1

Reg No: DR/GGN/291 of 2010-11

A people’s movement for good governance

Governing Council: Vinay Shankar, Patron, Former Secretary, Govt of India Devinder Chopra, Patron, UN retireeMaj Gen Satbir Singh, SM, President, Vice Chairman IESM Aseem Takyar, MemberDr Bhawani Shankar Tripathy, General Secretary, Development professional Col Sarvadaman Oberoi, Treasurer, RTI activistVakul Cowshik, Member, Social worker www.missiongurgaondevelopment.org

543 Sector 23, Gurgaon; Tel: 9312404269, 9818768349, 9871628217; E-mail:missiongurgaondevelopment@gmail.com

01 October 2012

To

The Director GeneralTown and Country Planning Department, HaryanaAyojna Bhawan, Sector-18Chandigarh 160018

The Secretary, National Capital Region Planning BoardMinistry of Urban Development,Core-IV B, First Floor, India Habitat Centre,Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003

The SecretaryMinistry of Environment & ForestsParyavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003

Objections and Suggestions on the Draft Development Plan 2031 ADfor the Controlled Areas of Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex

Dear Madam/Sirs

After as careful and detailed a study, as was possible in the absence of

many vital public documents on your websites, of the 21-page

notification No. CCP(NCR)/DDP-2031/GGN/2012/2864 dated 4th

September 2012, and the appended drawing placed on the website of the

2

Town and Country Planning Department of the Government of Haryana,

Mission Gurgaon Development, a people’s movement for good governance,

hereby submits its objections and suggestions in the following core areas of

the Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex Draft Development Plan 2031

(henceforth GMUC-DDP-2031), which also has prima facie harmful effect

on forest and /or environment for consideration and further discussions at a

public hearing to be held at Delhi/ Gurgaon in November 2012 or as

considered appropriate by National Capital Region Planning Board/

Ministry of Environment & Forests in consultation with the State of

Haryana in accord with Para (xiv) Part II of T.N. Godavarman

Thirumulpad v. Union of India 2011 (12) SCC 483 (3 judges):

CONTENTS PAGE

I. OBJECTION TO METHODOLOGY ADOPTED 3

Summary 15

Action Requested from MoEF/ NCRPB 16

II. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BASED OBJECTION 17

III. TECHNICAL/ LEGAL OBJECTION 18

IV. PARA WISE OBJECTIONS TO ANNEXURE A 18

V. PARA WISE OBJECTIONS TO ANNEXURE B 19

VI. OBJECTIONS WITH SUGGESTIONS 20

VII. ACTION REQUESTED 42

3

I. OBJECTION TO METHODOLOGY ADOPTED:

1. Legal Underpinnings

Planning in the National Capital Region is controlled and regulated

strictly in accordance with existing laws and regulations by the

National Capital Regional Planning Board, a nodal authority

functioning under the control and supervision of the Ministry of

Urban Development. The Ministry of Urban Development is

responsible for formulating policies, supporting and monitoring

programmes and coordinating the activities of various Central

Ministries, State Governments and other nodal authorities in so far as

they relate to urban development issues in the country. Thus the State

of Haryana and the National Capital Regional Planning Board are

required by law to follow the guidelines, policies and regulations

formulated by the Ministry of Urban Development so far as in urban

development issues are concerned in the country. Further in the

National Capital Region the autonomy of the State of Haryana so far

as it relates to urban development issues stand truncated with effect

from 19.10.1984 upon issue of the National Capital Region Planning

Board Act, 1985 (Act No.2 of 1985), 9th February, 1985, (The

Extraordinary Gazette of India, Part-II, Section-I, 11th February

1985), an Act to provide for the constitution of a Planning Board for

the preparation of a plan for the development of the National Capital

4

Region and for co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation of

such plan and for evolving harmonized policies for the control of

land-uses and development of infrastructure in the National Capital

Region so as to avoid any haphazard development of that region and

for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, in pursuance of

the provisions of clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution,

resolutions having been passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures

of the States of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to the effect

that the matters aforesaid should be regulated in those States by

Parliament by law. “The effect of the passing of a resolution under cl.

(1) of Art. 252 is that Parliament, which has no power to legislate

with respect to the matter which is the subject of the resolution,

becomes entitled to legislate with respect to it. On the other hand, the

State legislature ceases to have a power to make a law relating to that

matter.” [Union of India v. Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary 1979 (3)

SCC 324 (5 judges)] This principle of law was apparently tested in

the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2004 whereby the DDP

Bahadurgarh 2021 was required to be approved and was so got

approved in response to Chief Co-ordinator Planner, NCR Planning

Cell, Haryana letter No. 1864/CCP (NCR)/2004 dated 08.07.2004

vide NCRPB letter No. K-14011/33/2003-NCRPB dated 02.11.2004.

The same principle has also been tested before the Delhi and

5

Allahabad High Courts as also the Apex Court and is thus well settled

law.

2. Instructions, Guidelines, Policy, Rules, Regulations and Statutes

Violated

It is the case of the objectors in this document that the State of

Haryana is in violation of the following specific instructions,

guidelines, policy, rules and regulations and statutes promulgated /or

other Ministry statutes directed to be followed by the Ministry of

Urban Development/ National Capital Region Planning Board/ MoEF

from time to time:

(a) National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985.

(b) Guidelines prepared in accord with Ministry of Urban

Development, Government of India (MUAE) letter No.K-

14011/7/95-UD-III dated 30.03.1995 known as UDPFI

Guidelines 1996 setting out new planning procedure in Volume

1 and Model Urban and Regional Planning and Development

Law as a consequence of 74th CAA in Volume 2A.

