public awareness about the values of Chandigarh’s unique modern heritage.  It will not only   ensure protection of significant heritage buildings   and areas from neglect, willful destruction,   defacement,   inappropriate   alterations but   will   also   provide   for   preparation   of   a comprehensive   urban   development   plan   which respects international heritage conservation criteria, is environmentally sustainable and also handles the future developmental needs of the city. The move was intended to train our officials for technologically appropriate   repair   and   conservation   of   heritage buildings.  CHANDIGARH   SHOULD   MAKE   CONCERTED EFFORTS   FOR   WORLD   HERITAGE   STATUS   IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF HOME 64 AFFAIRS   AND   THE   ARCHEOLOGICAL   SURVEY OF INDIA.” 76. It will also be relevant refer to Clause 20.3 of the CMP­2031, which reads thus:   “ 20.3   AN   EFFECTIVE   ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT   PLAN   FOR   CHANDIGARH   AND FOR THE REGION It is recommended that an Effective Environmental Management   Plan   be   devised   for   the   region including   Chandigarh   which   includes environmental   strategy,   monitoring   regulation, institutional   capacity   building   and   economic incentives. The proposal needs a legal framework and a monitoring committee to examine the regional level proposals/ big developments by Constitution of an   Inter   State   high   powered   “ Regional Environmental   Management   Board ”   as   per   the proposal of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.” 77. A perusal of various clauses in the CMP­2031 itself would reveal that the CMP­2031 emphasizes on maintaining monumental   architecture   and   principles   of   town   planning concept of Sun, Space, and Verdure, as enunciated by Le Corbusier.  It also emphasizes that Corbusier’s Chandigarh, i.e., Phase­I of the city, which is the most representative of Le Corbusier’s thought, is truly worthy of its modern heritage 65 value.   In spite of observing this, it states that eventually three   storeys   with   one   dwelling   unit   per   floor   would   be constructed on these plots. IX. CONSIDERATION OF CITED CASES:­ 78. The provisions of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules as well as Rule 16 of the  2007 Rules fell for consideration in some matters before this Court as well as before the High Court.   79. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the case of   (supra)  considered a Chander Parkash Malhotra   dispute   with   regard   to   House   No.   50,   Sector   10­A, Chandigarh, which, on the death of the original owner, was inherited by his sons and daughters. Some of the legal heirs, i.e., brothers and sisters of Chander Parkash filed a suit for partition of the property in which a preliminary decree came th to be passed by the trial court on 30  September 1983.  In appeal,   the   learned   District   Judge   modified   some   of   the findings   recorded   by   the   trial   court.   Thereafter,   the proceedings for passing of the final decree were taken up by the   trial   court.     A   Local   Commissioner   was   appointed   to suggest the mode of partition, who submitted his report on 66 th 7  February 1989.  The petitioner therein, Chander Prakash, raised his objections to the said report.  The said objections were  rejected  by  the  trial  court.   The  report of  the  Local Commissioner was to the effect that the property in dispute cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds.  The order of the trial court came to be challenged before the High Court by way of revision.  In the revision, the validity of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules was also challenged.  The learned Single Judge, nd vide its judgment dated 22  February 1991, held Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules being  ultra vires  to the Constitution of India and also beyond the powers of the rule­making authority. 80. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge came to be challenged by the Chandigarh Administration before this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chandigarh   Administration (supra).  It will be relevant to refer to Ground ‘G’ of the said appeal, which reads thus: “G.     That   the   Punjab   Capital   (Development   and Regulation) Rules are framed under Section 22 of the Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. The provisions of Section 22 are constitutional and do   not   suffer   from   any   excessive   delegation   of legislative power.   It specifically provides that the rules shall be made for carrying out the purposes of the Act and further lays down the subject matter 67 which  the   rules   have   to  provide.     The   aims   and objects with which the Act is enacted is to vest in the State Government the legal authority to regulate the sale of building sites and to frame building rules on the pattern of Municipal Bye­laws and for the planned development of the town.   The entire Act was purposefully directed to provide a reasonable social control of the urbanization visualized by the creation of  an  altogether new  capital city for the State   from   scratch.   The   pre­eminent   ideas underlying the same were:­ (i) The need and incentive to create an altogether new places where non existed. (ii) That too within the shortest possible time, and (iii) Further to ensure that it conformed to an ideal concept   of   a   planned   city   as   against   the haphazard   urbanization   of   the   mushroom growth of slums which in the ultimate analysis can   even   strangulate   an   existing   town   to extinction.  It was to effectuate these purposes that   the   rules   have   provided   a   ban   on fragmentation   of   sites   and   hence   is   a reasonable restriction on the right of property. Keeping in view the object and the preamble of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the same   have   to   be   viewed   din   a   broader prospective.     The   fundamental   right   under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution are not absolute   rights.     The   Constitution   itself   has imposed reasonable restrictions on its exercise in   the   interest   of   general   public. Consequently, the restriction imposed by Rule 14 in furtherance of the object of the Act has to be judged as a reasonable restriction.” 68 th 81. This   Court,   vide   order   dated   24   November   1992 passed in the case of  (supra), Chandigarh Administration  observed thus: “Leave granted. In   the   present   case,   the   respondents   did   not want   the   partitioning   of   the   plot   by   metes   and bounds.  All that they wanted was the partitioning of the building and additions and alterations therein to make separate living units in the same building. Even this partition as well as addition was to be done by them with the approval of the Chandigarh Administration according to its building bye­laws. Since   no   fragmentation   of   any   site   including   the building was involved, there was no question of the violation   of   rule   14   of   the   Chandigarh Administration (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960. In the  circumstances, it was not necessary to declare rule 14 invalid as the High Court has done. To that extent, we set aside the order of the High Court. It   is   made   clear   that   the   respondents   before partitioning the building or making additions and renovations in the same will take permission of the Chandigarh Administration according to law.   The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no order as to costs.” 82. This   Court   specifically   set   aside   that   part   of   the judgment of the High Court which had held Rule 14 of the 1960  Rules to be unconstitutional.   It could also be seen 69 that, in the said case, the dispute was amongst the legal heirs of the original allottee. 83. It   appears   that,   frustrated   by   the   litigation,   the brothers and sisters of Chander Parkash sold the property to R.B.   Chahal   and   Mrs.   Sukhraj   Chahal.   The   final   decree proceedings reached up to the High Court by way of second appeal in the case of   Sh. Chander Parkash Malhotra v. 13 .     An   application   was   made   by   R.B. Sh.   R.B.S.   Chahal Chahal and Mrs. Sukhraj Chahal for their impleadment since they had purchased shares of co­owners.  The learned Single Judge, while disposing of second appeal vide its judgment st dated 1  December 1993, observed thus: “6.   As already noticed above, property cannot be partitioned   according   to   bye­laws.     The   only alternative left is that the parties be permitted to bid among themselves and whosoever gives the highest bid, be allowed to purchase the property.   In case this mode is not acceptable, the trial court should determine the market value and given option to the appellant   to   purchase   the   share   of   the   added respondents.   In case he fails to do so within the time that the trial court may allow for the purpose, the added respondents be allowed to pay the price of the share of Chander Prakash­appellant.” 13 1993 SCC OnLine P&H 1179 70 84. In   the   case   of   Tilak   Raj   Bakshi   (supra),   the property situated in Chandigarh was owned by one Kripa th Ram   Bakshi.     He   had   executed   a   registered   will   on   4 September 1974 in favour of the plaintiff, the first defendant rd and another son who was the 3  defendant in the suit.  The disputed house was transferred in favour of the aforesaid three persons by the Estate Officer.  The plaintiff had filed a suit claiming that in view of an agreement between the three brothers namely himself, the first defendant and the younger brother, the third defendant, without the concurrence of the plaintiff,   the   first   defendant   could   not   have   sold   the   suit scheduled property to the second defendant.   The second defendant, who was not a part of the family, contended that the plaintiff did not have any preferential right and that he was a   bona fide   purchaser.   The trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to specific relief and declared the sale unit   as   null   and   void.     The   second   defendant   appealed against the said judgment of the trial court. The appeal of the second defendant was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also allowed the cross­appeal filed by the plaintiff   and   directed   the   second   defendant   to   handover 71 possession to the plaintiff.  However, the High Court allowed the second appeal, and the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.  