Idgah Public Notice

for change of land use from residential to extensive industrial and slaughter house in Walled City

Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / 21.05.2003 / UPDATED 20.06.2003

On 12.05.2003 Ministry of Urban Development published a Public Notice inviting objections and suggestions about a proposal to modify the Master Plan to change the land use of an area in the Walled City from residential to extensive industrial with leave to set up an abattoir. The Notice itself was arguably defective and a letter seeking clarifications was sent on 20.05.2003. This information was posted here and circulated1 on 21.05.2003. A discussion at the MPD-2021 meeting on 02.05.2003 was proposed and agenda for it circulated on 01.06.20032.

At the meeting of 02.05.2003 I outlined techno-legal points on which my planner's objection was based. There was some discussion on how various concerns - land use, heritage, environment, animal rights, etc - could be effectively raised through these and similar. There was also some discussion on logistics of responding and mobilising responses.

About 70 responses to the Public Notice have been filed. Text / information mailed back is posted here.

Gita Dewan Verma / Planner

Sonya Ghosh, Amita Singh, Amit Chaudhery / Forum for Ethical Science

Prof Nalini Thakur / Conservation Architect / Head of Department of Architectural Conservation, SPA

Chetan Sahasrabudhe / Conservation Architect

AL. Valliappan / Housing Planner

Himani Jain / Urban and Regional Planner

Swati Sahasrabudhe / Landscape Architect

Vishakha / Conservation Architect

Lakshmi Priya / Conservation Architect

Sarath Baijapati / Architect and student of M.Arch Conservation

Shruti Kadasi / Architect and student of M.Arch Conservation

Yatin Jain / Architect and student of M.Arch Conservation

Jeyant Gehi /Urban Planner

Urmi Buragohain / Urban and Regional Planner

Sanika Jain / Environmental Planner

Hardeep Lamba and other students of Planning

Poonam Prakash / Planner and Senior Lecturer in School of Planning and Architecture

Aruna Bhowmick / Citizen Activist and others

A S Karandikar / Citizen Activist and others, including in Idgah area

Sushil Verma / Architect

Gita Dewan Verma, Planner, 1356 D-I, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070

03.06.2003

Sir,

I wish to place on record the following in response to the Public Notice under reference:

(a)My objections to the Public Notice itself, for being defective, unmindful of relevant judicial/legal processes, beyond jurisdiction and bereft of transparency. I do so as a planner and citizen convinced that Public Notice is the only legal and democratic process for public participation and anything short of wholehearted commitment to making it effective is undemocratic.

(b)My objections to the proposed Plan modification, for being contrary to sectoral and overall goals of the Plan and, therefore, not a type of modification permissible under Delhi Development Act and Master Plan. I do so as planner convinced that the Plan is a document of citizens’ entitlements and modifications must enhance and not infringe these, as independent researcher raising about industrial land use questions that MoUD has yet to answer, and as citizen aggrieved by infringement through the proposed modification of entitlements relating to my city’s heritage.

(c)My suggestions to MoUD to, besides withdrawing this proposal, take its responsibilities in respect of implementation and modification of the Master Plan seriously in public interest. I do so as planner dismayed by MoUD’s recent interventions that add up to nothing short of subversion of planned development and are making the city’s problems intractable.

My objections and suggestions are spelt out herewith.

A. OBJECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE ITSELF:

The purpose of issuing Public Notice – opportunity for public scrutiny and comment – is rendered infructuous if the Public Notice process is itself non-transparent or illegal. I find the manner of issuance of this Public Notice objectionable on these counts, as follows:

1.The Public Notice fails to provide or direct the public to basic information required by law:

·The Notice fails to specify where the plan showing the modification is available. This is in contravention of the prescribed form (Form B for Public Notice for modifications incorporated in Delhi Master Plan and Zonal Development Rules, 1959, vide an amendment in 1966).

·The description of boundaries of the area in the Notice is such that it does not permit identification of the site even on an Eischer Map, the map most commonly used in the city.

·The Notice does not fully describe the proposed modification. It does not specify which of 81 types of extensive industries is proposed, if the abattoir / H-category activity is in addition to or substituting / redeveloping use already existing in the walled city, etc.

2.The Public Notice fails to provide or direct the public to information about recent/ongoing judicial/legal processes having a bearing on the proposed modification:

· Supreme Court directions for closure of H-category units (1996), for limiting the number of cattlehead brought to the abattoir in the area (2000), and for government’s view on allowing industries in residential areas (2003). The proposed modification may well be in contempt of / amounting to frustrating process of law in respect of these.

·Due process of on-going Master Plan revision. The proposed modification, besides pre-empting holistic revision, curtails opportunity for participation as the revised Plan Notice will allow 90 days while this Notice allows 30 from date of Notice (06.05.03). This is over and above curtailment due to delay in publication (on 12.05.03).)

3.The Public Notice fails to provide or direct the public to any plausible assurance, especially in context of #2 above, that the proposed modification is carefully considered:

·s.11A(3) requires Public Notice to be issued in form prescribed by rules, which require it to be issued under signature of DDA Secretary. Issuance in contravention by MoUD might have skirted broader consideration, as DDA has representation of state and local governments, etc.

· The Notice does not refer to outputs of industries’ expert group for on-going Plan revision or MoUD committee for industries in residential areas. GoI told Supreme Court on 06.05.2003 (date of Notice) that it has yet to make a comprehensive proposal in this regard. Recent press statements of Delhi Industries’ Minister also suggest this. The proposed modification thus appears pre-mature / unrelated to ongoing consideration of industrial use in residential areas.

