Supreme Court stresses assessing environmental impact before urban growth
Takes note of an article depicting the sorry state of Bengaluru, once considered one of India’s best cities, but was ruined
The Supreme Court has urged the legislature and policymakers to consider the adverse environmental impact stemming from haphazard urbanization.
While hearing a plea in the Residents Welfare Association Chandigarh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh case, the court cited the example of Bengaluru. The plea was related to the fragmentation/sub-division of apartments in Chandigarh.
The bench stated, “The warning flagged by the city of Bengaluru needs to be given due attention by the legislature, executive and policymakers. It is high time that before permitting urban development, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of such development needs to be done.”
Earlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed a PIL against this practice, while only safeguarding the buyers of such apartments.
The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice BV Nagarathna stressed on the importance of protecting the city’s environment while observing that the high court should have considered Chandigarh’s heritage status.
It maintained that the fragmentation or construction of single dwelling units in Chandigarh would injure its ‘lungs’ as conceptualized by the city’s designer, Le Corbusier.
Importantly, Chandigarh Estate Rules prohibit fragmentation of any site for the creation of apartments. However, some developers were constructing three apartments and selling them to three different people.
The case was a challenge to the high court order that rejected the PIL preventing certain developers in Chandigarh from purchasing the plots and constructing such apartments. The court had held that the sale of shares out of a building was not barred. It was permissible under general civil law. And constructing three floors on a private plot and utilizing them as independent units would not amount to fragmentation.
It protected the purchaser’s interest who became co-owners of the entire building and did not have exclusive possession or ownership rights.
However, the Supreme Court held that allowing such a practice meant permitting them to do something indirectly, which was against the law. That’s because the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001, which allowed single residential units to be subdivided into more than one apartment, had been repealed as a result of the public outcry. But even the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 prohibited fragmentation of any site or building.
The bench stated, “The high court should have held that the statutory rules framed under the 1952 Act expressly prohibit fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalization of a residential unit in Chandigarh’s Phase¬-I. Taking into consideration its heritage status, the court ought to have considered the matter in the correct perspective.”
Thus, the Supreme Court issued certain directions to the Heritage Committee to protect the city’s heritage status:
– It should consider the issue of redensification in Phase-¬I of Chandigarh.
– Consider its own recommendations that the northern sectors of Chandigarh (Corbusian) should be preserved in their present form.
– The impact of such redensification on the parking/traffic issues.
– The Chandigarh administration to amend the CMP¬2031 and the 2017 Rules as applicable to Phase ¬I.
– The amendments shall be placed before the Central Government, which shall take a decision keeping in view the requirement of maintaining the heritage status of the Le Corbusier zone.
– Until a final decision is taken by the Central government:
a) The Chandigarh administration shall not 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.
b) No memorandum of understanding (MoU) or agreement or settlement amongst the 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 residential unit into floor¬-wise apartments.
– The Central government and Chandigarh administration would freeze FAR and shall not increase it any further.
– The number of floors in Phase¬-I shall be restricted to three with a uniform maximum height as deemed appropriate by the Heritage Committee.
– The Chandigarh administration shall not formulate rules or bye¬-laws without prior consultation of the Committee and approval of the Central government.
The top court also underlined the need for state governments to take note of the damage caused to the environment by haphazard developments.
It stated, “It is necessary that a proper balance is struck between sustainable development and environmental protection.”
While senior advocates PS Patwalia and Ranjit Kumar appeared for the appellants, additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, along with senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Ajay Tewari, and Gaurav Chopra appeared for the respondents.