Chandigarh: Buoyed by the aggressive push of the Center for Deregulation 2.0, a broad initiative to reduce compliance burdens and unlock land and construction potential, the Chandigarh administration quickly adopted an ambitious reform plan earlier this year, promising streamlined approvals, higher floor area ratios (FARs), flexible zoning, relaxed building norms and the first amendments to the long-overdue Chandigarh Master Plan 2031. static. (CMP-2031).However, as officials draft incremental changes to land use, industrial bylaws, educational infrastructure and heritage-adjacent peripheral sectors, turning Delhi’s high-level directives into reality on the ground is proving much more daunting.Many of the flagship proposals – boosting the FAR in industrial zones (potentially doubling it from the 0.75 limit decades ago), introducing a “permitted to prohibited” land use model, removing land use change (LUC) obstacles, and allowing vertical growth outside core sectors – bear a striking resemblance to previous 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 strictly restricted FAR expansions to safeguard the city’s modernist model), high financial costs linked to rule changes, the sacrosanct imperative of preserving Chandigarh’s unique heritage designed by Le Corbusier (especially in the protected 1 to 30), and the politically charged and procedurally labyrinthine process to amend the sacred Master Plan.Senior officials acknowledge the tension: the Centre’s reform playbook offers a clear path forward on paper, but the truth on the ground in Chandigarh – limited land, judicially imposed heritage safeguards, inter-state regional spillover issues and fiscal constraints – continues to slow momentum.From lease to freehold: the solution to the ‘Note’A 2015 file note by then UT administrator Shivraj Patil remains a persistent hurdle in the Chandigarh administration’s long-running efforts to convert leased commercial and industrial plots to freehold, despite repeated attempts to get clearance.Patil not only flatly rejected proposals for such conversions but also expressed strong opposition, warning that the move could cause “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 leasehold properties should not be converted into freehold properties.”It further warned that converting high-value leasehold properties (without auction or at below-market prices) could lead to accusations of favouritism.“As for the properties, which are very expensive, if they are handed over to private individuals who were tenants, without auctioning them or taking a price less than the market value, the matter can be raised as another scandal and the people requesting it would not be available to say that they had insisted that the administration do the same,” Patil wrote.To safeguard against future unilateral decisions, it directed that any such proposal receive explicit approval from the Union government, directing: “The Government of India, the Ministry of Home Affairs or any other relevant ministry may give such directions as the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh may implement, for which all relevant notes and my note may be sent to the MHA and other interested and relevant ministries.“In 2021, the administration granted in-principle approval for the conversions and referred the matter to the MHA for final approval.The issue resurfaced prominently in a 2022 Supreme Court filing, where the UT administration itself cited Patil’s 2015 note as a key reason against widespread conversions, underscoring fears of loss of revenue, potential windfalls for tenant farmers, and risks to land availability for future public needs.The note became the basis for MHA to reject UT’s proposal. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in July 2024, the MHA said the proposal was examined and not accepted, maintaining the leasehold status of 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 to 30, known as Corbusian Chandigarh), to safeguard the modernist vision of the city designed by Le Corbusier.In its historic judgment dated January 10, 2023, in the case of Residents Welfare Association, Chandigarh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. (2023 INSC 22), a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna explicitly directed the central government and the Chandigarh administration to freeze the existing FAR and not increase it further in Phase I sectors.This FAR freeze has remained a major legal impediment to deregulation efforts, including proposals for greater FAR, vertical growth, or redensification in core sectors. Recent clarifications by the Chandigarh administration (starting from 2025-2026) continue to impose these restrictions.While the peripheral and southern sectors may see limited flexibility under the ongoing discussions on the Master Plan amendment (starting March 2026), the Supreme Court’s binding order continues to protect the integrity of Chandigarh’s original planning in the heritage core, prioritizing preservation over unbridled densification.Allowing an increase in FAR also carries significant financial implications. At what cost the additional FAR is allowed is a key question. Earlier, the administration allowed additional FARs in the industrial area but did not get any response due to its exhaustive cost to the beneficiaries.MIXED LAND USE, VERTICAL GROWTH – MASTER PLAN RESTRICTIONSCMP-2031 strongly defends Le Corbusier’s original vision of the city as a post-war “Garden City”, emphasizing low-rise development, open spaces, greenery and a human-scale urban environment.The CMP emphasizes the need to preserve the panoramic views of the Shivalik Hills, the lower skyline and the monumental Capitol Complex.Even in multi-story group housing in Phase II, building height is restricted to ground plus 4 stories, while Phase III—still partially undeveloped—allows land plus 5. Institutional and commercial structures are generally limited to 7 stories on designated sites only.There are limited higher provisions along Vikas Marg for transit-oriented mixed use. However, these are site-specific and not city-wide. Similarly, the master plan does not allow for mixed land use, which is now being pushed by the administration in the southern sectors and peripheral areas, except along the 7.5 km stretch of Vikas Marg.MODIFICATION OF THE MASTER PLANThe CMP-2031, finalized after a draft process that began in July 2013 and notified in April 2015 by the Chief Administrator, remained unchanged for more than a decade. The 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 to introduce amendments to the CMP-2031, to enable implementation of the deregulation agenda.But modifying it will be a long process. Even if the draft proposals are approved at the administration level, they would require public consultation and objections/suggestions.Significant changes, especially those affecting heritage zones, relaxations of FAR or conflicting with Supreme Court orders, must be submitted to the MHA or the central government for consideration and final approval.