4. Clarifications sought were also not provided:

Having issued a Public Notice that all but precludes even the most rudimentary public scrutiny of its content (as per #1 above), certainly precludes informed public comment (in view of #2 above) and fails to even provide any plausible assurance of careful consideration by even government (as per #3 above), MoUD also failed to provide clarifications on these points sought vide my letter of 20.05.2003 (Encl.1). This non-transparency is most objectionable and nothing short of reducing the democratic spirit of the due process of Public Notice to a farce, a mere procedural formality somehow to be surreptitiously completed to push forth arbitrary and willful modifications in brazen abuse of powers in utter disregard of the responsibilities and democratic duties for which these powers are vested in government. Recent Public Notice experiences mentioned in my said letter suggest that this has become the norm and that is most exceptionable.

B. GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION

The manner in which the Public Notice has been issued precludes comment with specificity. General comment, however, is possible because the Notice refers to a Master (not Zonal) Plan modification, meaning that its validity and worth have to be evaluated in relation to the Master Plan. While long-term planning (via instruments like Master Plan) requires that modifications be allowed for flexibility, it also requires that due process be set out and followed to ensure modifications further rather than jeopardise Plan goals. In Delhi, the land policy through which cheaply acquired public land has been placed at the disposal of the state for the purpose of development according to Plan, makes this especially imperative. Delhi Development Act also requires Plan modifications to be viewed as adjustments in furtherance of the Plan, as s.6 stipulates a single purpose (“to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan”) and also that powers under the Act are for this purpose. The Plan further requires implementation monitoring to form basis of any Plan modification (p.92). It is, in any case, obvious that powers of Plan modification cannot be abused for permitting land use contrary to the goals of the Plan or detrimental to public interest as defined in it or infringing entitlements guaranteed by it, nor to gloss over implementation failures in respect of it. The modification proposed in this Public Notice is objectionable from this perspective as follows:

1.Far from furthering sectoral Plan goals, the proposed modification jeopardises all of them:

#Walled city

A ‘basic postulate’ of the Plan since 1962, re-emphasised in the revised Plan for 2001 (p.II) is conservation of Walled City by checking conflicting land uses. The 8-point concept underlying the 2001 Plan includes Special Area status for Walled City and heritage conservation (p.IV). Plan provisions for the Walled city include, as “first requirement of the area”, shifting of noxious and hazardous industries and trades “on priority”. This is reiterated in the Special Area Regulations in the Development Code, which require shifting of these uses within a maximum period of five years and replacing them with other compatible uses (p.83), and also specifically mentioned as a target in the Monitoring frame (p.88). Shifting of noxious/extensive industries from Walled City is clearly contemplated as significant and priority task in the Plan. The proposed Plan modification is for the opposite and will jeopardize heritage interventions in Walled City by encouraging incompatible uses and condoning implementation failures.

#Residential use

Existing land use in the Notice is residential, predominant land use in the Walled City (p.83). Mixing of residential and industrial land use is prohibited by the Plan. In my letter objecting to DDA’s approval to permit it I posit that such Plan modification is beyond jurisdiction of DDA / MoUD (Encl.2). When MoUD set up a committee for this I asked for this letter to be placed before the committee. Later, I asked for the committee’s report / response to my letter, most recently after Delhi Industries’ Minister announced de facto regularization of three clusters (Encl.3). MoUD has not cared to reply. I posit, in addition to what I have already stated in my letter at Encl.2, that extensive industrial use in Walled City is even more exceptionable since shifting of industries is required not only for protecting residential amenity but also to spare land for essential facilities. Special Area Regulations for Walled City state that incompatible uses are to be shifted within five years and replaced with compatible uses (p.83). Plan provisions for shifting non-conforming units require land spared to be used ‘for making up the deficiency, as per the needs of the community’ (p.10). Shifting of incompatible uses from Walled City is clearly contemplated in the Plan as a pre-requisite for provision of community facilities, for which there is no space otherwise. The proposed Plan modification is for the exact opposite and represents an infringement of Plan entitlements of Walled City residents, who will loose residential amenity due to incompatible uses as well as space meant for their community facilities. It is especially objectionable that, having failed to provide facilities as required by the Plan, this modification, insofar as it seeks to set up an abattoir amidst schools, will now be to the detriment of some of the facilities that do exist.

#Extensive Industries / F-category

The proposed modification seeks landuse change to extensive industrial, a change expressly prohibited at policy level. “No new extensive industrial units shall be permitted except in existing identified industrial areas” and even industrial land spared by shifting non-permissible units “shall be used for light and service industries even if land use according to Master Plan is extensive industry” (p.10). The Plan sets aside 265 Ha for extensive industries, mainly “for shifting of existing incompatible industrial units” (p.13). Types of units “to be shifted immediately from Walled City” (p.112) are mainly F-category, entitled to priority in use of this land under provisions for Walled City (requiring shifting “on priority to extensive industrial areas”, etc (p.8)) and for industries (requiring allotment priority and incentives for shifting units (p.11)). F-category units elsewhere also have similar entitlements. There is no basis in the Plan to allow / set up F-category industrial activity in Walled City. The proposed modification is contrary to Plan norms and policy and, in view of provisions for extensive industrial space, amounts to short-changing industrial units on entitlements to better planned space.