The matter thereafter reached this Court. This Court considered the arguments advanced on 85. behalf   of   the   plaintiff   that   the   same   would   result   in contravention of the  1960  Rules made under the 1952 Act. This Court, further considering certain provisions of the 1952 Act, observed thus: “  From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it 59. becomes clear that the word “site” means any land which is transferred under Section 3 of the 1952 Act. When it comes to the terms of Section 3, it contemplates power with the Central Government to transfer by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or   building   belonging   to   the   Government   in Chandigarh on such terms and conditions as may subject to any Rules that can be made under the Act,   the   Government   thinks   fit   to   impose.   Thus, though   it   is   open   to   the   Central   Government   to transfer   either   land   or   building   belonging   to   the Government in Chandigarh under Section 3 of the 1952 Act, the word “site” is confined to only the land   which   is   transferred   by   the   Central Government   under   Section   3.   In   fact,   the   word “building”,   as   defined   in   the   Act,   points   to   any construction   or   part   of   construction   which   is transferred under Section 3. It includes outhouse, stable, cattle shed and garage and also includes any building   erected   on   any   land   transferred   by   the Central   Government.   The   construction   must   be intended   to   be   used   for   residential,   commercial, industrial or any other purposes. A clear distinction is   maintained   between   “site”   and   “building”.   The 72 Chandigarh   (Sale   of   Sites   and   Buildings)   Rules, 1960 came to be made. Section 22 of the 1952 Act confers   power   upon   the   Central   Government   to make   the   rules   for   various   purposes,   which   are mentioned in sub­section (2). It includes Sections 2( a ), 2( d ), 2( e ) and 2( h ) of the 1952 Act, which read as follows: “ 22. (2)( )  the terms and conditions on which any a land or building may be transferred by the Central Government under this Act; * ( d )  the   terms   and   conditions   under   which   the transfer of any right in any site or building may be permitted; ( e )  erection of any building or the use of any site; * ( h )  the conditions with regard to the buildings to be erected on sites transferred under this Act;”” 86. After reproducing Rule 16 of the  2007  Rules, this Court observed thus: “  It is on the strength of the provisions contained 61. in Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules and Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules that the appellant would argue that the assignment   of   the   share   of   the   first   defendant occasioned   a   breach   of   the   law.   The   second defendant, on the other hand, would point out that there   was   no   issue   of   fragmentation   ever   raised before the courts and the same was not decided in the courts.  It is contended by the second defendant that 62. the sale deed in favour of Respondent 1 specifically says that the sale is in respect of one­third share in the   residential   House   No.   13   of   Sector   19­A, 73 Chandigarh.  After  the  sale deed, it is  contended, one­third share of the party was duly transferred and mutated in the name of Respondent 1­second defendant by the Chandigarh Administration. The High Court, in fact, tides over this objection by the appellant   by   pointing   out   that   once   the   second defendant   steps   into   the   shoes   of   the   first defendant, he became a co­owner and his remedy is to   sue   for   partition   and   while   fragmentation   of property, is not “admissible”, the market value of the property can be determined, and buying each other's share, as per the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. 63.  While   it   may   not   be   true   that   the   issue   of fragmentation   was   not   raised   in   the   courts,   we would   think   that   the   appellant   is   not   able   to persuade us to hold that the assignment in favour of the second defendant is vulnerable on the basis that it involves fragmentation. We have noticed the deposition   of   the   plaintiff   about   partition   of   the house into three portions. We have noted the fact that one­third share has been duly transferred and mutated in the name of the first respondent­second defendant by the Chandigarh Administration.” 64.  The   second   defendant   has   produced   the communication dated 19­12­1997 which indicates the transfer of rights of site in Sector 19­A held by Vishnu   Dutt   Mehta   (first   defendant)   is   noted   in favour of the second defendant subject to certain conditions. This is obviously before the 2007 Rules came into force. 65.  In the light of the aforesaid facts, we cannot permit the appellant to impugn the transaction on the said ground.” 74 87. It could thus clearly be seen that, in the said case also,   the   property   was   bequeathed   to   plaintiff,   the   first defendant and another brother who was the third defendant. The second defendant had purchased the property from the first defendant and as such, he became a co­owner.   The Court  found  that  the  assignment  in favour  of the  second defendant was not vulnerable on the basis that it involved fragmentation.  However, it also noted the deposition of the plaintiff about partition of the house into three portions.  It rd also noted that the 1/3   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 th defendant   subject   to   certain   conditions   on   19   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 14 Another ,   again there was a dispute between three siblings 14 Regular Second Appeal No. 1562 of 2012 dated 28.05.2019 75 – a brother and two sisters.  The dispute was with regard to House No. 2174, Sector 44­C, Chandigarh.  The sisters had th relied on the family settlement dated 13  June 2000.  Arvind Kumar   filed   a   suit   seeking   a   declaration   that   the   family th settlement dated 13  June 2000 was obtained by fraud and as such, not binding on him.   One of the sisters namely Sangeeta   Chopra   sought   a   declaration   that   she   was   the owner of the first floor of the said house and that she be given   possession   of   the   said   property   along   with   mesne profits/damages, as the brother Arvind Kapoor had illegally occupied the same.  The other sister also supported the claim of Sangeeta Chopra.  With regard to scope of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules, the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated th 28  May 2019, observed thus: “ 29.  …. Yet, even if it were to be presumed that a purely   legal   question   can   be   raised   even   at   this stage, with this  Court itself to decide  on  it as  a substantial question of law, I would hold that as a matter of fact legal partition of the suit property has not  been   sought  by   respondent   Sangeeta   Chopra once she withdrew her claim to ownership of the first floor thereof because of the statutory bar on such partition.   Seeking possession of a particular floor   of   the   property,   in   terms   of   the   family settlement reached voluntarily between the parties, would   not   legally   amount   to   partial   partition, 76 especially in the face of the fact that such partition in   any   case   is   statutorily   barred   by   the aforementioned rule, i.e., Rule 14 of the Chandigarh (Sales of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960. It   is   to   be   specifically   noticed   that   the applicability of the said rule or the enactment under which   the   rules   have   been   promulgated,   is   not denied by either party. Further, as noticed above, there is no statutory bar on possession/occupation of individual floors, as long as joint ownership is not partitioned.” 89. It thus appears that Sangeeta Chopra withdrew her claim to ownership of the first floor of the property because of the statutory bar on such partition and restricted her claim for seeking possession of a particular floor of the property in terms of the family settlement.  The High Court therefore held that the same would not legally amount to partial partition. It held that there is no statutory bar on possession/occupation on   individual   floors,   as   long   as   joint   ownership   is   not partitioned. 90. It is thus clear that all the aforesaid cases arose out of the dispute between the legal heirs of the original allottee, who   became   co­owner   of   the   property   on   the   demise   of original allottee.  Whenever any share of co­owner was sold to 77 an outsider, it was held that such a purchaser stepped into the shoes of one of the co­owners and as a co­owner, he was entitled to the share of the property.  Insofar as the case of   (supra) is 91. Tilak Raj Bakshi   concerned,   this   Court   has   specifically   observed   that   the rights   of   the   first   defendant   were   already   transferred   in favour   of   the   second   defendant   prior   to   the  2007  Rules coming into force. X. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES: 92. Permitting co­owners of a building and site to occupy a   particular   part   of   the   building   as   per   the   family arrangement/settlement,   is   a   matter   totally   different   than permitting   construction   of   a   building,   which   would   have three apartments, and then selling the same to three different persons. 93. It   is   relevant   to   note   that   the  2001  Rules   had introduced   the   concept   of   apartments   in   the   city   of Chandigarh.     The   said   Rules   permitted   sub­division   of   a building duly recognized by the Estate Officer.   Each sub­ division   of   a   building   was   recognized   as   a   distinct, 78 identifiable   property   to   which   the   owner/lessee   had   title along with the proportionate right in the declared common areas and common facilities.  The 2001 Rules also permitted any residential building situated on a residential plot to be sub­divided into separate dwelling units, with not more than one dwelling unit on each floor.  94. Since   the   citizens   of   Chandigarh   opposed apartmentalization, the  2001  Rules came to be repealed on st th 1   October 2007.   Immediately thereafter on 7   November 2007, the  2007  Rules came to be notified.   Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules specifically prohibited fragmentation of a site or building.     Although   fragmentation   of   any   site   could   be allowed,   if   such   fragmentation   was   permitted   under   any scheme notified by the Administration; admittedly, no such scheme  is   notified.     As   such,   the   effect  is   that   though  a building   was   permitted   to   be   converted   into   apartments between the year 2001 and 2007, the same is not permitted after the year 2007. 