SUGGESTIONS FOR ENABLING AUTHORIZED BUILDING ACTIVITY IN DELHI

[1]. The DDA and the MCD: DDA makes the laws and the Municpal Corporations enforce
them. The situation in Delhi as it has come to exist is just the reverse of what is
mandated in the Constitution of India with no sign of retrieval that makes it impossible
and also unviable for anybody to have building plans sanctioned whereas
construction without due sanctions is so easy and requires only a deal with the
concerned officials of DDA/MCD. The law abiding citizen not willing to go the illegal
way, it is submitted, keeps languishing for sanctions whereas the illegal construction
keeps mushrooming at jet speed in all areas of the city. The illegal constructions are
thereafter regularized on case to case basis or in bulk either to gain political
advantage or to get other illegal gains as evident from a recent case which hit
newspapers in August 2013 when MCD officials were arrested by CBI in a case
pertaining to regularization of a banquet hall in North Delhi. It is shocking that FAR
granted (apart from other relaxations given) in such regularization schemes is many
times more than what a person can get through proper sanction of building plan. It
has reduced the whole scenario to a big license raj in land and development matters
in Delhi calling for urgent and serious intervention of the Hon’ble Prime Minister.
[2]. Pursuant to the monopoly situation created by the Delhi Development Act, with no
direct control over the same by Citizens of Delhi, the DDA has reduced the whole
scenario to the biggest license raj, in matters of development of land in Delhi.
Entrusted with the role as the sole planning & development agency for Delhi, the
DDA has failed to plan for large areas of Delhi (such as rural areas), has made
projections widely divergent from reality on ground, and its building activity has also
fallen short of its own projections. The Prime Minister of India has been routinely
assuring the citizens of the country that the growth shall be funded primarily through
private funding. Govt. has increased foreign investments in Indian Railways to 100%.
At the same time, where private developers are willing to acquire & develop land
directly, as per provisions of Master-Plan-of-Delhi-2021 they are not allowed to do so.
DDA insists on spending public-money to acquire land and construct buildings to be
sold to public, whereas the same money could be diverted to VARIOUS OTHER
departments that construct public infrastructure such as roads, night-shelters, etc.
Despite this situation, private developers are not allowed to augment needs of Delhi,
despite the same having been successfully implemented in neighboring states of
U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan that abut Delhi.
(A) That the DDA is doing what it should not do (Building flats like private builders)
and not doing what it should do i.e. the planning and taking care of ground
realities. The monopoly of DDA, if allowed to perpetuate, is a sure recipe for
failure of urbanization in Delhi. The sooner, this monopoly is curbed, and DDA
directs its effort to planning process, the easier it would be to retrieve the
situation which is fast approaching a point of no return.
(B) The DDA has failed in both planning and building, and at the same time has puts
its feet into many other areas where the related ‘legislations’ provide for none.
Illegal acts banned in the statutes delegating powers to civic officials have
destroyed Delhi as a metropolitan city where unauthorized development is seen
as the only route to earn a livelihood or a shelter for one’s family. So much so
that
(i) a significantly large population of Delhi resides in unauthorized colonies.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 1

 (ii) The people engaged in building activities in Delhi have long seen
unscrupulous builders prosper whereas the law abiding and conscientious
builders have either been wiped out from business or have shifted to NCR
or other areas outside Delhi leaving Delhi within the clutches of DDA
monopoly.
(iii) this unfortunate and demotivating situation shows no signs of receding and
shall continue unless, unless there is intervention by political parties and
other planning bodies in the public interest at this juncture when mid-term
revision of building bye-laws (development control norms, procedures and
documentation required for sanctions) and Master Plan for Delhi i.e. MPD-
2021 are under way.
(iv) if this opportunity is lost the efforts to urbanize and make Delhi a smart city
shall be doomed to an irreparable state, as a result of deep-rooted and
blatantly illegal empire created by vested interests in civic agencies,
thwarting any attempt to engage in lawful construction activity on authorized
lines.

