Additional Affidavit

I, Shiv Narayan s/o Late Shri Jaisi Ram, aged 66 years, resident of Village and PO Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 110037, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above-mentioned case, well conversant with the facts of the case and competent to affirm the present affidavit. That I am filing this additional affidavit pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s directions of 10.12.2003.
2. It is respectfully submitted that I am resident of the 400-year old Mahipalpur village since birth and that my ancestors have been residents here for several generations, with agricultural lands that were acquired for the planned development of Delhi since ‘80s. Since 1961 I have been MCD schoolmaster, including in villages Mehrauli, Masudpur and Mahipalpur, and retired in 1997 as headmaster of MC Primary School (Girls) Nangal Dewat. I have been associated with Mahipalpur’s registered Gram Sewa Samiti since its inception in 1981 and am currently its President. Since 2000 I am also associated with Master Plan Implementation Support Group, a platform of apolitical and non-funded citizens’ groups synergistically supporting planned development, and am convenor in it for groups from villages. In these capacities, on behalf of village residents, I have made representations to authorities for Master Plan schemes for urban villages and filed detailed response to s.11A Public Notice of 15.09.2002 precipitated by this Hon’ble Court’s intervention to stop the Sultangarhi mega-housing in WP 4978/2002 vide judgement of 16.09.2002, reproduced herewith as ANNEXURE-A. With representatives of citizens’ groups from old bastis, flats and service providers, I am also petitioner in WP 6980/2002 and another fresh matter against Master Plan violations.
3. It is respectfully submitted that I and others on Master Plan Implementation Support Group draw upon advice of Ms Gita Dewan Verma, a qualified Planner who has been consultant to several premier national and international agencies, Senior Fellow in Housing and Urban Development Corporation’s HSMI and visiting Professor in School of Planning and Architecture and TVB School of Habitat Studies, and has authored articles, papers and books on planning issues. On behalf of citizens’ groups in Mehrauli-Mahipalpur area she has, among other things, prepared 4 detailed illustrated reports on Master Plan violations that were sent to the authorities in 2001/2002. One of these was about the water crisis being the result of unplanned development. This was sent also to Delhi Science Forum, which subsequently moved this Hon’ble High Court in WP 4978/2002 and, in response to this and other representations by her, CGWA wrote to DDA letters that are part of WP 4978/2002 and reproduced herewith as ANNEXURE-B (COLLY). The other three reports – about violations on sites meant for schools, commercial facilities and housing – are included, with responses thereto, in part or whole in matters before this Hon’ble Court mentioned in para 11a, 11b and 12a of the instant writ petition. Apropos projects indicated in ANNEXURE-P/1, representations enumerated at ANNEXURE-P/12, are all based on qualified Planner advice and the present affidavit is likewise.
4. It is submitted at the outset that while MPD-1962 defined 8 planning divisions with 136 Development Zones (p.87) for which Zonal Plans had to be prepared as per s.8 of the Act, MPD-2001 re-designated the Zones as Sub-Zones and the 8 Divisions, with 7 more in outlying areas, as Zones requiring Zonal Plans. In view of this simplification, to ensure Zonal Plan content is not diluted in terms of s.8, MPD-2001 Development Code (hereinafter ‘Code’) differentiates between use zone (designated in Land Use Plan) and use premises (designated in layout plan). Clauses-1 to 7 of the Code, reproduced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C, set out the manner in which use zones designated in the Master Plan / Zonal Plan are to be detailed out into Use Premises for various activities in Layout Plans for development according to Master Plan. The significance of Use Premises is stated in the Introduction to the Code, which says: “It is a systematic code to decide the use activity (use) in two levels: (i) conversion of use zone into use premises (layout); and (ii) Permission of use activities on use premises.” Accordingly, Master Plan / Zonal Plan at levels of Use Zone and Use Premises are set out herewith for projects indicated in ANNEXURE-P/1, falling in J-Zone (for which Zonal Plan is not approved) and F-Zone (relevant portion of Zonal Plan of which is reproduced at ANNEXURE-D).