(c) Regional Plan 2021 including Chapter 8 Water, Chapter 14

Environment and Chapter 17 Regional Landuse.

(d) National Forest Policy 1998 read with Environment Protection

Act, 1986, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and 12.12.1996 &

06.07.2011 judgments in Godavarman Case.

6

(e) MoEF letter F. No.11-09/2012-FC dated 18.05.2012.

(f) MoEF Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2011 that forest

clearance shall be obtained prior to any application being made

for environmental clearance for any development plan having

prima facie harmful effects on forest and/or environment .

(g) Part II Godavarman, 06.07.2011 guidelines. (Mandated vide

para 33 of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of

India 2011 (12) SCC 483 (3 judges) to remain operative in all

future cases of environmental and forest clearances till a formal

regulatory mechanism/ appropriate authority is put in place in

accord with Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act,

1986.)

3. Unmet Request of Development Authority

Based on the above mentioned complaints/ directives of MoEF the

Chief Co-ordinator Planner, NCR Planning Cell, Haryana vide Memo

No. CCP (NCR)/2012/2789 dated 30.08.2012 informed Principal

Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana in response to his Memo No.

2453 dated 29.06.2012 that there appeared to be discrepancies in the

geo-referenced maps provided and there is controversy as regards “an

integrated Plan of the areas covered under forests …….. in

accordance with the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court dated

06.07.2011…”. The genesis of this controversy lies at Para 2 of the

7

Minutes of the Meeting held on 28.11.2011 under the Chairmanship

of Sh. C. R. Jotriwal, IFS, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

Haryana issued under PCCF Memo No. NTC IX 1515/11/5021-31

dated 09.12.2011 stating, “2. GIS based decision support database

containing district-wise details of the location and boundary The

Chairman informed that there have been serious discrepancies in

forestry data pertaining to forest area in official documents/records.

Forest area of a particular forest division as shown in one record

differs from the area shown in another record. The area covered under

forests in State is an important piece of information and such

information should be unambiguous and correct. Such information is

pre-requisite for creation of database. Until and unless, precise

information on location and area is not determined, GIS based

decision support database containing district-wise details of the

location and boundary can not be created. He directed all Conservator

of Forests (Territorial) to reconcile forest area data of each forest

division at circle level and submit the reconciled information to

headquarter. The work of reconciliation must be completed before

9.12.2011.”

4. Impossibility of Meeting Stated Deadlines

Impossibility of meeting this sham/ unplanned/ thoughtless deadline

of a mere 10 days is apparent to the neutral observer who may note

8

that this task is qua 12.12.1996 Apex Court judgment (Godavarman)

and was not completed in 14 years till re-ordered qua 06.07.2011

Apex Court judgment (Godavarman) and the fact that the

concomitant Order issued vide Endst No. NT- D III 4323/11/4805-10

dated 29.11.2011 states, “According to the guidelines, the State

Government should create GIS based decision support database,

containing district-wise details of the location and boundary of (i)

each plot of land that may be defined as forest for the purpose of the

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (ii) core, buffer and eco-sensitive

zone of the protected areas constituted as per the provisions of the

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; (iii) important migratory corridors

for wildlife; and (iv) the forest land diverted for non-forest purpose.

Hereby, Dr. Amarinder Kaur, IFS, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator

of Forests, Forestry is designated as Nodal Officer for collection, geo-

referencing, digitization and validation of the information pertaining

to Haryana State. She may instruct, from time to time, Chief

Conservator of Forests, P-I & P-II and all Territorial Conservators to

accomplish these tasks. She will liaise with the Forest Survey of

India, Dehradun and help them in preparation of a plan for collection,

geo-referencing, digitization and validation of the information.”

5. Pre-requisite for Any Further Development

9

This vital and mandatory activity was held by the Apex Court at Para

(vii), Part II of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

2011 (12) SCC 483 (3 judges) to be pre-requisite before any further

development may proceed in entire State of Haryana. Such activity

was indeed directed vide PCCF, Haryana Memo No. NT D III-4812-

15 dated 29.11.2011 to be completed by 09.12.2011. But it is

incomplete as of today. This assertion is based on our reliable

information obtained during continuing examination of files of the

Haryana Forest Department at Gurgaon, Faridabad and Panchkula

under RTI Act 2005 since 14.12.2011 and also APCCF (Forestry)

Haryana Endst No. NT/D II 418/6720-45 dated 01.03.2012 addressed

to CCF P-I, CCF-P II, all CFs (T) and all DFOs (T) in Haryana. Also

it is the Article 51 A (g) duty of the objectors to bring to the attention

of the State of Haryana and MoEF/ NCRPB that in issuing these

instructions the PCCF Haryana and APCCF (Forestry) Haryana have

been rather frugal with the full facts and have ignored or failed to

properly bring to the notice of the Conservators of Forests

(Territorial) and Divisional Forest Officers (Territorial) in the State of

Haryana that they were required by Apex Court judgment dated

12.12.1996 / 06.07.2011 to identify “(iv) the forest land diverted for

non-forest purpose in the past in the district. The Survey of India

toposheets in digital format, the forest cover maps prepared by

10

the Forest Survey of India in preparation of the successive State

of Forest Reports and the conditions stipulated in the approvals

accorded under the Forest (Conservations) Act, 1980 for each

case of diversion of forest land in the district will also be part of

the proposed decision support database.” and not as partially

instructed in APCCF Endst No. NT- D III 4323/11/4805-10 dated

29.11.2011, “(iv) the forest land diverted for non-forest purpose”.