(C) Local bodies(MCD’s), despite stipulation in Master-PLAN OF DELHI 2021

notified on 7.02.2007 to prepare & notify zonal and local layout plans
within 1-year of its notification, have not complied with the same, and
consistently deny sanction of building plans citing lack of zonal/layout plan;
Concerned officials responsible for preparing such local development plans or
layout plans bear no adverse consequences while causing innumerous
difficulties to the law abiding citizens who wish to build authorized structures.
(D) The illegal office orders, notifications and circulars regularly issued by the civic
bodies during last four years since the building bye laws were made applicable
to rural residential lands as well, have created a situation whereby there is no
possibility of getting any building plan sanctioned. Each circular/notification
draws from the earlier ones, reverses any relaxation given in any previous
notification, and further confuses & complicates the procedure as well as
documentation required for the sanction of building plans in rural areas. Most of
them supersede the directions/relaxations in the enabling statutes such as the
MPD-2021 and remain especially in the knowledge of the civic officials
themselves or their unauthorized channels, completely outside the knowledge of
public in general. Construction as an activity has not given a sustainable
business or an organized employment in Delhi, substantially on account of
above failure and neglect in implementing the constitutionally mandated social
order.
(E) That the areas where it is possible to have building plans sanctioned have
become privileged areas and the revision of MPD-2021 appears to be an
exercise in enhancing these privileges rather than alleviating the problems that
plague sanctions of building plans in areas such as villages, walled city and
unauthorized colonies as apparent from the recent notifications and circulars. It
is submitted that DDA has failed to make plans for a very large areas and has
not made lay out plans even till now. MPD-2021 as notified on 07.02.2007
provided in Chapter 16 under the head “land Use” that Zonal Development Plan
of MPD-2021 should be prepared and notified within one year of the approval of
MPD-2021 by DDA. The same are yet to be far from being ready or notified.
Such areas for which zonal / lay out plans have not been made have seen
unauthorized construction. Without appreciating this ground reality, the MCDs

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 2

 have now prescribed same requirement as a pre-condition for building plan
sanctions as are applicable to areas which have zonal / lay out plans in place.
Clause 3.1 (B) (ii) and 3.1 (B) (x) under the heading ‘Shelter’ and sub
heading-‘Group Housing’ in building bye-laws continue to provide requirement
of minimum width of road as a pre-condition for building plan sanction. As the
state has made no roads or lay out plan or zonal plans it is impossible for a
landowner to fulfill this requirement. Hence the sanction of building plan
effectively remains confined to areas having zonal/ development plans. This
situation needs to be remedied sooner than later lest all remaining areas
develop as illegal colonies or slums.
[3]. That by way of practice of unnecessary referrals from MCD to DDA, the provisions of
MPD-2021 notified on 07.02.2007 have been subverted. Clause 3(5), page 123 of
the Gazzette Notification of MPD -2021 dt. 07.02.2007 under the heading
“Establishment of Use Zones and Use Premises” reads as under:-
An area in respect of which there is no approved Layout Plan shall be
governed by the provisions of the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan
Similarly clause 3.3.2 (XIV) on page 17 of the Gazzette Notification of MPD -2021 dt.
07.02.2007 reads as under:
The land use shall be governed as per the Master Plan / Zonal
Development Plan. The non-residential use will be permitted as per the
provisions of the Mixed Use Regulations and Special Area Regulations.
It is submitted that despite such clear provisions, the concerned officials of MCD
responsible for sanction of building plans have adopted the ingenious method of
sending referrals to DDA or to their own Town Planning department to thwart any
attempt to build on authorized lines. It is submitted that such referrals either do not
get replied or get confusing replies. A straight reply is hardly received to the effect
that it is the concerned local body which is fully empowered to formulate and approve
local lay out plans for notification by DDA. This is despite a clear provision in clause
3(11) which reads as under-
Layout Plans / Site Plans and Building plans shall be approved by the
Local Bodies and Authority in their areas of jurisdiction.
[4]. That there are very many areas which have been neglected by the DDA (suggested
respondents) and appear to remain neglected in the on-going Mid Term Review of
MPD-2021 as appears from the draft Building Bye-Laws put up on official website of
Delhi Urban Art Commission (“DUAC” for short). The current draft BBL put up in
public domain too has only paraphrased the same provisions without looking at
ground realities. While policy measures are fine, the procedures and the
documentation required are not only complicated but also practically unfeasible.
There is complete neglect of intelligent differentia between the developed and the
rural/undeveloped portions of the city, although certain relaxations have been
granted from time to time. Even these relaxations cannot be utilized since there are
either other connected provisions which make it impossible to use them or there are
subsequent circulars where they are reversed or further complicated. Some areas of
concern can be briefly described as below:-
(I). LAYOUT PLAN: Rural & Special areas have long been kept out of planning
exercise entrusted to Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’). The Chapter titled

