SC’s Chandigarh ruling on arbitrary changes by administrations good for urban planning

The SC has made a case for preserving Chandigarh's heritage value and laid the responsibility of new construction in the heritage sectors. (Image source: Mongabay)

When the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Corbusian Chandigarh should not be apartmentalised, it was a verdict with far-reaching consequences. Firstly, there was the heritage angle. French architect Le Corbusier designed the first post-independence greenfield city and the country takes much pride in this well-planned city. Built around the principles of directional planning of individual units, mostly with concrete and exposed brickwork, with overpowering landscape planning, there is a definite form to this layout. The SC has made a case for preserving its heritage value and laid the responsibility of new construction in the heritage sectors of 1-30 squarely at the doorstep of the heritage panel.

But this verdict is also a telling comment on the SC’s sensitivity to the living environment. Even when registration of individual floors and apartments was not allowed, this fragmentation was allowed by the Chandigarh administration under the MoU, agreement or settlement among co-owners. While Rule 14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules,1960 Rules and Rule 16 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 Rules did not allow it, the administration did create various means of circumventing it. Now the verdict has made it clear that three strangers cannot create any means of registering single apartments in the same dwelling unit.

The Supreme Court has called out this collusion and laid a set of checks to prevent this. The heritage panel has to be consulted, which has to consider the traffic and parking problems that come with re-densification and the Centre has to ratify it before a final decision is taken.

Clearly calling out the role of bureaucracy and administration in making decisions that impact the quality of life, without any counter-checks, the SC verdict makes a strong statement to city managers across the country, that arbitrary rules laid down to the detriment of citizens would be dealt with sternly. Chandigarh has been asked to amend the Chandigarh Building Rules (Urban) of 2017 and the City Master Plan 2031, after consulting the heritage panel.

Advantage Citizens

In the Chandigarh verdict, the apex court has also shown its tilt towards the impacted citizens, who are increasingly taking to courts to challenge arbitrary rules imposed by administrations. The Chandigarh case came to courts via a group of concerned citizens in Sector 10A. As in the Supertech case in Noida, the Supreme Court has shown that citizens, whose lives would be impacted by the change in rules by city administrations in collusion with the building industry, have a strong voice which will be heard.

City after city has been enhancing Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and densities in plotted development. In Haryana, the registration of floors was halted by an office notification briefly but since then it has become a favourite format of buyers. Single floors come at a fraction of the cost of multi-storeyed apartments. The maintenance costs too are much lower than in multi-storeyed apartments. Since stilt parking has been made mandatory, that space has also become usable. In most instances, that becomes converted to administration units, staff housing or just common areas and the cars come back on the street.

With this re-densification, infrastructure facilities that were planned for two-and-a-half floors are now shared by almost five floors, if the basements are also taken into consideration. Infrastructure facilities, if ballooned, run the risk of damage, as the intrinsic size of the lines cannot be altered, except in patches and in many cases are being replaced well before they have lived out their lives. The enhancement fees that are paid by new buyers too are not used at that site and go into the city’s common kitty. As a result, the incremental rise in housing can only lead to the deterioration of the quality of facilities.

The biggest problem with re-densification is the additional traffic loads that the city has to bear. While the individuals benefit from the enhanced land value and affordability that comes with more FAR and densification, infrastructure costs are to be borne by the entire city. As a result, the city-wide satisfaction levels do not match the individual buyer’s enthusiasm.

Chandigarh had a heritage tag to protect. But even in cities without that tag, the apex court verdict has cautioned administrations against making arbitrary changes in city bye-laws and planning without consulting experts. This bodes well in the long term for urban planning. With over 4200 Census towns yet to be planned, this is an issue that India needed to address quickly.

E Jayashree Kurup is Director, Real Estate and Cities, Wordmeister Editorial Services and a researcher, writer on the subject. Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.