#Abattoir / H-category

The proposed modification includes “leave to set up a ‘H’ category Unit”, prohibited since 1962. In 1996 Supreme Court ordered closure of H-category units. It is not known why the Idgah Abattoir continued. In 2000 Supreme Court limited daily intake of MCD Abattoir to 200 cattle-head and a petition was filed in High Court against illegal slaughtering. Later MCD was directed to install an ETP. In April 2003 a reply to a Lok Sabha question stated “Slaughter houses are mainly water polluting units and also cause nuisance by way of foul smell due to improper handling” and that CPCB has “initiated” measures like publications, workshops, directions to take action against slaughter-houses violating pollution control norms, etc. The Public Notice does not provide or direct public to information about current status of animal slaughtering in the area and compliance of earlier directives. Nor is it clear if the proposed modification seeks to regularize an existing activity or permit a new one. In November 2001 there were reports about controversial modernization of MCD abattoir. Residential use and abattoirs are grossly incompatible activities and the Master Plan requires abattoirs to be shifted from Delhi. The proposed modification is for the exact opposite and cannot possibly be considered bonafide Plan adjustment in furtherance of Plan goals / policies.

2.The proposed land use modification is contrary to the basic purpose of land use planning, explicated in the postulates and premises of the Master Plan:

Re-emphasizing basic postulates of ‘balanced development, ‘minimum friction’, checking ‘undesirable and conflicting land uses’, etc, enunciated by the 1962 Plan, the revised Plan for 2001 “ensures appropriate balance between spatial allocations” (p.II).

·The proposed modification seeking to introduce in Walled City grossly incompatible land uses that the Plan requires to be shifted out of it, precisely for being incompatible, is so contrary to the premises of the Plan as to amount to its negation. It does not need planning wisdom, only common sense, to see that a use like an abattoir amidst schools in a place where such use is contentious is unacceptable. That such should be sought in the guise of due process of law is a travesty not only of the Plan but also of due process for its modification.

·The proposed modification will distort balance of spatial allocations. Converting 2.61 Ha in Walled City to extensive industrial use means losing space for, say, half a dozen primary schools or a 200-bed hospital. It also means ‘sparing’ 2.61 Ha of planned extensive industrial space for unplanned [mis]use. Apropos the latter, as pointed out in letters to MoUD, over 2000 Ha of planned industrial space remains unaccounted for (Encl.4). A copy of a letter directing action for ‘redressal of grievance’ about these 2000 Ha has recently been received from Delhi Government (Encl.5), even as the cumulative distortion in balanced development on account of such modifications is hardly a routine grievance.

C. SUGGESTIONS

In view of all the foregoing I would like to request, apart from withdrawal of the proposal, the following:

1.MoUD role in Master Plan implementation rather than Plan modification.

It is MoUD’s constitutional responsibility to ensure implementation of Delhi Master Plan. Recent times have seen too much Plan modification and too little Plan implementation. ‘Legitimization’, through modifications such as this, of all manners of incompatible uses is to the detriment of quality of urban life as well as discipline in urban governance and serves only vested interests at the cost of public interest and citizens’ entitlements. In particular, for uses covered by this Notice, the following are requested:

(a)Walled City interventions should be made a priority as they represent the oldest Plan implementation backlog. The ‘first requirement’ for this, as per Plan since 1962 as well as by common sense is, indeed, the shifting of hazardous and noxious industries and trades.

(b) Implementation of Plan provisions for over 2000 Ha of additional industrial space, besides infill space and space rendered surplus by shifting non-permissible industries from older industrial areas must precede any Plan modification proposals for industries. I reiterate my request to MoUD to place the status of this planned industrial space in Court.

2.Seriousness about due process for Plan modification.

Due process for Plan modification requires planning data, careful consideration and adequate opportunity for scrutiny/comment. Each of these is imperative and missing in recent initiatives:

(a)Without reference to planning data, especially implementation monitoring and experiences, Plan modifications tend to condone infringement/denial of citizens’ entitlements by downsizing them – such as through regularization or sub-standard re-settlement instead of planned development. This amounts to punishing victims while condoning culprits and makes no sense. The instant modification ‘punishes’ residents of Walled City and owners/workers of industries by ‘legitimizing’ denial of their rights to, respectively, environment free from hazardous/noxious uses and planned industrial space / sensitive relocation thereto. And it condones those guilty of having failed to discharge their responsibilities for development according to Plan for those denied. All recent proposals of DDA/MoUD point to absence of planning data, as noted in my letter (Encl.6)about a letter from DDA to me.

(b) Without consideration of wider / longer-term implications, Plan modifications can add up to massive distortion in the balance of spatial allocations. As mentioned in my letter at Encl.2, modifications permitting industrial use of residential space, commercial use of industrial space, etc, are ending up ‘sparing’ more and more land for unplanned up-market use by ‘regularising’ planned down-market uses in incompatible situations. Not only is this unacceptable on grounds of equity objectives of Delhi’s land policy and Master Plan, and indeed Constitution of India, it is unsustainable in terms of carrying capacity. 2.6 Ha may seem little on its own, but city wide 5000 Ha have been ‘spared’ from the entitlements of low-income families, industries, hawkers, etc, and that is a lot.

(c) Without adequate opportunity for scrutiny and comment there is no check on quality and integrity in development decisions. The instant case is a glaring example of the lack of seriousness about this, but it is by no means unique. My experiences with Public Notices for Plan modification issued in the last few months suggest that government seems to view them as a ‘hassle’. (It was in this context, especially MoUD’s failure to respond to concerns about repeated subversion of Public Notice process, that I sought in my letter at Encl.1, besides clarifications, assurance of seriousness about the present Notice). This is unfortunate because all other mechanisms for public participation are exclusionary and rightly devoid of legal sanctity and tending to confine development dialogue in an ‘echo chamber’, where there is growing marginalisation of professional expertise and primary stakeholders. I strongly suggest that MoUD take the Public Notice process seriously since, especially after CBI’s findings apropos DDA, there is need to double-check all Master Plan related decisions.