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 3

 “Landuse” in the Master Plan of Delhi (MPD-2021) notified on 7.2.2007 and
currently under mid-term review since 2012, requires local bodies to prepare &
notify the local zonal development plans & LOCAL layout plans within 1 year of
the above notification. The MPD-2021 notified above further requires/stipulates
sanction of building plans as per such layout plan.
However, it is a matter of public knowledge that the zonal development plans
have not been prepared and in fact the work is still at a very rudimentary stage.
As a consequence not many, and perhaps not even a single one, building plan
has been sanctioned in rural areas which have been kept out of DDA’s planning
activity.

Therefore, it is suggested that

(a) Till such time as the layout plan is not notified, local bodies should not be
allowed to insist upon the layout-plan. As an alternative the applicant may
include a key-plan, as is prescribed for all green-field projects in neighboring
states as well as in all developed countries, providing details such as
approach routes (roads, streets), location & layout of public utilities (water,
sewerage, electricity, etc.), if any.

(b) Post-sanction verification of submitted key-plan (as is provided for in the

Municipal Corporation with regard to ownership documents, but never
implemented) may be conducted and its scope should be limited only to the
aspects relating to development control norms such as shape of plot, size of
plot, access/approach routes, measurements of dimensions of plot, width of
public roads, etc. In case of discrepancy, the municipal corporation shall seek
explanations only in such material discrepancies relevant for sanction of
building plan of compliance of any provisions of BBL or MPD-2021.

(c) Further, both before and after notification of such approved layout plan, the
unnecessary referrals need to be effectively banned. Clarification at S. No. 1
of DDA Circular No. F. 3(103)/96-MP/287 dated 14.08.2014), is a case in
point. It unnecessarily requires the applications to be routed through town-
planning department not only for sanction on LDRA plots above 2 acres, but
for all applications on any kind of plot. This clarification / decision is in
contravention of MPD-2021 norms prescribed in clauses 3(5) and 3(11)
mentioned above. Instead the MPD-2021 mandates that the application
should be directly dealt with by the building department as per building-bye
laws & development control norms, and only after sanction is granted, a copy
each of such sanction and sanctioned plans should be sent to the Town
Planning Deptt., for incorporation in their Layout Plans.

(d) Even unauthorized extensions of rural areas, such as built-up structures on

agricultural lands beyond Lal-Dora or Extended All-Dora, should be included
in the planning exercise of the DDA and for their inclusion in zonal
development plans & local layout plans by the local municipal body. Leaving
them out shall only perpetuate the unauthorized construction as it leaves no
way to bring them into mainstream and shall encourage/strengthen/feed
corruption among field staff entrusted with enforcement of development
norms. Local bodies, despite stipulation in Chapter 16 titled “Landuse” in
Master-PLAN OF DELHI 2021 notified on 7.02.2007 to prepare & notify
zonal and local layout plans within 12 months of its notification, have

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 4

 not complied with the same, and consistently deny sanction of building plans
citing lack of zonal/layout plan; Concerned officials responsible for preparing
such local development plans or layout plans bear no adverse consequences
while causing innumerous difficulties to the law abiding citizens who wish to
build authorized structures.

(II). PLOTS LEFT-OUT FROM APPROVED LAYOUT PLANS : Rural & Special
areas have long been kept out of planning exercise entrusted to Delhi
Development Authority. While DDA frames rules & policies relating to preparation
of such layout plans by specifying development control norms and building bye-
laws in for Delhi, Municipal Corporations are entrusted with the duty to prepare
such layout-plans and then receive applications for and accord sanction of
building plans in accordance with these provisions & layout-plans. However,
while there are no (or not many) such zonal development plans or layout plans
for rural areas, there are many plots/parcels of land, that have been left out of
such layout plans even in urban areas. Municipal Corporations are in receipt of
many such applications where the sanction is denied only for the reason that the
plot is not found in any approved layout plan by the Town Planning Department.
Therefore, it is suggested that,

(a) Building Department of Municipal Corporation should be competent to decide

on sanction as per provisions relating to land-use & building bye-laws
specified in the Master-Plan for the area with no reference to the Town-
Planning Deptt. of the Municipal Corporation or the DDA. For the purpose of
maintaining symmetry of information between the DDA and the Municipal
Corporation, If the need be, a representative of DDA be invited to the
meeting for deciding the layout of isolated / left-out plots.