This instruction was again diluted by removing “(iii) important

migratory corridors for wildlife;” in APCCF Endst No. NT- D II

4183/6112-16 dated 31.01.2012 so that “migratory corridors for

wildlife” stand deleted from the exercise and “(iv)….” has now

become “(iii) the forest land diverted for non-forest purpose so

far, in the State.” This major omission is a complete failure of PCCF

Haryana and APCCF (Forestry) Haryana to sensitise and inform their

field officers of the true scope & extent of sub-paras (iii) & (iv) of

Para (vii) of Part II of Godavarman 06.07.2011; any exercise of

identification of the areas to be marked in geo-referenced maps is

only possible in consultation with and with prior concurrence of

Forest Survey of India. Having inspected all the files of the PCCF

Haryana under RTI Act, 2005 as were made available on various

dates, namely, 26.05.2012, 27.06.2012, 26.07.2012, 14.09.2012,

28.09.2012 it is absolutely clear to us that the PCCF Haryana appears

11

to be pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public and the

Central Government by such means as first directing DFO, Faridabad

to prepare the geo-referenced maps [vesting authority to liaise with

Forest Survey of India only to APCCF (Forestry)], then

telephonically putting on hold the said written instruction and

preparing the geo-referenced map by calling the CF (South) Haryana

to Panchkula and preparing it at PCCF Haryana Panchkula Office

without reference to Forest Survey of India (as evidenced by absence

of authenticating signatures of DFO Faridabad on the geo-referenced

maps objected to by CCP (NCR) at para 2 of Memo No. CCP

(NCR)/2012/2789 dated 30.08.2012).

6. Requests of Ministry of Environment and Forests and National

Capital Regional Planning Board made to Haryana State Not

Answered Para Wise

It is well settled law that any instruction, guideline, policy, regulation,

rule or statute promulgated by the Ministry of Urban Development,

Government of India is law and has the full force of law in the States

of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi so far as areas falling

within the geographical boundaries of the National Capital Region

Planning Board are concerned. The objectors have noted with the

greatest concern that the Chief Co-ordinator Planner, NCR Planning

Cell, Haryana, in violation of the Apex Court guidelines mandated at

12

Para (xiv), Part II of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of

India 2011 (12) SCC 483 (3 judges) by failing to address the

genuine concerns of the objector public and NGOs on two counts,

firstly by not replying at all to the objections either individually or by

way of a detailed press release/ web publishing of reply and secondly

by failing to hold a public hearing in presence of public, NGOs and

media eg it is reliably learnt that the objections in the Mangar DDP

2031 were settled by Chief Co-ordinator Planner, NCR Planning

Cell, Haryana and District Town Planner Haryana sitting together in

the office of the Chief Co-ordinator Planner, NCR Planning Cell,

Haryana on 19th September 2012 and they specifically recommended

to the competent authority that there is no need to call the objector,

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi in order to dismiss/ settle the objections.

This was done even as there was a directive from the Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Government of India to the Chief Secretary

of Haryana that “I am directed to refer Col (Retd.) Sarvadaman Singh

Oberoi, Treasurer, Mission Gurgaon Development letter No. nil dated

25.03.2012…….State of Haryana may kindly expedite

preparation of the geo-referenced district map for the Faridabad

District and submit a copy of the same to this Ministry.” vide

letter F. No.11-09/2012-FC dated 18.05.2012. No such copy of geo-

referenced map properly prepared in accord with Godavarman

13

06.07.2011 was ever sent to MoEF, as elucidated herein in

subsequent paragraph I-5 below . Thus the directive “Till the

preparation of the district forest map…..Plan… may be kept in

abeyance.” has been flouted as appears from subsequent discussion

on methodology mandated by Apex Court for preparation of geo-

referenced maps under Forest Survey of India supervision. Further

MoEF letter F. No.11-09/2012-FC dated 06.06.2012 directing

Principal Secretary (Forests) Haryana to take action under intimation

to MoEF remains unactioned/ unanswered to date, as seen during file

inspection under RTI Act, 2005 by Col (Retd) Sarvadaman Singh

Oberoi, Treasurer, Mission Gurgaon Development at 11.45 AM on

28.09.2012 wherein Principal Secretary (Forests) Haryana Memo No.

3731-F-1-2012/8737 dated 11.07.2012 (at Page 203 of the File

Mangar Development Plan) directing PCCF Haryana to take urgent

action on Col (Retd) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi’s letter dated

21.05.2012 so that the appropriate Government (Central) is apprised

about action taken for “Proper identification under law, of deemed

forests, and subsequent preparation of deemed forest maps of Aravalli

Areas of Your Districts.” vide letter of even number dated

06.06.2012. A similar request by NCRPB to State of Haryana has

also gone unreplied to date and Secretary, NCRPB at the meeting

with Col (Retd.) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi, Treasurer, Mission

14

Gurgaon Development and Sh. Chetan Agarwal at 4 PM on

21.09.2012 sought more details on legal aspects as also technical

aspects so as to examine the matter with a view to requesting State of

Haryana to give their para wise comments in a time bound manner

and till such para wise comments are received and examined by

NCRPB and found in line with policy, rules and regulations, it was

assured that no approval shall be granted by NCRPB to any

DDPs falling under NCR Sub-Regional Plan of State of Haryana.