5. J-ZONE PROJECTS: Stipulations for ‘Use Premises’ to be designated at time of layout preparation (Clauses 2(2), 2(3), 7(1) of the Code) and MPD-2001 provision (under heading ‘Zonal (Divisional) Plan’), that Zonal Plan “shall act as link between the Layout Plan and the Master Plan” preclude designation of Use Premises in absence of Zonal Plan. All J-Zone projects are, therefore, violative of the Master Plan at level of Use Premises. They also involve following Use Zone level violations: (a) SULTANGARHI MEGA-HOUSING (‘F’ in ANNEXURE-P/1) started being built in 2002 and was stopped by this Hon’ble Court in WP 4978/2002 on 16.09.2002. MPD-2001 Land Use plan earmarks the location in ‘White’, colour for Use Zones ‘A2 Green Belt’ and ‘A3 Rural’ (nos. 4.35 and 4.36 in Clause-4 of the Code), and specifies in the index for colours ‘Green Belt (as per MPD-1962)’. A collective reading of MPD-1962 and MPD-2001 Land Use plans shows the site is for ‘Green Belt’. Sub-Clause 8(ii)(b) of the Code permits in ‘A3 Rural Zone (including A2)’ only: “Rural Centre, public & semi-public facilities (within 0.5 km of the settlement), orchard, plant nursery, wireless and transmission, forest”, ie, not mega-housing. (b) SPORTS COMPLEX AND LIVER INSTITUTE SOUTH OF D-2 VASANT KUNJ (‘B’ in ANNEXURE-P/1) were announced in 2000 (latter originally as government hospital) and despite numerous representations, construction started in 2002. As in case of Sultangarhi, the site is ‘Green Belt’ in MPD-2001. Even Clause-8(ii)(b) permission for “facilities (within 0.5 km of the settlement)” does not apply since the only settlements within 0.5 km are Vasant Kunj (with adequate provision of facility sites in its layout plan) and Sainik-Farms style up-coming unauthorised colony / farmhouses (for which facilities in Green Belt / Rural Zone are not contemplated in MPD-2001). (c) AIR-CONDITIONED MANDI (‘C’ in ANNEXURE-P/1) was announced in 2003 and an APMC board (claiming maintenance of greens) and porta-cabin have come up. MPD-2001 Land Use Plan earmarks the location in ‘Dark Green’, colour for Use Zone ‘P1 Regional Park’ (no. 4.08 in Clause-4 of the Code), for which list of permissible activities in Clause-8(ii)(b) of the Code does not include air-conditioned wholesale commerce, air-conditioned or otherwise. (d) VASANT KUNJ (‘A’ in ANNEXURE-P/1) SECTOR-D POCKET-6 flats were disposed off as HIG scheme in 2002. MPD-2001 indicates Vasant Kunj in ‘Yellow’, for Residential use zone. Approved layout plan for Vasant Kunj (filed by DDA in WP 5007/2002 in September 2003) does not detail out the site. Use Premises are violative of MPD-2001 in terms of Clause-8(i)(a) class composition of residential use zone. As evident from letter from CGWA to DDA in ANNEXURE-B (COLLY), there has also been violation of CGWA notification and, hence, of s.6 of the Act.
