another one on the court notice to MoUD
Indiabulls, DLF realty deal may land in trouble
RAJAT GUHA
Posted online: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 0000 hours IST
NEW DELHI, MAY 9: The urban development ministry in alliance with Delhi
Devalopment Authority (DDA) and Muncipal corporation of Delhi (MCD) will
take up the issue of 'land use change' regarding the 35.8 acre land being
sold to Keneth Builders and developers, a 50:50 venture between Indiabulls
Infrastructure and DLF Universal.
...................
The agencies concerned, including the urban development ministry have been
asked to file a reply by May 18, which is the next date of hearing of the
case. With the issue moving to the court, the future of DDA's first project
within the public-private partnership framework now hangs in balance.
A DLF spokersperson said :"The land use pattern will be changed by DDA
itself. It's nothing to do with us." On being asked, whether the legal
tangle would slow down its break-neck expansion plans, the DLF official
said, "certainly not."
The DLF-Indiabulls combine has acquired the 35.8-acre plot for Rs 450 crore.
It plans to build 750 apartments.
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=126515
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Master plan issues in media" <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] Tehkhand: manjit singh speak (capital politics)
Now BJP is taking the ManjitSingh-VPSingh line to
demand CBI probe on Tehkhand. All majors have
reported, eg:
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=183010
http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/17/stories/2006051729150300.htm
Recall 2002 origin of project in meeting between VP,
Ananth Kumar, SPARC and Delhi munches, following
Sheila Dikshit imaginings. Original illegal transfer
to Slum & JJ had transpired in Rajniwas when ML
Khurana was CM. Tehkhand pilot-project idea was
hatched just after Anil Baijal became DDA VC post-scam
and materialized in Nirman Bhawan after Baijal became
MUD Secy and Sajjan Kumar became area MP. VP & Co and
Dikshit & Co separately cried foul. Now Dikshit & Co
are floating own pilot-projects and VP has floated
poltickle party with Raj Babbar (while SPARC matriarch
has become national mission adviser and DUAC under its
boss from Mumbai is propagating task-forced
imaginings). Without a whisper of dissent (not
counting the too-little-too-late noises) the Delhi Spl
Bill sailed through Parliament with reco of the Mumbai
model being piloted in Tehkhand (complete with
Minister promising 1 lakh flats program in tabling
speech) in brazen reversal of reco of a couple of
months ago of Lok Sabha Standing Committee. The TK
Committee gentlemen and our future CMs Maken &
Harshwardhan are busy selling the
imaginings-become-Bill to or with the politically
organized albeit purportedly civil society
organizations and the Left has conveniently turned
ostrich... yet again, the united colours of capital
polticks of planning, or rather of development without
planning, propel us on the fast lane to where all also
insist we are not going!
btw, chaps have not filed replies in the humble writ
petition of Rajinder & Anr
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/p/tehkhand
and, thanks to Indiabulls / SEBI, press did not
altogether ignore the order of 3 May:
Legal hitch in Delhi land sale
URVASHI KAUL
New Delhi, May 4: Indiabulls and DLF's prized realty
catch in the capital has got entangled in a legal
logjam with Delhi High Court issuing a notice on the
validity of the change in land use...
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060505/asp/business/story_6183965.asp
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- P Prakash <pprakash1@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Alleging a multi-crore scam in the whopping Rs 450
> > crore land deal, Mr
> > Singh, talking to , asserted that the land was
> still
> > in the legal possession
> > of the slum and JJ wing of the municipal body and
> > meant for the resettlement
> > of the slum dwellers of the adjoining Bhumiheen
> > camp.
