Partition of Property in Chandigarh: A Legal and Judicial Overview

Partition of property among co-owners is a recurring subject in civil law. However, the legal framework for property division in Chandigarh is unique due to the city’s architectural heritage, planning restrictions, and specific statutory rules. Recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Resident’s Welfare Association & Anr. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. and Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) through Legal Heir Usha v. Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) through LRs Upinder Kaur & Ors. have reinforced the legal position that partition of property by metes and bounds is impermissible in Chandigarh. The apex court has clarified that in the case of disputes between co-owners, the only viable remedy is sale of the property by public auction and equitable distribution of proceeds.

This article presents a detailed analysis of the aforementioned rulings, relevant statutory provisions, and practical solutions for co-owners seeking legal redress in Chandigarh.

I. Judicial Interpretation of Property Partition in Chandigarh

1. Resident’s Welfare Association & Anr. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.

Citation: (2023) 8 SCC 643
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
Date of Judgment: January 10, 2023

Core Issue:
Whether the Chandigarh Administration’s practice of allowing apartmentalization or sub-division of single residential units in Phase-I sectors was legally permissible.

Key Observations:

The Supreme Court held that the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001—which previously allowed division of residential buildings into multiple apartments—were repealed.
According to Rule 14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960, fragmentation or division of a site or building is strictly prohibited.
Rule 16 of the Chandigarh Building Rules, 2017, further mandates that dwelling units in Phase-I shall not be subdivided or converted into multiple apartments.
The Court emphasized that Chandigarh is a heritage city developed by Le Corbusier with low-density planning and open spaces, which must be preserved. Allowing apartmentalization disturbs this balance and overburdens civic amenities.

Held:
Fragmentation and apartmentalization of residential units in Phase-I are illegal and void. Authorities must strictly enforce the applicable planning and building norms.

2. Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) through Legal Heir Usha v. Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) through LRs Upinder Kaur & Ors.

Citation: 2024 INSC 552
Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
Date of Judgment: July 23, 2024

Core Issue:
Whether co-owners can claim partition by metes and bounds of a joint commercial property in Chandigarh, and how income derived from the property should be apportioned.

Key Observations:

The Court ruled that physical division of property is not feasible or permissible in Chandigarh due to applicable rules and municipal constraints.
All co-owners are entitled to equal enjoyment of the property and must share benefits, including rent, proportionately.
Any co-owner enjoying exclusive possession or rental income must render accounts to other co-owners.

Held:
The Trial Court’s decision to order sale of the property by public auction and distribution of proceeds was restored, reversing the High Court’s leniency towards one of the co-owners.

II. Reference to Statutory Provisions

Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960

Rule 14: Prohibits the subdivision, fragmentation, or transfer of part of any residential or commercial site. This rule reinforces the indivisibility of plots in Chandigarh.

Chandigarh Building Rules, 2017

Rule 16: Prohibits conversion of a single dwelling unit into multiple apartments in Phase-I sectors. It underscores the city’s commitment to planned development.

Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001 (Now Repealed)

These rules previously allowed apartmentalization but were found inconsistent with the heritage nature and planning norms of Chandigarh. Their repeal signifies a shift back to regulated, low-density urban planning.

III. Filing Civil Suits for Partition in Chandigarh: Legal Remedies

Given that physical partition is no longer permitted under Chandigarh laws and judicial precedents, litigants must seek sale of the joint property through legal process.

Step-by-Step Process:

1. Legal Title Verification

Collect ownership documents, mutation records, and municipal records.
Confirm co-ownership status and undivided share.

2. Classification of Property

Residential (Phase-I): Physical partition is expressly barred.
Commercial: Division by metes and bounds is rarely feasible. Preferred remedy is sale.

3. Drafting and Filing the Suit

File a civil suit for partition and sale by public auction, along with prayer for distribution of proceeds as per ownership shares.
Include claim for rendition of accounts if rental income is being enjoyed by select co-owners.

4. Relief Sought in Court

Declaration of undivided shares
Direction to sell the property via court-supervised auction
Rendition of accounts from co-owners who have derived income
Injunction to restrain unauthorized possession, sale, or lease

5. Interim Reliefs

Temporary injunctions to preserve the property
Appointment of a court receiver to manage income

6. Execution of Final Decree

Court will supervise sale (often via public auction)
Sale proceeds are distributed in proportion to ownership shares

The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that partition by metes and bounds is not permissible in Chandigarh due to statutory restrictions and planning norms. The only legally sustainable remedy in such cases is the sale of joint property via auction and equitable distribution of proceeds among co-owners.

Litigants and legal practitioners must adapt to this judicial approach by structuring their civil suits accordingly. Emphasis should be laid on full disclosure, equitable apportionment, and adherence to the city’s regulatory ethos. With clarity from the highest court, the pathway for resolving co-ownership disputes in Chandigarh is now firmly aligned with its unique urban fabric and statutory framework.