In the hope that this Public Notice will not be subverted like all recent ones have been, I look forward to a hearing or at least a response. Thanking you

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma

Planner

B.Arch (SPA, gold medalist); M.Planning (SPA, gold medalist); PG Dip-Research (IHS-Rotterdam, top rank); Dip-Training (DoPT)

Formerly: Senior Fellow (HUDCO-HSMI), Visiting Faculty (SPA, TVB SHS), Consultant (DfID, IHSP, Nuffic, UNICEF, etc)

Currently: Independent planning researcher and writer and planning consultant to citizens’ groups

 

List of enclosures referred to

1.Letter of 20.05.2003 seeking clarification about the Public Notice under reference [1p]

2.Letter of 21.12.2002 objecting to ‘approval’ for sweeping regularisation of industrial units in 24 residential areas and my letters [2p]

3. Letter of, for example, 01.06.2003, seeking the committee’s report / view [1p]

4.Letter of 26.04.2003, with enclosure summarising previous correspondence [2p]

5.Letter from Delhi government in response to copy of letter at #4 [1p]

6.Letter of 14.02.2003 about apparent absence of mandatory monitoring data [1p]

LIST

Forum for Ethical Science, 3172, Block D, Pocket III, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070

Date: 04.05.03

Dear Sir,

With reference to the Public Notice dated 6.5.2003 and printed in the Times of India dated 12.05.03 , we, the undersigned animal activists and Founder Trustees of the NGO Forum for Ethical Science (Regd) ,would like to strongly object to the plan for an abattoir and modifications in the Idgah area on grounds that certain relevant information pertaining to public health has deliberately been suppressed and not made available to the public for the sole purpose of promoting commercial interests and state controlled industry based on the slaughter of animals . This information relates to I- Land use of the walled city as envisaged by the Master Plan

II- Existing status of the abattoir in the Walled City

III- Plans of the MCD to build a new modernised abattoir

I- Land use of the walled city as envisaged by the Master Plan:

1. Since 1962 the Master Plan has emphasised the conservation of Walled City by checking conflicting land uses and shifting of noxious industries on a priority basis . The 2021 Plan includes Special Area status for Walled City and heritage conservation .

2. Residential areas predominate in the Walled City and the Plan prohibits the mixing of residential and industrial land use .Therefore, it is unacceptable to regularizie non-conforming units in residential areas . The State cannot use for commercial purposes land which is meant for the community.

II- Existing status of the abattoir in the Walled City:

1. The Public Notice deliberately maintains silence on the compliance of directives:

a) The Master Plan requires Abattoirs to be shifted from Delhi but the proposed modification includes "leave to set up a H category Unit", prohibited since 1962.

b) In 1996 Supreme Court ordered closure of H-category units but the Idgah Abattoir continued to function.

c) In 2000 Supreme Court limited daily intake of MCD Abattoir to 200 cattle-head but approximately 2,500 animals are slaughtered everyday .

d)This ‘official’ abattoir was directed to install an Effluent Treatment Plant and report compliance to DPCC. But in April 2003 in reply to a Lok Sabha question on whether compliance had been made a vague and ambiguous answer was given :"Slaughter houses are mainly water polluting units and also cause nuisance by way of foul smell due to improper handling. Many slaughter houses, operated by local bodies, do not take adequate pollution control measures." Nowhere is it mentioned that an Effluent Treatment Plant has been set up.

e) The Public Notice does not provide or direct public to information the current status of animal slaughtering, (health of animals ,method of slaughter, species) in the area.

2. The Public Notice does not bring to the notice of the public that the lack of Effluent Treatment Plant and uncontrolled disposal system of abattoir waste renders surface waters and underground water systems unsafe for human populations . These are additional health and environmental risks :

a) zoonotic diseases (diseases of animals transmitted to humans) : some of these infectious diseases are tuberculosis, colibacillosis, salmonellosis, brucellosis and helminthoses which could be present in slaughtered animals

b) Contamination of groundwater by pollutants and of water downstream of effluent discharge points is not uncommon. In a study in Nigeria it was found that the chemical composition of the groundwater approximately 250m from the abattoir site was found unsatisfactory as raw water source for drinking purposes.

c) The impact of the pollution of the Yamuna river by slaughterhouse wastewater/ proximity of the existing abattoir to the river has not been studied

d) Pathogenic species of bacteria species could be present in abattoir wastewater such as Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Salmonella, Escherica Coli Norcadia species.Many of the pathogens of slaughtered animals have the potential for surviving in the environment and thus affecting animal and human health.

e) Contaminated ground and surface waters are of no use for human, agricultural and recreational use, destroys biotic life, poisons the natural ecosystems, poses a threat to human life and is therefore against the principles of sustainable development.

III-Plans of the MCD to build a new modernised abattoir

1. It is deliberately not revealed in the Public Notice whether the proposed modification seeks to regularize the existing abattoir or permit a new one. However the hidden agenda of the MCD in violating Court Orders and the Master Plan by setting up an industry in a residential area is amply clear :

a) despite Court Orders, the MCD has no intention of relocating the existing abattoir at Idgah . In a newspaper report ‘MCD keeps plans ready to modernise century-old abattoir’ byEsha Roy in The Indian Express, New Delhi, 28-11-2001 theChief Medical Officer of the MCD,Dr K.N. Tiwari is quoted to have said : "We were first told to shift the slaughter hours to the outskirts of Delhi, or at least a less populated area, and then to modernise the slaughterhouse. We have been trying to shift the present slaughter house for the past 30 years. But everytime we identify an area and start the process we meet stiff opposition both from public as well as the politicians in the area. Nobody wants a slaughter house in their vicinity."

