Proposal to modify dmp to, in effect, release land along the entire metro corridore from the purview of land use controls

PUBLIC NOTICE

The following modification which the Central Govt. proposes to make in the Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan for Delhi are hereby published for public information. Any person having any objection(s)/suggestion(s) with respect to the proposed modifications may send objection(s)/suggestion(s) in writing to the Principal Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, ‘B’ Block, INA, New Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this notice. The persons making the objection(s)/suggestion(s) should also give the name and address.

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS:

Page 155 (left hand side) of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 1.8.1990 after heading A-3 Rural Zone (including A-2) after b(ii), the following is proposed to be added:

“(iv) Notwithstanding the land use provisions of Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan, Metro stations alongwith property development upto a maximum area of 3 ha. shall be permitted in all use zones, except Recreational Use Zone, on the basis of maximum 25% ground coverage and max.100 FAR, subject to Development Code Clause 3(3) of the Gazette”.

Sd/-

[V M BANSAL]

Pr Commr.-cum-Secretary

RESPONSES

GITA DEWAN VERMA, Planner, 13.05.20041

  • POONAM PRAKASH, Planner, 14.05.2004 > (Full text2)
  • S C GUPTA, Planner (on information by above, copy not available)
  • E F N RIBIERO, Architect-cum-Planner (later, on request of above, copy available, permission to post not sought)

FOLLOW-UP

  • 06.06.2004: Letter3 to DDA Commissioner (Planning) for addition of NCMP-DMP note on industries
  • 23.06.2004: Letter4 to DDA Commissioner (Planning)for addition of NCMP-DMP note on informal sector
  • 26.06.2004: News report of LG visit to Metro Depot, etc5
  • 15.10.2004: incorporated in response to Public Notice of September 20046
  • 1. 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...

  • 2. source: http://skel.architexturez.net/site/dmp2021/ncmp/i/mpd/040514
  • 3. 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
    http://skel.architexturez.net/pst/52405204-e316-4c29-abc4-6dfca203ec49
  • 4. source: http://skel.architexturez.net/site/FILES/hawkers/mpisg/040623.doc
  • 5. L-G says Metro pride of Capital
    Daily Pioneer, 26.06.2004

    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.

  • 6. Public Notice of September 2004
    Proposal to modify DMP to "regularize" metro property development come up illegally on the riverbed.

    http://skel.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-22629