6. F-ZONE PROJECTS: Projects indicated as ‘D’ and ‘E’ in ANNEXURE-P/1 fall in sub-Zones (Zones in MPD-1962) F13 and F14, for which the F-Zone Plan says (sub) Zonal plans were not prepared (pp.2-3). F-Zone Plan does not detail out MPD-2001 provisions for the concerned areas, and plan requirements u/s.8 of the Act must, therefore, be met in Layout Plan – also required to take into account CGWA notification of 1999, ie, subsequent to F-Zone Plan of 1998, in view of proviso to s.6 of the Act – without which Use Premises cannot be lawfully designated. Accordingly, violations involved in projects earmarked ‘D’ and ‘E’ in ANNEXURE-P/1 are as follows: (a) C.I.S.F. FLATS IN MAHIPALPUR HAUZ (‘D’ in ANNEXURE-P/1) have been under construction since 2001 despite representations, including by the Petitioner at hearing of 27.01.03 for Public Notice for Sultangarhi scheme. MPD-2001 Land Use Plan earmarks the location in ‘criss-cross pattern’, indicating Use Zone ‘G3 Government Land (Use undetermined)’ (4.25 in Clause-4 of the Code). F-Zone Plan indicates the same for all of Sub-Zone F-14, thereby failing to meet requirements u/s.8 of the Act. It does indicate location of Mahipalpur village within this. Any lawful Layout Plan for the area would have protected the 14th century Mahipalpur Hauz in view, besides of MPD-2001 provisions for urban villages, heritage and environment, also of CGWA notification and a ‘Use Premise’ for CISF flats, not justifiable on basis of F-Zone Plan alone in terms of s.8 of the Act, is violative of these. (b) VASANT KUNJ PHASE-2 (‘E’ in ANNEXURE-P/1): MPD-2001 Land Use plan indicates the 315 Ha site primarily in ‘Yellow’ (Residential) and ‘Light Green’ (District Park), with two pockets in ‘Blue’ (Public/ Semi-Public) and small square in ‘Red’ (Commercial). (Details in ANNEXURE-P/5 p.27 are from proceedings of a workshop held at School of Planning and Architecture on 12-14 March 1997, at which then DDA Commissioner Planning made a presentation about the International Hotels Complex proposal for the site and the group that had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court against this was also represented). F-Zone Plan indicates on the site only broad land use percentages and says in para-12.0, under ‘Proposed Modifications in the Master Plan’: “The following change if land uses are processed under the act. 1. Change of land use of App. 315 Hect. Area of International Hotel Complex, Vasant Vihar after the finalisation of proposal as per the approval of Govt.” F-Zone Plan, therefore, makes only a provisional proposal for the 315 Ha site, requiring, besides Govt. approval, Layout Plan under the Code before any Use Premise, such as for Mall, can be lawfully designated in terms of s.8 of the Act. Moreover, the reference in auction advertisements to a 250-Ha biodiversity park (even as F-Zone Plan proposal provides for only 140 Ha of Recreational Use), together with 19 Ha Mall and institutional / Hotel allotments already made, adds up to a ‘scheme’ that is neither according to MPD-2001 nor F-Zone Plan. Apropos the Mall it is further submitted that: (i) The site indicated in auction advertisements is marked in MPD-2001 Land Use plan as Public/Semi-Public (institutional) use zone, allocation for which F-Zone Plan increases from 25 Ha in MPD-2001 to 50 Ha. Without Layout Plan indicating Use Premises for institutional use, the Mall is violative of MPD-2001 in terms of Clause-7(2) of the Code, which requires ‘any change in location boundaries of predominant use of use premises’ to be incorporated in the Layout Plan. (ii) A Use Premise cannot be designated for ‘Mall’, since Clause-5 of the Code limits permissible activities to the 136 listed in the Schedule and this list does not include Mall. The same applies to ‘Service Apartments’ (plot-6 in auction advertisements). (iii) Mall can be part of a commercial centre, which must conform to Master Plan provisions for hierarchical commercial facilities for all types of commerce (including informal). In this regard, Clause-2(7) of the Code states, “Commercial Centre include a CBD, Distt. Centre, Community Centre, Local shopping centre and convenience shopping centre and non-hierarchy commercial centres”. Non-hierarchy commercial centres, indicated in MPD-2001 and referred to in para-7.2.2 on p.10 of the F-Zone Plan, do not mention Vasant Kunj Shopping Mall.
7. It is submitted that numerous representations seeking clarification about / objecting to the prima facie Master Plan violations outlined above have been to no avail. These are enumerated in ANNEXURE-P/12. It is further submitted that the instant writ petition is not targeted against any particular violation but against the cumulative impact of a series of violations in the area. While changes to the Master Plan may be warranted in one or more of the above cases, they need to follow due process of s.11A of the Act and monitoring and review provisions incorporated in MPD-2001. Otherwise they are jeopardizing Master Plan policies, especially those for benefit of old settlements, and are contrary to provisions of the Act including, besides s.11A, ones relating to object (s.6), staging (s.7(2)(a)), jurisdiction for schemes (s.12(4)), use of funds (s.23(2)) and land disposal (s.21(3)), purpose of land acquisition powers (under s.15) inclusive of integration of existing activities (s.21(2)), etc.