Secretary NCRPB also informed us that her request to Ministry of

Environment & Forests (Mrs. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary –

responsible for Plan Co-ordination) to provide NCRPB with planning

parameters for the NCR with respect to environmemtal issues (which

may perhaps include desertification, climate change, lakes) has also

gone unanswered. A copy of these objections is, accordingly,

simultaneously marked to Secretary MoEF and Secretary

NCRPB for proper action in line with the Apex Court judgments

dated 12.12.1996 & 06.07.2011 (Godavarman Case). It was also

pointed out to Secretary NCRPB at this meeting that “It is very clear

that CCP (NCR) is in violation of Policy and Law of sustainable

development and carrying capacity concept besides Chapter 14

Environment of NCRPB Regional Plan 2021 that states at para (ix):

No such activities should be undertaken in the Aravalli range in NCR:

15

a) Location of any new industry including expansion/modernisation;

xxxxxxxxxxx d) Construction of any clusters of dwelling units, farms

houses, sheds, community centres, information centres and any other

activity connected with such construction (including roads and part of

any infrastructure relating thereto) e) Electrification (laying of new

transmission lines)” [Col (Retd.) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi’s letter

dated 21.09.2012 to NCRPB and CCP (NCR) may kindly be referred

to.]

7. Summary

In short, the GMUC DDP 2031 is non est, in the sense that the cart

has been placed before the horse. State of Haryana has no locus to

move any development plan of any type in the vicinity of the Aravalli

Hills Range unless and until it can show prima facie that it has

identified its “forest” areas in the vicinity of the Aravalli Hills Range

and obtained approval of Forest Survey of India and MoEF to a

degree sufficient for MoEF to comply with Para 33 of Godavarman

06.07.2011 so as to enable MoEF to file compliance: “….On the

implementation of these Guidelines, MoEF will file its compliance

report within six months.” At the moment State of Haryana and

MoEF are light years away from any sort of a rudimentary

compliance. It is to be noted that the Apex Court has wisely not laid

down any time frame to file the compliance report but has mandated

16

that all concerned authorities will follow these guidelines till such

time a regulator is appointed under Section 3 (3) of the Environment

Protection act, 1986.

8. Action Requested

In accord with Article 51 A (g) a direction may kindly issue from

Secretary MoEF and Secretary NCRPB immediately to the Chief

Secretary, Haryana that a public hearing shall be held at Delhi/

Gurgaon (not Chandigarh as all stakeholders are in Delhi NCR) to

hear objections to all NCR sub-regional plans of State of Haryana per

Chapter 14 Environment of Regional Plan-2021 (except Bahadurgarh

DDP 2021 already approved by NCRPB on 02.11.2004) on a suitable

date in November 2012 or as convenient and till such time such

public hearing is conducted and objections settled in accord with

Godavarman and M.C. Mehta Cases referred to in para VI-7.6

below all such plans be held in abeyance. Kindly note that

Godavarman recognises that in case of doubt, burden of proof lies

on the developer agencies to show that their plan/ action is benign and

it is not for the public to show positively that the action is harmful;

implied harm is the sufficient condition to invoke this new burden

of proof rule in environmental cases.

17

II. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BASED OBJECTION:

Parts of GMUC DDP 2031, eg Biodiversity Park, Ghata Bund Area,

Southern Manesar, fall in the Aravalli Hills Range/ Aravalli buffer zone.

That in entire Aravalli Hills Range/ Aravalli buffer zone, ban on

unsustainable urban development extends from Dholpur to Rajasthan has

been settled from the concomitant reading of Paras 6 & 12-20 of judgment

dated 14.05.2008 in MC Mehta v Union of India 2008 (8) SCR 828 (3

judges) read in conjunction with Paras 3 (i), 3 (ii), 3 (iv) and 19 of

judgment dated 08.05.2009 in M.C. Mehta v Union of India and Paras 9,

15 (7), 16 (1), 58, 59, 65, 66 and 95(6) of judgment dated 18.03.2004 in

M.C. Mehta v Union of India 2004 (12) SCC 118. Having established that

prima facie harm is caused in the eco-fragile Aravalli Hills Range and / or

its buffer zone, the next step is that before any development plan may be

notified the forest areas (extended meaning of forest as at Paras 121-124 of

Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3297 (3 judges) ) i.e.

Aravalli Hils Range must be identified first, thereafter clearance under

Section 2 (2) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980/ National forest Policy, 1988

must be obtained. Only then would the next stage of Environmental

clearance arise qua MoEF Office memorandum dated 31.03.2011. Once

MoEF grants clearance then Draft Development Plan may be prepared in

accord with areas identified as being not forest and if the areas outside forest

are found to be environmentally sustainable, then alone may the Draft

18

Development Plan be considered by NCRPB for approval in accord with

NCR Regional Plan 2021 as modified.

III. TECHNICAL/ LEGAL OBJECTION:

In environmental law the burden of proof is upon the authority or agency

moving a proposal to show that there is no possibility of grave harm to

environment/ water resources/ wildlife/ flora by execution of this proposal,

(Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647

(3 judges) & A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 1999 (2) SCC

718) and furthermore the Apex Court has noted that the proponents are duty

bound to make an honest disclosure of all facts. (Para 11 of Godavarman

06.07.2011)

IV. PARA WISE OBJECTIONS TO ANNEXURE A

General

“Description of land uses” fails to account for the mandatory requirement

to first demarcate rechargeable areas such as flood plains, oxbow lakes,

water bodies etc for conservation activity as mandated at Para 1(iii) of

NCRPB letter No. K-14011/33/2003-NCRPB dated 02.11.2004.

5. Public Utilities.

It is a condition of approval that detailed master plan for water supply,

sewage, drainage, solid waste alongwith action plan, programme,

19

investment plan be annexed with the development plan. Unless this is

prepared no environmental assessment is possible hence plan is not possible

to comment upon/approve for execution at this stage. Para 1(v) of NCRPB

letter No. K-14011/33/2003-NCRPB dated 02.11.2004 refers.

