Letters accompanying NCMP-DMP note of 05.07.04

Commissioner (Planning), DDA

Sub: Objection to MoUD committee for slums / NCMP-DMP imperatives for housing for the poor, ridge and riverbed and intervention for stopping imminent demolition

Dear Mr Jain,

Firstly, this is to place on record objection to above-mentioned ‘committee’ in terms of the following:

1. The committee’s task (‘Master Plan to make the Capital slum-free in the next five years’) has no basis in robust planning principles / techniques. A ‘comprehensive Master Plan’ cannot be prepared separately for each DMP objectives and slum-freedom (as distinct from EWS housing) is not a bonafide objective. The ‘possibilities’ – resettlement, in-situ options, etc – that the committee is to ‘explore’ are unworthy of any special consideration or further benefit of doubt as years of experiments have not thrown up impact evidence in their support.
2. The committee and its task are in conflict with, law. Low income housing, key purpose of DMP / land policy, is not open to planning outside the ambit of DMP processes. The committee’s task is in conflict with s.10 process for making plans and DMP provisions for monitoring / review that strengthen s.11A. s.41 governing central control does not mention committees, whereas s.5A governing their constitution puts them in Authority jurisdiction. Like ‘DMP guidelines’, ‘committee’ for regularizing industries, etc, this ‘committee’ amounts to interference in DMP processes.
3. The committee’s task supports violations in disregard of Court orders and NCMP pledge. The committee is to explore ‘in terms of existing policy’ that High Court quashed in 2002 and Supreme Court has not allowed in SLP ‘possibilities’ in contravention of DMP and consonant with ‘DMP guidelines’ that Supreme Court has made adverse remarks about. This is also contrary to the new government’s mandate that both President and Prime Minister have noted is in support of rule of law and equity and also of NCMP pledge of accountability and responsibility.
4. The composition of the committee inspires no confidence and is cause for genuine apprehension vis-à-vis solutions for slums. The Committee comprises bureaucrats, ex-officio, which is not the nature of a bonafide committee on any area of multi-disciplinary expertise (which housing for the poor indisputably is) and nearly all its members have demonstrated prejudices against DMP and in favour of ‘DMP guidelines’, etc.
5. Please be reminded that ‘possibilities’ being ‘explored’ by the ‘committee’ are subject of substantive objections by citizens in slum / resettlement areas and elsewhere in responses to LAA s.4 and DD Act s.11A Public Notices, representations when mandatory Public Notices were not issued or ‘comments’ were informally invited (as on ‘DMP guidelines’), matters before court and submissions before Standing Parliamentary Committee. MoUD ‘committee’ is competent neither to ‘settle’ these objections nor to pre-empt their consideration by due process.

As Commissioner (Planning) you have accepted to be Member Secretary of such committee while you / DDA have not granted citizens’ requests for discussions within ambit of DMP. This calls for clarification in both professional and public spheres, especially in view of larger context implications, such as spelled out in the enclosed note, and I request you to volunteer this clarification.

I also request you to personally ensure imminent, perhaps on 7 July, demolition in Lalkhet (p.7 onwards in the enclosed note) is not allowed, since as a planner you know as well as I that it is the so-called ‘Aravali Biodiversity Park’ that is ‘encroachment’ on the site in terms of DMP and perhaps also that DDA counsel conceded s.11A violation by it in open court in WP 8523/2003. I request urgent communication to Vasant Kunj PS w.r.t enclosed complaint of 02.07.04, with copy of the same to me for use by citizens and hope you will also consider this necessary as a planner who happens to be DDA Commissioner (Planning).

Yours sincerely,

Gita Dewan Verma / Planner

BArch (SPA, gold medalist); M.Planning (SPA, gold medalist); PG Dip-Research (IHS-Rotterdam, top rank); Dip-Training (DoPT)

Formerly: Senior Fellow (HUDCO-HSMI), Visiting Faculty (SPA, TVB SHS), Consultant (DfID, IHSP, Nuffic, UNICEF, etc)

Currently: Independent researcher / writer and consultant to citizens’ groups synergising on Master Plan Implementation Support Group

cc: Secretary MoUD

DDA Vice Chairman

Member, MoUD Committee for slum-free Master Plan (for favour of circulation to all members of the committee)

Sir / Madam

This is to bring to your attention existence of ‘slum-free Master Plan’ or, more accurately, statutory Delhi Master Plan (DMP) with adequate solution for the slum problem through housing for the poor, enforcement of which has been sought by citizens since 2000.

