Chandigarh: Petition filed on property share, other embargoes

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 8

Court matters never end. More than a year after the Supreme Court ruled that fragmentation/ apartmentalisation of single dwelling units in Chandigarh’s Phase 1 would injure the ‘lungs’ of the city as conceptualised by Le Corbusier, a Mani Majra resident has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing a public notice issued soon after.

The petitioner, among other things, submitted that the Chandigarh Administration issued the public notice dated February 9, 2023, “in regard to the banning of share of property, besides various other embargoes”. This, the petitioner submitted, was “completely alien” to the common judgment passed by the apex court on January 10, 2023.

The petition filed against the Chandigarh Administration and other respondents by Pradeep Sharma was placed before the Division Bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Vikram Aggarwal on March 4. Served with an advance copy of the petition, UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji –– present in the court ––prayed for “a short accommodation” at the outset to “examine the matter and seek instructions”. Taking note of the submission, the Bench adjourned the hearing to April 4.

Senior advocate Jhanji had, otherwise, appeared for a respondent-developer in the initial petition filed before the court by the Residents Welfare Association and another petitioner through senior advocate Puneet Bali, with BS Patwalia, Uday Agnihotri and Gauravjit Patwalia.

Appearing before the Bench on behalf of the Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation, senior advocate ML Sarin had during the course of arguments submitted that the developers were having a field day and the Chandigarh Administration was turning a blind eye to such activity in spite of a clear embargo against a single residential unit being fragmented and apartments being built.

Sharma, in his now-filed petition, was also seeking the restoration of “sale/purchase, and other means of property transfer, conveyance, existing and prevalent prior to issuing the impugned public notice”. He contended the City Heritage Conservation Committee was specifically instructed to solely address the matters of the city’s re-densification as per the directive from the Supreme Court.

Subsequent to the directive, two consecutive meetings of the CHCC were convened on May 10, 2023, and September 14, 2023. Both meetings were presided over by the UT adviser. “Nevertheless, it was determined during these meetings that no alterations or amendments would be made to the master plan-2020”.

Going into the reasons behind filing the petition, Sharma contended a partition suit had been filed by his brother praying for separate possession or partition by metes and bounds before a civil judge junior division in Chandigarh.

Petitioner mentions public notice

The petitioner, among other things, submitted that the Chandigarh Administration issued the public notice dated February 9, 2023, “in regard to the banning of share of property, besides various other embargoes”. This, the petitioner submitted, was “completely alien” to the common judgment passed by the apex court on January 10, 2023.