Response to Public Notice; Response to Public Notice of 04.11.04: Pushta slums

(Translated Text)

Sh S Mukerjee
Under Secretary, MoUD (Delhi Divison), Nirman Bhawan, N.Delhi-11

Sub: Public Notice regarding redevelopment of Industries published on 19 November 2004


With reference to the notice issued by you, Pushta residents submit following suggestions and objections:

  1. Recently (16 November 2004, HT) newspapers reported proposals of the slum policy for Delhi, made by a committee under DDA vice chairman. These proposals appear less than the master plan provisions thus making the basis of the slum policy unclear, especially because we have written to DDA through letters and u/s 11A public Notice for IT park for lawful solution as per the master plan.
  2. The notice issued by you mentions few areas on which redevelopment is not permitted which includes the river bed. We also agree that redevelopment is not possible on all areas and we have already mentioned this through our letters. Since we are on the river bed, we are unlikely to be considered for redevelopment under the slum policy.
  3. This redevelopment notice for industries directly affects us since the slum policy too is talking of redevelopment and that public notice too will talk about redevelopment guidelines. Because of this we have following objections and suggestions:

    (a) Since public notice is about redevelopment, mention of resettlement (industries will have to shift to conforming areas) should be removed. This appears to legitimize illegal resettlement of industries and slums in Bawana, etc.

    (b) We and bawana residents have already filed objections to this kind of resettlement on which we have not received any reply. In Bawana residents and industry owners are facing many problems as reported by the media. Bawana has become problematic and killer (death of children was reported) resettlement. DSIDC is also constructing workers housing which are not as per the master plan.

    (c) We fear that guidelines for this kind of problematic redevelopment and resettlement will also appear for slum policy public notice thus redevelopment guidelines should be separated form resettlement provisions.

    (d) In case you decide not to remove resettlement provisions from the public notice we request, before hearing of this notice, hearing of IT park public notice and, till then, no action for our displacement / resettlement.

    (e) We also fear that after our displacement, IT park like developments will be made in the river bed, model for which was displayed in the Delhi Pavilion at Pragati Maidan. IT park notice mentions the IT park land use as commercial whereas 17 November 2004 advertisement in the HT by the DSIDC mentions IT park as industry. As per your notice industries can not be permitted in the river bed. Any development on the riverbed affects all the citizens of Delhi therefore it is necessary that contradictions in these two notices be clarified so that it does not appear that in the name of resettlement and redevelopment illegal development is promoted.

    (f) IT park construction is a futuristic proposal which is necessary but should not be at the cost of present needs of employment, education, etc, of industries / slums being shifted to Bawana, etc. Construction of IT park on a sensitive site after relocating industries to sub-standard Bawana is inappropriate. Since slum residents also are facing similar situation, this concerns us.

    (g) Lastly, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that Delhi Government has highly publicised the notice for redevelopment of industries but similar publicity was not given to IT park public notice on the river bed by Delhi government even though construction on river bed is an issue for the whole city.

Thanking you

Nizammudin, Moolchand Basti


  • Principal Commissioner cum secretary, DDA with ref. to 3 (d,e,f) for early hearing of public notice for IT Park
  • Vice Chairman DDA for 1, 3c