HC raps UT Admn in apartments case

CHANDIGARH:The Chandigarh Administration today found itself at the receiving end for prevailing confusion on the floor-wise registration of properties in the city, even as the Punjab and Haryana High Court was told that Haryana had come up with a methodical system of floor-wise registration.

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 17

The Chandigarh Administration today found itself at the receiving end for prevailing confusion on the floor-wise registration of properties in the city, even as the Punjab and Haryana High Court was told that Haryana had come up with a methodical system of floor-wise registration.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, Assistant Solicitor General of India Chetan Mittal told the Bench of Justice SS Saron and Justice Darshan Singh that rules framed by Haryana in 2009 permitted independent floor registration, but confusion prevailed in Chandigarh as the registration was on total area percentage basis.

Appointed as amicus curiae, Mittal also told the Bench that separate floor-wise registration was not there. Among other things, it was resulting in parking problems.

Taking up the matter, the Bench rapped the Administration for not clearing the air on the issue. The Bench said it had been asking the Administration to clarify the situation since December 16. But the officers concerned were oblivious to the problems faced by the people. The Bench also warned the authorities of a CBI probe.

The Bench had earlier blamed the UT Administration for creating confusion on the sale of share in properties. It minced no words to say the lack of clarity and uniformity on the Administration’s part was not only giving rise to litigation, but also resulting in “silly orders” on “silly suits”.

The admonition came during the hearing of a petition filed in public interest by Sector 10 Resident’s Welfare Association on the raising of the apartments from the debris of bungalows.

The petitioner-association is seeking directions for restraining the UT Administration and its respondent-functionaries from permitting residential plots to be converted into apartments. Appearing for the Association, senior advocate DS Patwalia added the sale of floors to different individuals was prohibited.

The Bench had also asked for the details of policy on disposal of properties in Chandigarh. “A subsequent vendee of a co-sharer cannot take possession till partition; and that is the crux of the matter before the court,” the Bench asserted. “The UT does not allow partition”.

The Bench added increasing the number of dwelling units too was not without problems, such as sewerage and car parking. “The UT is confused. There is no technical body for evaluating the system. Where is the uniformity in your approach? There is lack of will on the part of the Chandigarh Administration to come out with a policy. How can you prevent a co-sharer from selling? You are making families go in for litigation.”