Continues to be key determinant in dmp decisions, with inertial disregard of concerns raised by qualified planning professionals and citizens affected in terms of their DMP entitlements through due process of responses to public notices, etc.

Public Notice of December 2002

Public Notice of December 20021

Proposal for DMP modification to allow metro property development already started, including on riverbed

  • PUBLIC NOTICE: Downloaded image2 (Published version not known, briefly available on DDA website)
  • RESPONSES: Two responses posted on enaction3
    20.02.2003 onwards: inauguration by LG of metro PS at Depot4 > A young professional's poser: Is nothing sacred any more? 5
    07.03.2003 onwards: suggestion to start compliance of High Court order for clearance of all riverbed encroachments with Metro Depot6
    25.12.2003 onwards: suggestion to shift metro / other property development seeking ridge / riverbed sites to Safdarjang / NCR7
    28.01.2004: Standing Parliamentary Committee visit8 > 29.01.2004: Letter9 for hearing of views on functioning of DDA invited by notice of 22.06.2003, etc (forwarded for appropriate action to Secretary MoUD as per President Secretariat letter of 11.02.2004)
    06.02.2004: CM visit, also to u/c IT Park not covered by Public Notice10 > Connected to Pushta clearance communications
    13.05.2004: incorporated in response to Public Notice of April 2004

Public Notice of April 2004

Proposal for DMP modification to allow unfettered property development all along the metro corridor

  • PUBLIC NOTICE: Published in The Economic Times of 17.04.2004 (Text11)
  • RESPONSES: | Gita Dewan Verma, Planner12 | Poonam Prakash, Planner | S C Gupta, Planner | E F N RIBIERO, Architect-cum-Planner
  • FOLLOW-UP: | 06.06.2004: Letter13 for addition of NCMP-DMP note on industries | 23.06.2004: Letter14 for addition of NCMP-DMP note on informal sector | 26.06.2004: LG visit to Metro Depot15 | 15.10.2004: incorporated in response to Public Notice of September 2004

Public Notice of September 2004

Proposal for DMP modification to "regularize" metro property development on the riverbed

By DDA’s PUBLIC NOTICE of 18.09.0416, Central Government has invited objections and suggestions on its “proposal” to change Master Plan land use on riverbed to “Commercial (IT Park)”, with “conditions” like “no further” residential development. This “proposal” is actually at an advanced stage of construction, continuing past this Public Notice, as evident from PHOTOGRAPHS of 16.10.200417 and a news report of 15.10.200418. There is some information on the DMRC WEBSITE19 about this project, started in the latter half of 2003 (ie, after the court order for clearing all riverbed encroachments, which is what this project is) and graced by a CHIEF MINISTERIAL VISIT20 on 05.02.2004 (ie, days before clearance of Yamuna Pushta began - diagonally across the river, beneath the non-conforming Secretariat where decisions to seal non-conforming industries are currently being taken and survey for further Pushta clearance is also underway).

CLEARANCE OF ALL METRO PROPERTY ENCROACHMENT on the riverbed has also been sought, especially since the court order for riverbed encroachments. This is a legitimate demand and if it seems odd that is only because of oddity of discourse that has made planned development law unspeakable phrase in pursuit of freewheeling options and is now left with no choice but to pragmatically root for “regularization” of the inequities and inefficiencies it has abetted - as in current demands for industries, hawkers, slums, unauthorized colonies, farmhouses, biodiversity parks, malls. (It is a facet of the same rooting discourse that creates riverbed furore about fully built temple and yet to happen Games Village but not metro property, obfuscates Master Plan imperatives with free-floating ideas for "new plan", calls for participation while ignoring Public Notices, etc).

By this Public Notice a new Government has chosen the old "pragmatic" discourse option of "regularizing" metro property encroachment on the riverbed. Many have chosen to respond to its choice with the legitimate demand, in context of DMP and NCMP, for encroachment removal and restoration of rule of law...

MPISG decided on 13.10.2004 to engage on this Public Notice in view of emerging "consensus" about "regularisation". About 200 responses were filed by groups in riverbed, ridge, resettlement areas and elsewhere and by those synergizing with them in professional capacity.


