E-Paper
Share-wise property sale: Chandigarh admn to seek legal opinion, realtors flay delay
In its January 10 order, the Supreme Court had banned conversion of residential houses into floor-wise apartments in Sectors 1 to 30, Chandigarh, while stating that they carried heritage status
With the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee (CHCC) leaving it to the UT administration to decide on the share-wise sale of property after due examination of Supreme Court’s January order, the UT Estate Office will now be seeking legal opinion.
In its January 10 order, the Supreme Court had banned conversion of residential houses into floor-wise apartments in Sectors 1 to 30, while stating that they carried heritage status.
Following the apex court’s order, UT had imposed a ban on registrations for share transfers outside the family and the approval of building plans for properties co-owned by strangers or non-family members.
UT’s legal remembrancer (LR), who was approached for an opinion in May, has already stated that the interpretation of the Supreme Court (SC) order is not within their jurisdiction.
According to rough estimates, due to the ban on share-wise property registrations in these sectors since January, the administration has incurred a loss of nearly ₹25 crore.
UT adviser Dharam Pal, who is also the chairman of CHCC, said since the LR had stated that the interpretation of the SC order on share-wise property sale was not under their jurisdiction, the UT Estate Office will seek opinion from other legal experts.
In its January order, the apex court had also specified that the city’s heritage committee would consider the issue of redensification in these sectors. Subsequently, the UT administration would consider amending the Chandigarh Master Plan (CMP)-2031 and the 2017 apartment rules in accordance with the committee’s recommendations. Any amendments would require approval from the central government.
However, on Thursday, CHCC emphasised that no review was required for redensification as it aligned with the master plan.
Administration’s delay in deciding on the matter has invited flak from city-based realtors.
“Why has the UT administration failed to interpret the apex court’s order even after eight months? UT has already suffered significant financial loss in terms of stamp duty and taxes. Moreover, the public is being harassed. UT’s order is also leading to multiple avoidable litigations. In case the administration is unable to obtain clarification from its law officers, they should seek clarification from the apex court,” said Kamal Gupta, president of the Property Consultants’ Association, Chandigarh.
Another property consultant Sanjay Goyal questioned, “If the administration was unclear about the Supreme Court order, why did they halt the registration of share-wise properties? Eight months later, UT has utterly failed to decode the matter, disregarding the interest of the public.”