V. PARA WISE OBJECTIONS TO ANNEXURE B

XIX. Provision of farm house outside abadi-deh in agricultural zone.

(vii) Services, water supply and drainage (a) & (c)

The provision XIX (vii) (a) has been extended to complete Gurgaon district

and thus violates MoEF Notification dated 07.05.1992/ CGWB Notification

(Dark Zone)/ Apex Court directive that prohibits boring of wells in Gurgaon

District/ Aravalli Hills Range. Also it is now mandatory to install STP for

treatment of sewage hence there can be no permission to use septic tank as

sewage shall seep into ground water.

XX. Relaxation of development plan

Powers of relaxation having been ceded to the Central Government under

Article 252(1) it is only NCRPB/ Ministry of Urban Development that is

competent to sanction relaxation of development plan. Para XX be deleted.

20

VI. PARA WISE OBJECTIONS TO APPENDIX B

VII.Open Spaces (iv) Motor fuel filling stations… (v)….green

belts along the scheduled roads and major roads. (vii)

Communication Towers… (viii) Any other recreational use…

Para 5 (iii) of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 1997 2

SCC 267 clarifies that green belts fall within the extended meaning of forest

given in this judgment as follows, “(iii) identify areas covered by plantation

trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons.”

Hence these are protected and may not be planned to be used for non-forest

purposes which are listed hereinabove, namely, motor fuel stations, electric

grid station, transmission lines, communication lines, water supply lines,

drainage lines, communication towers and any other recreational uses. Sub-

paras (iv), (v), (vii) & (viii) of Para VII be deleted.

VII. OBJECTIONS WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:

1. Insufficient information on inputs to planning

1.1. Absolutely no information has been provided on the basis or

foundations on which the new GMUC-DDP-2031 and existing

land use changes have been made, except mention of the

provisional data from Census 2011. What other documentary

21

evidence is available behind the range of significant decisions

proposed in the Plan is not indicated.

1.2. Even if it is considered that the provisional Census 2011 data is

sacrosanct – which, unfortunately it is not – it currently has limited

information on the basis of which an efficient urban development

plan of the stature of Gurgaon-Manesar can be developed.

Suggestions

1.3. It is well understood that the various departments within the state

government must have contributed data and information to

influence the preparation of the DDP 2031. Therefore, please list

out and provide on the public domain digital copies of all such

data provided – generated either through surveys, studies, or

investigations – on the basis of which the GMUC-DDP-2031 has

been formulated.

1.4. These studies must indicate who carried them, when, who

analysed the findings, what research methodologies were used,

what were the indicators, and similar information.

1.5. The best methodical way to go about this is to immediately create

a separate page on the website of the Town and Country Planning

Department, name it as the GMUC-DDP-2031, and place all these

survey documents, maps, drawings, etc on those pages for review

by citizens.

22

2. Insufficient mention of lessons learned from previous Plan

2.1. The development of Gurgaon so far has posed a number of

infrastructural and environmental problems. These problems must

have been identified and analysed to ensure that the problems are

avoided when the new plan is implemented. Some of the

problems are illustrated below:

2.1.1. Underestimation of rate of growth of population

2.1.2. Gross underprovision of infrastructure such as electricity,

water, drainage, sewerage, housing, etc.

2.1.3. Institutional inadequacy for providing services and good

governance in the Municipal Corporation area

2.1.4. Traffic jams

2.1.5. Inadequate drainage

Suggestions

2.2. Include a separate section in the DDP-2031, clearly indicating the

following:

2.3. Problems arising out of implementation of the previous Master

Plan identified and analyzed.

2.4. Measures adopted to solve the identified and reported problems.

2.5.Measures proposed in the DDP 2031 to ensure that the

implementation of the new plan will not give rise to similar

problems or new problems.

23

3. Insufficient Drawings appended with the DDP-2031

3.1. The following drawings in detail mentioned in the published Draft

Master Plan could not be accessed:

3.2. Draft Development Plan-2031 AD Drawing No. DTP (G) 2081

/2012, dated the 07th June, 2012: While this drawing could be

accessed, the different layers of the plan and the maps such as

those of large natural resources (forests, waterbodies, hills, natural

drainages, etc), master drainage system, master roads, and

similarly occupied or planned land area, are not available for

review.

3.2.1. Any master plan has to be drafted and designed after

giving due consideration to the fact that at all times top

priority must be awarded to:

3.2.1.1. Protecting the existing natural resources to the

optimum level possible

3.2.1.2. Synergizing development around existing natural

environments for holistic development to ensure

human beings live in synergy with nature

3.2.1.3. Reducing the possible impact from development

to the minimum

3.2.1.4. Reducing the carbon footprint

24

3.3. Existing Land Use Plan Drawing No. DTP(G)1936/2010, dated

the 16th April, 2010 (already published in Haryana Government,

Gazette on 24th May, 2011 vide Haryana Government, Town and

Country Planning Department, notification No. CCP(NCR)/FDP

(G)/2011/1386 dated 24th May, 2011)

Suggestions

3.4. Make available on the public domain the physical maps of GMUC

area including indications of large man-made developments such

as master drainage, industrial areas, etc. Maps must also indicate

physical environment around the periphery the GMUC-DDP-2031

of a width of at least one kilometre to ensure integrated

development.

4. Inadequate evidence of integration with the regional plan

4.1. No city can exist as an island or in isolation. All developments

influence and impact beyond and above their immediate environs,

especially when there is large-scale people movement and trade

across borders. It is therefore important to ensure that Gurgaon’s

socio-economic, cultural and environmental development plans

take serious consideration of the existing and planned

developments in the region, especially stressing on sustainable

development.

25

4.2. For example, Ambiance mall and Ambiance colony has been

constructed on the border allowing no space for traffic movement

on the border.

