{Conversion of leasehold to freehold}
In response to the affidavit of compliance filed by the UT administration regarding the conversion of leasehold to freehold, the Supreme Court (SC) directed the Union government to submit the affidavit within four weeks on Tuesday.
The UT administration filed the affidavit concerning the conversion of leasehold commercial and industrial properties to freehold.
Earlier, the SC had given three months to the UT administration and the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) to decide on allowing the conversion of commercial and industrial leasehold properties to freehold.
In August last year, the MHA stated in court, “Being a major policy decision, the matter is being considered by MHA as per the established legal procedure and consultation with all stakeholders concerned.”
Chandigarh currently has 6,621 commercial and 1,451 industrial plots on leasehold, which allow occupation for a limited period, usually 99 years, with government agencies holding the ownership rights. Besides legal complications, the allottees struggle with the sale and purchase, and raising a mortgage when needed, issues not normally associated with freehold properties where the allottee is the real owner.
The UT had initially sent the conversion proposal to the MHA in April 2021, following the residential policy of 1996. It sent four reminders to the MHA subsequently, but a decision was still pending, as conveyed by the UT to the court.
{{/usCountry}}The UT had initially sent the conversion proposal to the MHA in April 2021, following the residential policy of 1996. It sent four reminders to the MHA subsequently, but a decision was still pending, as conveyed by the UT to the court.
{{/usCountry}}In September last year, the apex court directed the administration to constitute a committee to review and streamline the processes of sanctioning mutation, granting an occupancy certificate, issuing a no-objection certificate, and addressing other citizen-centric requirements, including the calculation of unearned profit under the 1973 or 2007 rules.
The dispute before the SC was raised by the Estate Office against a consumer court order that penalised it on the complaint of a city resident regarding an issue related to allowing the conversion of leasehold property to freehold.