> >
>
> ---
> Manjit is wrong as usual. In 2004 after sajjan kumar
> and baijal directed DDA to go ahead with the
> Tehkhand
> project for corp builders, that munch of VP Singh on
> which Manjit is now expert had fielded from the
> kalkaji slums writ petition to claim the District
> Park
> for co-op/ngo builders. Judgment text below: (note:
> LG
> is DDA chairman)
>
>
> WP(C) 8237/2005 (Bhumiheen Camp & Ors v/s DDA & Ors)
>
> IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
> 25.11.2005
>
> Present : Mr. K.C. Mittal, Adv., for petitioner
> Mr. N. Kumar, Adv. for Ms. Sujata Kashyap, Adv. for
> respondent No.3
> Mr. C.M. Rao, Adv. for DDA
>
> +WP(C) 8237-56/2005 and CM 6056/2005
> *
> 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that
> the
> grievance of the petitioner is not to re-settlement
> per se of the residents of the slum cluster,
> Bhumiheen
> Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
> Counsel states that the grievance is that on
> 2.6.1995
> a decision was taken at the level of the Lieutenant
> Governor, Delhi that the Bhumiheen camp slum
> dwellers
> would be relocated on a plot of land admeasuring 32
> acres at Tehkand. Counsel states that in the said
> decision besides the Lieutenant Governor, Chief
> Minister of Delhi, Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi,
> Vice Chairman (DDA), Commissioner (MCD),
> Commissioner
> (Land Management, DDA), and Director (Slum and JJ
> Wing) were involved. Accordingly, Counsel states
> that
> the decision notified vide Annexure P-1 to relocate
> the slum elsewhere is vitiated in law.
>
> 2. Annexure P-1 is a public notice dated 13.4.2005.
> It notifies to the residents of the camp to remain
> present at the site of the camp on 18.4.2005
> together
> with passport size photographs, ration cards,
> identity
> cards issued by Election Commission of India and any
> other proof showing residence at the slum cluster.
>
> 3. Notwithstanding that Annexure P-1 does not
> indicate the place where relocation of eligible
> persons is proposed to be affected, counter
> affidavit
> filed by MCD and DDA reveal that the eligible
> squatters are not intended to be relocated at
> Tehkand,
> they may be relocated at a different place. In para
> 5
> of the counter affidavit filed by MCD it is stated
> as
> under :-
> "5. That some land was shown to the Slum department
> by
> the DDA in Mouza Sahurpur in South Delhi but till
> date
> no action was taken to hand over this land to the
> Slum
> Department"
>
> 4. As per counter affidavit filed by DDA it is
> stated
> that survey was carried out and as a result of
> survey
> a large area of land would be required for
> relocation.
> It is stated that DDA has not decided on the land to
> be allotted for relocation. However, qua the land at
> Tehkand it is stated by DDA, (the stand I may note
> is
> in conformity with the Slum and JJ Wing, MCD) that
> the
> site at Tehkand has been decided to be utilized for
> housing and not for slum relocation.
>
> 5. Issue of rehabilitation and relocation of slum
> dwellers is governed by a policy decision taken by
> the
> Central Government and adopted by the Government of
> Delhi, DDA and MCD. The said policy decision has
> been
> noted in extenso in the Division Bench Judgment of
> this Court reported as 103 (2003) DLT 654, Wazirpur
> Bartan Nirmata Sangh Vs. UOI and Ors. I need not
> therefore reproduce the policy as the same stands
> reproduced in the said decision.
> 6. Since the decision to relocate the slum at the
> site at Tehkand was taken at high level meeting in
> which the Lieutenant Governor was involved, in my
> opinion the correct course of action to be followed
> by
> the statutory authorities was to refer back the
> matter
> to the Lieutenant Governor for re-decision
> pertaining
> to the site of relocation.
>
> 7. Petition accordingly stands disposed of with a
> direction that the site where residents of Bhumiheen
> camps, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi
> would
> be relocated would be decided by the Lieutenant
> Governor and while taking the decision the
> Lieutenant
> Governor will take into account the views expressed
> by
> DDA, Slum and JJ Wing, MCD and also of the office
> bearers of the petitioner association which
> represents
> the interest of the residents of the Bhumiheen camp.
>
> 8. Needless to state the decision would be limited
> to
> the place and site of the relocation. Entitlement to
> relocation would be as per the relocation policy of
> the Government.
>
> 9. Interim order dated 13.5.2005 requiring status
> quo
> to be maintained with regard to the possession of
> jhuggis at site would continue till decision
> aforesaid
> is taken by the Lieutenant Governor and based on the
> survey, eligible persons are offered alternative
> site.
>
> 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that
> the past experience has been that the site at which
> relocation is effected does not have any civic
> amenities.
>
> 11. It is further directed that the site at which
> relocation would be effected would be one where at
> least minimum civic amenities like water, toilet
> facilities and availability of electricity is
> provided
> for.
>
> 11. Petition stands disposed of.
>
> 12. No costs.
>
> 13. Dasti on payment of charges.