Suggestions

4.3. Integrate the various recommendations made in the Regional

Planning document of the National Capital Region Planning Board

(NCRPB) into the GMUC-DDP-2031 Master Plan, to ensure

synergistic, holistic and integrated development with the region.

4.4. The GMUC-DDP-2031 plan must be vetted by the NCRPB as

were vetted for Bahadurgarh Plan in 2004 in accordance with the

orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2004.

5. Lack of a vision for the city

5.1. Any plan begins with a vision. The previous vision of making

Gurgaon a “Millennium City” has failed miserably as a result of

inadequate planning, lack of foresight, and poor quality of

implementation and infrastructure development. Moreover,

concrete development has superseded human development,

directly impacting the quality of life and happiness index of the

citizens. It is therefore high time the city was branded in a more

pragmatic, positive and realistic manner.

Suggestion

5.2. Review how GMUC will need to be branded.

26

5.3. Plans must focus on creating adequate enabling environments for

appropriate development.

6. Underestimation of actual Population: Carrying Capacity of the

land

6.1. In the provisional Census 2011 data, Gurgaon district population

has been indicated as 15.7 lakh (1.57 million). Subsequently, it

was reported that the Census has missed out an estimated 20% of

the population in Gurgaon owing to inadequately done survey.

Clearly, Gurgaon’s current inhabitant population is more than 20

lakh (2 million). This is when the current occupancy of the city is

about 70%. Which means, almost 30% population still needs to

move into already existing dwellings (apartments, houses or plots).

6.2. In addition, even if 10% of this population is transient, but

consume the resources, they must be added along with the

temporary migratory population, and the gross population

calculated for the planning.

6.3. Keeping the growth of the city in mind, and its ability to attract

people from all walks of life to settle down here, the estimated

population of 42 lakh (4.2 million) is highly underestimated. With

the most pessimistic calculations, twenty years hence the

population of GMUC will not be less than 60 lakh (6.0 million).

27

7. Missing Sustainability: Need for Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA)

7.1. It is not clear whether or how the Carrying Capacity Study of the

GMUC area in the proposed Master Plan has been calculated if at

all. Apparently, no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has

been done to indicate the impact of all proposed infrastructure

development such as roads, bridges and buildings on the city’s

habitat. Consequent developments such as growth in carbon

emissions from increased vehicular traffic, or growth in volume of

sewerage generated from increased populations and necessity to

treat the sewerage before releasing into limited water bodies, also

lead to huge unseen impacts on the sustainability of human life

and natural habitat.

7.2. For example, the Bandhwari treatment plant has been established

in an area where construction (Godavarman judgment) is banned

and is proving detrimental to the natural environment

(groundwater, plant and animal life, and human habitation).

Suggestions

7.3. If the Carrying Capacity of the GMUC and the EIA have been

carried out, these may be placed on the public domain with

immediate effect before finalizing the DDP 2031 so that the

28

comments on the master plan can be made with greater

knowledge.

7.4. If these have not been carried out, they may be initiated before the

GMUC-DDP-2031 is approved and finalized.

7.5. Enlarge and reinforce the green areas in Gurgaon district to cover

33% percent of its land area in accordance with the National

Forest Policy of 1988.

7.6. Protect the Aravalli Hill Range in totality in accordance with the

12.12.1996, 09.05.2002, 30.10.2002, 03.12.2010 & 06.07.2011

Godavarman and 06.05.2002, 18.03.2004, 07.05.2004,

13.04.2006, 14.05.2008 & 08.05.2009 MC Mehta judgements and

MoEF Notification No. S.O.319(E) dated 07.05.1992.

7.7. Enlarge the availability of CNG as the primary fuel for

commercial and public transportation.

8. Where is water security? Managing the most precious resource

8.1. Water is the most critical element which will limit the growth

potential of the urban agglomerate. It is not clear from the

notification how the water that will be needed to run the economy

and sustain the expanded habitat would be made available, and

how this water will be generated, supplied and recycled.

8.2. In the open space shown in sector 72 and sector 72 A, the storage

of water in the form of artificial water has been planned. While

29

this is welcome, there is no mention of other water bodies that

existed in the entire area.

8.3. In view of the limited availability of surface water because of the

competing demands of various sectors and States, the ground

water has been exploited unsustainably and the Ground Water

Table has been consistently falling at an alarming rate.

8.4. The plan indicates that a major chunk of agriculture land will be

protected. Agriculture consumes close to 70% of the water

supplied to the district. But it does not indicate how the new plan

will meet the water demands of the new developments as well as

for agriculture.

8.5. For example, as per the existing demand for water only 30% is

being met from surface water (canals), with the rest from ground

water, thus depleting the ground water extensively. The CGWB

has already predicted Gurgaon to go dry by 2017 at the present

population level.

Suggestions

8.6. Identify all sources of supply of water.

8.7. Prepare an inventory of all water bodies that existed in Gurgaon

district as on 26 January 1950. In the course of the past two

decades, at least 20 to 30 such water bodies have dried up.

30

8.8. Revive all water bodies in the district and sub-region as ordered by

the Supreme Court to restore all such water bodies by December

31, 2012.

8.9. Calculate the quantity of water that will be made available from

each source. This should be in consultation with the State

Government and the Ministry of Water Resources.

8.10. Harvest rain water, and store it as Ground Water and otherwise

to the extent possible in large water reservoirs. Strict enforcement

to ensure that 'Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting' facility is genuinely

created on all buildings having rooftop of 100 square metres or

more as per law.

8.11. If it is decided to provide the district with largely groundwater

based supply, then it is mandatory to have at least 70% of the

district left un-urbanized. This entails that the DDP-2031 plan

must be shelved and limited to the current population.

