Centre put on notice over Apartment Rules

Chandigarh, September 27

Nearly 14 years after the Chandigarh Apartment Rules – 2001 were repealed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today put the Union of India on notice on a petition seeking the quashing of the notification withdrawing the same.

Among other things, it has been contended that the withdrawal was “totally illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution”.

The petition, filed against the Union of India and other respondents, by Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another petitioner through senior counsel Anand Chhibber and Vivek Singla stated the withdrawal of the notification was a result of total non-application of mind.

Taking up the matter, the High Court Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh fixed November 2 as the next date of hearing in the case.

Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents and prayed for some time to address the arguments in the matter.

Appearing before the Bench through videoconferencing, Chhibbar submitted that the respondent authorities had allowed the provision of separate water and electricity meters, besides payment of house tax, garbage cess, etc, for each floor separately. It meant that each floor was treated as a separate dwelling unit by the respondent authorities. Referring to the repealed rules, Chhibbar contended its reading made it clear that notification issued in 2001 in the matter was “brought for crystallising the rights of co-owners”.

“Some relaxation were given to the residential existing plots and even in commercial area simultaneously from time to time,” he stated.

Chhibbar added that the respondents issued the impugned notification dated October 1, 2007. But the bare perusal of the relevant provisions/clause of the Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 showed that each floor was an independent unit capable of being occupied by a family. It did not anywhere affect the basic character of Chandigarh and there was no violation of the building rules. —TNS