>
> PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
> November 25, 2005
> dk
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mpisgmedia mailing list
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia + Planning
collaborative at http://plan.architexturez.org/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 5/16/06
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 5/16/06
Indiabulls, DLF realty deal may land in trouble
RAJAT GUHA
Posted online: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 0000 hours IST
NEW DELHI, MAY 9: The urban development ministry in alliance with Delhi
Devalopment Authority (DDA) and Muncipal corporation of Delhi (MCD) will
take up the issue of 'land use change' regarding the 35.8 acre land being
sold to Keneth Builders and developers, a 50:50 venture between Indiabulls
Infrastructure and DLF Universal.
...................
The agencies concerned, including the urban development ministry have been
asked to file a reply by May 18, which is the next date of hearing of the
case. With the issue moving to the court, the future of DDA's first project
within the public-private partnership framework now hangs in balance.
A DLF spokersperson said :"The land use pattern will be changed by DDA
itself. It's nothing to do with us." On being asked, whether the legal
tangle would slow down its break-neck expansion plans, the DLF official
said, "certainly not."
The DLF-Indiabulls combine has acquired the 35.8-acre plot for Rs 450 crore.
It plans to build 750 apartments.
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=126515
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Master plan issues in media" <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] Tehkhand: manjit singh speak (capital politics)
Now BJP is taking the ManjitSingh-VPSingh line to
demand CBI probe on Tehkhand. All majors have
reported, eg:
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=183010
http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/17/stories/2006051729150300.htm
Recall 2002 origin of project in meeting between VP,
Ananth Kumar, SPARC and Delhi munches, following
Sheila Dikshit imaginings. Original illegal transfer
to Slum & JJ had transpired in Rajniwas when ML
Khurana was CM. Tehkhand pilot-project idea was
hatched just after Anil Baijal became DDA VC post-scam
and materialized in Nirman Bhawan after Baijal became
MUD Secy and Sajjan Kumar became area MP. VP & Co and
Dikshit & Co separately cried foul. Now Dikshit & Co
are floating own pilot-projects and VP has floated
poltickle party with Raj Babbar (while SPARC matriarch
has become national mission adviser and DUAC under its
boss from Mumbai is propagating task-forced
imaginings). Without a whisper of dissent (not
counting the too-little-too-late noises) the Delhi Spl
Bill sailed through Parliament with reco of the Mumbai
model being piloted in Tehkhand (complete with
Minister promising 1 lakh flats program in tabling
speech) in brazen reversal of reco of a couple of
months ago of Lok Sabha Standing Committee. The TK
Committee gentlemen and our future CMs Maken &
Harshwardhan are busy selling the
imaginings-become-Bill to or with the politically
organized albeit purportedly civil society
organizations and the Left has conveniently turned
ostrich... yet again, the united colours of capital
polticks of planning, or rather of development without
planning, propel us on the fast lane to where all also
insist we are not going!
btw, chaps have not filed replies in the humble writ
petition of Rajinder & Anr
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/p/tehkhand
and, thanks to Indiabulls / SEBI, press did not
altogether ignore the order of 3 May:
Legal hitch in Delhi land sale
URVASHI KAUL
New Delhi, May 4: Indiabulls and DLF's prized realty
catch in the capital has got entangled in a legal
logjam with Delhi High Court issuing a notice on the
validity of the change in land use...
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060505/asp/business/story_6183965.asp
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- P Prakash <pprakash1@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Alleging a multi-crore scam in the whopping Rs 450
> > crore land deal, Mr
> > Singh, talking to , asserted that the land was
> still
> > in the legal possession
> > of the slum and JJ wing of the municipal body and
> > meant for the resettlement
> > of the slum dwellers of the adjoining Bhumiheen
> > camp.
