Master Plan for Delhi: Implementation Issues

P.V.Mahashabdey

Former Addl. Commissioner (Plg.)

Delhi Development Authority, September 26,2014

No land for relocation of Millennium Bus Depot: DDA tells High Court.

DDA files SLP in Supreme Court

State of Delhi - Local Bodies:

- Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) (DMC Act 1957)

- New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) (NDMC Act 1994)

- Delhi Cantonment Board (Cantonments Act 2006)

Delhi Development Act 1957

• An Act to provide for the Development of Delhi according to Plan and for matters ancillary thereto.

• DDA responsible for preparation of Master Plan, Zonal Development Plans as per the prescribed procedure under the DD Act.

• Land use provisions applicable to NCTD, controlled by the DDA.

National Green Tribunal

• A Special Tribunal created by the Act of Parliament in 2010 to handle expeditious disposal of cases pertaining to Environmental Issues.

• Enacted under Constitutional Provision of Article 21, which assures citizens of India right to a Healthy Environment.

Plan Implementation in Delhi • Plan Implementation - responsibility of the

concerned Local Bodies in areas of respective jurisdiction.

• DD Act empowers the Authority to initiate action against illegal use of land in contravention of the Plan, sealing / demolition of unauthorized premises / constructions and penalties etc.

• DMC Act empowers Local Authority to take similar actions in its area of jurisdiction.

• DD Act has overriding powers over other Acts in Delhi.

Conflicts • Local Bodies / Agencies function according

to the provisions of respective statutes, which sometimes lead to Conflicts with Master Plan;

• Master Plan provisions / land use – interpretation issues;

• Multiplicity of Agencies attributes to lack of coordination, inaction, delay in actions, shifting responsibilities and litigations;

• Court Interventions / directions to concerned Local Bodies / Agencies help in deciding matters of planning, responsibilities, actions.

• Courts have played significant role in interpretation of Master Plan provisions / implementation and deciding matters.

Categories of Cases • Land Acquisition Matters; • Master Plan Policy / provisions, Land Use

Conflicts; • Unauthorized Construction, Encroachment on

Public Land; • Interpretation of Master Plan provisions; • Property disputes and others cases.

Depending upon the necessity, the matters are taken up by different courts. Some of the cases decided by the Apex Court have contributed major changes in the Master Plan and character of the city.

Selected Court Cases

1. Shifting of Hazardous / Noxious Industries from Delhi

Supreme Court of India

M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India & Others

Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Syed Shah Quadri

Case No.: Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985

Petitioner: M.C. Mehta

Respondent: Union of India & Ors.

Judgment Date: 28/04/2000

Main Prayer: Implementation of Order of Court dated 10/5/1996 regarding shifting of Hazardous / Noxious Industries from Delhi.

• In compliance with the Master Plan 2001, existing Hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries, not permitted in Delhi, shall shift to DMA, NCR, within three years;

• Land vacated by such units to be utilized according to Master Plan provisions.

• Part of the vacated land to be developed by DDA; Balance to be used by owner for housing facilities, Residential or Commercial use according to the Master Plan.

Decision

• Court considered report of the Land Allotment Committee and Report of Justice Khanna (Retd.), Chairperson of the Land Use Advisory Committee and ordered use of vacated land in following manner:

Surrender Developed

of Land by Owner

- Plots up to 2000 sqm Nil 100%

- 2000 sqm to 5.0 ha. 57% 43%

- 5.0 ha to 10 ha. 65% 35%

- 10 ha and above 68% 32%

• Owners sought permissibility of FAR on total plot area.

• Max. 1.5 times of permissible FAR under the Master Plan allowed on the resultant land.

• MC Mehta grievance – excess land not surrendered by large number of industries.

• Land to be surrendered free of cost; Owners contemplated for acquisition of land DDA under Section 15 of the DD Act after paying due compensation.

• Court decided against the land acquisition by the DDA but to be surrendered free of cost by owners.

• Cost of land compensated by allowing 1.5 times, enhanced FAR on owned land.

2. Unauthorized Industrial Activity in Residential / Non – Conforming Areas

Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India & Others

Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, B.N. Agrawal

Case no.: Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985 Petitioner: M.C. MEHTA

Respondent: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment Date: 07/05/2004

Unauthorized Industrial Activity in Residential / Non – Conforming Areas;

To decide what directions may be issued to put an end to such illegal activity.

• Unauthorized industries (B to E and A category) continued in Residential and Non – conforming areas, contrary to MPD & ZDP.

• 1995 - Affidavit filed by Secretary (Environment), Govt. of Delhi estimated 93, 000 industries operating in Delhi; majority of these in non-conforming use zones.