b) In the newspaper report quoted above are outlined plans for setting up a modernised slaughter industry in the existing abattoir in a 100 crore project. Extensive mecanisation is envisaged: conveyer belts, dividers used for cutting carcasses in halves , separators, deskinners to take hide off the carcasses , "stunners" (to make animal unconscious before slaughter), a central chilling system, automated robo-cutting system, servo feeders which automatically segregate different sections of the carcass and a data acquisition system etc. The system has a production capacity of 700 animals per hour.

f) It is no wonder then that the Public Notice does not fully describe the proposed modifications. It does not specify if the abattoir / H-category activity is in addition to or substituting / redeveloping use already existing in the walled city, etc.and fails to provide or direct the public to information about recent/ongoing judicial/legal processes having a bearing on the proposed modification ( Supreme Court directions for closure of H-category units (1996), for limiting the number of cattlehead brought the abattoir in the area (2000), and for government's view on allowing industries in residential areas (06.05.2003).

Therefore, it is submitted that the Public Notice

1. Suggests changes violative of the premise of the Master Plan,

2. does not inform the public as to where the plan showing the modification is available,

3. does not permit identification of the site because of ambiguity in the description of boundaries of the area

4. Does not inform the public of the health hazards caused by the existing slaughterhouse: the MCD has made no serious efforts to investigate and prevent such health hazards and has even evaded the question presented in Parliament about the installation of an ETP. Moreover, in contravention of Court Orders to the effect , instead of relocating the slaughterhouse, it intends to modernise and upgrade slaughtering to the level of assembly line industry located in a residential area.

It is also submitted that the haste with which this Public Notice has been published, the ambiguous and non specific nature of its text , the limited time given for objection which allows for 30 days from date of Notice (06.05.03) but was published on the 12.05.03 (thus allowing less time) and finally the manner in which the Public Notice has not been issued under signature of Secretary, DDA in contravention of practise, all the above suggests that the proposed modifications pertaining to the abattoir are sought to be passed in a surreptitious and secretive manner.

Therefore all such modifications must be urgently reconsidered , the existing abattoir must be forthwith removed and the ‘modernised’ abattoir located in a non residential area.

Sonya Ghosh

Amita Singh

Amit Chaudhery

LIST

Nalini Thakur, Head of Department of Conservation, SPA, Flat No.2, SPA Complex, New Friends Colony, N Delhi

04.06.2003

Sir,

1. The changes suggested in the Public Notice for the change of land use at Idgah area published on 12th May 2003 are most inappropriate and incompatible to the Historic Idgah. From the heritage perspective the best land use around the Idgah in order to maintain and enhance the cultural significance is open space. By doing so it continues to be a place for Id prayers for the entire metropolis of Delhi, thus celebrating and re-establishing the true nature of this Mughal Building and its environs, an integral part of Shahjahan's Imperial Capital Delhi. The suggested land use is detrimental.

2. The notice fails to provide the information regarding the real geographical location of the site for me to elaborate the suggestion made above.

3. Abattoir and polluting industry is in contravention of special area regulations of the Master Plan and Supreme Court judgements. The existing residential usage would be most compatible as it is a natural evolution and is most in tune with Master Plan and Conservation goals.

I object to the above three points.

Prof. Nalini Thakur

LIST

Chetan Sahasrabudhe, Conservation Architect, I/82 Lajpat Nagar 1, New Delhi: 110024

04.06.2003

Dear Sir,

As citizen of Delhi concerned with protection of the City’s Heritage, I have the following objections to the above stated Public notice.

1. The Public Notice fails to provide basic information for informed comment.

The notice does not specify where the plan showing the modification is available, which is in contravention of prescribed rules / practice of public notice. Description of boundaries of the area in the Notice is also such that it does not permit identification of the site even on a city map such as Eicher Map. As such, the Notice does not allow meaningful and informed specific comment. The following are general objections with reference to the provisions of the Master Plan for the Walled City.

2. The proposed modification is contrary the Plan goal of conservation of the walled city.

Delhi is a city with immense Cultural significance and the Master plan has responded to this value by considering the Walled city and its extensions as a ‘Special Area’. Conservation of Delhi’s heritage, particularly the Walled city has been a city wide goal of the Master plan since 1962. Also since 1962 “checking conflicting land uses” (p.II) is central to Master Plan proposals for the Walled City. The 2001 provisions specifically mention, as “first requirement of the area”, shifting of noxious and hazardous industries and trades “on priority”. Studies have shown that implementation of Plan provisions for conservation / management of the Walled have been constrained by bottlenecks at this “first requirement” as hazardous and noxious trades have only been shifted under pressure from the courts. The proposed modification, in effect seeks to legitimize this bottleneck and may well set a precedent that will make conservation / management interventions impossible. The proposed modification will adversely affect the authenticity and integrity of the Resource (Walled City), which is against the norms of Heritage management. This is most objectionable.

3. The proposed modification is in contravention of special area regulations.

Special Area Regulations in the Development Code require shifting of these uses within a maximum period of five years and replacing them with other compatible uses (p.83). Shifting of noxious/large industries from the Walled City is also specifically mentioned as a target in the Monitoring frame (p.88). The proposed modification is for the exact opposite of what is thus explicitly defined as mandatory significant and priority task in the Plan and, in effect, amounts to condoning / legitimizing implementation failure. The government of late has been claiming to protect Heritage through numerous small scale, short term cosmetic projects which are comparable to the elephant as seen by the proverbial blind men. The proposed modification is completely at variance even with these piece-meal projects. This is most objectionable.

