Chandigarh: More than 3 lakh people living in nearly 66,000 Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) homes are caught in a regulatory mess that, residents say, the Board itself has helped create. Frequent policy flip-flops have turned constructions permissible earlier into violations today.With an estimated 90% of CHB houses having some form of building deviation, residents say the problem cannot be attributed only to unauthorised alterations or lax enforcement. A major cause, they contend, is the repeated revision of need-based change policies and their retrospective application.Residents allege that constructions permitted under one policy are subsequently treated as violations when a new notification comes into force, exposing homeowners to notices, penalties and even demolition action for changes that were legal when undertaken.New policy fresh uncertaintyHitesh Puri, chairman of the Chandigarh Residents’ Associations Welfare Federation (Crawfed), said the Board’s approach had eroded confidence among homeowners.“Every time a new policy is notified, it supersedes the previous one, and constructions that were permissible under earlier rules are suddenly viewed as violations. Ordinary residents are made to repeatedly justify what they built years ago in accordance with the policy that existed at that time. This has resulted in notices, demolition threats, financial losses and endless litigation,” he said.According to residents, the problem stems from clauses in successive CHB notifications stating that they “supersede all previous orders of need-based changes.” While such provisions are intended to govern the prevailing policy, allottees allege that they are also being used to question structures constructed when an earlier policy was in force.Nirmal Datt, chairman of the CHB Welfare Federation, said the pattern had continued for nearly 25 years.“When CHB brings a notification on need-based changes, concessions available under the previous notification are generally dropped. Suddenly, construction that was allowed earlier becomes a violation. This has been happening for at least 25 years. Take the case of wall-to-wall balconies — once allowed as a concession, they later became violations. Zonal rules are another example. We have repeatedly requested the administration to maintain policy consistency,” he said.The flip-flopsA frequently cited example concerns projections and balconies in front of MIG duplex flats. These were permitted under the May 18, 2001 policy and allowed through notifications issued in 2010, 2015 and 2016. The provision was subsequently withdrawn under policies issued in 2018 and Jan 2023.Residents allege that structures constructed during the period when the concession was valid are now being treated as violations, despite having been permissible when they were built.Allottees argue that this puts an unfair burden on homeowners, particularly because CHB often did not issue formal acknowledgements after residents informed it about alterations made under the prevailing policy.Residents have suggested that CHB accept affidavits from allottees specifying when alterations were carried out, instead of insisting on documentary evidence that may no longer exist.CHB officials, however, maintain that the Board has no reliable mechanism to establish when a particular alteration was carried out. Consequently, notices are issued wherever deviations are found. If an allottee can establish that the construction was undertaken during a period when it was permitted, the case is dealt with accordingly, officials said.BOX1: Legal challenge to retrospective actionPuri also questioned the legal basis for retrospectively applying revised policies. He said subordinate legislation could not ordinarily create new liabilities retrospectively or take away vested rights unless the parent statute specifically authorised it.The residents’ body has cited Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India vs Kanak Exports (2016) and B.S. Yadav vs State of Haryana (1981), to argue that delegated legislation cannot retrospectively impose new burdens or adversely affect accrued rights without clear statutory authority.BOX2: Board working on solutions?Shakti Prakash Devshali, non-official member of the CHB board of directors, acknowledged that retrospective policy changes had become a major concern for allottees.“The problem is acute and allottees are facing severe hardship because of the retrospective nature of CHB policy decisions. In Board meetings, I have urged officials to discontinue retrospective superseding notifications, ensure that future policy changes operate prospectively and provide grandfathering provisions to protect existing rights.”He added, senior UT administration and CHB officials have assured us that these concerns will be addressed through a comprehensive need-based changes policy.”In a recent report submitted by UT to the ministry of housing and urban affairs (MoHUA), the Chandigarh administration informed the Centre that need-based changes in Chandigarh Housing Board dwelling units have already been permitted through CHB orders issued on Jan 3, 2023, and March 10, 2026.BOX 3: Need-Based Changes Allowed From Time to TimePolicy dated May 18, 2001Provision: Construction of projection/balcony in front of MIG duplex flats in line with projections already approved by CHB, supported by pillars below.Allowed: May 18, 2001 to Feb 18, 2016Disallowed: Feb 15, 2019 onwardsPolicy dated May 18, 2001Provision: Construction of a store/greenhouse in the rear courtyard (front terrace in case of second-floor duplex flats) up to a maximum height of 7 ft 6 in from floor level.Allowed: May 18, 2001 to March 22, 2010Disallowed: March 23, 2010 onwardsJan 3, 2023 policy: To be converted into a terrace gardenPolicy dated May 18, 2001Provision: Construction of an extra room on the first floor above the proposed ground-floor room to be built by the allottee, subject to CHB approval and ensuring adequate light and ventilation.Allowed: May 18, 2001 to Feb 15, 2019Disallowed: Feb 15, 2019 onwardsJan 3, 2023 policy: To be converted into a glass housePolicy dated March 23, 2010Provision: Construction of an additional room over a ground-floor room already existing and constructed by CHB.Allowed: March 23, 2010 to July 7, 2015Disallowed: Feb 18, 2016 onwardsPolicy dated March 23, 2010Provision: Opening of a front door in a ground-floor duplex house, subject to structural stability.Allowed: March 23, 2010 to July 7, 2015Disallowed: Feb 18, 2016 onwards
