During a recent meeting of the Administrator’s Advisory Council (AAC), Punjab Governor and UT Administrator Gulab Chand Kataria announced that the UT administration would seek legal advice and address several issues. These include the ban on share-wise properties, the misuse of penalty notices, a one-time scheme for VAT cases, and other citizen demands. He indicated that a follow-up meeting with the chairpersons of the council’s sub-committees and other key dignitaries would take place to tackle long-standing issues and guide policy decisions. Senior UT officials were expected to attend the meeting to provide their responses to these matters. The administrator proposed the formation of small working groups for in-depth discussions aimed at timely resolutions of key issues and demands. Chandigarh MP Manish Tewari emphasized the importance of re-evaluating the governance paradigm of the city and ensuring that people's representatives play a significant role in decision-making. Regarding the issue of seeking permission for floor-wise registries in UT Chandigarh, Tewari expressed that the Chandigarh administration had misinterpreted a Supreme Court judgment. Senior BJP leader Sanjay Tandon suggested that the administration should make its own decision on this matter and permit share-wise properties, supporting the idea of allowing floor-wise registries in the city. Former Chandigarh MP Satya Pal Jain remarked that the provision for apartmentalisation was being misused by property dealers. Chandigarh Congress president H. S. Lucky raised concerns about the non-implementation of the MSME Act in the Union Territory, the conversion of leasehold commercial and industrial properties to freehold, and called for the withdrawal of misuse penalty notices sent to industrial and commercial units. Additionally, the demand for a review of the Chandigarh Master Plan was brought up, with council member Pankaj Khanna stating that it was imperative to align the Master Plan with the city’s evolving needs, particularly emphasizing the importance of addressing the provision for ‘urban renewal.’