• Options of shifting to Industrial Areas sought by Govt. of Delhi; 513 industries and 382 persons responded.

• Courts issuing orders to reallocate existing industries operating in residential / non conforming areas;

• MCD under the directions of the State Government granting licenses, permitting setting up and registering various industrial units in non-conforming / residential areas.

• 1996 – High Powered Committee constituted to examine the type of industries which could be permitted in residential areas.

• Sept 1999 – Court order for closure of non- conforming industries by Dec 1999, if relocation / shifting not possible.

• Dec 1999 – Application by Govt. of Delhi for modification of earlier Order, and for extension of time up to March 2004 for shifting of eligible industries to industrial areas under ‘Relocation Scheme’.

• 126000 industrial units functioning – 101000 in residential / non-conforming areas and 25000 in approved industrial estates.

• 700000 workers employed in these industries.

• August 2000 – affidavit of Govt. of Delhi recommended INSITU Regularization of industrial units (70%) in residential areas.

• No mention of planning of 30% of residents, deprived of infrastructure.

• Majority of industries not covered under INSITU Regularization and did not fall within expanded category of ‘Household Industry’.

• Sept. 2000 – Affidavit of DDA stated favorable consideration of INSITU Regularization with conditions:

- Bldg. norms of residential premises;

- Non pollutant / Non – hazardous industries allowed to operate;

- Augmentation of Infrastructure as required.

• MOUD Affidavit of Dec 2000 based on Statement made in Parliament, opposing Regularization.

• City will be ‘Junkyard of unauthorized construction’; 50 million gallon of waste / day going into river Yamuna, making sewer of industrial waste, exorbitant BOD levels etc.

• Large scale changes in Master Plan required.

• MPD 2001 stipulated earmarking 6-7% of industrial area (16 new areas) in Urban Extension.

• Delhi Administration - No new industries in Delhi to be established.

Ministry Guidelines:

• July 2003 – Broad Guidelines by MoUD for Master Plan formulation, highlighting concerns, needing resolutions and policy initiatives to deal with the problems.

• Major issues - Confronting planned development; Frequent violations of the planning and development control norms;

• Growing variation between the Plan and city on ground.

Ministry Guidelines:

• Master Plan policies to be implementable in an effective manner and be vigorously enforced.

• Need for examination of existing legal framework for enforcement of Master Plan provisions, including unauthorized construction and encroachment on public land.

• Regularization cannot be done if it results in violation of Right to Life, enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution.

• Initially 15 areas considered for INSITU Regularization; 24 sought for Regularization.

• Aspects regarding infrastructure ( water, sewerage, drainage and power) not examined / considered.

• Co-operative Societies to take up Redevelopment proposals.

Decision:

• Closure of industrial units on or after 1/8/1990 as per schedule.

• Allotment of plots to 6000 wait listed industrial units in 18 months;

• Delhi Govt. may announce policy / incentives for industries established after 1/8/1990.

• Disconnection of water / electricity connections for industries found after due date.

• Appointment of Monitoring Committee for stoppage of illegal industrial activity.

• Submit progress report every two months.

Implications: MPD 2021

• Negative list of Industries and Household Industries ‘Category A’ incorporated;

• Guidelines for Regularization of Planned Industrial Areas and Unplanned Industrial Clusters formulated and notified;

• Commercial activities made permissible in Planned Industrial Areas.

• Regularization still not happening.

3. Commercialization / Misuse of Residential Premises

Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Others Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, B.N.Srikrishna, R.V. Raveendran Case No.: Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985 Petitioner: M.C. Mehta Respondent: Union of India & Ors Judgment Date: 16/02/2006 Flagrant violations of various laws including Municipal Laws, Master Plan by owners of Large number of properties throughout Delhi. Problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation.

• Courts issuing repeated orders seeking implementation of the laws; simultaneously, more and more violations taking place.

• Shifting stand of the authorities, various laws being violated against requirements of Town Planning.

• Question of misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes taken up in earlier orders dated 31/7/2001 and 20/2/2002.

• MCD to inform Court reasons for no requisite action for stopping the gross misuse of buildings in the residential areas for commercial purposes and in the construction of commercial buildings in residential areas.

Court Directions:

• Power to Seal premises for non conforming user in terms of section 345A of the MCD Act.

• Appointment of Monitoring Committee to oversee implementation of Law – sealing of offending premises in terms of letter and spirit of Court’s directions.

• Sealing to continue notwithstanding and order passed by any court.