95. When   the   draft  CMP­2031  was   published,   it   was proposed to re­introduce the 2001 Rules, through which sub­ 79 division of residential plots of 1000 sq. yards and above into two dwelling units on each floor was to be permitted.   The residential buildings on plots of less than 1000 sq. yards were   to   be   permitted   with   floor­wise   sub­division   into separate dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit on each floor of the building.  The said Board was constituted to   consider   the   objections/suggestions   to   the   draft   CMP­ 2031.   The said Board considered various aspects such as recommendations   of   the   Heritage   Committee,   which   were accepted  by   the  Government  of  India.     It  also  considered recommendations   of   the   Heritage   Committee   that   the northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh   (Corbusian   Chandigarh) should be preserved in their present form as far as possible, that no further enhancement should be given in FAR. The said Board considered that the concept of redensification in general would go against the heritage of the city.   The   said   Board   also   considered   that   individual 96. developments of apartments in plots will result in increase in density in the areas of the city that are most profitable to the developers,   rather   than   where   these   housing   units   are 80 actually required.  It considered that introduction of the 2001 Rules will most essentially create apartments in the higher cost bracket of saleable units, and is unlikely to create any low income or mid income housing.  It also considered that the demand in the city was for lower income and middle­ income   housing   rather   than   housing   for   the   rich   and affluent. It also considered that if the re­introduction of the 2001 Rules is permitted, it will lead to proliferation of slums required   to   service   the   higher   density   of   highest   income group people.   It is to be noted that one of the salient features of Le 97. Corbusier’s  design  was that the population density in the northern sectors was to be low, which increases towards the southern sectors.   Chandigarh city has been planned as a low­rise city and has been so developed that even after sixty years of its inception, it retains its original concept to a large extent. 98. One of the guiding principles that weighed with the said Board was that Chandigarh had Heritage Value, and it was important to preserve and maintain the integrity of the 81 original concepts and planning postulates of Sun, Space and Verdure.  Another principle that weighed with the said Board was   that   any   redevelopment   in   northern   sectors   (Phase­I) should only be done keeping the recommendations of the Heritage Committee in mind.   Another guiding factor was that the same practices as followed while developing the New Delhi Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi) be followed in respect of the city of Chandigarh.  The architecture of the city was to be preserved and retained in sync with Le Corbusier’s vision. The low­rise character of the city needs to be maintained. The recommendations of the said Board had been accepted while notifying the CMP­2031. 99. It   is   important   to   note   that   the  CMP­2031  itself states   that   Phase­I   Sectors   have   been   recommended   for Heritage status, and that the re­utilization of the identified housing/institutional pockets in the first phase has to be undertaken   with   the   prior   approval   of   the   Heritage Committee. Having observed this at one place, it is difficult to apprehend as to how, though the CMP­2031 observed that by the year 2001 itself, the planned density of 16 per acre in 82 Phase­I has been exceeded, it estimated the holding capacity to be 34 per acre.  It also records that as per 2001 Census, the density in Phase­I was 26 per acre. The  CMP­2031  thereafter  observes  that  under  the 100. regulations, all private plots can build up to three floors with each   floor   having   the   potential   of   having   an   independent unit. It further observes that there are approximately 23000 private plots of all categories within the sectoral grid of the Chandigarh   Master   Plan.   It   assumes   that   each   plot   will eventually be built upto 3 storeys with one unit per floor, taking the number of dwelling units to 69000 approximately. 101. It also recognized that the “Corbusian Chandigarh” title   given   to   Phase­I   of   the   city,   which   is   the   most representative of Le Corbusier's thought and philosophy, is truly worthy of recognition for its Modern Heritage Value. It further records that Sectors 1 to 30 are planned and detailed out by the original team in fulfillment of the CIAM principles of Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit and Circulation.    The  CMP­2031  also   recommends   that   concerted 102. efforts should be made for getting the world heritage status 83 for Chandigarh in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Archeological Survey of India.  It also records that it has been perceived that Chandigarh’s inscription on the World heritage list would bring many benefits as the city would   join   a   select   list   of   other   modern   movement cities/urban   areas   currently   inscribed   on   the   UNESCO’s heritage list. 103. It will be pertinent to note that in the appeal filed before   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chandigarh Administration  (supra), which was filed by the Chandigarh Administration challenging the judgment of the High Court holding Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules to be unconstitutional, it was specifically submitted that Rule 14 of the  1960  Rules was   enacted   in   order   to   restrict   the   further   growth   of Chandigarh city.  It had been submitted that the 1960 Rules provide a ban on fragmentation of sites and as such, was a reasonable restriction on the right of property.  It is further to be   noted   that   even   in   the   reply   filed   on   behalf   of   the Chandigarh Administration in the present proceedings before the High Court, it had been averred thus:  84 “10. That the contents of paragraph 10 as stated are wrong and denied. The Chandigarh Administration does not permit a residential house to be converted into an apartment on account of the fact that "The Chandigarh   Apartment   Rules   2001"   now   stand repealed.   However,   the   architectural   controls   and building bye­laws are of the highest standards, even otherwise the Estate Office maintains a strict vigil on the construction activities/ compliance of Rules and   Building   Bye­Laws   in   UT   Chandigarh. Therefore, contrary to the claims of the petitioner, the character of Chandigarh is intact.  11. That the contents of paragraph 11 as stated are wrong   and   denied.   However,   there   is   no   bar   on alienation/transfer of a share in a property by a true owner, as it is permissible as per the provisions of the enactments and the recognized principles of civil law referred above. Therefore, an owner of a freehold residential house is permitted to sell his share or a part of the shares in the said house. It is further submitted that no floor wise sale of property is   permissible   under   the   Capital   of   Punjab (Development   &   Regulations)"   Act,   1952.   The contents of the preliminary objections as well as the preliminary submissions may also be read as a part and parcel of this paragraph.” 104. It   can   thus   clearly   be   seen   that   Chandigarh Administration   has   reiterated   its   stand   that   it   does   not permit residential house to be converted into an apartment on   account   of   the   fact   that   the  2001  Rules   now   stand repealed.   It   however   stated   that   there   is   no   bar   on alienation/transfer of a share in a property by a true owner, 85 as it is permissible as per the provisions of the enactments and the recognized principles of civil law.  It is stated that an owner of a freehold residential house is permitted to sell his share or a part of the shares in the said house.  However, it is reiterated that no floor­wise sale of property is permissible under the 1952 Act. 105. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   vide   an th interim order dated 27  July 2021, reproduced the stand of Chandigarh   Administration.     It   also   noticed   that   in   the th subsequent affidavit dated 20   July 2021 of the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh, it was specifically deposed that no sale of defined portion/plot of building is permissible, nor any   such   sale   has   been   recognized   by   the   Chandigarh Administration except those registered during the year 2001 to 2007 when the 2001 Rules were in vogue. Since the Division Bench was seized of the matter, it 106. thought   it   was   appropriate   to   scan   through   the advertisements that were published in news dailies in the recent past, having circulation in the city, so as to find out whether any floor­wise sale of dwelling units is advertised.  It 86 th noticed that in the Sunday Tribune dated 25   July 2021 itself, as many as 24 advertisements were published inviting the purchasers/investors to purchase independent floors.  In this   order   itself,   the   High   Court   has   reproduced   such advertisements.  After reproducing such advertisements, the Division Bench observed thus:  “The   afore­reproduced   advertisement(s)   lend credence to the assertion raised on behalf of the petitioners that under the garb of sale of certain percentage share of a residential unit independent floors are being sold.  We find that the written statement filed on behalf of   the   official   respondents/   Chandigarh Administration as also the subsequent affidavit of the Assistant Estate Officer is totally silent on such aspect. In our view, the Chandigarh Administration ought   to   have   been   alive   to   such   situation   and particularly   when   there   were   specific   averments made in the present petition which was filed way back in the year 2016. Being in a state of denial on paper would not suffice. In the fitness of things, the Administration should have carried out some kind of physical verification to ascertain as to whether such  modus   operandi  had   been  resorted   to  after repeal of the Apartment Rules, 2001. Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned Senior Standing counsel on a specific query   having   been   put,   concedes   that   no   such verification has been carried out.  