8.12. It is well known that canal water will always be insufficient as

is reported in the article written by the Haryana Minister Randeep

Singh Surjewala on 15.10.2010 in Farmers’ Forum Magazine.

9. Monsoon Drainage and Waste water management

9.1. The infrastructural development that Gurgaon has undergone so

far has affected the hydrology (water characteristics) of the area.

During every monsoon, areas in the entire city get submerged as

31

there is inadequate arrangement for discharge of rain water, and

absence of well-maintained storm water drains.

9.2. For example, the groundwater in Gurgaon has very high levels of

nitrates indicating massive infiltration of domestic sewage into the

groundwater.

9.3. It is also not clear how many natural drainages have been affected

by the previous Master Plan – and will get affected by this 2031

plan – how many and which ones will continue to exist and which

ones will be eliminated.

9.4. For example, the natural drainage called Badshapur Nala is

defunct and damaged beyond revival. See accompanying

photographs:

(a) Badshahpur Nala filled up behind Vipul Tatvam Villas on

Sohna Road.

(b) Filling up Badshahpur Nala near T junction of Sohna Road and

Golf Course Extension Road 5 PM 30 Sep 2012.

9.5. It is also necessary to increase the efficiency of use of water in the

Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon area, conserve water, and thus

reduce the demand for water.

9.6. For example, the current capacity of treating sewage is only 30%.

Therefore, how the additional treated sewage will be treated with

32

increased population, needs to be incorporated in the DDP-2031

plan.

Suggestions

9.7. A study of the aquifer and water balance of each basin and for the

district as a whole should be provided for review and comments

before the DDP-2031 is finalized.

9.8. On the basis of the topography of the land, the entire area covered

by the 2031 Master Plan, including a one-kilometre peripheral belt

should be divided into basins so that each basin will be drained by

a network of natural drains and water bodies. All development

planning must then be done in such a manner that protects the

natural drainage system of the area.

9.9. Indicate in detail in the DDP-2031 master plan what arrangements

have been made for each basin for the discharge of peak flood and

how these arrangements are adequate.

9.10. If the drains have been interfered with or destroyed, alternative

arrangements for the flow of rain water will have to be made.

Indicate how this is being planned.

9.11. In the municipal area, the Plan must indicated how:

9.11.1. Waste water other than from toilet could be treated,

recycled and supplied for reuse. It must indicate what

measures will be adopted (investment of resources,

33

technology and management processes) so that the toilet

water is separated from other waste water, and after treatment

is supplied for gardening and other uses not involving human

consumption.

9.11.2. Install parallel water supply lines across the city for

supply of recycled water for gardening and other public

activities.

9.11.3. Plan for zero discharge from the catchment area of the

new township using a mix of methods.

9.11.4. Link all areas to an improved and functioning

underground sewage system.

10.No sight of solid waste management plans

10.1. There is one solid waste management plant catering to the twin

cities of Gurgaon and Faridabad. But this Bandhwari waste

treatment plan has limited capacity and its location is in a banned

area of Aravalli Hills Range.

10.2. No assessment has been carried out whether Bandhwari is

functioning efficiently, effectively and optimally.

10.3. The expansion of the city will naturally generate more waste,

which will include both organic and inorganic, recyclable and non-

recyclable, including e-waste (electronic waste such as computer

peripherals, CFL lamps, and other products with high toxicity),

34

which will need a specific kind of waste management process

different from traditional waste management plants and landfill

sites.

10.4. For example, the location of the Bandhwari treatment plant is

environmentally untenable and must be shifted immediately. An

alternative location must be identified and dovetailed into the Plan.

Suggestions: Reduce, recycle and reuse

10.5. Carry out an assessment study about the various types and

extent of solid waste generated in the existing city. The data so

generated can be used to calculate the estimated waste generation

from the new developments that will take place under the 2031

master plan.

10.6. Assess the carrying capacity (including efficiency and

effectiveness) of the landfill facility at Bandhwari, which in any

case must be shifted immediately.

10.7. Identify other landfill facilities and reserve land accordingly in

the Plan.

10.8. Plan and reserve land for environmental development such as

green area, hills, and water bodies around land-fill plants to protect

the environment and minimize waste treatment impacts such as

from potential toxic fumes and radiations on the habitat.

35

10.9. Calculate and reserve land for 'Transit Garbage Placement

Points ' in all zones before this garbage is lifted daily to be

transported to waste treatment plants.

10.10. Disposal, recycling, and reuse should be the mantra for waste

generated from construction material (malba). It must be indicated

what plans exist for effective and efficient management of such

malba.

10.11. Indicate plans for disposal and management of animal

carcasses for the current city and future developments, without

impacting the environment and human life.

11.Inadequate Transport and Communication linkages

11.1. A number of new works have been proposed with a view to

ensuring efficient transport movement. However, although mass

rapid transport system (MRTS–metro) plans have been indicated,

it does not provide any indication of integrated networks of

MRTS that will potentially reduce the burden of road transport

(use of cars and commercial vehicles).

Suggestions: Focus on MRTS

11.2. Carry out Transport Modelling before planning for

transportation.

11.3. Put the findings for the transport modelling on the public

domain for access

36

11.4. Movement of goods and freight have to be moved to railways

so that use of trucks and other large commercial vehicles is

reduced on the roads to the bare necessary.

11.5. Plan a network of MRTS keeping in mind inter and intra-city

transportation and not just a single loop of metro.

11.6. Move out all industries from inside the city.

11.7. Till such time this is achieved, direct links (potentially

underground) must be created from industries directly to railway

links.

Parking

11.1. Norms for parking should be prescribed for every zone and

particularly for the Residential Zone. No parking should be

permitted on public spaces.

