New Delhi, January 10.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday called for the protection of low-rise heritage Corbusian Chandigarh and placed several construction restrictions in the area to prevent single dwelling units from being converted into multiple apartments.
Fragmentation, division, bifurcation and apartmentalisation of a residential unit in Phase I is prohibited, it said.
Undisputedly, permitting three apartments to be constructed in one dwelling unit would result in increasing the density in population in the Le Corbusier zone. This cannot be done without approval of the heritage committee and the central government, it said.
WARNS AGAINST HAPHAZARD URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE BACKDROP OF JOSHIMATH
The bench also seized the opportunity to warn governments of the environmental pitfalls of allowing haphazard urban constructions. The observations come in the backdrop of the happenings in Joshimath which is sinking under impact of unplanned constructions in the hills.
“… it is high time the legislature, the executive and the policy makers at the centre… state levels take note of the damage… to the environment on account of haphazard developments and take a call to take necessary measures to ensure development does not damage the environment. It is necessary that a proper balance is struck between sustainable development and environmental protection.”
Citing the example if Bengaluru, the bench said, the warning flagged by the city needs to be given due attention by the legislature, executive and the policy-makers. Before permitting development, environment impact assessment must be done, it said.
ERODING CORBUSIER VISION WILL AFFECT CHANCES OF BEING MADE UNESCO HERITAGE CITY
The bench also warned that diluting Le Corbusier’s vision would adversely affect the chances of the city getting UNESCO heritage status.
“A perusal of the CMP (City Master Plan) 2031 would reveal that the expert committee observes that Chandigarh’s inscription on UNESCO’s World Heritage List would bring many benefits as the city would join a select list of other modern cities, urban areas currently inscribed on it.”
“… something which would adversely affect the heritage status of the Le Corbusier Zone, without the approval of the Heritage Committee, would not be permissible.”
Phase I was designed for a low-rise plotted development with a green belt at the centre running north east to south east. Wide roads planned in a systematic hierarchy provide structure to the city which has well-planned facilities. Land-scaped green avenues give it amenity value.
In our view, permitting anything, which would have an adverse effect on the heritage status of the city, without the approval of the heritage committee, would be contrary to the city master plan (CMP) 2031, it said.
“Undisputedly, Phase I of Chandigarh, i.e., Corbusian Chandigarh, even according to the authorities, possesses a heritage status. The CMP 2031 emphasizes that Chandigarh should be included in the UNESCO’s World Heritage List due to its outstanding universal value.”
“… fragmentation/apartmentalization of residential units in Phase I is destructive of the vision of Le Corbusier. It is also opposed to the concept of protecting and preserving the heritage status of Corbusian Chandigarh.”
CONSTRUCTION CURBS ON CONVERTING SINGLE DWELLING UNITS INTO APARTMENTS
A bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai said that the Chandigarh administration shall not for now sanction any plan of a building which ex-facie appears to be a modus operandi to convert a single dwelling unit into three different apartments occupied by three strangers.
The top court asked the Chandigarh administration to finalise the city master plan, 2031, and the rules with consultation with the heritage committee. The court said that such important issues cannot be left only to the discretion of the Chandigarh administration.
“We therefore find it necessary to direct that after the Chandigarh administration takes a decision to amend the provisions, it shall be placed before the Central Government.”
The court laid down several construction restrictions in the city for now. No MoU or agreement or settlement amongst co-owners of a residential unit shall be registered nor shall it be enforceable in law for the purpose of bifurcation or division of a single unit into floor-wise apartments, it said.
NO INCREASE IN FAR FOR NOW; UNIFORM HEIGHT AS DECIDED BY THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE
The Centre and Chandigarh administration will freeze FAR and shall not increase it any further. The court also said that the number of floors in Phase I shall be restricted to three with a uniform maximum height as decided by the heritage committee. The administration shall not resort to formulate rules or byelaws without prior consultation of the heritage committee and the Centre’s approval, the bench said.
HERITAGE COMMITTEE TO RECONSIDER REDENSIFICATION IN LIGHT OF PARKING, TRAFFIC
It directed the heritage committee to reconsider the issue of redensification in Phase I in the light of its earlier recommendation that the northern sectors of Chandigarh should be preserved in their present form and also the impact of such redensification on parking and traffic.
After this, the Chandigarh administration would consider amending the CMP 2031 and the 2017 Rules regarding Phase I as per the recommendations. Such amendments shall be placed before the Centre, which shall take a decision on approving such amendments keeping in view the requirement of maintaining the heritage status of the Le Corbusier zone.
“… permitting redensification in Phase I, which has heritage value, on account of being “Corbusian Chandigarh”, without… being approved by the heritage Committee, is contrary to the CMP 2031,” the top court said. The bench also included Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
CMP 2031 TO BE CHANGED FOR PHASE I AS PER HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The CMP 2031 does not permit apartmentalization but estimates the number of dwelling units to be triple the plots available. The High Court says apartmentalisation is not permissible but goes on to hold what the developers were doing did not amount to such.
The administration is blindly sanctioning building plans when it is apparent that they are in effect converting one dwelling unit into three apartments. Though this is being permitted, its impact on traffic has not been addressed.
“… the High Court has failed to take into consideration all these aspects. No doubt that the High Court has issued certain directions so as to protect the interest of home buyers…. However, we find that the High Court itself having found that… apartmentalisation was not permissible, it ought not to have permitted a modus operandi which indirectly permits to do what was not permissible in law.”
