The complexities in the partial ownership of a house or a building have been making the news in Chandigarh housing and in commercial real estate. A news story by The Tribune Chandigarh says that the homebuyer becomes only a co-owner or co-sharer to the extent of his shareholding in the entire site or building, which remains in joint ownership (source).

The Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vivek Puri also made it clear that the Chandigarh Administration did not recognise a homebuyer’s ownership rights over any floor or part of a site or a building by the virtue of purchase of a share or a memorandum of understanding entered into by the co-sharers.

The Chandigarh administration was also directed to take necessary steps to criminally prosecute the persons “who may misrepresent through any medium as regards sale of floor or storey or a specific portion of a site or building”.

The Salient features as taken from The Tribune story (source)

  • Mere construction of three floors on a private plot and using these as independent units does not mean fragmentation. It would take place only if there is a division of the site or building with an element of exclusive ownership— as a partition by metes and bounds. It, in turn, stood prohibited by virtue of Rule 16 of the Estate Rules.
  • The sale of share does not mean fragmentation. A co-owner could occupy specific or separate portions of the joint holding. The status of such property remains “joint” and this *Joint* status ends only upon severance of ownership by a partition by metes and bounds. It, in turn, would fall within the scope and ambit of ‘fragmentation’.
  • Specific portion under the occupation of a co-owner was not accorded any recognition by the Estate Officer in any manner. The co-owner did not become the sole and exclusive owner of such specific portion under his occupation. Occupation or the possession of a specific portion whether it is a floor of a joint property by a co-owner, does not mean ‘apartmentalisation’.
Floor ownership guidelines by Chandigarh Administration, as posted by Tick Property Mohali.
Comments to: Homebuyer cannot assert exclusive ownership on property: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Attach images - Only PNG, JPG, JPEG and GIF are supported.

Contributing authors

Inviting contributor author for Tick Property: If you want to write for Tick Property, please write to us at [email protected] with the details—your name, email ID, and your current organization (or business name if self-employed).

The Tick Property Newspaper

We publish a daily newspaper for a quick reference to real estate news, insights, and reports: See the Tick Property Newspaper

Good Reads

The Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (CREDAI) has expressed concern over the increasing prices of construction in infrastructure and real estate, particularly since 2020. They say that it can directly impact the property prices as these may increase by as much as 10-15 per cent construction cost for the raw materials does […]
A latest story by McKinsey insights says that the market value of the global balance sheet has tripled in the first two decades of this century. It means that the net worth has tripled since 2000, but the increase mainly reflects valuation gains in real assets, especially real estate, rather than investment in productive assets […]

Worlwide

There are no matching posts for this section.

Trending

This post is taken from Forbes India (source). In the commercial property trends in India in the recent years, the new-generation technology parks have emerged particularly in high-potential and high-rewarding cities including in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Delhi and Pune. Chandigarh and Kolkata are now attracting investments too. This, according to Nasscom, has been due to […]