  • 1. Public Notice of December 2002
    Proposal for DMP modification to allow metro property development already started, including on riverbed

  • 2. source:
  • 3. source:
  • 4. source:
  • 5. source:
  • 6. source:
  • 7. Safdarjang Airport Area Development
    Suggestion made, in extension of two Public Notice responses and in context of "civil-society" proposals and unsuccessful attempts at official clarifications about these, vide letter of 15.11.2003 and placed in public domain on a dedicated mail-list1 in December 2003.
  • 8. Standing Parliamentary Committee visit
    NEW DELHI, JAN. 27. The members of Parliament's Standing Committee on Urban and Rural Development today visited the Delhi Metro Project and expressed satisfaction at the pace of progress and appreciated the new technologies adopted in the project. (Retrieved 4th July, 2013)
  • 9. source:
  • 10. CM visit, also to u/c IT Park not covered by Public Notice

    NEW DELHI, FEB. 5. The Delhi Chief Minister, Sheila Dikshit, today announced that the upcoming new Kashmere Gate-Central Secretariat underground line of the Metro Railway would be completed by June next year, a full three months ahead of the original deadline of September 2005. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation would thus be the first organisation in the Capital to "prepone rather than postpone a project". (Retrieved 4th July, 2013)
  • 11. Public Notice of April 2004
    Proposal to modify dmp to, in effect, release land along the entire metro corridore from the purview of land use controls.
  • 12. Sir, I wish to place on record a preliminary response to above-mentioned Notice and seek details of its basis, etc, to file detailed response.

    A. Objections

    A1. The Public Notice appeared on p.6 of Economic Times dated 17.04.04. I have not been able to locate it in more widely read dailies or even on DDA’s website. I do not recollect any media reports drawing attention to it. I was not informed of it even as I await reply to my s.11A response to Public Notice of December 2002 for metro property development. Nor was my client, petitioner in WP 8523/2003, including an instance affected by the proposed modification, informed of it. The Notice falls woefully short of statutory requirement for Public Notices to “be widely made known in the locality to be affected thereby by affixing copies thereof in conspicuous public places within the said locality or by publishing the same by beat of drum or by advertisement in local newspaper or by any two or more of these means, and by any other means that the secretary may think fit” (s.44 of DD Act, 1957).

    A2. The Public Notice is issued by the Authority and, therefore, u/s.11-A(1), which states that the “Authority may make any modification to the master plan or the zonal development plan as it thinks fit, being modifications which, in its opinion, do not effect important alterations in the character of the plan”. The proposed modification is beyond jurisdiction, as follows:

    • (a) s.11-A(1) permits only modifications “to the master plan or the zonal development plan”. The use of ‘or’ clearly suggests Zonal Plans cannot be modified through a Master Plan modification. The Notice, however, proposes modification “in the Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan” through introduction of text in only the Master Plan. This is all the more significant since the revised Plan approved in 1990 already reduces zonal planning responsibility to less than what was contemplated in the Act. This Public Notice is for unjustifiable further abdication of responsibility for detailed planning in favour of ad-hoc design.
    • (b) s.11-A(1) does not permit modifications that “effect important alterations in the character of the plan”. The proposed modification undoubtedly does this. It really introduces a new use premise for metro-station-cum-property-development and permits for this about 750 hectares of land in the city (@ 3 Ha per station, provided on average at every kilometer of about 250 km of proposed metro corridor). At this scale it, in effect, introduces a new use zone – amounting to what is being called in recent DDA presentations a ‘white zone’ – along the metro corridor.
    • (c) Leeway provided by s.11-A(1) for the Authority’s ‘opinion’ is tempered, since approval of the revised plan in 1990, by mandatory plan monitoring and review provisions. Without such consideration, s.11-A(1) is not usable by the Authority in terms of its object (“to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to Plan”, s.6) and the Public Notice does not refer to any plan monitoring or review studies and, in view of the ongoing plan revision, is nothing short of an attempt to substitute more rigorous statutory requirements of s.10 through misuse of s.11-A.