11.2. Land must be reserved and included in commercial

development plans on construction of adequate multi-storeyed

parking.

12.More information needed on health and hospital plans

12.1. Calculating the nationally recommended bed capacity in

hospitals in urban areas, which is 0.25% of the population (250

per lakh of population). The number of bed capacity currently

existing is only 2,500 (all inclusive) for a population of 20 lakh.

The number of beds must be a minimum 5,000.

37

12.2. In case of increased population, there must be a proportionate

increase in the number of hospital beds.

12.3. Other health services such as blood banks, laboratories, and

trauma centres must be planned for and provided

proportionately.

12.4. Adequate land must be reserved for public health facilities in all

zones, especially targeted at the poor.

12.5. Create scope for two to three more general hospitals and a

number of dispensaries in different parts of the city.

12.6. Alternative therapy must be encouraged, allowing setting up and

practice of Ayurveda and homeopathy, for instance.

13.Inadequate information on human dwelling: Housing for urban poor

Site coverage, height & bulk of building under various types of buildings:

13.1. There is typographical error in the Maximum FAR mentioned. It

should be 1.75, 1.50 and 0.75.

13.2. The Planning Commission has opined that sale of EWS

plots/flats is unviable for the reason that invariably these

plots/flats are bought up by dealers, consolidated and sold in

accordance with market forces for use by non-EWS categories.

Therefore, the new Plan envisages the construction of EWS

house/flats which shall remain the property of the state/housing

38

apartment associations but shall be rented out on nominal rent to

EWS category applicants under government supervision.

Residential Sector Density

13.3. It has been stated that every residential sector shall be developed

to the sector density indicated as prescribed for it in the drawing

subject to a maximum of 20 per cent variation allowed on either

side of the prescribed sector density.

13.4. In sector-68, a pocket of approximately 50 hectares of land with

density of 1,125 persons per hectare has been reserved for

providing housing to low and medium income group. This

density is against the average of 270 persons per hectare for the

city as a whole and is too high. Moreover, the planned housing

will cater to the requirement of only about 56,000 of the low

income which constitutes only 2.8% of the total population. It

needs to be drastically raised and spread over a number of

sectors rather than in only one sector as the percentage of the

poor in Gurgaon is much more. The national average of poor

people in urban areas is about 20%.

Suggestions

13.5. Sector density should be determined in consultation with residents.

13.6. The density of population in the land reserved for the poor in

Sector 68 is very high and should be drastically reduced.

39

13.7. The land reserved for the poor should be increased manifold

and should be spread in different sectors rather than being

concentrated only in one sector.

13.8. PLAN and provide land plus roads, water taps, WS Latrines

and electric points for housing for the urban poor.

13.9. The underprivileged workers employed by Govt agencies in

sanitation work through Sanitation contractors do not have any

dwelling sites and are continually hounded from place to place -

their jhuggies being demolished from time to time.

13.10. In future, the government must retain lien on all EWS

constructions and supervise the renting out of these properties only

to pre-defined EWS categories as given in state policy document.

14. Planning for educational hubs is missing

14.1. One third of the population in any city is school, college and

professional education. Therefore there must be at least 1000

school, colleges and professional institutions for the present

population of 20 lakh at the rate of average 2000 students in an

institution.

14.2. Each school/college/professional institution up to 2000 student

capacity requires at least 4 acre. Proportionate land area must be

reserved in the new Plan to develop education hubs and

accommodate the demand for education.

40

14.3. For holistic physical and mental development, separate sports

stadia of national standard must be planned to meet the needs of

the people. For the current population of 20 lakh, there should be a

minimum ten multi-purpose stadiums. This number must be

proportionately increased as per the projected population in the

new plan.

15.Weak Clarity on use of Open Spaces

15.1. Playgrounds in each Sector and housing colony ought to be made

compulsory

15.2. The 300-acre Bio-Diversity Park, which is jointly developed and

managed by the Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon (MCG) and

NGO I AM Gurgaon, must be protected in full.

15.3. No development must be planned and allowed in the Bio-

Diversity Park.

15.4. A road proposed in the Plan and cutting through the Bio-

Diversity Park must be removed from and a new location

identified for the proposed road.

16.Disaster management planning

16.1. Gurgaon Manesar is located on the Seismic Zone 4, making the

area prone to earthquakes.

16.2. The 2031 Plan does not indicate whether all developments have

been planned based on the parameters required for Seismic Zone

41

4 in all its dimensions and specifications,, and measures to be

adopted to ensure developments are carried out accordingly.

16.3. Land required for development of all ancillaries required for

disaster mitigation and management must be indicated clearly in

the Plan.

17. Land around ammunition depot has been urbanized in violation of

17.1. In violation of the 900 m restriction line and as given in the

notification, the land around the ammunition depot is urbanized.

18.Planning for power

18.1. The Plan does not give any indication of how much land has

been reserved for setting up of power distribution systems which

is an essential requirement for any developed urban area.

19.Uses in Zones

19.1. In Appendix B, land uses in each type of Zone such as

Residential, Commercial, Industrial, etc have been prescribed. The

experience is that in the zones developed no land exists for

essential uses. For example in most residential sectors in Gurgaon,

there are no provisions or inadequate provisions for indoor and

outdoor games for the youth and children and for government /

municipal dispensaries for the poor.

Suggestion

19.2. Prescribe minimum norms for various land uses in each Zone.

42

43

Badshahpur Nala filled up behind Vipul Tatvam Villas on Sohna Road

Filling up Badshahpur Nala near T junction of Sohna Road and Golf Course Extension Road 5 PM 30 Sep 2012