(b) No prior reference to Town-Planning Department of DDA or MCD should be

required. Only a copy of sanctioned layout plans should then be sent to town
planning Department for updating their layout plans.

(III). OWNERSHIP DOCUMENTS: The local bodies should not be concerned with
civil matters such as those relating to ownership. It is a well-settled position in law
that mere sanction of building plans does not in any way create any right, title or
interest in any immovable property, be it the land, or a constructed property.
Further, sanction of building plans only implies that the proposed structure can
be built, and that is it as per the applicable building bye-laws. It does not
authorize a person seeking sanction to build on any plot of land whether or not
he has interest / possession / ownership of the same.
Moreover, and more so in rural areas, ownership rights ON LANDS OR
PORTION OF LANDS OR BUILT-UP PROPERTIES have been created through
informal family partitions which are not reduced to writing, and have been
recognized as properly legal means, by umpteen rulings of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in its rulings has further clarified that such partitions need not
be reduced to writing, as they are meant to preserve peace in the family, which is
the most essential building block of any society. Despite rulings of the Apex
Court, the Revenue Authorities deny registration of ownership rights and decline
any requests for mutation, thereby denying any possibility of authorized
construction despite perfectly legal & undisputed ownership.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 5

 Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Manish Mohan Sharma v. Ram Bahadur Thakur
Ltd. (Appeal 9446 of 2003) as under:

"IT has been repeatedly emphasized in several decisions that family settlements
are governed by a special equity and are to be enforced if honestly made.  This
would be so "even if the terms may have been agreed to on the basis of an error
of the parties or originate in a mistake or ignorance of fact as to what the rights of
the parties actually are, or of the points on which their rights actually depend".
This is because the object of an arrangement is to protect the family from long
drawn out litigation, and to bring about harmony and goodwill in the family (see
Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation).  The courts lean heavily in favour of
family arrangements and, "matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar
transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family
arrangements".  This view has been reiterated recently in Amteshwar Anand v.
Virender Mohan Singh and Ors."
(italics supplied)

Hon’ble Bombay High Court held in Mahadeo Tulsiram Pathade v. Vatsalabai

Shamrao Pathade:,
“A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the
various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth instead of
concentrating the same in the hands of a few is undoubtedly a milestone in the
administration of social justice.  That is why the term “family” has to be
understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations
or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title,
a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes succession is so that future
disputes are sealed forever and the family instead fighting claims inter se and
wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or futile litigation is able to
devote its attention to more constructive work in the larger interest of the country.
The courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family arrangement
instead of disrupting the same on technical or trivial grounds.  Where the courts
find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect the
rule of stoppels is pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of the
person who being a party to family arrangement seeks to unsettle a settled
dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself
enjoyed some material benefits”.
(italics supplied)
Therefore, it is suggested that

(a) Local bodies entrusted with sanction of building-plans should not insist on
ownership documents. The MCD & DDA are not required to and shall not
venture into deciding civil issues relating to ownership, if any. Mere affidavit of
ownership should be enough and insistence on any ownership documents such
as revenue record, sale-deed, mutation, etc. should be seen as delaying-tactics.

(b) An affidavit indemnifying the local bodies against any such dispute is already a
part of the application for sanction of building plans. The affidavit may contain an
indemnity clause in favour of respective Municipal Corporations indemnifying

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 6

 them against any consequences (being made a party to, or to be called for
payment of damages, etc.) relating to disputes arising out of ownership issue.

(c) The local body may further clarify (in the sanction-letter and by affixing a stamp
on the sanctioned-maps) that “sanction only certifies that applied for
structure to be compliant of applicable development control norms and
does not create or imply any right on such land/property in nature of
possession or title”.

(d) As an interim alternative, till such time as this is not completely dispensed with,
any form of documentary or other proof of possession, or of beneficial use &
control by the applicant should be accepted. In rural areas, registered sale-deed
or physical possession with peaceful use of the premises should be sufficient
and mutation in revenue records should not be insisted upon.