We   are   constrained   to   observe   that   UT Administration has chosen to skirt a vital issue that has been raised in the instant petition. In view of the above we direct UT Administration to forthwith carry out an exercise whereby in the first instance the   properties/buildings   would   be   identified   from 87 the office of the Estate Officer where the record of the rights is maintained wherein sale of share(s) be it to the extent of 50%, 30% or 20% has been sold/ transferred to a  person outside  the family  of the original owner/ shareholder. The second step would be   to   carry   out   a   physical   inspection   of   such identified buildings/dwelling units to find out as to whether the sale of share(s) has actually translated into the buyer occupying an independent floor in the otherwise composite dwelling unit or to find out as to whether independent floors are in the process of being constructed commensurate to the share(s) that has been purchased in such dwelling unit. It would be open for the official respondents to seek the cooperation/ assistance of the concerned police authorities/law   enforcement   agencies   to   facilitate the carrying out of the physical inspection of the premises in  question.  We  further  direct that  this entire exercise be carried out under the supervision of the Chief Architect, UT Chandigarh.  To ensure that such exercise does not become overly   time   consuming   and   the   object   is   only towards a fact finding exercise we are of the view that it ought to be a sample exercise. The same be confined   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   instant petition till 31.12.2019. Still further the exercise to confine only with regard to residential buildings.” 107. It is thus clear that the Division Bench found that the   written   statement   filed   on   behalf   of   the   Chandigarh Administration   as   also   the   subsequent   affidavit   of   the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh is totally silent on the aspect of advertisements of sale of independent floors.   It 88 observed   that,   Chandigarh   Administration   ought   to   have been  alive   to  such   situation,   and   particularly   when   there were   specific   averments   made   to   that   effect   in   the   writ petition which was filed way back in the year 2016.   The Division Bench observed that the Chandigarh Administration should have carried out some kind of physical verification to ascertain as to whether the aforementioned  modus operandi had been resorted to after the repeal of the 2001 Rules.  The High Court recorded the contention of the Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration that no such verification has been carried out.  The Division Bench thereafter   issued   a   direction   to   the   Chandigarh Administration   to   forthwith   carry   out   an   exercise   in   two steps.  In the first step, the properties/buildings were to be identified   from   the   office   of   the   Estate   Officer   where   the record of the rights is maintained wherein share(s) be it to the extent of 50%, 30% or 20% has been sold/transferred to a   person   outside   the   family   of   the   original owner/shareholder.   The   second   step   was   to   carry   out physical   inspection   of   such   identified   buildings/dwelling units   to   find   out   as   to   whether   the   sale   of   share(s)   has 89 actually translated into the buyer occupying an independent floor in the otherwise composite dwelling unit or to find out as to whether independent floors are in the process of being constructed,   commensurate   to   the   share(s)  that   has   been purchased in such dwelling unit. 108. It   is   thus   clear   that   when   the   interim   order   was th passed on 27  July 2021, the Division Bench was conscious   of   the   fact   that   even   according   to   the   Chandigarh Administration,   it   was   not   permissible   to   construct apartments   on   the   sites   allotted   and   sell   it   to   different persons.  It is informed that, in pursuance to the directions th of   the   High   Court   dated   27   July   2021,   a   survey   was conducted and it was found that 891 sites were converted into three apartments each. 109. From the material placed on record, it appears that the  modus operandi  that is devised by the developers is that the allottee of the house would convey 50% of the share to the first purchaser, 30% to the second purchaser and 20% to the   third   purchaser.   Thereafter,   all   the   three   purchasers would enter into either a settlement deed or a Memorandum 90 of Understanding (MoU) under which the party having 50% share of the house is entitled to the entire ground floor with basement  including  the  back  courtyard  but  excluding  the front courtyard and the staircase.   The second purchaser having 30% share in the house would be entitled to the entire first   floor   excluding   the   staircase.     The   third   purchaser having 20% share of the house would be entitled to the entire second   floor   including   the   roof   of   the   second   floor   but excluding the staircase.   110. It will be relevant to refer to the recitals in one of nd such settlement deeds executed on 2  May 2013, which read thus: “Whereas   as   per   the   present   rules   of   the   Estate Office it could not been mentioned in the Sale Deed that the possession of which floor/portion/area has been given to the purchaser so this MOU has been executed between the parties to avoid any future misunderstanding/litigation   among   all   the   co­ owners   of   the   said   house   in   respect   of   their respective possession in the said house in lieu of their  respective  shares  in the  said house so  this MOU has been executed between the parties and all the   parties   have   agreed   with   each   other   on   the following terms and conditions.” 111. It is thus clear that, the parties who entered into such an MoU, were conscious of the fact that as per the Rules of the Estate Office, it could not be mentioned in the 91 sale deed that the possession of particular floor is given to the purchaser.   It asserts that the MoU has been executed between   the   parties   to   avoid   any   future misunderstanding/litigation amongst all the co­owners of the said house in respect of their respective possession in the said   house   in   lieu   of   their   respective   shares   in   the   said house.   It will also be relevant to refer to Clause 12 of the 112. nd said Settlement Deed dated 2  May 2013, which reads thus:  “12.     That   from   now   on   all   the   parties   shall hereafter   peacefully   hold,   use   and   enjoy   their respective portions as their own property without any   hindrance,   interruption,   claim   or   demand whatsoever from each other.  But as the parties are owners of different portions in one common house, they will be dependent upon each other in many ways in their day to day lives.  So they should try to co­exist amicably with each other as brothers and sisters and family members, always keeping in mind the necessities, comforts, rights and feelings of each other   and   try   to   sort   out   any   differences, discomforts and dissatisfactions in a peaceful and dignified manner.”   113. It is thus clear that the MoU clearly states that all the   parties,   after   entering   into   such   a   document,   would peacefully hold, use and enjoy their respective portions as their   own   property   without   any   hindrance,   interruption, 92 claim or demand whatsoever from each other.  No doubt, it states that since the parties are owners of different portions and would be dependent upon each other in many ways, they should try to co­exist amicably with each other as brothers and sisters and family members. 114. According   to   the   High   Court,   the   said   does   not amount to fragmentation, which is prohibited by Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules.  The High Court has held that fragmentation will take place only where there is a division of the plot or division   of   the   building   with   an   element   of   exclusive ownership that is by partition by metes and bounds.   115. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   meaning   of “fragment”   and   “fragmentation”,   as   per   Webster’s Encyclopedic   Unabridged   Dictionary   of   the   English Language, which reads thus: “ Frag.ment  (frag’ment), n. –  1.  a part broken off or detached: scattered fragments of rock.   2.   a portion that is unfinished or incomplete: Fragments of his latest novel were penciled in odd places.   3.   an odd piece, bit, or scrap. – v.i.  4.  to disintegrate; collapse or   break   into   fragments:   The   chair   fragmented under his weight. – v.t.  5.  to break (something) into pieces or fragments; cause to disintegrate: The vase was fragmented in shipment.   Outside influences 93 soon   fragmented   the   culture.     6.     to   divide   into fragments;   disunify.     [ME   <   L   fragment   (um)   a broken   piece,   remnant,   equiv.   to   frag   –   (s.   of frangere to break) + ­ mentum – MENT] Frag.men.ta.tion   (frag’men’ta’shen), n. –   1.   act or process of fragmenting; state of being fragmented.     the   disintegration,   collapse,   or   breakdown   of 2. norms of thought, behavior, or social relationship. 3.   the pieces of an exploded fragmentation bomb or grenade. [FRAGMENT + ­ ATION]” 116. A   perusal   of   the   aforesaid   clauses   from   the settlement deeds, which have been reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that the understanding between the parties is that they are independent owners of different floors.  It would also reveal that as per their understanding also, the present Rules of the Estate Office, would not permit to mention in the sale deed   that   the   possession   of   which   floor/portion/area   has been given the purchaser.  In any case, what is to be found is the   real   intention   behind   the   transaction.   When   the transaction clearly shows that it is being entered into for the purpose of constructing three different apartments on each floor   and   also mentions  that  the  same  is  not  permissible under the existing rules, the intention of the parties is to construct three different units which are disintegrated. This 94 is   nothing   else   but   fragmentation.   In   our   view,   it   is   an attempt to by­pass the statutory prohibition.  117. It will also be relevant to refer to an undertaking which the owner is required to furnish in an application for obtaining the occupation certificate: “ UNDERTAKING OF OWNER ………. 6. I/We do hereby certify that buildings will be used for residential purposes as per allotment letter and its   use   will   not   be   changed   or   converted   into Apartments   without   obtaining   written   permission from the competent authority.” 118. The   application   which   is   to   be   made   in   the   said format is still in vogue.  