> >
>
> ---
> Manjit is wrong as usual. In 2004 after sajjan kumar
> and baijal directed DDA to go ahead with the
> Tehkhand
> project for corp builders, that munch of VP Singh on
> which Manjit is now expert had fielded from the
> kalkaji slums writ petition to claim the District
> Park
> for co-op/ngo builders. Judgment text below: (note:
> LG
> is DDA chairman)
>
>
> WP(C) 8237/2005 (Bhumiheen Camp & Ors v/s DDA & Ors)
>
> IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
> 25.11.2005
>
> Present : Mr. K.C. Mittal, Adv., for petitioner
> Mr. N. Kumar, Adv. for Ms. Sujata Kashyap, Adv. for
> respondent No.3
> Mr. C.M. Rao, Adv. for DDA
>
> +WP(C) 8237-56/2005 and CM 6056/2005
> *
> 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that
> the
> grievance of the petitioner is not to re-settlement
> per se of the residents of the slum cluster,
> Bhumiheen
> Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
> Counsel states that the grievance is that on
> 2.6.1995
> a decision was taken at the level of the Lieutenant
> Governor, Delhi that the Bhumiheen camp slum
> dwellers
> would be relocated on a plot of land admeasuring 32
> acres at Tehkand. Counsel states that in the said
> decision besides the Lieutenant Governor, Chief
> Minister of Delhi, Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi,
> Vice Chairman (DDA), Commissioner (MCD),
> Commissioner
> (Land Management, DDA), and Director (Slum and JJ
> Wing) were involved. Accordingly, Counsel states
> that
> the decision notified vide Annexure P-1 to relocate
> the slum elsewhere is vitiated in law.
>
> 2. Annexure P-1 is a public notice dated 13.4.2005.
> It notifies to the residents of the camp to remain
> present at the site of the camp on 18.4.2005
> together
> with passport size photographs, ration cards,
> identity
> cards issued by Election Commission of India and any
> other proof showing residence at the slum cluster.
>
> 3. Notwithstanding that Annexure P-1 does not
> indicate the place where relocation of eligible
> persons is proposed to be affected, counter
> affidavit
> filed by MCD and DDA reveal that the eligible
> squatters are not intended to be relocated at
> Tehkand,
> they may be relocated at a different place. In para
> 5
> of the counter affidavit filed by MCD it is stated
> as
> under :-
> "5. That some land was shown to the Slum department
> by
> the DDA in Mouza Sahurpur in South Delhi but till
> date
> no action was taken to hand over this land to the
> Slum
> Department"
>
> 4. As per counter affidavit filed by DDA it is
> stated
> that survey was carried out and as a result of
> survey
> a large area of land would be required for
> relocation.
> It is stated that DDA has not decided on the land to
> be allotted for relocation. However, qua the land at
> Tehkand it is stated by DDA, (the stand I may note
> is
> in conformity with the Slum and JJ Wing, MCD) that
> the
> site at Tehkand has been decided to be utilized for
> housing and not for slum relocation.
>
> 5. Issue of rehabilitation and relocation of slum
> dwellers is governed by a policy decision taken by
> the
> Central Government and adopted by the Government of
> Delhi, DDA and MCD. The said policy decision has
> been
> noted in extenso in the Division Bench Judgment of
> this Court reported as 103 (2003) DLT 654, Wazirpur
> Bartan Nirmata Sangh Vs. UOI and Ors. I need not
> therefore reproduce the policy as the same stands
> reproduced in the said decision.
> 6. Since the decision to relocate the slum at the
> site at Tehkand was taken at high level meeting in
> which the Lieutenant Governor was involved, in my
> opinion the correct course of action to be followed
> by
> the statutory authorities was to refer back the
> matter
> to the Lieutenant Governor for re-decision
> pertaining
> to the site of relocation.
>
> 7. Petition accordingly stands disposed of with a
> direction that the site where residents of Bhumiheen
> camps, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi
> would
> be relocated would be decided by the Lieutenant
> Governor and while taking the decision the
> Lieutenant
> Governor will take into account the views expressed
> by
> DDA, Slum and JJ Wing, MCD and also of the office
> bearers of the petitioner association which
> represents
> the interest of the residents of the Bhumiheen camp.
>
> 8. Needless to state the decision would be limited
> to
> the place and site of the relocation. Entitlement to
> relocation would be as per the relocation policy of
> the Government.
>
> 9. Interim order dated 13.5.2005 requiring status
> quo
> to be maintained with regard to the possession of
> jhuggis at site would continue till decision
> aforesaid
> is taken by the Lieutenant Governor and based on the
> survey, eligible persons are offered alternative
> site.
>
> 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that
> the past experience has been that the site at which
> relocation is effected does not have any civic
> amenities.
>
> 11. It is further directed that the site at which
> relocation would be effected would be one where at
> least minimum civic amenities like water, toilet
> facilities and availability of electricity is
> provided
> for.
>
> 11. Petition stands disposed of.
>
> 12. No costs.
>
> 13. Dasti on payment of charges.
>
> PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
> November 25, 2005
> dk
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mpisgmedia mailing list
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia + Planning
collaborative at http://plan.architexturez.org/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 5/16/06
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 5/16/06