As requested of various previous committees, it is requested of you to ensure that this committee:

• is not in conflict with duly constituted expert group for slums / housing for DMP revision, and
• makes suggestions better than and not short of existing DMP entitlements / solutions for slums.

In view of NCMP commitments, you are also requested to ensure:

• expected budget for social housing is not diverted to ‘alternatives’ inferior to DMP solutions, and
• no slum demolitions are effected in view of NCMP promise / constitution of committee and, in this regard, seek immediate communication to PS Vasant Kunj where slum demolition is imminent.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Gita Dewan Verma / Planner...

cc: Secretary MoUD

Secretary, MoUD

Sub: NCMP-DMP note housing for the poor, ridge and riverbed and applications u/s.41(3)

Sir,

Enclosed please find a note as above. Imperatives enumerated at end of it are all requests to MoUD and in its context I wish to convert the following to applications u/s.41(3) :

1. Request to ensure no diversion of expected budget for social housing for ‘alternatives’ inferior to DMP solutions through ‘committee’ (made to your office vide letter of 28.06.04 and to members of the committee through DDA VC vide letter at encl.1): Pursuant to ‘voluntary eviction’ underway at instance of DDA (p.7 onwards in enclosed note), I challenge legality and propriety of DDA decision to participate in MoUD slum committee (which cannot have been constituted under s.41) rather than draw up budget demands for mandatory DMP solutions while evicting those seeking them. My letter to DDA Commissioner (Planning) at encl.2 sets out specific challenges.
2. Request for assessment (and association thereon as expert) of encroachment removal in O-Zone as per high-level decision of 03.01.04 (made repeatedly, last in letter of 20.06.04): In view of the ‘scheme’ that led to the decision having been ‘adopted’ by DDA (reports of 02.07.04), I challenge legality and propriety of DDA’s participation in the decision to clear Pushta on grounds of it demonstrating deliberate intent to subvert O-Zone DMP imperatives through selective compliance of court order of 03.03.03 through an administrative decision followed by selective implementation (skipping assessment) of that decision in pursuit of ‘scheme’ to ‘advantage’ of other ‘schemes’ of riverbed misuse being promoted despite objections/complaints, including vide s.11A responses.
3. Request for inquiry, as per High Court judgment of 16.09.02, into 56 Ha scheme started in CGWA notified area without mandatory land use change (made repeatedly, last in letter of 20.06.04 requesting s.41 direction to DDA for compliance): In view of resumption of some construction in 56 Ha scheme as well as work on liver institute in DMP green belt, allotment of ridge sanctuary land to NGO, farmhouse party-policy, work on ‘biodiversity park’ site, etc – all identical violations of CGWA notification and s.11A – I challenge legality and propriety of DDA’s decision to demolish Lalkhet (p.7 onwards in enclosed note) on grounds of it being, prima-facie, in pursuit of illegal scheme given pendency of compliance of court orders of 2002 for, besides inquiry into identically illegal scheme, clarification of DMP entitlements for housing the poor and alternative legal slum policy, breach of NCMP promise of no slum demolitions and disregard of citizens’ requests for lawful relocation in line with NCMP and DMP.

I seek urgent consideration of these applications in the context of the enclosed note and, meanwhile, urgent direction to DDA and communication to Vasant Kunj PS to stop imminent demolition), with copy for use of citizens w.r.t complaint of 02.07.04 included in encl.2).

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Gita Dewan Verma / Planner...

cc: DDA Chairman (for information)

Lieutenant Governor, GNCTD (Chairman DDA)

Sub: NCMP … Delhi Master Plan provisions for housing for poor, ridge and riverbed

Ref: My letter of 25.06.04

Respected Sir,

I am writing for urgent intervention for stopping the eviction being effected and the demolition that is imminent in Lalkhet for which I have written to Secretary MoUD and Commissioner Delhi Police letters enclosed herewith.

The context of these and other such crises, set out in the note enclosed herewith, is what I wanted most of all an appointment about. I request a meeting. In fact, without meaning to be presumptuous, I request you, Sir, also on behalf of citizens’ groups in nearly two dozen settlements of the poor and three villages and in flats and among traders and school children to whom I am planner, to please make some time to visit this area and allow us to show you the subaltern truth about what is going wrong and how with our city, truth that media and bhagidari and discourse are increasingly obfuscating.

I do hope that you will respond.

Thanking you

Yours sincerely,

Gita Dewan Verma / Planner...