Share-wise sale of property to status of lal dora, Centre seeks Chandigarh administration’s stand on four issues

A move that could impact lakhs of residents, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has sought detailed comments from the UT Administration on four long-pending demands — share-wise sale of properties, need-based changes in Chandigarh Housing Board houses, status of lal dora in 22 villages of the city and ownership rights in rehabilitation colonies.

The MHA has asked for the administration to give its views and current status on these issues. Significantly, the UT administration had earlier turned down these demands while responding to queries raised in the Parliament.

Twenty-two villages of the city were brought under the Municipal Corporation. Residents have long demanded the regularisation of constructions carried out beyond the lal dora. Political parties, meanwhile, have been repeatedly seeking abolition of the lal dora. In August last year, the MHA had clarified in Parliament that constructions outside lal dora without the DC’s approval were in violation of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952.

Allottees of the CHB houses have also demanded regularisation of need-based changes carried out in dwelling units of the board. Approximately 55,000 of the 62,000 dwelling units have violations.

While residents demanded a one-time settlement on the lines of the “Delhi solution,” the administration has maintained that unauthorised changes cannot be allowed, citing UT’s planned architectural character and its location in Seismic Zone IV.

Further, the UT Administration has banned the share-wise registration of properties outside families after the Supreme Court’s January 2024 order that banned conversion of houses in heritage sectors (1–30) into apartments. Many residents argued that the administration has misinterpreted the SC’s ruling.

Since the 1980s, the UT has constructed 34,965 dwelling units for slum dwellers under rehabilitation schemes, allotted on a lease or licence fee basis. Many residents have transferred the ownerships of the units to some other persons. In February, the MHA had clarified in the Parliament that the schemes do not provide for transfer of ownership rights.