--- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> How can they do a 11-A here when MoUD affidavit to
> SC
> stated 70% INSITU is a significant change to DMP
> that
> can cleave fabric of society apart etc.. ??
sarabjit, i am posting this to the list. the
industries affair might now be of interest also to
others, with same motif surfacing in commercial use
decisions with bzzz on retail FDI (after noise on
mixed landuse and hawker-policy and quiet on metroPD,
etc, besides on commercial misuse of prime industrial
space despite reference in judgement of may 04). and
s.11A discussions should anyway be compulsory (btw,
next DMP2021 hearing might be Saturday)
deja-vu, complete with prices of onions (recall that
got us the dikshit govt?):
in oct 05 was reported demand for *regularisation* of
23 industrial areas by Delhi Congress chief (16.10.05)
and by Delhi BJP boss (19.10.05) and Asian Age said
gnctd law deptt has cleared 11 areas (23.10.05). s.11A
public notice of oct 04, of course, was for DMP
modification (notified may 05) for *redevelopment*.
my favourite, s.11A:
is in 2 parts - s.11A(1) allows DDA to make changes
that do not effect important alterations in the
character of the plan and which do not relate to the
extent of land uses and population densities (ie, they
do not alter underlying policies/elements, allocations
across uses, carrying-capacity based decisions);
s.11A(2) allows GoI to make any changes.
*redevelopment*:
s.11A can be used for this because this is
contemplated in the Act (as part of definition of
development in s,2(d)). in case of industries even
s.11A(1) can be used because redevelopment is proposed
for 3 industrial clusters in DMP2001 (ie, the idea is
part of basic structure of DMP) and the
alternative-text suggestion I had filed in response is
an example of how:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/m
*regularisation*:
the oct 04 public notice proposal itself was s.11A(2),
with details that did not conform to (other aspects of
the) basic structure of the Plan and obvious intent to
regularize in the garb of redevelopment (fully obvious
now): glaring case of misuse of s.11A for purposes
unrelated / contrary to Act and Plan in comprehensive
violation of s.11A procedures (starting with
publication by gnctd) and utterly misconceived in
terms of s.11A purpose (viz, rigidly-bound
flexibility: long-term plans will normally need
adjustments (s.11A(1)) or even alterations (s.11A(2))
and, in event of abject implementation failure (as in
industries case) s.11A can help find pragmatic as well
as just ways to getting back on course to purposes of
the Plan and Act).
re MoUD affidavit:
that was prose by Jagmohan, unrelated to DMP / DMP
modification. ministerial megalomania on affidavit was
useful only to extent of preventing MoUD lethargically
reading (pursuant to chief-ministerial megalomania of
Khurana and Dikshit) in s.11A(2) unfettered powers to
label the problem solution and be done with it. MoUD
affidavit does not vitiate the public notice per se
(recall that SC had not quashed it in Nov-Dec).
net net:
the s.11A public notice is not assailable, misuse of
s.11A process is (and happens to be inconsistent also
with MoUD affidavit). the danger lies in forgetting
that it is the law that prevents misuse of s.11A and
provides the framework for rectification. reliance on
MoUD affidavit will lead to the ludicrous situation of
assailing s.11A to, in effect, divert attention from
its misuse (over and above the implementation failure
that that prose diverted attention from in the first
place): case of persistent abuse of the judicial
process to subvert the law.
[this is my considered view, for info. i am not
inclined to discuss the delhi industries mess and am
watching it for connections to the emergent businesses
on retail fdi and RBH/industry policy for places like
uttaranchal]
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
> How can they do a 11-A here when MoUD affidavit to
> SC
> stated 70% INSITU is a significant change to DMP
> that
> can cleave fabric of society apart etc.. ??
sarabjit, i am posting this to the list. the
industries affair might now be of interest also to
others, with same motif surfacing in commercial use
decisions with bzzz on retail FDI (after noise on
mixed landuse and hawker-policy and quiet on metroPD,
etc, besides on commercial misuse of prime industrial
space despite reference in judgement of may 04). and
s.11A discussions should anyway be compulsory (btw,
next DMP2021 hearing might be Saturday)
deja-vu, complete with prices of onions (recall that
got us the dikshit govt?):
in oct 05 was reported demand for *regularisation* of
23 industrial areas by Delhi Congress chief (16.10.05)
and by Delhi BJP boss (19.10.05) and Asian Age said
gnctd law deptt has cleared 11 areas (23.10.05). s.11A
public notice of oct 04, of course, was for DMP
modification (notified may 05) for *redevelopment*.
my favourite, s.11A:
is in 2 parts - s.11A(1) allows DDA to make changes
that do not effect important alterations in the
character of the plan and which do not relate to the
extent of land uses and population densities (ie, they
do not alter underlying policies/elements, allocations
across uses, carrying-capacity based decisions);
s.11A(2) allows GoI to make any changes.
*redevelopment*:
s.11A can be used for this because this is
contemplated in the Act (as part of definition of
development in s,2(d)). in case of industries even
s.11A(1) can be used because redevelopment is proposed
for 3 industrial clusters in DMP2001 (ie, the idea is
part of basic structure of DMP) and the
alternative-text suggestion I had filed in response is
an example of how:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/m
*regularisation*:
the oct 04 public notice proposal itself was s.11A(2),
with details that did not conform to (other aspects of
the) basic structure of the Plan and obvious intent to
regularize in the garb of redevelopment (fully obvious
now): glaring case of misuse of s.11A for purposes
unrelated / contrary to Act and Plan in comprehensive
violation of s.11A procedures (starting with
publication by gnctd) and utterly misconceived in
terms of s.11A purpose (viz, rigidly-bound
flexibility: long-term plans will normally need
adjustments (s.11A(1)) or even alterations (s.11A(2))
and, in event of abject implementation failure (as in
industries case) s.11A can help find pragmatic as well
as just ways to getting back on course to purposes of
the Plan and Act).
re MoUD affidavit:
that was prose by Jagmohan, unrelated to DMP / DMP
modification. ministerial megalomania on affidavit was
useful only to extent of preventing MoUD lethargically
reading (pursuant to chief-ministerial megalomania of
Khurana and Dikshit) in s.11A(2) unfettered powers to
label the problem solution and be done with it. MoUD
affidavit does not vitiate the public notice per se
(recall that SC had not quashed it in Nov-Dec).
net net:
the s.11A public notice is not assailable, misuse of
s.11A process is (and happens to be inconsistent also
with MoUD affidavit). the danger lies in forgetting
that it is the law that prevents misuse of s.11A and
provides the framework for rectification. reliance on
MoUD affidavit will lead to the ludicrous situation of
assailing s.11A to, in effect, divert attention from
its misuse (over and above the implementation failure
that that prose diverted attention from in the first
place): case of persistent abuse of the judicial
process to subvert the law.
[this is my considered view, for info. i am not
inclined to discuss the delhi industries mess and am
watching it for connections to the emergent businesses
on retail fdi and RBH/industry policy for places like
uttaranchal]
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com