Why Punjab withdrew Unified Building Rules over concerns of ‘urban slums’

Here’s what to know about the Rules and what forced the government to withdraw the law.

How the UBR was notified

The Rules, notified on December 15, 2025, had proposed sweeping relaxation of building regulations, including increased permissible floor area ratio (FAR), permitted stilt plus four floors (S+4) on plots along 40-feet-wide roads, greater commercialisation within residential areas, and introduction of a self-certification mechanism.

FAR measures a building’s total usable floor area divided by the total area of its plot, defining the maximum permissible built-up area (or development) allowed on a piece of land.

The Rules would have allowed 5% more construction on one-kanal (1 kanal = 0.05 hectare) plots and decreased the setback area. A setback area refers to the mandatory, open space between a building’s outer wall and its property boundaries, road, or neighbouring structures. This is to remain free of permanent construction primarily to ensure safety and easy access.

Once implemented, the Housing Department was considering amendments to the apartment rules to enable vertical growth and allow sale of independent floors. Houses could have four storeys with parking at the ground level, compared with the earlier limit of two floors under Punjab’s existing bylaws. The rules were formulated through amendments to building bylaws.

During the Cabinet meeting on October 28, 2025, Punjab Chief Secretary K A P Sinha opposed the Rules, stating the step would not go in the right direction. However, Cabinet Ministers, including HUD Minister Hardeep Singh Mundian, raised no objections. The agenda was circulated at the last minute as a table item and cleared within 10 minutes.

This marks the fourth instance in eight months when the AAP government had to retract or scrap a major policy decision.

The concerns

Within the bureaucracy, concerns were raised that allowing four storeys on residential plots could turn the housing sector into a modernised slum. The setback area was proposed to be reduced from 3 metres to 1.5 m, affecting sunlight and ventilation at street level.

The permissible building height was to be increased from 15 m to 21 m, with no requirement for a Fire Department no-objection certificate. There was also a provision for site plans to be approved through self-certification by empanelled architects. The FAR was to be increased by up to 10% on payment of additional fees at collector rates.

For increasing FAR, property owners would have to pay graded fees at 5% for a 0.25% increase, 10% for 0.5%, 15% for 0.75%, and 25% for a 1% increase. In one-kanal plots in new colonies, construction was to be allowed up to 55% of the area, up from 50% earlier. Stilt-plus-four floors were permitted in residential areas where the connecting road had a minimum width of 50 feet.

The permissible height was also proposed to be increased from 11 to 13 m in certain cases. The move was aimed at paving the way for the Apartment Act, under which separate floors could be sold in residential areas. This proposal applied to new sectors, not existing colonies.

Objections by petitioners

Petitioners, including the Public Action Committee and residents of Ludhiana, challenged the UBR in the High Court, raising clause-wise objections. They argued the Rules were notified in haste without proper consultation, scientific study, or consideration of public objections and personal hearings.

They contended that the Rules override multiple statutory frameworks, including the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, ߋ Punjab Municipal Act, ݷ Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, ޸ Punjab Town Improvement Act, ނ and Punjab Fire & Emergency Services Act, 2024. A single uniform code, they argued, cannot subsume diverse local bylaws, master plans, and municipal autonomy under Part IX-A of the Constitution.

The petitioners said the increase in FAR, permission for stilt-plus-four constructions even in developed residential areas, commercialisation of residential zones, reduction in minimum road width, and dilution of parking, ventilation, and fire safety norms were contrary to the National Building Code, 2016. They also opposed shifting building plan approvals for low-rise structures to private architects, arguing it weakens statutory oversight, accountability, and appeal mechanisms.

Infrastructure and environmental concerns were highlighted, with claims that Ludhiana and other parts of Punjab lack adequate capacity in roads, drainage, sewage, water supply, electricity, waste management, and fire safety. Unregulated vertical and commercial growth, they said, would worsen congestion, pollution, and strain civic infrastructure, violating Article 21, Article 14, and Article 48-A. They further alleged lack of due process, stating objections were ignored and the policy favoured real estate developers over public welfare, violating principles of natural justice.