LIST

AL. Valliappan, Housing Planner, C-7/83, DDA Flats, Safdarjung Development Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-16

Himani Jain, Urban and Regional Planner, Flat No. 1076, Pocket G.H.-13, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110087

Swati Sahasrabudhe, Landscape Architect, I/82 Lajpat Nagar 1, New Delhi: 110024

Vishakha, Conservation Architect, 6 Killokari, New Delhi

Lakshmi Priya, Conservation Architect, D-7 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

Sarath Baijapati, Architect and student of M.Arch Conservation, SPA

Shruti Kadasi, Architect and student of M.Arch Conservation, SPA

Yatin Jain, Architect and student of M.Arch Conservation, SPA

Jeyant Gehi, Urban Planner, 11D, DDA flats, Taimur Nagar, New Delhi 110065

04.06.2003

Dear Sir,

The following is the list of my objections to the above mentioned proposed master plan modification of Change of Land Use of Idgah area:

The Notice admittedly refers to a Master Plan modification (not Zonal Plan modification), meaning that its validity and worth have to be evaluated in relation to the Master Plan. While long-term planning (via instruments like Master Plan) requires that modifications be allowed for flexibility, it also requires that due process be set out and followed to ensure modifications further rather than jeopardize Plan goals. In Delhi, the land policy through which cheaply acquired public land has been placed at the disposal of the state for the purpose of development according to Plan makes this imperative.Delhi Development Act also requires Plan modifications to be viewed as adjustments in furtherance of the Plan, as section 6 stipulates a single purpose (“to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan”) and also that powers under the Act are for this purpose. The Plan further requires implementation monitoring to form basis of any Plan modification (p.92). It is, in any case, obvious that powers of Plan modification cannot be abused for permitting land use contrary to the goals of the Plan or detrimental to public interest as defined in it or infringing entitlements guaranteed by it, nor to gloss over implementation failures. Far from furthering related sectoral goals of the Master Plan, the proposed modification jeopardizes all of them. The modification proposed in this Public Notice is objectionable from this perspective as follows:

a) Existing land use in the Notice is residential, which is the predominant land use in Walled City (p.83). Mixing of residential and industrial land use is prohibited by the Plan. Special Area Regulations for Walled City state that large/noxious industries are to be shifted within a maximum of five years and replaced with other compatible uses (p.83). Plan provisions for shifting of non-conforming industries also require land spared to be used ‘for making up the deficiency, as per the needs of the community’ (p.10). Shifting of industries from Walled City is clearly contemplated in the Master Plan, as a pre-requisite for provision of community facilities, for which there is no space otherwise. If all the non-conforming industries from the walled city and its extensions were to be shifted then it would provide sufficient land for the provision of facilities which are presently lacking in the walled city. The proposed modification will exacerbate rather than resolve conflict by proposing a grossly incompatible land use in a residential area. And it will distort balance of spatial allocations. 2.61 hectares of Special Area residential Land use converted to extensive industrial means a loss of space that could accommodate, say, half a dozen primary schools or a 200-bed hospital. It also means ‘sparing’ of 2.61 hectares from planned industrial space for unplanned use/misuse. The proposed Plan modification is for the exact opposite and represents an infringement of Plan entitlements of residents of the Walled City, who will loose through it residential amenity on account of incompatible land uses as well as space meant for their community facilities.

b) The proposed modification includes “leave to set up a ‘H’ category Unit”, prohibited since 1962. In 1996 Supreme Court ordered closure of H-category units. It is not known why the Idgah Abattoir continued. In 2000 Supreme Court limited daily intake of MCD Abattoir to 200 cattle-head and a petition was filed in High Court against illegal slaughtering in the streets. Later MCD was directed to install an ETP in its abattoir and report compliance to DPCC. In April 2003 in reply to a Lok Sabha question it was stated. “Slaughter houses are mainly water polluting units and also cause nuisance by way of foul smell due to improper handling. Many slaughter houses, operated by local bodies, do not take adequate pollution control measures” and that CPCB has “initiated” measures like publications, workshops, directions to the SPCBs and PCCs to take action against slaughter-houses violating pollution control norms, etc.. The Supreme Court also said in its judgment that the relocated “H” category units would be allowed in designated industrial areas only on the condition of modernization and implementation of pollution control and environment friendly technology. The Public Notice does not provide or direct public to information of the current status of animal slaughtering in the area and compliance of earlier directives. Nor is it clear if the proposed modification seeks to regularize an existing activity or permit a new one. Residential use and Abattoirs are grossly incompatible activities and the Master Plan requires Abattoirs to be shifted from Delhi. The proposed modification is for the exact opposite and cannot possibly be considered bonafide Plan adjustment in furtherance of its goals / policies

c) A ‘basic postulate’ of the Plan since 1962, re-emphasised in the revised Plan for 2021 (p.II) is conservation of Walled City by checking conflicting land uses. The 8-point concept underlying the 2021 Plan includes Special Area status for Walled City and heritage conservation (p.IV). Plan provisions for the Walled city include, as “first requirement of the area”, shifting of noxious and hazardous industries and trades “on priority”. This is reiterated in the Special Area Regulations in the Development Code, which require shifting of these uses within a maximum period of five years and replacing them with other compatible uses (p.83), and also specifically mentioned as a target in the Monitoring frame (p.88). Shifting of noxious/large industries from the Walled City is clearly contemplated as a significant and priority task in the Plan. The proposed Plan modification is for the exact opposite and will jeopardize conservation and management interventions in the Walled City by allowing incompatible uses and by condoning / legitimizing, implementation failures.