(IV). ACCESS THROUGH PUBLIC ROAD/STREET : It is a matter of common

knowledge that till many decades back, the rural lands consisted of large plots
and was measured in acres and bigha, rather than in smaller units currently used
such as square-feet or square-yards. These large tracts/plots of rural lands
(Agricultural, Lal-Dora or Extended-Lal-Dora) have since then undergone
multiple/several sub-divisions through family partitions or otherwise over the past
several generations.
These partitions have been recognized as perfectly legal means of creating
ownership rights to such parcels or portions of land, with or without any formal
documentation. These partitions create / leave private common passage (or
passages) within the consolidated plot (or erstwhile undivided plot) for access to
the different sub-divided plots.

However, regulations/rules for sanction of building plans require that the plot on
which sanction is sought, should be accessible by a public road. This not only
denies the owner of such sub-divided plot to build on his perfectly legally owned
plot of land, but also disturbs family peace and tranquility by preventing any
family partition from taking place. Litigations among family members not only
threaten family peace but are a source of menace to the whole society, apart
from denying the society the beneficial use of land.

It is submitted that such provisions which keep land out of development process
are contrary to economic common sense and jurisprudence of the laws of the
country. Such of the assets in scarce land resources remain out of circulation and
beneficial use of society as are isolated from the process of authorized
development on account of denial of sanction of building-plans. The age-old legal
principles of rule against perpetuity (under Transfer of Property Act, 1872), are
also based on such principles. For the same reason, Indian succession act, 1925
also provides even in supersession of personal laws, that there shall be no gap
or unattached period between any two successive successions. The honourable
court should not allow all these principles of law made for general social welfare
to be thrown to winds merely because civic agencies fail to see reason or do not
wish to care for hardships faced by law-abiding citizens on this count. Such
lawlessness unconsciously and viciously enhances their illegal empire which
needs to be checked sooner than later.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 7

 Therefore, it is suggested that in case of sub-division of PLOTS IN RURAL &
SPECIAL AREAS,
(a) The access through public road should not be insisted upon if there is a
private common passage for free access to such a sub-divided plot, AND

(b) Where such private passage is itself connected to a public road/street,

AND

(c) Where the owners of such sub-divided plots are ready and undertake to
keep it free of construction.

(V). MINIMUM ROAD-WIDTH (Right-of-Way for Road): An often cited impractical

restriction for sanction of building plans, primarily to provide for approach route
for fire-tenders and also for the foreseen traffic in the event of urbanization, is the
requirement of a road of a specified width in front of the plot.
It is common knowledge that roads in rural & special areas are narrow and there
is no scope to widen them. From ground realities, it is not without basis to say
that road width shall remain what it is currently, and in denial of sanction for
building plans on this count, there is and will be large-scale construction leading
to unauthorized colonies.

There is no policy in form of ordinance, office-order, notification, circular in sight

nor there seems to be any other form of ‘legislation in form of Bill/Act’ under
consideration of the competent legislative body to bring about widening of such
roads either through acquisition or otherwise. It is submitted that failure of local
body should not result in denial of building plan sanction to such areas on ground
of minimum road width. It causes avoidable adverse consequences while causing
innumerous difficulties to the law abiding citizens who wish to build authorized
structures. The officials merely prescribe a general guideline relating to width of
the road in front of the plot, without looking into ground realities or doing their
duty to fulfill the responsibility cast on them under the same law/statute.

It is generally argued by civic bodies that the minimum road width is required, to
provide for decongestion of traffic resulting from urbanization and to pave way for
fire tenders. Recognizing the latter, this hon’ble court may kindly issue notice to
the concerned civic bodies to consider an alternative that a pipe line can be laid
to reach every house hold from a point where fire tenders can reach. There are
always ways to do things and many more not to do them; Mere insistence on
minimum road width without taking any steps to provide a road or to prescribe
other means cannot be allowed to condemn such areas to unauthorized
development for all times to come.

As regards the former, it may be noted here that in the bye-laws there is also no
mention of or consideration for plots which may abut (or be connected through a
common private passage to) more than one public road, although none of them
may be of the width prescribed for sanction of building plans.

