Chandigarh: Buoyed by the Centre’s aggressive push for Deregulation 2.0 — a sweeping initiative to slash compliance burdens and unlock land and construction potential — the Chandigarh administration swiftly embraced an ambitious reform blueprint earlier this year, promising streamlined approvals, higher floor area ratios (FAR), flexible zoning, relaxed building norms, and the first-ever amendments to the long-static Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 (CMP-2031).Yet, as officials draft phased changes across land use, industrial bylaws, education infrastructure, and heritage-adjacent peripheral sectors, turning high-level directives from Delhi into on-ground reality is proving far more daunting.Many of the flagship proposals — boosting FAR in industrial zones (potentially doubling it from the decades-old 0.75 cap), introducing a “permitted until prohibited” land-use model, scrapping Change of Land Use (CLU) hurdles, and allowing vertical growth outside core sectors — bear striking resemblance to earlier reform attempts.Those earlier attempts, launched with similar enthusiasm in the 1990s and 2000s, ultimately collapsed under the weight of entrenched obstacles: formidable legal barriers (including Supreme Court and High Court rulings that froze or tightly restricted FAR expansions to safeguard the city’s modernist blueprint), steep financial costs tied to rule changes, the sacrosanct imperative to preserve Chandigarh’s unique Le Corbusier-designed heritage (especially in protected Sectors 1–30), and the politically charged, procedurally labyrinthine process of amending the sacred Master Plan.Senior officials acknowledge the tension: the Centre’s reform playbook offers a clear path forward on paper, but Chandigarh’s ground truth—limited land, judicially enforced heritage safeguards, inter-state regional spillover issues, and fiscal constraints—continues to slow momentum.Leasehold to freehold – The way around ‘Note’A 2015 file note by then UT administrator Shivraj Patil remains a persistent roadblock in the Chandigarh administration’s long-standing efforts to convert leasehold commercial and industrial plots to freehold status, despite repeated attempts to secure clearance.Patil not only outright rejected proposals for such conversions but also voiced strong opposition, warning that the move could spark “unnecessary complications” and even be portrayed as a major scandal. In his note, he categorically stated, “This matter is likely to create unnecessary complications. I am inclined to hold that the leasehold properties should not be turned into freehold properties.”He further cautioned that converting high-value leasehold properties — without auction or at below-market rates — could invite accusations of favouritism.“As the properties, which are very costly, if they are given to the private persons who were lessees, without auctioning them or taking the price less than the market value, the matter can be raised as another scandal and those persons who are asking for it would not be available to say that they had insisted on the administration doing the same,” Patil wrote.To safeguard against future unilateral decisions, he mandated that any such proposal receive explicit approval from the Union govt, directing, “The Govt of India, the Home Ministry or any other relevant and ministry concerned may give the directions which the administration of Union Territory of Chandigarh implement for which all relevant notes and my note may be sent to the MHA and other concerned and relevant ministries.“In 2021, the administration granted in-principle approval for conversions and forwarded the matter to the MHA for final nod.The issue resurfaced prominently in a 2022 Supreme Court submission, where the UT administration itself cited Patil’s 2015 note as a key reason against widespread conversions, underscoring fears of revenue loss, potential windfall gains for lessees, and risks to land availability for future public needs.The note became the basis for MHA rejecting the UT proposal. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in July 2024, the MHA said the proposal was examined and not agreed to, maintaining leasehold status for these properties.FAR – judicial restrictionsThe Supreme Court has imposed strict restrictions on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increases in Chandigarh, particularly in the heritage-sensitive Phase-I (Sectors 1–30, known as Corbusian Chandigarh), to safeguard the city’s modernist vision designed by Le Corbusier.In its landmark judgment dated Jan 10, 2023, in the case of Residents Welfare Association, Chandigarh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. (2023 INSC 22), a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna explicitly directed the Central govt and the Chandigarh Administration to freeze the existing FAR and not to increase it any further in Phase-I sectors.This FAR freeze has remained a major legal impediment to deregulation efforts, including proposals for higher FAR, vertical growth, or redensification in core sectors. Recent clarifications from the Chandigarh Administration (as of 2025–2026) continue to enforce these restrictions.While peripheral and southern sectors may see limited flexibility under ongoing Master Plan amendment discussions (as of March 2026), the Supreme Court’s binding order continues to protect the integrity of Chandigarh’s original planning in the heritage core, prioritising preservation over unchecked densification.Allowing for increased FAR also carries major financial implications. At what cost the additional FAR is allowed is a key question. Earlier, the administration allowed additional FAR in the industrial area, but it failed to get any response because of its exhaustive cost for the allottees.MIXED LAND USE, VERTICAL GROWTH – MASTER PLAN RESTRICTIONSCMP-2031 strongly upholds Le Corbusier’s original vision for the city as a post-war “Garden City”, emphasizing low-rise development, open spaces, greenery, and a human-scale urban environment.The CMP emphasises the need to preserve panoramic views of the Shivalik hills, the low skyline, and the monumental Capitol Complex.Even in multi-storey group housing in Phase II, the building height is restricted to ground plus 4 floors, while Phase III—still partially undeveloped—permits ground plus 5. Institutional and commercial structures are generally capped at 7 floors on designated sites only.Limited taller provisions exist along Vikas Marg for transit-oriented mixed-use. However, these are site-specific and not city-wide. Similarly, mixed-land use, now being pursued by the administration in the southern sectors and peripheral areas, is not allowed under the master plan, except along the 7.5 km stretch of Vikas Marg.AMENDING THE MASTER PLANThe CMP-2031—finalised after a draft process starting in July 2013 and notified in April 2015 by the Chief Administrator—remained unchanged for more than a decade. Courts repeatedly upheld its sanctity in guiding development and safeguarding the city’s unique Le Corbusier-inspired heritage.The UT chief secretary recently directed the urban planning department to formulate draft proposals for bringing in amendments to the CMP-2031, so as to allow for implementation of the deregulation agenda.But amending it is going to be a long-stretched process. Even if the draft proposals are approved at the level of the administration, they would require public consultation and objections/suggestions.Significant changes—especially those affecting heritage zones, FAR relaxations, or conflicting with Supreme Court orders—must be placed before the MHA or Central govt for consideration and final approval.