Re-emphasizing the basic postulates of ‘balanced development, ‘minimum friction’, ‘checking encroachment of undesirable and conflicting land uses’, etc, enunciated by the 1962 Plan, the revised Master Plan for 2001 “ensures an appropriate balance between spatial allocations” (p.II). It is to facilitate implementation of Delhi Master Plan, based on these explicit premises, that public land vests in government in Delhi. In the context of the foregoing, the proposed modification is completely contrary to the basic postulates of ‘balanced development, ‘minimum friction’, ‘checking encroachment of undesirable and conflicting land uses’, etc, enunciated by the 1962 Plan and re-emphasized in the revised Master Plan for 2001 which “ensures an appropriate balance between spatial allocations” (p.II). It is all the more objectionable on grounds of the site, as per the description in the Notice, where it is proposed, amidst three schools. It requires not any planning wisdom about ‘minimum friction’ and ‘compatible land use’ but plain common sense to appreciate that, say, a slaughter house is a singularly inappropriate activity near schools.


So in the interest of the “balanced and frictionless” development of the city I would like to request you to revert the order of the Change of land use of the Idgah area.

LIST

Urmi Buragohain, Urban/ Regional Planner, I/82 Lajapt Nagar 1, New Delhi: 110024

Sanika Jain, Environmental Planner, N 60, greater Kailash 1, New Delhi 110048

Hardeep Lamba, Student of Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi

Poonam Prakash, Senior Lecturer, Department of Physical Planning, SPA

05.06.2003

Sir,

I am a faculty in the School of Planning and Architecture and had also filed objection to another change of use notice (around metro station published on 16 Dec. 2003) to which I did not receive any response. This public notice also seems contrary to plan objective besides being illegal on various procedural counts. I object to the Public Notice due to the following:

PROCEDURE

Jurisdiction and Duration

The date of notice was 6 May 2003 but was published on 12 May 2003 which curtails the notice reponse time for six days.

Moreover, this modification if made as part of the plan revision will allow 90 days for response, while this allows only 30 days from date of Notice (06.05.03). S.11A(3) of the DDA Act requires Public Notice to be issued in the prescribed form, which requires it to be issued under signature of Secretary, DDA. Public Notice by MoUD in contravention of this may have skirted broader consideration of the modification in as much as that the Authority has representation of state and local governments, etc.

Basic Information for Scrutiny

· The Notice fails to specify where the plan showing the modification is available. This is in contravention of the prescribed form (Form B for Public Notice for modifications incorporated in Delhi Master Plan and Zonal Development Rules, 1959, vide an amendment in 1966).

· The description of boundaries of the area in the Notice is such that it does not permit identification of the site even on an Eicher Map, the map most commonly used in the city.

· The Notice does not fully describe the proposed modification. It does not specify which of 81 types of extensive industries is proposed, if the abattoir / H-category activity is in addition to or substituting / redeveloping use already existing in the walled city, etc.

This Public Notice thus seems defective and lacks transparency for anyone to make an informed objection/suggestion.

CONTENT OF THE NOTICE

While it is difficult to comment on the notice in its present form, since it is in the context of Master Plan this modification is proposed, following odbjections are made :

1. Shifting of noxious/large industries from the Walled City is clearly contemplated as a significant and priority task in the Plan. The proposed Plan modification allows incompatible uses and shift focus away from implementation issues. Plan provisions for the Walled city include, as "first requirement of the area", shifting of noxious and hazardous industries and trades "on priority". This is reiterated in the special Area Regulations in the Development Code, which require shifting of these uses within a maximum period of five years and replacing them with other compatible uses (p.83), and also specifically mentioned as a target in the Monitoring frame (p.88).

2. Existing land use in the Notice is residential, the predominant land use in Walled City (p.83). Mixing of residential and industrial land use is prohibited by the Plan. In the case of the Walled City this is even more significant, since shifting of industries is required not only for protecting residential amenity and environment but also to spare land for essential facilities , to be used for making up the deficiency, as per the needs of the community (p.10).

3. The proposed modification seeks landuse change to extensive industrial, a change expressly prohibited at normative level. "No new extensive industrial units shall be permitted except in existing identified industrial areas" and even industrial land spared by shifting non-permissible units "shall be used for light and service industries even if the land use according to the Master Plan is extensive industry" (p.10). F-category units elsewhere also have entitlements in the planned extensive industrial space. There is no basis in the Plan to allow / set up F-category
industrial activity in the Walled City. The proposed modification is contrary to Plan norms and policy and, in view of provisions for extensive industrial space, amounts to short-changing industrial units on entitlements to planned space.

4. The proposed modification includes "leave to set up a H category Unit", prohibited since 1962. Residential use and Abattoirs are grossly incompatible activities and the Master Plan requires Abattoirs to be shifted from Delhi. The proposed modification is thus contrary to what is envisaged in plan. Moreover,

· In 1996 Supreme Court ordered closure of H-category units. It is not known why the Idgah Abattoir continued.

· In 2000 Supreme Court limited daily intake of MCD Abattoir to 200 cattle-head and a petition was filed in High Court against illegal slaughtering in the streets. Later MCD was directed to install an ETP in its abattoir and report compliance to DPCC.

· In April 2003 in reply to a Lok Sabha question it was stated "Slaughter houses are mainly water polluting units and also cause nuisance by way of foul smell due to improper handling. Many slaughter houses, operated by local bodies, do not take adequate pollution control measures" and that CPCB has "initiated" measures like publications, workshops, directions to the SPCBs and PCCs to take action against slaughter-houses violating pollution control norms, etc.

The Public Notice does not provide or direct public to information the current status of animal slaughtering in the area and compliance of earlier directives. Nor is it clear if the proposed modification seeks to regularize an existing activity or permit a new one.