• 28/8/2000 - MoUD letter to local authorities,

conveying deep concern of Parliament Consultative Committee over rising menace of unauthorized construction, suspected connivance of staff and ten measures for strict compliance.

• 22/7/2004 – MCD declared Scheme to facilitate registration of shops, commercial establishments etc. in the non- conforming / residential areas by granting ad-hoc licenses for premises existing till 31st March, 2003.

Implications: MPD 2021

• Notification of 2183 Mixed Use / Commercial Streets allowing commercial activities in residential areas.

• Chapter on ‘Mixed Use’ incorporated specifying detailed provisions for permissibility.

• Subsequent modifications carried out in due course, allowing various activities.

• Policy resulted in large scale commercialization of residential premises resulting in parking problems and misuse.

4. Commercialization and Redevelopment of East Kidwai Nagar,

New Delhi

Delhi High Court Aman Lekhi & Others. v/s Union Of India & Ors.

3/7/2014

Case No.W.P.(C) 3263/2014 & CM APPL. 6739/2014

Author: Manmohan

Commercialization and Redevelopment of East Kidwai Nagar, as envisaged if allowed, would amount to creating an urban slum in the heart of the city.

• First conceptual proposal approved by the Union Cabinet in 2010 with a 10% commercial space component.

• Project in consonance with the Master Plan of Delhi.

• Project approved by all the statutory authorities.

• August 2012 - proposal of construction of 5000 flats in 76 typical tower blocks, spread over 86 acres rejected by DUAC on various grounds;

• Existing road network incapable to hold the enhanced FAR permissible for redevelopment.

• Project would have led to cutting of more than 2400 trees.

• Subsequently, DUAC approved revised proposal for 4747 flats and 104413 sqm of commercial space.

• FAR reduced from 300 to 200. High rise towers proposed.

• Court Observation:

• Existing infrastructure of road, water and electricity in Delhi and, in particular, in South Delhi already severely overburdened.

• No study by any statutory authority for impact of commercialization and redevelopment on the infrastructure, and right to life of residents of the adjourning areas, like South Extension.

• No material placed on record indicating any proposal for additional road, flyover, underpass or augmentation of electricity or water supply, approved by any statutory authority in anticipation of the impugned redevelopment plan.

• Court Decision (Interim):

• Hon’ble Lt. Governor to revisit the project and analyze its impact on existing infrastructure as well as lives of residents in the neighborhood, in particular with regard to noise, air pollution as well as traffic congestion.

• Remedial measures, if any, like augmentation of infrastructure should also be examined.

5. Re-defining of Zone ‘O’ Boundaries: MPD 2021

National Green Tribunal

• Sept. 28, 2013 – DDA invited Public Objections / Suggestions on proposal to Redefine the boundaries of adjacent zones, reducing the zone ‘O’ (8700 ha.) by half.

• Exclusion of colonies – Sonia Vihar, Meethapur, Jaitpur, Okhla and others from Zone ‘O’ and inclusion in adjacent zones.

• Modification of notified Zonal Development Plans, based on ground realities.

• According to the proposal, 3109 Ha. Will be added to other zones like Walled city, New Delhi, TYA, South Delhi I and North Delhi.

Justification

• Villages and unauthorized colonies located on floodplain are not given permission for repair and renovation.

• No other physical and Social Infrastructure can be created for residents.

• No construction allowed currently on the floodplain, apart from CWG Village.

NGT Order

• Restrained DDA from acting on its plan to re-define boundaries of Yamuna River Front.

• Directed Govt. of Delhi and U.P to extend all help to remove debris from the River Bank.

• Removal of Debris – 23281 MT removed by DMRC near Yamuna Bank Station; 4700 MT not removed due to existing ‘Jhuggis’.

• DDA decides to file plea with NGT in a bid to move two municipal wards out of Ecologically Sensitive Zone and include them in urban zone.

• Internal Order from Lt. Governor to allow construction, repair and maintenance work in unauthorized colonies.

Responses to Court Cases from Authorities

Responses to Court Cases from Authorities

• Difference in perception of MCD and DDA in interpretation of the Master Plan provisions;

• Constitutional validity of Master Plan / notification of amendment challenged in Courts.

• Confusion in carrying out orders of the court;

• Court appointed committee takes action in presence of functionaries of the local bodies.

• Non cooperation between departments and agencies.

Way Forward:

• Plan implementation and enforcement accepted as challenge by local bodies / authorities;

• Varying interpretation of master plan provisions;

• Dedicated authority for plan proposal implementation on lines of DMRC.

• Provision of infrastructure / facilities not to be compromised.

• Strict enforcement to check unauthorized development and chaotic environment .

END