RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER versus THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 10-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 601
601
RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER
v.
THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 274 of 2023)
JANUARY 10, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Urban Development – Town Planning – Committee for
Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031 (CMP-2031) – Issue of
redensification in Phase-I sector in the city of Chandigarh –
Fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalization of residential
units – Held: In view of r.14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and
Building) Rules, 1960, r.16 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007
and repeal of the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001, fragmentation/
division/bifurcation/ apartmentalization of residential units in
Phase-I sector of Chandigarh is prohibited – On facts, authorities
of the Chandigarh Administration were blindly sanctioning building
plans, when from the building plans itself it was apparent that the
same were in effect converting one dwelling unit into three apartments
– Such a haphazard growth may adversely affect the heritage status
of Phase-I of Chandigarh – The Committee for Chandigarh Master
Plan, 2031 (CMP-2031) itself, at more than one place, states that
Chandigarh has been planned as a green city with abundance of
open space and to ensure that every dwelling has its adequate share
of the three elements of Sun, Space and Verdure – Fragmentation/
apartmentalization of single dwelling units in Phase-I of Chandigarh
will injure the ‘Lungs’ of the city as conceptualized by Le Corbusier
– For protecting the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh,
directions issued u/Art.142 of the Constitution – Issue regarding
apartmentalization to be first examined by the Chandigarh Heritage
Conservation Committee – Chandigarh Administration to thereafter
take steps for amending the CMP-2031 and the Chandigarh Building
Rules (Urban), 2017 and subsequently, the same to be placed before
the Central Government for its consideration and final decision –
Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 – r.16 – Chandigarh (Sale of Sites
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
and Building) Rules, 1960 – r. 14 – Chandigarh Building Rules
(Urban), 2017 – Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 – Constitution
of India – Arts. 142.
Urban Development – Damage to environment on account of
haphazard developments – Necessity of proper balance between
sustainable development and environmental protection – The
Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as
well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions for carrying
out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before permitting urban
development.
Word and Phrases: “Fragment” and “Fragmentation” –
Meaning of.
Allowing the appeals and issuing directions, the Court
HELD : 1. From the material placed on record, it appears
that the modus operandi that is devised by the developers is that
the allottee of the house would convey 50% of the share to the
first purchaser, 30% to the second purchaser and 20% to the
third purchaser. Thereafter, all the three purchasers would enter
into either a settlement deed or a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) under which the party having 50% share of the house is
entitled to the entire ground floor with basement including the
back courtyard but excluding the front courtyard and the staircase.
The second purchaser having 30% share in the house would be
entitled to the entire first floor excluding the staircase. The third
purchaser having 20% share of the house would be entitled to
the entire second floor including the roof of the second floor but
excluding the staircase. It is clear that, the parties who entered
into such an MoU, were conscious of the fact that as per the
Rules of the Estate Office, it could not be mentioned in the sale
deed that the possession of particular floor is given to the
purchaser. It is also clear that the MoU clearly states that all the
parties, after entering into such a document, would peacefully
hold, use and enjoy their respective portions as their own property
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
without any hindrance, interruption, claim or demand whatsoever
from each other. In any case, what is to be found is the real
intention behind the transaction. When the transaction clearly
shows that it is being entered into for the purpose of constructing
three different apartments on each floor and also mentions that
the same is not permissible under the existing rules, the intention
of the parties is to construct three differen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.