Therefore, it is suggested that directions may be issued by competent authorities

to concerned local bodies to evaluate following suggestions:

(a) For the purpose of sanction of building plans on rural residential lands (Lal-
Dora & Extended Lal-Dora), the requirement of minimum road-width should

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 8

 not be insisted upon. The already available relaxation from setbacks and
ground coverage limitations can only be utilized when this additional
relaxation is given. Without this, there is no possibility to sanction building
plans for rural areas, and would further aggravate problem of unauthorized
constructions and lead to mushrooming of new unauthorized colonies.

(b) Further, where a zonal development plan or local layout plan is

notified/approved (not merely under consideration or under preparation),
where possible (for example, in large plots where Group Housing Projects
are planned and therefore have empty space in front because of ground
coverage restrictions) only an enhanced setback should be prescribed to
widen the existing road. However, the enhanced setback should not in any
way cause reduction of usable FAR on the plot as per norms governing FAR.

(c) Where the plot abuts more than one public street/road either directly or
through common private passages, even where none of these public
streets/roads is of required minimum-width, the requirement should be
relaxed & it should be duly factored in since road-width is prescribed inter-
alia to contain resulting traffic from proposed development.

(d) Higher road-width may be prescribed for areas where redevelopment has
actually started, not just those which are earmarked for redevelopment, i.e.
restriction should be subject to the condition that such prescription should
only apply from the time that such redevelopment has actually begun. This is
necessary to avoid unnecessary & indefinite denial of sanctions in wake of
impending redevelopment which government agencies may or may not
actually take-up.

(e) To enable fire-fighting requirements, either the builder be require to lay the
utility themselves (preferred) or pay a levy to local body who may build a
water-pipeline (generally leads to indefinite delays) from the building to the
nearest public road of required width where a fire-tender can come and pump
the water.

(VI). PROMOTING RURAL COMMUNITY LIVING RATHER THAN

ENCOURAGE LAND MAFIA: Current ‘Development Control Norms’ (‘DCRs’) in
the Building Bye-Laws illogically prescribe, proportionately higher number of
dwelling units (DU’s) for smaller plots while permitting a higher ground coverage
(in %) and a higher FAR (in %), as compared to the bigger plots. It is submitted in
this regard that the
(a) Increase in no. of dwelling units does not lead to proportionate increase in
areas dedicated to common facilities such as stairs, corridors, shafts, open-
spaces, etc.; the increase is at best marginal. For Example, a staircase for a
single-family is required to be 95 cm wide, but only 105 cm wide if there are up
to 5 families. Therefore in bigger plots, there is more area available for
dwelling units, after leaving out such common spaces.

(b) Further, poorer section of the society can only buy smaller plots, which are
also more in number than the bigger plots because the poorer population is
larger. However, Higher FAR (built-up area as % of plot-area) and Ground
Coverage for smaller plots make them more expensive. This deprives the

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 9

 poorer population any chance to acquire smaller plots since they can anyways
not acquire larger plots.

(c)In rural areas, while the land holdings (both agricultural and residential) are
very large as per revenue-records, because of generations of family
partitions, actual individual holdings of rural residential lands (Lal-Dora or
Extended Lal-Dora, as they are called) rarely exceeds 1,000 sqyd, while the
families housed on such plots are poorer, more in number and bigger. As
mentioned earlier, such partitions are not entered in revenue records partly
because of ignorance of the rural people, and partly because of the red-tapism
at the levels of Patwari & Tehsildar. Further, rural nuclear families are also
bigger and many nuclear families stay together to share their expenses and
resources. That is, the population density is higher in rural residential areas.

(d) It is also not illogical or without-basis to say that Group housing is a

preferred mode over individual building activity. Prescribing large minimum
sizes of plots denies this opportunity to smaller groups of people and ensures
only large builder mafia can use this to their monetary advantage. A very large
minimum plot-size (such as 1,670 sqm. Or 2,000 sqyd as proposed in new
Building Bye-Laws under consideration) would inevitably cause only big
builders to acquire the lands of rural poor who cannot acquire more than what
(whole or share of land) that they currently own.