    A3. The proposed modification itself is clearly contrary to the Authority’s object (s.6), since it, in effect, releases about 750 hectares of land from the purview of any plan. References in the Public Notice to planning restrictions are illusory, as follows:

    • (a) The only controls specified are some thumb-rule built form controls of 25% ground coverage and 100 FAR, rationale of which is unclear and which clearly lack the depth of considered building controls set out for various use premises in clause 8(iv) of the Development Code.
    • (b) Land use restriction suggested by use of the phrase ‘subject to Development Code Clause 3(3)’ is wholly illusory. Clause 3(3) pertains to use activities permissible in a use premise. Neither metro-station nor metro-station-property-development is a use premises in the Schedule to the Development Code and, therefore, Clause-3(3) is not elaborated for them in Clause-8(iii). The proposed modification thus carries no restriction on use on metro property premises.
    • (c) It also overrides Clause-8(ii) restrictions on use premises in various use zones by making solitary exception for Recreational Use zone. This is even as Clause-8(ii) cannot be overridden in this manner, even as, say, Riverbed / Green Belt use zones also call for general exceptions since the plan as well as subsequent CGWA notification accords them greater protection than to Recreational Use zone from willful property development of the kind proposed to be permitted, and even as the Recreation Use zone exception is being violated in ongoing metro property development with impunity, in disregard of s.11A responses to Public Notice of December 2002.

    B. Suggestions

    B1. The proposed modification does not appear to be carefully considered. While some amount of metro property development is both expected and useful for planned development purposes, I posit that any systematic appraisal would find (besides need for compensatory land use adjustments for zonal fits and targets, etc) this much metro property development unjustifiable even under Metro law (which envisages only 3% cost raising through property development) and unsustainable in purely market terms and metro-property-development for revenue not only more appropriate but also more viable in a more regulated manner, say at select locations rather than all along the corridor. I seek (within ambit of s.10, which – rather than s.11A – is attracted by this so-called plan modification) details, including of appraisal of options (vis-a-vis master plan and various zonal plans) out of which this was selected, rationale for the restrictions mentioned in the Public Notice, the view taken on responses to metro property development Public Notice of December 2002, etc. I reserve my right to file a detailed response to this proposed modification in absence of adequate detail in its Public Notice, besides inadequate publicity to the same. (I came to know of it only today).

    B2. Establishing seriousness, even bonafide, of metro property development initiatives such as this Public Notice pre-requires now a modicum of accountability about the Public Notice of December 2002, my response to which has neither been heard nor replied to. I suggest in this regard the following:

    • (a) Commercial / up-market housing metro property development underway on 2.7 Ha (of total of 4.6 Ha) at Shahdra, 3.8 Ha at Seelampur, 5.1 Ha at Gautampur and 16.8 Ha at Khyber Pass should be stopped / demolished forthwith. As per Public Notice of December 2002 all this required land use change from Recreational Use and is not permissible even under the regime now proposed – in terms of the Recreational Use exception, 3 Ha limit, etc.
    • (b) Residential, commercial, etc, metro property development underway on part of the 51.9 Ha of Riverbed/Green land at Shastri Park (for which proposed land use in Public Notice of December 2002 was only transportation) should be stopped / demolished forthwith. This is because Riverbed/Green Use attracts same, even greater, exception than Recreational Use and since master plan ultimately envisages for the riverbed Recreational Use. This is also because this development is in contempt of court order of 03.03.2003 for clearance of riverbed encroachments, in purported compliance of which DDA has lately enthusiastically participated in clearing Yamuna Pushta as per a ‘high-level’ administrative decision of 03.01.2004 to which it was party in disregard of its statutory responsibilities apropos both riverbed and low-income housing, despite my representation of 07.03.2003 placing the same in perspective of the court order, etc. The timing of this Public Notice, coincident with DDA’s Pushta clearance activities, besides existing and proposed metro corridors in the area that is being cleared in selective compliance of court orders and reports about increased investor confidence in metro property development on the riverbed, does raise rather serious questions about motives.

    I expect you will hold the proposed modification in abeyance in view of the objections in terms of s.44, s.11A(1) / s.10 and s.6 pending response to the request for details (in ambit of s.10) and suggestions (with reference to s.11A Public Notice of December 2002). Should you require any clarification on this somewhat hastily written response, do kindly let me know.

    Thanking you and looking forward to hearing from you at the earliest,

    Yours sincerely

    Gita Dewan Verma / Planner...

