Mr E Sreedharan, Managing Director, DMRC

Sub: WP 8523/2003 (Shiv Narayan v/s DDA & Ors)

Ref: News item: ‘Overground track worries ASI’, Hindu, 24.03.05 (text reproduced below)

Dear Sir,

DMRC is Respondent No.6 in the above petition targeted against the cumulative impact of violations of Master Plan / Zonal Plan in Mehrauli-Mahipalpur area. Para-11(c) in it refers to para-10.1 of F-Zone Plan that mentions proposed MRTS corridors in the Zone and stipulates that “MRTS wherever possible may run on surface. However, in the areas adjacent to important conservation zones, monuments of urban heritage, metro transportation network should be underground”.

As per the news item under reference, now ASI has also expressed reservation about overhead metro corridor near Qutb. There are other ASI protected sites in the area and recent initiatives of GNCTD and MCD to extend conservation regimes to other sites also require DMRC to ensure appropriate conformity with Zonal Plan or, if needed, seek Plan modification by due process.

In the instant petition DMRC has not filed counter-affidavit as per Order of 22.09.2004 and we hope it will do so now in view of the above and also since DDA has said in its counter-affidavit that the averments in para 11(c) need to be specifically answered by the DMRC. Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG 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 researcher / writer and consultant to citizens’ groups on MPISG and enterprises on AZ-Plan synergy platforms

cc:

• LG / DDA Chairman
• DG, ASI

---

C Babu Rajiv, Director General, ASI

Sub: News item: ‘Overground track worries ASI’, Hindu, 24.03.05

Dear Sir,

We are enclosing herewith a copy of our letter to MD, DMRC apropos the above, in context of our WP 8523/2003 (Shiv Narayan v/s DDA & Ors).

We have earlier drawn ASI’s attention to conservation enabling statutory provisions of Delhi Master Plan – in context of our WP 4978/2002 (Delhi Science Forum v/s DDA & Ar) in which Hon’ble High Court ordered the 52 Ha scheme at Sultangarhi stopped and inquired into on 16.09.2002, precipitating Public Notice, in response to which objections were filed by over 1700 families from the area, including 400 year old Mahipalpur Village and erstwhile quarry workers’ settlement of Rangpuri Pahari Malakpur Kohi that derives its name from that of the original settlement around Sultangarhi.

Although dominant heritage discourse remained indifferent to them, opportunities for holistic and conflict-free conservation do arise from the statutory Delhi Master Plan regime and old communities’ stakes in it. The multiplicity of statutory and juridical regimes lately created calls even more than before for a synthesizing framework that we hope ASI will intervene in DMP-2021 to ensure.

Meanwhile, we request with urgency a copy of ASI’s letter to DMRC/RITES or any other communication confirming the view expressed in the news report under reference in order to bring the same to the attention of the court in our writ petition, in which we have to file Rejoinder and the next hearing is on 27/04/2004.

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG 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 researcher / writer and consultant to citizens’ groups on MPISG and enterprises on AZ-Plan synergy platforms

cc: LG/DDA Chairman

---

Shri BL Joshi, LG/DDA Chairman

Sub: News item: ‘Overground track worries ASI’, Hindu, 24.03.05 / Budget speech

Ref: Our letter of 09.03.2005 (enclosed)

Respected Sir,

We are enclosing herewith copies of our letter to DMRC and ASI apropos the above, in context of our WP 8523/2003 (Shiv Narayan v/s DDA & Ors), in which DDA has submitted in its counter-affidavit of 22/02/2004 that contentions pertaining to DMRC in the petition need to specifically answered by DMRC while adding that “planning is a specialized process and it would not be correct for the petitioner to decide or question the viability of the length of the Metro Corridor”, etc.

The counter-affidavit also justifies, while conceding illegality of, among others the GNCTD projects that not only continue amidst private illegalities but have also been mentioned in the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech in the Assembly (which suggests that a lot of the Budget expenditure is for similar illegal projects) and subsequently more projects here have also been announced as part of GNCTD plans for Commonwealth Games. There have also been news reports of questions in this Assembly session about the constitutional basis of GNCTD’s Rural Development Board and expenditure through it as well as about its “Bhagidaari” scheme, about MCD reiterating the GNCTD policy to allow commercial misuse of farmhouses, about the resolution for Lal Dora exemptions that GNCTD has been speaking of having been defeated in the Assembly, etc. And in answer to the question on backlog on mandatory development for integration of village population in surrounding development, DDA has said in its counter-affidavit that the village population here can work as domestic assistance in Vasant Kunj flats.

DDA’s view that it is not correct for anyone to question details of decisions being taken in disregard of the specialized process of planning is untenable since the statutory process of planning envisages public scrutiny and comment and its view is dangerous since it seems to have forgotten that its powers over public land are limited by their purpose of development according to Plan.

DDA has not filed counter-affidavit as per order of 23/02/2005 and we read in the news report about Authority meeting of 28/02/2005, especially your reported disapproval of post-facto land use changes, some hope. We request again:

• all that we have requested in our enclosed letter, especially a copy of relevant portions of the minutes of the Authority meeting of 28/02/2005 to be able to include the same in our Rejoinder
• directions for stopping the work on various projects covered by our petition till its disposal as well as against any demolitions for them or other such projects

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG Planner