Therefore, it appears that it would be more in consonance with constitutionally

mandated social order if following things are considered in this regard.

a) Focus of building norms should be to promote group housing in all areas

especially in rural areas where it is needed more than urban areas, and
where consolidated land-holdings among related individuals make it possible
to realize this objective. Accordingly, FAR, Ground Coverage, Height and No.
of Dwelling Units should be higher for larger plots. This will reduce prices of
smaller plots, ease parking on public land, and incentivize re-development.

b) For Group Housing Projects in rural areas, FAR of 400% should be allowed –
to even exceed the 350% available to the smallest plots allowed (32 sqm.).
The no. of dwelling units should be higher (say by 25%) than that for urban
areas in view of higher population density in rural/poorer areas.

c) Given that FAR currently stands at 300% for most of the smaller plots, and it
cannot be practically reduced for existing developments, the FAR for
bigger/larger plots should be further increased beyond 350% (what value
stands for the smallest category of plot for which sanction can be given) as
against the recent increase of FAR to 200% for plots larger than 750 sqm.
This would also increase demands, especially among builders, for larger
plots as compared to smaller plots. For Cooperative Group Housing Projects
in Rural Residential Lands, the FAR should be increased to 400%.

d) The corresponding minimum prescribed size for Group Housing Project

should be reduced to about 1,000 square-yards (‘sqyd’) as in in neighboring
state of Rajasthan which has a high proportion of rural population. This will
also ease potential parking problems since Group housing projects have a
lower proportion of land earmarked for building the structure, and hence

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 10

 more place to park cars within the project premises rather than on public land
outside the premises.

(VII). LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA (LDRA)

A. LDRA should be developed as High Density Residential Areas: In all the
developed countries including the USA & UK, the central portion of any
developed city is earmarked for business activity including retail, offices, and
others.) while outer boundaries are earmarked for residences. This is
followed as a global practice as it de-congests central areas which could be
developed/re-developed as Central Business Districts, and spread flow of
traffic over a larger area (the outer periphery). Hence, the outer areas of
Delhi, which have been earmarked as Low Density Residential areas
(‘LDRA’) present an opportunity to de-congest the central areas and relocate
these in a planned way on the much larger outer periphery. Group Housing
norms such as low ground coverage (as compared to coverage for urban
plots with similar FAR in sqft.) of only 50% shall also help preserve the
natural environmental heritage, while allowing a bigger population mass to be
housed.

B. INCENTIVIZE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS:

(i). INCREASED FAR: Sizeable Incentivized FAR to the owners of existing

approved farmhouses with no extra built-up area over & above the
sanctioned plans. Currently, the notification only provides guidance on
regularization of farmhouses that have violated the norms, into LDRA
plots.

(ii). LOWER CONVERSION-CHARGES: Where there is no violation of

sanctioned building plan in farmhouses, a sizeable benefit in form of
significantly-lower charges for
a) ‘conversion to LDRA plot’ and
b) purchasable ‘Additional-FAR beyond 30%’ should be considered.

C. NO. OF INDEPENDENT STRUCTURES: The norms for plots larger than 2

acres are still not notified and clarifications from DDA are awaited by the
municipal corporations in this regard. The current development norms under
consideration for the building plans on LDRA Plots seek to limit the number
of independent buildings, apparently to prevent sub-division of LDRA plots.

It is in this reference, it is submitted/suggested that

(i). Since the FAR and Ground Coverage norms have been settled to ensure a
low density of population, the RESTRICTION ON NUMBER OF
INDEPENDENT STRUCTURES OR NO. OF DWELLING UNITS should not
be insisted upon as a means to curb plotting. If such restriction is insisted
upon, Sub-divisions through family partitions are a recognized & legal means
but which is undesirable for many other reasons, shall lead to a much worse-
off situation.

(ii). The master-Plan itself provides for sub-division of even urban lands upto 32
sqm. There is no basis as to why the same benefit should not be extended to
rural people if the primary aim is satisfied by restricting the built-up area.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 11

 (iii). Alternately, a 25% reduction (to the nearest number) over number of dwelling
units for regular/urban developed areas as decided from time to time can be
prescribed. This is because, with current provision of 3 dwelling units, it
would transform to each unit as large as 4,000 sqft., and above. Coupled with
high land prices, this large size in itself would motivate and make viable the
age-old technique of family partitions to effect ownership rights on smaller
independent dwelling units to nuclear families within the family.