  • 13. Metro Property Development – additions to s.11A response of 13.05.04; and request to stop all commercial space disposal pending policy for industrial units in it
  • 14. National Common Minimum Programme: Opportunities and imperatives - Delhi Master Plan provisions for informal sector trade
    Note on DMP opportunities and imperatives for NCMP informal sector commitments, sent on 23.06.04 (in view of diversionary-policy developments)
  • 15. L-G says Metro pride of Capital
    Staff Reporter/ New Delhi

    While taking a ride on the Delhi Metro, Lt Governor of Delhi BL Joshi described it as the pride of the city. Mr Joshi on Thursday had a feel of the Metro Rail, the world-class rail transport system in the Capital, travelling from Kashmere Gate to Ritahla.

    Mr Joshi also visited the Metro Operational Control located at the Shastri Park and was happy to express that the project was now being emulated in other cities. The L-G also called upon the staff to maintain the high standard of efficiency with which it was started.

    The visit was preceded by a presentation on the Metro Project at Raj Niwas in the morning by E Sreedharan, MD of DMRC. Mr Sreedharan explained to the L-G about the history, background and technical features of the DMRC.

    Later Mr Joshi also reviewed the security arrangements and the working of the Automatic Fare Collection System (AFCR) and Automatic Train Protection System (ATPS) which are among the most modern features of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).

    He also interacted with the staff to gauge the response and feedback of the citizens.

  • 16. Text of Public Notice published in the times of india on 18.09.2004, p.9, by delhi development authority (master plan section)

    The following modifications which the central government proposes to make in the master plan / zonal plan for Delhi are hereby published for public information. any person having objections / suggestions with respect to the proposed modification may send the objections / suggestions in writing to the pr. commissioner-cum-secretary, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, “b” block, INA, New Delhi, within a period of thirty days from the date of issueof this notice. The person making the objection / suggestion should also give his / her name and address.


    the change of land use of the following pocket for property development on the land of the mrts stations and depots in the shahdara to tis hazari mrts corridor is proposed as per the description listed below.

    (i) proposed change of land use:

    1. location: shastri park
    2. area in hectare: 6.0 hectare
    3. land use (mpd-2001): agriculture & water body
    4. proposed land use: commercial (it park)
    5. boundaries: north – 45 m. r/w g.t.road, ht line. west – shastri park mrts depot and shyam sirsidh baba asharam complex. south – green vacant land of dmrc. east – land belonging to dmrc with petrol pump and private guard barracks.

    (ii) development control norms:

    i) ground coverage: 25%

    ii) far: 100

    Following conditions shall be adhered to:

    (i) no further activities shall be taken up in the flood plain on the south side of the metro corridor in the shastri park depot area.

    (ii) no additional land in the flood plains in the shastri park area shall be sought for depot expansion

    (iii) no further residential development in the reclaimed area will be made.

    The plan indicating the proposed modification is available for inspection at the office of jt director (mp), 6th floor, vikas minar,, new delhi on all working days within the period referred above.

    V M Bansal


    new delhi, 18th sept, 2004 (no.f.20(2)/99/mp/pt.)

  • 17. source:
  • 18. Deadlock continues over Metro projects

    NEW DELHI, OCT. 14. The Delhi Metro railway project, which is greatly dependent on commercial exploitation of its properties for making its operations financially viable, has run into a major hurdle in the form of the Land and Development Office under the Union Ministry of Urban Development as it has withheld issue of no-objection certificates for nearly a dozen construction plans, stalling development work worth about Rs. 500 crores. (Retrieved 4th July, 2013)
  • 19. source:
  • 20. Metro coming up ahead of time
    NEW DELHI, FEB. 5. The Delhi Chief Minister, Sheila Dikshit, today announced that the upcoming new Kashmere Gate-Central Secretariat underground line of the Metro Railway would be completed by June next year, a full three months ahead of the original deadline of September 2005. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation would thus be the first organisation in the Capital to "prepone rather than postpone a project". (Retrieved 4th July, 2013)
  • 21. Safdarjang Airport Area Development
    Instead of District Park proposed in the Master Plan since 1962, the site has exclusive uses that can be shifted. Airport / flying club [1] were to shift to International airport as per Plan. Golf course / polo ground [2] and Gymkhana [3] activities have better sites at, respectively, Golf Club near Oberoi hotel, Oberoi farm polo ground beyond Airport and facilities at IHC. Santushti / Sanskriti [4] should anyway have come up on planned shopping / school sites.
  • 22. [mpisg] riverbed