In the teeth of such an undertaking and the specific stand of Chandigarh Administration that it does not permit construction of apartments, it is difficult to appreciate as to how building plans have been sanctioned which   ex­facie   show   that   they   are   nothing   else   but apartments. 119. It   is   thus   clear   that   the   modus   operandi   of   the developers is, in effect, resulting into apartmentalization of the buildings. What is not permissible in law after the repeal 95 st of 2001 Rules on 1  October 2007, and enactment of Rule 16 of the  2007  Rules, is indirectly being permitted under the guise of sale of shares and subsequent MoUs. It is also to be noted that though an attempt was made in the draft CMP­ 2031   to   reintroduce   the   provision   for   apartments,   after considering the objections, it was decided to delete the same from the final CMP­2031.  As already stated hereinabove, on account   of   such   transactions,   number   of   sites   have   been purchased through the aforesaid   modus operandi ; buildings were   demolished   and   three   apartments   were   constructed thereon. 120. The High Court in the impugned judgment though holds that it is not permissible to construct apartments in view of repeal of the 2001 Rules, goes on to hold that the said would not amount to apartmentalization, inasmuch as there is no sub­division of a building duly recognized by the Estate Officer along with the proportionate share in common areas and   common  facilities.     It holds  that by  virtue  of  sale  of share(s) by a co­owner and thereafter, the purchaser/vendee occupying a specific portion of the building on the basis of an 96 internal   arrangement/understanding,   “sub­division   of building” as contemplated under the  2001  Rules does not take place.  In our considered view, the said reasoning is not sustainable in the teeth of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules. If the reasoning which is adopted by the High Court 121. is to be accepted, then it will lead to a situation wherein, as aforementioned, what is not directly permissible in law, is being   indirectly   permitted.   Therefore,   in   our   view,   the reasoning of the High Court would not be tenable in law. As   stated   hereinabove,   the   CMP­2031  itself   states 122. that   since   Phase­I   Sectors   have   been   recommended   for heritage   status,   the   re­utilization   of   the   identified housing/institutional pockets in the first Phase has to be undertaken   only   with   the   prior   approval   of   the   Heritage Committee.  Even in the report of the said Board, it has been specifically   stated   that   the   Heritage   Committee   has recommended   that   northern   sectors   of   Chandigarh (Corbusian Chandigarh) should be preserved in their present form   as   far   as   possible.     It   is   also   stated   that   general redensification is not recommended.  It has considered that 97 the   Heritage   Committee   has   taken   a   serious   note   of   the relaxations in FAR and building controls already given earlier and has recommended that no further relaxation be given and   has   also   recommended   that   the   relaxations   already granted should be revoked. 123. This Court in the case of  Bangalore Medical Trust 15 v.   B.S.   Muddappa   and   Others ,   while  considering   the provisions   of   Bangalore   Development   Authority   Act,   1976, has considered an issue with regard to deviation from duly sanctioned scheme thereby sacrificing the public interest in the preservation and protection of environment.   It will be apposite   to   reproduce   certain   observations   made   in   the aforesaid judgment, which read thus:  “ 18.  ….…Any unauthorised deviation from the duly   sanctioned   scheme   by   sacrificing   the public   interest   in   the   preservation   and protection   of   the   environment   by   means   of open space for parks and play grounds and 'ventilation' will be contrary to the legislative intent, and an abuse of the statutory power vested in the authorities…” 24.  Protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play grounds for children,   promenade   for   the   residents,   and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern and of vital interest to be 15 (1991) 4 SCC 54 98 taken care of in a development scheme. It is that   public   interest   which   is   sought   to   be promoted by the Act by establishing the BDA. The   public   interest   in   the   reservation   and preservation of open spaces for parks and play grounds   cannot   be   sacrificed   by   leasing   or selling   such   sites   to   private   persons   for conversion to some other user. Any such act would be contrary to the legislative intent and inconsistent with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, it would be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate to ensure that any State action is inspired by the basic values of individual freedom and dignity and addressed to   the   attainment   of   a   quality   of   life   which makes the guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens.   …….Emphasis on open air and greenery 36. 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. 16 Union   of   India   and   Others ,   this   Court  enunciated   the difference between developed and developing countries  vis­à­ vis   planned   development   and   observed   that   the   object   of planned   development   had   been   achieved   by   developed countries by rigorous enforcement of master plans prepared after careful study of complex issues, scientific research and 16 (2009) 15 SCC 705 99 rationalisation   of   laws   and   concluded   that   developed countries   had   laid   great   emphasis   on   the   planned development of cities.  It was further observed that the people of developed 125. countries had greatly contributed to the concept of planned development   of   cities   by   strictly   adhering   to   the   planning laws, the  Master Plan  etc. and that they respect the laws enacted by the legislature for regulating planned development of the cities and seldom is there a complaint of violation of Master Plan etc. in the construction of buildings, residential, institutional or commercial. On the other hand, the scenario in developing countries like ours was substantially different. Though, the competent legislatures have, from time to time, enacted laws for ensuring planned development of the cities and   urban  areas,  enforcement thereof  has   been extremely poor and the people have violated the master plans, zoning plans and building regulations and bye­laws with impunity. This Court observed as under: “ 74.  …………. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorized constructions, the officers of   the   municipal   and   other   regulatory bodies turn a blind eye either due to the 100 influence   of   higher   functionaries   of   the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan etc. and those who directly or indirectly abet such violations are totally unmindful of the grave consequences of their actions and/or omissions on the present as well as future   generations   of   the   country   which will be forced to live in unplanned cities and urban areas. The people belonging to this   class   do   not   realize   that   the constructions   made   in   violation   of   the relevant   laws,   master   plan   or   zonal development   plan   or   sanctioned   building plan or the building is used for a purpose other   than   the   one   specified   in   the relevant statute or the master plan etc., such constructions put unbearable burden on   the   public   facilities/amenities   like water, electricity, sewerage etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads ………  Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments 75. by this Court and High Courts, the builders and   other   affluent   people   engaged   in   the construction   activities,   who   have,   over   the years   shown   scant   respect   for   regulatory mechanism   envisaged   in   the   municipal   and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal   development   plans,   sanctioned   plans etc., have received encouragement and support from the State  apparatus. As and when the courts   have   passed  orders   or   the  officers  of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance of laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the   illegal/unauthorized   constructions,   those 101 in   power   have   come   forward   to   protect   the wrong doers either by issuing administrative orders   or   enacting   laws   for   regularization   of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the name   of   compassion   and   hardship.   Such actions   have   done   irreparable   harm   to   the concept of planned development of the cities and urban areas.   It is high time that the executive   and   political   apparatus   of   the State take serious view of the menace of illegal   and   unauthorized   constructions and   stop   their   support   to   the   lobbies   of affluent class of builders and others, else even   the  rural   areas   of   the  country  will soon witness similar chaotic conditions. ” [ ] Emphasis supplied A strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the 126. respondents on the provisions of the 2017 Rules.  It has been submitted that the 2017 Rules clearly permit construction of three storeys.  It is submitted that ‘storey’ has been defined to mean any horizontal division of a building so constructed as to be capable of use as a living apartment, although such horizontal division may not extend over the whole depth or width of the building but shall not include mezzanine floor. It is   therefore   submitted   that  when  the   2017   Rules   itself permit   construction   of   three   storeys   having   independent kitchens etc. and the 2017 Rules having not been challenged, 102 it is not permissible for the appellants to argue that three persons   cannot   be   permitted   to   occupy   three   different dwelling units on each storey. We are unable to accept the said argument.  It is a 127. different matter that three co­sharers decide to construct a building for residential house and construct three storeys for occupation   by   each   of   the   co­sharers.     However,   allowing such   modus operandi   to continue, which, in effect, nullifies the effect of repeal of the 2001 Rules, enactment of the 2007 Rules,   and   recalling   an   attempt   to   reintroduce apartmentalization   in   the   draft   CMP­2031,   would   be permitting   to   do   something   indirectly   which   is   not permissible in law. 128. Another   aspect   that   needs   to   be   taken   into consideration is that the CMP­2031 as well as the report of the   said   Board   emphasizes   that   in  order   to  maintain  the “Corbusian Chandigarh” status of Phase­I of Chandigarh, no redensification is to be done without the permission of the Heritage   Committee.   