You are on page 1of 3



jaunapur slum resettlement
Prevailing Housing Condition

An urban crisis engulfs most parts of the “civilized” world. The basic perception of “progress being
synonymous with the city” causes people to migrate to the metropolis, caught in the vicious trap of
inadequate shelter, encroachments, prohibitive land prices and inflation. The major protagonists of
this unlivable hell are the shelterless- their needs, their future and their financing often becoming mere
items at board room discussions or seminars.
Slum dwellers in Indian metropolitan cities have the stigma of being at once the city's backbone as
well as its bane. A no-win situation exists between the policy makers and slum dwellers, the one being
unable to provide meaningful housing and the other openly hostile to relocation. Planners,
administrators, sociologists and architects have attempted to grapple with the situation
intermittently, but like the “Loch Ness Monster”, the problem has eluded them, not only because of its
gargantuan size but also because of the problems arising thereof.
Being the capital of India, Delhi is one of the fastest growing metropolises in India. But, along with
Delhi's urban growth there is a simultaneous growth and expansion of it’s slum population and slum
areas. Delhi has a population of 14 million out of which 30% live in degraded tenements i.e 4 million
people live in slums. Soon, Delhi may also have the dubious distinction of being rated as the fastest
growing slum city in the world. This is an oft-repeated and cliched statement - one that Delhites have
learnt to resign themselves to.
“Living with dignity”, a basic constitutional right, is fast becoming a distant dream.

ousing Problems

Providing housing for the slum population is a perennial problem that defies all plausible solutions.
There is no dearth of various planning strategies, technological efforts, slum clearance and
rehabilitation schemes and the Government is constantly ready with new solutions, whilst the
problem keeps outpacing the solution. The failure of rehabilitation schemes may be attributed to
various deficiencies in the prevailing practices, as discussed in the following points.

~B&SHF, World Habitat Awards, Finalist & . Incorrect planning

~Paper for ‘Man & City’ Conference, Naples Centralisation of planning policies and strategies, management, development and maintenance,
2000 slows down the process further, thus pressurizing and burdening the city.
~Hannover 2000 recognition

Choice of land and its tradability

The principles of sustainable development begin with Appropriate Human Settlement Design and first
on the agenda ought to be the correct choice of land for human settlements. The identification of
water supply and waste disposal is significant, followed by the micro detail of the appropriate house,
eventually leading to the street the neighbourhood and the Master Plan. However the present day
~Jaunapur is listed in the UNCHS ‘Best concept of developing on flat land, the master plan being consequential to the road development,
Practises’ Database as Good Practise is the beginning of problems. The micro detail is a consequence of the master plan, whereas it should
be the other way around. These faulty decisions lead to high infrastructure costs with the never-
ending spiraling of problems, thus leading to inflation. In order to meet these exorbitant costs land is
treated as a tradable commodity. With excessive land costs, building costs get compromised further,
compounding the problems. Land cannot and must not be treated as a tradable unit. The assets on
jaunapur slum resettlement the land, however, could be traded. If the present day concept of treating land as a tradable
commodity persists, then one may conclude that our very earth is a saleable commodity.

Segmentation of Land uses

The creation of mega centres in the city results in a massive energy inflow for short peak periods of
time, resulting in the need to cater to complex design solutions such as a high onslaught of
manpower, traffic, parking, power consumption etc. Such dense job opportunity areas are prone to
encroachment, causing land prices to soar. This also creates zones that are not based on
sustainability through interdependence.

. Inadequacies of Government mechanism

Disregard of stakeholders
Very often, slum dwellers are moved to the outskirts of the city, thus shifting their homes but not their
economic dependence on the city. This makes them return to the city, perhaps somewhere else, only
to create yet another slum.

Scale of Projects
The oft-announced large-scale unmanageable projects, devoid of functional, economic and
political feasibility, often end up in deadlock situations.

Paucity of Land
Most people believe that there is indeed a land shortage in Delhi. This is what the decision makers are
led to believe, while the Press also relies on this myth. In turn, the masses are also fed the same
information. The fact is, there is more than ample land within the territory of Delhi to rehabilitate the
entire slum population and also for the other sections of society that are finding it increasingly difficult
to survive in Delhi.
If all the slums in Delhi are to be relocated, a total of 7,000 acres or 2,800 hectares of land are required.
Nearly 32,500 acres or 13,000 hectares of wasteland exists within Delhi. This has been classified as
wasteland owing to the misconception that this land is too expensive to develop. Because the land is
undulating and some parts have been intensely quarried, it is felt that this is unsuitable for human
settlements. Contrary to this belief, it is this land that is most suited for human settlements, owing to
large catchment areas that provide the constant recharge of the aquifers, provided that the
wastewater is not transported outside the site. The Jaunapur slum resettlement scheme clearly
establishes the veracity of this statement.

No User Participation
Due to the misconception regarding availability of land, Government housing schemes are often
multi storey boxes, which on several occasions, have been rejected by slum dwellers.
. Unworkable Policies of Past Development Schemes
jaunapur slum resettlement
Government allotment to slum dwellers in the past has been 25 sq m per individual, with a stipulated
buildable area of 18.5 sq.m. However, with land prices having soared, the slum dweller, perceiving
this as a highly lucrative deal, built right up to 100%. This resulted in two-room tenements, terrace rights
being sold and the doubling and tripling of density up to 600 du per hectare. Unforeseen pressure on
the services led to breakdown of infrastructure facilities. The futility of expenses incurred was
explicably expressed in the resultant inhabitable environment and creation of yet another slum.

Subsequent Government allotments of 18.5 sq m with100 % built-up area, with two floors and
individual bath and w/c made the units more tradable.

Our cluster planning for housing dispenses with all these problems, principally those of land trading,
encroachment and overcrowding.

The standard Government Scheme comprised of units arranged around closed courts (width of
ultimate height ratio of less than 1:1. The central open courts, the so-called 'lungs', owing to the closed
nature of the planning, sometimes enabled group consolidation, which resulted in encroachment of
the central open court. The disappearance of central open space, at times left no scope for cross
ventilation, creating unlivable conditions at the ground level. The facility of a community tap was
sometimes misused, leading to wastage of water, shortage, intermittent supply and unhygienic

Sites and services schemes (provision of plinths for definition). The government only provided
demarcated plots using plinths, and the basic services. With the cost of construction being very high
and limited finances available, the roof was often unbuilt or sub-standard, though the habitants
managed to build the walls by using the salvaged scrap. As a result, the settlers often had no roof over
their heads. Thus, the prime objective of the project failed.

The new settlements were planned on low or flat land. As per the standard norms, the roads were
constructed at a level higher than the ground resulting in higher plinths to avoid water logging. Thus,
both the problem and the solution led to a phenomenal increase in costs.

There was no segregation of waste water. The collection and disposal of waste water(from baths,
kitchen and surface water) and sewage (from W.C.'s), together led to high, futile centralized
infrastructure development costs. This made the entire proposition unaffordable. Connections to
trunk sewage lines was considered inappropriate as this would result in overloading the existing lines
laid out for the big housing colonies for other strata of society.