Apropos news reports about stay on demolition of
unauthorised construction in Qutb Colonnade (of the
Jessica Lal infame), I am sending the following to DDA
VC.
Dear Sir,
According to news reports of 18.10.03 a city court has
ordered status quo for Qutb Colonnade
restaurant-cum-bar and given DDA five months to
produce evidence to justify its notices of 1996, 1998
and 2000 in respect of unauthorised construction by
owners who purchased in 1990s the two-storied building
that housed a refugee girls? school since 1948. MCD
Apellate Tribunal seems to have noted inconsistencies
in the description of unauthorised construction in
DDA?s various notices and pointed out that some of the
construction may have taken place prior to
notification of MCD and DDA rules (presumably unified
building byelaws of 2000).
Insofar as DDA is concerned, building byelaws
constitute merely procedural regime for furtherance of
DDA?s statutory purpose, viz, enforcing Delhi Master
Plan (DMP), the statutory framework for land use in
the city.
A restaurant-cum-bar in Mehrauli is in contravention
of provisions for residential areas, villages,
facilities and conservation set out in DMP-1962, in
DMP-2001 that came into force in 1990 and in F-Zone
Plan approved in 1998. Falling in an urban renewal
scheme area and also in special conservation area /
Mehrauli ridge as per DMP-2001 land use plan, it is
also in violation of special provisions that apply to
these.
Such a land use violation (irrespective of whether or
not it involves building level rule violations) is to
the detriment of the traditional fabric of villages
and infringes Plan entitlements of villagers. It also
impairs development of commercial space in the city
according to Plan. (These issues are sub-judice as
part of WP 6980/2002 in Delhi High Court and have also
been raised through over 800 responses from villagers
in response to Public Notice of 15.09.02).
In Mehrauli area such violations also adversely affect
the precarious ground water regime, duly notified by
CGWA. And it is noteworthy that benefit of doubt about
existence of ?rules? at time of construction was not
given to 50-year old shops and homes demolished
without notice at Andheria-Morh in 2000, the part of
Mehrauli ridge for which even Zonal Plan (for J-Zone)
does not exist.
Yet again, building level violations (requiring
detailed case-by-case evidence) and Master Plan
violations (identifiable in relation to an unambiguous
statutory public document) seem to have become
obfuscated in the court to advantage of violaters and
disadvantage of those still awaiting implementation of
their backlog Plan entitlements.
Incidentally, the infamous Sahara restaurant-cum-bar
about 2 km crow-flying distance from the infamous Qutb
Colonnade restaurant-cum-bar seems to make a
strikingly similar case study.
Yet, despite your additional affidavit in WP
5007&5009/2002 (besides DDA?s indifferent responses in
WP 6980/2002 and about Public Notice of 15.09.02 and
the stand it has reportedly taken in court about
Sainik Farms), I am writing to draw your attention to
the above in the hope that DDA will shore up its case.
I am doing so only because it is my considered opinion
as a planner that the grossest Plan violations are
those that infringe Master Plan entitlements of
villagers and the poor since land has been
compulsorily acquired for 40 years only for
development according to Plan from villagers and under
a policy with explicit purpose of safeguarding the
interests of the poor.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
unauthorised construction in Qutb Colonnade (of the
Jessica Lal infame), I am sending the following to DDA
VC.
Dear Sir,
According to news reports of 18.10.03 a city court has
ordered status quo for Qutb Colonnade
restaurant-cum-bar and given DDA five months to
produce evidence to justify its notices of 1996, 1998
and 2000 in respect of unauthorised construction by
owners who purchased in 1990s the two-storied building
that housed a refugee girls? school since 1948. MCD
Apellate Tribunal seems to have noted inconsistencies
in the description of unauthorised construction in
DDA?s various notices and pointed out that some of the
construction may have taken place prior to
notification of MCD and DDA rules (presumably unified
building byelaws of 2000).
Insofar as DDA is concerned, building byelaws
constitute merely procedural regime for furtherance of
DDA?s statutory purpose, viz, enforcing Delhi Master
Plan (DMP), the statutory framework for land use in
the city.
A restaurant-cum-bar in Mehrauli is in contravention
of provisions for residential areas, villages,
facilities and conservation set out in DMP-1962, in
DMP-2001 that came into force in 1990 and in F-Zone
Plan approved in 1998. Falling in an urban renewal
scheme area and also in special conservation area /
Mehrauli ridge as per DMP-2001 land use plan, it is
also in violation of special provisions that apply to
these.
Such a land use violation (irrespective of whether or
not it involves building level rule violations) is to
the detriment of the traditional fabric of villages
and infringes Plan entitlements of villagers. It also
impairs development of commercial space in the city
according to Plan. (These issues are sub-judice as
part of WP 6980/2002 in Delhi High Court and have also
been raised through over 800 responses from villagers
in response to Public Notice of 15.09.02).
In Mehrauli area such violations also adversely affect
the precarious ground water regime, duly notified by
CGWA. And it is noteworthy that benefit of doubt about
existence of ?rules? at time of construction was not
given to 50-year old shops and homes demolished
without notice at Andheria-Morh in 2000, the part of
Mehrauli ridge for which even Zonal Plan (for J-Zone)
does not exist.
Yet again, building level violations (requiring
detailed case-by-case evidence) and Master Plan
violations (identifiable in relation to an unambiguous
statutory public document) seem to have become
obfuscated in the court to advantage of violaters and
disadvantage of those still awaiting implementation of
their backlog Plan entitlements.
Incidentally, the infamous Sahara restaurant-cum-bar
about 2 km crow-flying distance from the infamous Qutb
Colonnade restaurant-cum-bar seems to make a
strikingly similar case study.
Yet, despite your additional affidavit in WP
5007&5009/2002 (besides DDA?s indifferent responses in
WP 6980/2002 and about Public Notice of 15.09.02 and
the stand it has reportedly taken in court about
Sainik Farms), I am writing to draw your attention to
the above in the hope that DDA will shore up its case.
I am doing so only because it is my considered opinion
as a planner that the grossest Plan violations are
those that infringe Master Plan entitlements of
villagers and the poor since land has been
compulsorily acquired for 40 years only for
development according to Plan from villagers and under
a policy with explicit purpose of safeguarding the
interests of the poor.
Yours sincerely
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com