Undisputedly,   permitting   three apartments   to   be   constructed   in   one   dwelling   unit   would 103 result   in   increasing   the   density   in   population   in   the   Le Corbusier zone.   This, in our view, cannot be done without the same being approved by the Heritage Committee and the Central Government. It further needs to be noted that one of the guiding 129. principles that has been taken into consideration by the said Board is that the same practices which were followed while developing the New Delhi Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi) be followed in respect of the city of Chandigarh.  Insofar as the practices   that   were   followed   while   developing   New   Delhi Municipal area (Lutyen’s Delhi), a Bench consisting of three learned Judges of this Court had an occasion to consider the same   in   the   case   of   New   Delhi   Municipal   Council   and Others v. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited and 17 Others , wherein this Court observed thus:  “  On   1­8­1990,   the   Master   Plan,   2001   was 6. approved wherein it was specifically mentioned that the   bungalow   character   of   LBZ   needs   to   be preserved. The Master Plan even without specifically mentioning   LBZ   guidelines   visualised   similar treatment of LBZ so as to maintain the low density area without in any manner adversely affecting the 17 (2008) 8 SCC 765 104 green cover in the area. On 27­7­1993 objections were invited to the Zonal Development Plan whereas on 25­5­1994 the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 came into force.” 130. In   the   said   case,   this   Court   was   considering   an appeal challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court vide which it was held that the order rejecting building   plans   submitted   by   the   respondents   for   the construction   of   a   15   storeyed   building   in   the   Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) was illegal.  Vide the said judgment of the   High   Court,   the   New   Delhi   Municipal   Council   was directed   to   return   the   building   plans   submitted   by   the respondents   with   an endorsement   “sanctioned”  within  the time   specified   in   the   order.     This   Court,   however,   vide th judgment dated 28  August 2008, set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal in the following terms: “ 47.  On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,   this   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that   the respondents   would   be   entitled   to   construct bungalow   on   their   plot   of   land,   in   terms   of guidelines dated 8­2­1988 and that they would not be entitled to construct fifteen dwelling units which is   quite   contrary   to   those   guidelines.   The   record does   not   indicate   that   the   building   plans   of   the respondents   are   fully   compliant   with   the requirements of the Delhi Master Plan, 2001 and 105 the   Delhi   Bye­Laws,   1983   and,   therefore,   the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.” Though, it may not be strictly possible to adhere to 131. the practices that are followed in LBZ, when the report of the said   Board   as   well   as   the   CMP­2031   emphasizes   on   the approval  of   the   Heritage   Committee   before   permitting   any redensification   in   the   Le   Corbusier   zone,   the   Chandigarh Administration could not have made the provisions in the CMP­2031 permitting redensification without the approval of the Heritage Committee.   A perusal of the CMP­2031 itself would reveal that 132. the Expert Committee observes that Chandigarh’s inscription on UNESCO’s World Heritage list would bring many benefits as   the   city   would   join   a   select   list   of   other   modern cities/urban areas currently inscribed on it.  In our view, in this background, providing something which would adversely affect the heritage status of the Le Corbusier Zone, without the   approval   of   the   Heritage   Committee,   would   not   be permissible. 106 The material placed on record would clearly reveal 133. that Phase­I was designed for a low­rise plotted development with a greenbelt at the Centre running north east to south east.   Wide roads planned in a systematic hierarchy provide structure   to   the   city   which   has   well   planned   facilities. Landscaped   green   avenues   give   it  amenity   value.     In  our view, permitting anything which would have an adverse effect on the heritage status of the city without the approval of the Heritage Committee itself would be contrary to the CMP­2031 and the report of the said Board. 134. Insofar   as   the   contention   raised   on   behalf   of   the respondents that the restriction on transfer of property would not be permissible in view of the provisions of the TP Act is concerned, it is to be noted that in the case of   Chander Parkash Malhotra  (supra), the High Court had held Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules to be     to the Constitution of ultra vires India.     However,   in   an   appeal   filed   by   the   Chandigarh Administration, this Court set aside the said order of the High Court.  Apart from that, it is to be noted that Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules and Rule 16 of the  2007  Rules have been 107 enacted under the 1952 Act.  It is a settled law that in case of a   conflict   between   a   special   provision   and   a   general provision,   the   special   provision   prevails   over   the   general provision   and   the   general   provision   applies   only   to   such cases   which   are   not   covered   by   the   special   provision. Reliance in this respect is to be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of  J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills 18 , Co.,   Ltd.   v.  The State of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  Others which has been consistently followed by this Court. We may also gainfully refer to the observations of a 135. Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case 19 of  , Dheera Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh Admn. and Others wherein the Full Bench has held that “The Parliament, in no uncertain   terms,   has   expressed   through   a   non   obstante clause contained in Section 424­A of the Punjab Municipal Corporation (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 that the provisions   of   the   1952   Act   shall   operate   and   have   an overriding effect.”  We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Full Bench. 18 [1961] 3 SCR 185 19 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21473 108 Another   aspect   that   needs   to   be   taken   into 136. consideration is that, as observed in the interim order of the th High   Court   dated   27   July   2021,   the   Chandigarh Administration has not been alive to the situation.   Taking into   consideration   the   importance   of   the   matter,   we   had directed   the   Estate   Officer   to   remain   present   during   the proceedings of the hearing.   Accordingly, Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, Estate Officer, was personally present.   The Estate Officer   also   agreed   that   though   CMP­2031   is   opposed   to apartmentalization   and   redensification,   under   the   2017 Rules there was no restriction to construct three independent units by co­owners.  One aspect that needs to be taken into consideration   is   that   though   under   the   2017   Rules,   one dwelling unit is being permitted to be converted into three dwelling units, there is no adequate provision for parking. The Estate Officer also agreed that there was a huge problem of parking in the city of Chandigarh.   This aspect had also not been taken into consideration while notifying the 2017 Rules.  It is difficult to appreciate as to how on one hand, the Chandigarh   Administration   is   taking   a   stand   that apartmentalization is not permissible and on the other hand, 109 turning Nelson’s eye  when plans, which   ex­facie   amount to apartmentalization,   are   being   submitted   and   sanctioned under its very nose.  It is further pertinent to note that in the CMP­2031 137. itself, the Expert Committee has recommended thus: “ Master Plan Committees’ recommendation Preparation   and   notification   of   Heritage Regulations  should be prioritized.   The earlier approved Draft Notification prepared at the time of   preparation   of   the   UNESCO   Nomination Dossier   and   the   Model   Heritage   Regulations issued by the GOI can be used as a reference. To   prevent   undue   change   or   damage   to   the historic   and   cultural   value   of   Le   Corbusier’s   must be issued not to urbanism, interim orders 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.”  It   has   been   recommended   that   to   prevent   undue 138. change or damage to the historic and cultural value of Le Corbusier’s urbanism, interim orders must not be issued to make any modifications in the heritage areas approved by the Government of India, the circulation structure, the generic sector, architectural control and the plantations.  110 Judicial notice can be taken of the creation of the 139. city of Brasilia as the capital of Brazil.  From the website of the “UNESCO World Heritage Convention”, it could be seen that the city was planned by urban planner Lucio Costa and architect Oscar Niemeyer.  It will be interesting to note that while planning the said city, urban living as promoted by Le Corbusier and his treatise titled “ How to Conceive Urbanism ” served as an inspiration. It is worthwhile to note that in spite of various changes,  Lucio Costa’s Pilot Project (Plano Piloto) still  remains preserved.  It  will be apposite  to refer to the following extract from the said website: “The urban framework of Brasilia includes all of the elements   required   to   demonstrate   outstanding universal   value.   A  city   that   is   at   once   urbs   and civitas, Brasilia has preserved its original guiding principles intact, as reflected in the protection of its urban scales, legally protected by local and federal organisms of government of the country.  The city finds itself today in the midst of a process of   consolidation,   in   accordance   with   its   dual function as city and capital, through the continuing implementation   of   new   urban   services   and structures.   The   World   Heritage   property   is vulnerable to urban development pressure including increased traffic and public transport requirements. The city’s various sectors, as laid out in the initial plan, are now in the process of being supplemented and,   indeed,   concluded,   in   line   with   the   original urban   principles.   These   changes   in   no   way 111 jeopardize   the   singular   and   outstanding   value   of Lucio   Costa’s   Pilot   Project   (Plano   Piloto),   which remains   wholly   preserved,   both   physically   and symbolically.  It is possible based on the still undeveloped areas around Brasilia, the surrounding green spaces, and the location’s topography, to clearly distinguish the city’s limits from the territorial expanse in which it was   introduced,   singular   attributes   that   enable analysis of the site without losing any of the basic information   critical   to   transmitting   its   continued Outstanding Universal Value.”  It   will   also   be   relevant   to   extract   the   following 140. passage from the said website, which would show the steps taken for protection of the urban framework of Brasilia:

  The said website would also show that similar steps 141. have been taken for protecting the White City of Tel­Aviv and the city of Le Havre, rebuilt by Auguste Perret. 112 We find that similar steps need to be taken by the 142. Chandigarh   Administration   as   well   as   the   Government   of India   for   protecting   the   heritage   status   of   Le   Corbusier’s Chandigarh. 143. In this respect, we may also refer to the Directive Principles contained in Articles 49 and 51A(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India, which read thus:

144. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that a responsibility is cast upon the State as well as the   citizens   to   protect   and   conserve   the   heritage. 113 Undisputedly,   Phase­I   of   Chandigarh,   i.e.,   Corbusian Chandigarh,  even according to  the  respondent­authorities, possesses   a   heritage   status.     The   CMP­2031   itself emphasizes   that   Chandigarh   should   be   included   in   the UNESCO’s   World   Heritage   List   due   to   its   outstanding universal   value.     As   already   discussed   hereinabove,   the fragmentation/apartmentalization   of   residential   units   in Phase­I   of   Chandigarh   is   destructive   of   the   vision   of   Le Corbusier.  It is also opposed to the concept of protecting and preserving the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh.  As such, it is necessary that the respondent­authorities must take every possible step for preserving the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh. XI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: 145. One another important aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is the adverse impact on environment on account of haphazard urbanization.   It will be relevant to refer to Clause 20.3 of the CMP­2031 which we have already reproduced hereinabove.  It has been recommended that an Effective Environmental Management Plan be devised for the 114 region including Chandigarh, which includes environmental strategy,   monitoring   regulation,   institutional   capacity building   and   economic   incentives.   It   is   observed   that   the proposal   needs   a   legal   framework   and   a   monitoring committee   to   examine   the   regional   level   proposals/big developments   by   the   constitution   of   an   Inter   State   high powered Regional Environmental Management Board, as per the   proposal  of   the   Ministry   of   Environment  and   Forests, Government of India. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 146. notes in its publication titled “ Integrating the Environment in Urban   Planning   and   Management   –   Key   Principles   and st Approaches for Cities in the 21  Century ” that more than half of the world’s population is now living in urban areas.   It further noted that by the year 2050, more than half of Africa and   Asia’s   population   will   live   in   towns   and   cities.     It recognized   that   City   Development   Strategies   (CDSs)   have shown how to integrate environmental concerns in long­term city   visioning   exercises.     It   states   that   environmental mainstreaming   can   help   to   incorporate   relevant 115 environmental   concerns   into   the   decisions   of   institutions, while emerging ideas about the green urban economy show how   density   can   generate   environmental   and   social opportunities.     It   states   that   the   strategies   need   to   be underpinned   with   governance   structures   that   facilitate integration   of   environmental   concerns   in   the   planning process. The said publication defines EIA to be an analytical 147. process   or   procedure   that   systematically   examines   the possible environmental consequences of the implementation of a given activity (project).   It is aimed to ensure that the environmental   implications   of   decisions   related   to  a   given activity are taken into account before the decisions are made. Judicial   notice   is   also   taken   of   the   cover   story 148. th published in the weekly, “India Today”, dated 24   October 2022, titled as “ Bengaluru – How to Ruin India’s Best City ” by Raj   Chengappa   with   Ajay   Sukumaran.     The   said   article depicts   the   sorry   state   of   affairs   as   to   how   the   city   of Bengaluru, once considered to be one of India’s best cities, a ‘Garden city’ has been ruined on account of haphazard urban 116 development.  It takes note of as to how on account of one major spell of rain in the September of 2022, the city bore the brunt   of   nature’s   fury.   Various   areas   of   the   city   were inundated with heavy rains.  The loss the flood caused to the Outer Ring road tech corridor alone was estimated to be over Rs.225 crore. The   article   notes   that,   while   on   one   hand,   on 149. account of heavy rains, many of the houses were submerged in water, on the other hand, the city faced a huge shortage of drinking water. 150. The article further notes that rapid expansion of the city   with   no   appropriate   thought   given   towards transportation and ease of mobility has led to nightmarish traffic   jams   on   its   arterial   roads.     It   notes   that,   almost overnight, Bengaluru's municipal jurisdiction grew from 200 sq. km. to 800 sq. km.   It observes that the only one to benefit was the politician­businessman­builder nexus, which has   thrived.   It   further   noted   that   though   posh   colonies mushroomed   in   new   areas,   the   infrastructure   lagged,   as 117 roads remained narrow, the drainage poor, and no adequate provision for garbage disposal too. The   article   notes   that   the   primary   canals   known 151. locally   as   rajakaluves   were   once   natural   rain­fed   streams across which farmers built small bunds over time, to arrest the flow of water and create lakes.  It further notes that these interlinked man­made lakes worked as a storm­water drain network.  However, in order to meet the demand for space for construction and roads, the administrators allowed the lakes to be breached regularly.  The lakes, which once numbered a thousand­odd, are now reduced to a paltry number.  Worse, the   that   channelized   the   storm   water   had rajakaluves   buildings built over them. The warning flagged by the city of Bengaluru needs 152. to be given due attention by the legislature, executive and the policy makers.  It is high time that before permitting urban development, EIA of such development needs to be done. XII. CONCLUSION: 118 Taking   overall   view   of   the   matter,   we   are   of   the 153. considered view that permitting redensification in Phase­I, which has heritage value, on account of being “Corbusian Chandigarh”,   without   the   same   being   approved   by   the Heritage Committee, is contrary to the CMP­2031 itself. The CMP­2031 on one hand does not permit apartmentalization, however,   on   the   other   hand,   it   estimates   the   number   of dwelling units to be triple of the plots available.  Though on account of repeal of the 2001 Rules in the year 2007 and on account of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, the High Court itself holds that apartmentalization is not permissible; it goes on to hold   that   though   the   developers/builders   are   in   effect indulging into construction of three apartments in a building, the same does not amount to apartmentalization.   In our view, this would amount to permitting something indirectly which   is   not   permitted   directly.     The   authorities   of   the Chandigarh Administration are blindly sanctioning building plans, when from the building plans itself it is apparent that the same are in effect converting one dwelling unit into three apartments.  Such a haphazard growth may adversely affect the heritage status of Phase­I of Chandigarh which is sought 119 to be inscribed as a UNESCO’s heritage city.  It is further to be   noted   that   though   the   Chandigarh   Administration   is permitting   one   dwelling   unit   to   be   converted   into   three apartments,   its   adverse   effect   on   traffic   has   not   been addressed.  With the increase in number of dwelling units, a corresponding increase in the vehicles is bound to be there. However, without considering the said aspect, one dwelling unit is permitted to be converted into three apartments. We find that the High Court has failed to take into 154. consideration all these aspects. No doubt that the High Court has issued certain directions so as to protect the interest of home   buyers.   It   has   also   observed   that   “Chandigarh Administration   chooses   to   stay   smug,   taking   a   stand   on paper   that   floor­wise   sale   of   residential   building   is   not permissible while residential floors are being advertised for sale   right   under   its   nose”.   It   therefore   directed   the Chandigarh Administration to issue a notice to be published at periodic intervals in the newspapers for the purposes of sounding a word of caution and educating such home buyers who   have   already   purchased   a   share   in   a   residential 120 building/site as also the prospective home buyers.  The High Court   also   directed   the   Chandigarh   Administration   to mention in the said notice that fragmentation of site/building is specifically prohibited under the 2007 Rules.   It further directed to mention in the said notice that the Chandigarh Administration does not recognize ownership rights over any floor/part of any site/building by virtue of such transactions. A word of caution was also directed to be put, that in case a dispute arises between the co­sharers/co­owners, the only remedy would be to put the property to auction and the sale proceeds   thereafter   be   distributed   inasmuch   the fragmentation/division   of   the   building/site   by   metes   and bounds is specifically prohibited. In   our   view,   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have 155. stopped at that. Having noted the stand of the Chandigarh Administration that the construction and floor­wise sale of residential building was not permissible in view of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, the High Court ought to have held that the statutory rules framed under 1952 Act expressly prohibits fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalization   of   a 121 residential  unit in  Phase­I of  Chandigarh.    