5. The proposed land use modification is contrary to the basic purpose of land use planning forming explicit premises of the Master Plan:
Re-emphasizing the basic postulates of 'balanced development, minimum friction, checking encroachment of undesirable and conflicting land uses, etc, enunciated by the 1962 Plan, the revised Master Plan for 2001 "ensures
an appropriate balance between spatial allocations" (p.II).

The proposed modification will exacerbate rather than resolve conflict by proposing a grossly incompatible land use in a residential area. And it will distort balance of spatial allocations. 2.61 hectares of Walled City residential area converted to extensive industrial means a loss of space that could accommodate, say, half a dozen primary schools or a 200-bed hospital.

In light of above I will suggest that this notice be reconsidered. I will also appreciate if the decision in this regard could be communicated to me.

Poonam Prakash

LIST

Aruna Bhowmick, Citizen Activist

A S Karandikar, Citizen Activist

Sushil Verma, Architect, 1356, D-I, Vasant Kunj, NIew Delhi - 110070

LIST

Letter seeking clarifications

20.05.2003

Mr Prakash Nevaltia, IAS

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Delhi Division, MoUD&PA

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: Public Notice No. K-13011/7/2001-DD-IB dated 06.05.03 appearing in newspapers on 12.05.03

Dear Sir,

I wish to file an objection in response to the above-mentioned Public Notice. Before doing so, however, I wish to seek the following clarifications about the legality of the Notice.

1. Jurisdiction. I am aware MoUD issues notices for Plan modifications directly but am unable to find the basis for the same in Delhi Development Act. s.11A (3) clearly states that the Notice is to be published in the form and manner prescribed by the rules. The Delhi Master Plan and Zonal Development Rules, 1959, amended in 1966 to incorporate Form B for Public Notice for modifications, require the Notice to be issued under signature of Secretary, Delhi Development Authority. I consider this point significant because the Authority has broad-based representation of state and local governments, etc, and issuing of Public Notice by MoUD in contravention of this Form amounts to short-circuiting broad-based consideration of modification proposals.

2. Information. Form B requires that a Plan indicating the proposed modification be available for public inspection. This Notice, in contravention of the prescribed form, does not specify where the Plan is available. Moreover, the description of boundaries in it is such that the site cannot also be identified on the Eischer Map. I consider this significant, as no informed comment is possible without basic information, in the absence of which Public Notice process reduces to a formality.

3. Duration. The Notice permits a 30-day period from date of Notice, i.e., 06.05.03 even as the Notice was published only on 12.05.03. In effect, the delay in publication truncates by a fifth the period for public comment (after rendering public scrutiny impossible by failure to place the plan for inspection). Moreover, the Notice admittedly refers to a Master Plan modification and, by all accounts, the revised Master Plan is going to be put to Public Notice any time for duration of 90 days. In effect, this Notice pre-empts that Notice, curtailing opportunity for public participation.

I also request confirmation that this modification is within jurisdiction of MoUD in view of the following:

  • Plan modifications are expected to further Plan goals and shifting of H-category activities from the Walled City has been a core concern of the Plan since 1962.
  • The proviso to s.6 precludes disregard of any other law and the Supreme Court directions for closure of H-category units are part of the legal regime.
  • On 06.05.02 Government told Supreme Court it would place before it a comprehensive proposal for industries. This Notice of same date is contrary to what Government told the Apex Court.
  • Even regularization proposals, whose legality at least I continue to question and which have yet to be approved, cannot possibly cover F-category and H-category units in residential areas.

I also request information about which F-category industry is proposed and also if the Abattoir is the same as the MCD Abattoir at Idgah, which I recollect was in the news in 2000 on account of environmental and social implications of animal slaughter in the rather complex social dynamics of the area. I also recall there was a PIL and court orders and subsequent CPCB notice regarding ETP. I think information on all this is essential for any informed comment on the proposed modification.

Lastly, I request assurance of consideration of objections received in response to this Notice. I seek this because Metro and Mixed-landuse Notices, to which I responded, seem to have been ‘subverted’ and even the Notice precipitated by the Court judgment against DDA’s illegal scheme in green belt has not been treated with seriousness commensurate with that of the unprecedented public response to it, as work on the site continues in various forms even as due process has not been completed.

Looking forward to hearing from you at the earliest so I can file a formal objection on content in time.

Yours sincerely

sd/-

Gita Dewan Verma

B.Arch (SPA, gold medalist); M.Planning (SPA, gold medalist); PG Dip-Research (IHS-Rotterdam, top rank); Dip-Training (DoPT)

Formerly: Senior Fellow (HUDCO-HSMI), Visiting Faculty (SPA, TVB SHS), Consultant (DfID, IHSP, Nuffic, UNICEF, etc)

Currently: Independent planning researcher and writer and planning consultant to citizens’ groups

TOP

Text of Public Notice published on 12.05.2003

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION

(Delhi Division)

PUBLIC NOTICE

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2003

S.O.: The following amendments/modification which the Central Government proposes to make in the Master Plan for Delhi, 2001 under Section 11-A of the Delhi Development Act, are hereby published for public information. Any person having any objection or suggestion may send the same in writing to the Under Secretary, Delhi Division, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011 within a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. The person making the objection or suggestion should also give his name and address.

Modification

It is proposed to change the land use of an area measuring an area of 2.61 ha, from residential to extensive industrial with leave to set up a ‘H’ category Unit, i.e. Abattoir House at Idgah area bounded by NE-MCD Primary School, Govt. Secondary School & Idgah Road, SE-Open Ramleela Ground, SW-Sanatan Dharam Mandir School, and NW – Desh Raj Bhatia Marg, New Delhi.

(No. K-13011/7/2001-DD-IB)

(Prakash Nevaltia)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India 

  • 1. source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/2
  • 2. source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/4