The  legislative intent as found in Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules has been clearly reiterated  in Rule  16  of the  2007  Rules, which  has been enacted under Section 5 read with Section 22 of the 1952 Act.  We are of the considered view that the High Court has erred in not considering the same. Shri Patwalia fairly conceded that the said exercise 156. has acted as a deterrent and number of such transactions amounting to apartmentalization have substantially reduced. 157. No doubt that the High Court has rightly issued the directions   to   safeguard   the   interest   of   the   home   buyers. However, we find that the High Court itself having found that after the repeal of the 2001 Rules and enactment of the 2007 Rules, apartmentalization was not permissible, it ought not to have permitted a  modus operandi  which indirectly permits to do what was not permissible in law.  In any case, taking into consideration the heritage status of Phase­I, the High Court   ought   to   have   considered   the   matter   in   correct perspective.   122 We   may   gainfully   refer   to   an   article   by   Jonathan 158. th Glancey dated 11  December 2015 titled “ Is this the perfect city? ”, published by the BBC, which reads thus: “Of all the world’s ideal cities, Chandigarh has done remarkably   well,   offering   striking   monumental architecture,   a   grid   of   self­contained neighbourhoods,   more   trees   than   perhaps   any Indian city and a way of life that juggles tradition with modernity.   While history tells us ideal cities are mostly best left on paper, Chandigarh – perhaps one of the least likely appears to have succeeded against the grain.” As could be seen from the said article, Chandigarh 159. has   done   remarkably   well,   offering   striking   monumental architecture, a grid of self­contained neighbourhoods, more trees than perhaps any Indian city and a way of life that juggles tradition with modernity. At the cost of repetition, it must be noted that the 160. CMP­2031   itself,   at   more   than   one   place,   states   that Chandigarh   has   been   planned   as   a   green   city   with abundance of open space and to ensure that every dwelling has its adequate share of the three elements of Sun, Space and Verdure. The fragmentation/apartmentalization of single 123 dwelling units in Phase­I of Chandigarh, in our view, will injure   the   ‘Lungs’   of   the   city   as   conceptualized   by   Le Corbusier.  In this regard, the observations of this Court in the case of  Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others   v.   Kohinoor   CTNL   Infrastructure   Company 20 , are highly instructive.   In Private Limited and Another the   said   case,   this   Court   held   as   follows,   regarding   the implications of overcrowding of cities:

161. The   High   Court   ought   to   have   been   alive   to   the unique status of Chandigarh and considered the matter from that perspective. 20 (2014) 4 SCC 574 124 One   other   aspect   that   needs   to   be   taken   into 162. consideration   is   that   on   account   of   certain   acts   and omissions   of   the   Chandigarh   Administration,   in   certain areas, there has been a chaotic situation.  As already pointed out herein, on one hand, the 2001 Rules have been repealed in the year 2007 and the 2007 Rules have been enacted.  In view of Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules, there is a specific bar on fragmentation of sites or buildings.  It is the specific stand of the   Chandigarh   Administration   that   construction   of apartments is not permissible.  On the other hand, the 2017 Rules are enacted in such a way that there is scope for the construction   of   apartments.   Not   only   that,   but   the Chandigarh  Administration   is   sanctioning   plans   which,   in effect, permit apartmentalization.   We may gainfully refer to the following observations 163. made by the Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Dheera Singh  (supra), which read thus: “ 103.  The Executive has in the instant case, with reference to the 1952 Act, failed to live­up to the expectations   of   the   residents   as   instead   of approaching the Ministry concerned with a concrete proposal   on   data­based   information   for   onward consideration of the  Legislature to rejuvenate  the 125 1952 Act and make it more vibrant and alive to the issues  in praesentia  or in future, it has gone for  ad hoc  solutions taking refuge under Section 22 of the Act. Strangely, the amount of penalty or fine fixed by the Legislature in the year 1952 (Sections 8, 13 & 15) has not been got revised even after the expiry of 60 years.  The   principles   governing   the   powers   of 104. delegated legislation are fairly settled. Such a power is exercisable to implement and achieve the objects of a Statute within the framework of the legislative policy; every delegate is subject to the authority and control   of   the   principal   who   can   always   direct, correct   or   cancel   the   action   of   the   subordinate legislation; the delegate in the garb of making rules cannot legislate on the fields covered by the Act.” We are therefore inclined to issue certain directions 164. so as to ensure that the issue regarding apartmentalization is first examined by the Heritage Committee so as to preserve the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh.   We are also inclined   to   direct   the   Chandigarh   Administration   to   take steps for amending the CMP­2031 and the 2017 Rules after the issue has been addressed by the Heritage Committee. However, we feel that such important issues cannot be left only to the discretion of the Chandigarh Administration.  We therefore find it necessary to direct that after the Chandigarh 126 Administration takes decision to amend the provisions, the same shall be placed before the Central Government for its consideration and final decision.  We find that for protecting the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh, it is necessary that we should exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and issue certain directions. In that view of the matter, we hold that in view of 165. Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules, Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules and the repeal   of   the   2001   Rules,   fragmentation/division/ bifurcation/apartmentalization of a residential unit in Phase­ I of Chandigarh is prohibited.   We further issue the following directions: 166. (i) The Heritage Committee is directed to consider the issue of redensification in Phase­I of the city of Chandigarh; (ii) Needless   to   state   that   the   Heritage   Committee would   take   into   consideration   its   own recommendations   that   the   northern   sectors   of 127 Chandigarh   “(Corbusian   Chandigarh)”  should   be preserved in their present form; (iii) The   Heritage   Committee   shall   also   take   into consideration  the   impact  of   such  redensification on the parking/traffic issues; (iv) After the Heritage Committee considers the issues, the   Chandigarh   Administration   would   consider amending   the   CMP­2031   and   the   2017   Rules insofar   as   they   are   applicable   to   Phase­I   in accordance   with   the   recommendations   of   the Heritage Committee; (v) Such   amendments   shall   be   placed   before   the Central Government, which shall take a decision with   regard   to   approval   of   such   amendments keeping in view the requirement of maintaining the heritage status of Le Corbusier zone; (vi) Till a final decision as aforesaid is taken by the Central Government:  a. the   Chandigarh   Administration   shall   not sanction   any   plan   of   a   building   which   ex­ 128 facie   appears   to   be   a   modus   operandi   to convert   a   single   dwelling   unit   into   three different   apartments   occupied   by   three strangers; and b. no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or agreement or settlement amongst co­owners of a residential unit shall be registered nor shall it be enforceable in law for the purpose of   bifurcation   or   division   of   a   single residential unit into floor­wise apartments. (vii) We   further   direct   that   hereinafter,   the   Central Government  and Chandigarh Administration will freeze FAR and shall not increase it any further; (viii) That   the   number   of   floors   in   Phase­I   shall   be restricted to three with a uniform maximum height as deemed appropriate by the Heritage Committee keeping in view the requirement to maintain the heritage status of Phase­I; and (ix) That   the   Chandigarh   Administration   shall   not resort to formulate rules or bye­laws without prior 129 consultation of the Heritage Committee and prior approval of the Central Government. 167. Before we part with the judgment, we observe that it is high time that the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels take note of the damage to the environment on account of haphazard developments and take a call to take necessary measures to ensure   that   the   development   does   not   damage   the environment.  It is necessary that a proper balance is struck between   sustainable   development   and   environmental protection.     We   therefore   appeal   to   the   Legislature,   the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions for carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before permitting urban development.  We direct the copy of this judgment to be forwarded 168. to the Cabinet Secretary to the Union of India and the Chief Secretaries to all the States to take note of the aforesaid observations.  We hope that the Union of India as well as the State Governments will take earnest steps in that regard. 130 169. We must place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri P.S. Patwalia and Shri   Ranjit   Kumar,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.M. Natraj, learned ASG, Shri Kapil Sibal, Shri Ajay Tewari and Shri Gaurav Chopra, learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the respondents. 170. In the result, the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 171. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. …..….......................J. [B.R. GAVAI] …….......................J.        [B.V. NAGARATHNA] NEW DELHI; JANUARY 10, 2023 131