(iv). Further, limiting DUs to such low numbers would inevitably motivate other
legal but undesirable modes of conveyance such as through family partitions
of different portions of same dwelling units, each bearing same municipal
number, leading to a much higher number of dwelling units.

D. FRONT SETBACK NORMS: The norms for front setback & road-width
should be read concurrently and incorporated purely through a provision for
mandatorily leaving a front setback from the middle of the proposed road and
seeking an affidavit that the same and shall not be claimed in case the local
body seeks to possess the same for construction of the road.

(i). Front setback should be measured from center of the proposed road, to
enable construction of a road of planned width. If specified from edge of
plot, it’d unnecessarily cause high front-setback even where there is
already a wide road available.

(ii). The affidavit submitted along with application for sanction of building plans
should enable automatic vesting of the land with local body upon
sanction of the building plans (and thereby dispensing of further
proceedings for possessions of such land) as & when and in the event that
such road is actually built.

E. Requirement for access through public road & width of Public Road in
front: As in other cases, the norms require for sanction that the LDRA plot
should be accessible by public road of a specific width. At the expense of
repetition, it is submitted that LDRA plots fall exclusively in outer peripheral
rural villages where there is neither a zonal development plan, nor any local
layout plan or any roads of prescribed width. Further there is no policy in
place, other than prescription of a deep setback of 15m in front, prescribing
proposed measures to ensure construction of road of such width in future in
rural areas where there is large population on plots falling on narrow roads.
As we have seen, such policy can be expected to take any amount of time
with no restriction.

Therefore, it is suggested that the regulation should be viewed in light of ground

realities, and in appreciation of valid differentia that exists in form of “already
approved & built” farmhouses and the “proposed” farmhouses on LDRA plots.

(i). In case of existing approved farmhouses – There should be no

requirement in excess of what already exists. Even the revised ‘draft building
bye-laws’ currently under consideration prescribe a deemed approval under
the new building bye-laws for structured where the sanction was accorded in
older building bye laws and the construction has been completed.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 12

 (ii). In other cases: Allow vesting of private passage connected to existing public
road and which provides access to all individual sub-divided plots. Prescribe
a deeper front setback, as measured from center of the planned road (in
master-plan / zonal development plan / local layout plan) to enable
construction of a road of planned width.

(VIII). TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) along MRTS CORRIDORS

A. Currently Clause 3.3.1.1 (A) (ii) of the Notified MPD-2021 prescribes that
for an ‘existing development’ to be included within the development control
norms applicable to the proposed TOD zone, at-least 70% of such existing
development needs to lie in such TOD-zone. There is no thought given to
the natural repercussion of including only a part of development in a more
lucrative regime of regulations, namely the unauthorized constructions.

B. It is not physically possible or economically viable to provide or augment the

physical infrastructure in form of pipes for drinking-water, storm-water,
sewerage, etc. in a narrow STRIP of 500m width which shall also include
many mixed-use developments including buildings and structures of all
kinds.

C. The building plans remain pending without any sanction whatsoever till the
complete development plans are finalized or notified. There is no prescribed
time-limit for the local bodies or the DDA to formulate such plans and no
rules on consequences of delay.

D. Landuse of rural residential lands (that is Lal-Dora or Extended Lal-Dora)

stays residential while lands falling in urbanized areas can apply for land-
use as per the land-use allowed in the TOD-policy being formulated.
It is therefore suggested that
(i) NATURAL BOUNDARY: Width of such corridor should be fixed as per
natural boundaries like railway line, drain/canal, village-phirni, etc. Further,
Any existing development touching or overlapping the notified TOD-zone
should form part of such TOD zone. This would prevent development of
unauthorized development in the remaining area immediately abutting such
fixed boundary if such area is not included in the TOD zone.

(ii) Economically Viable Minimum Width: The Minimum width of TOD-zone

along MRTS corridor should be increased to about 2 km against current
proposal of 500m to be economically viable FOR LOCAL BODIES TO BUILD
INFRASTRUCTURE. Given the planned spread of public transport, this
would also incentivize public and non-motorized transport since such small
last-mile distances discourage use of personal vehicles.

(iii) TIMELINES: The sanction of building plans for plots in such TOD zone
should be started immediately upon notification of an area as a TOD-zone -
without waiting for actual developmental work to begin.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 13

 (iv) Land conversion rules must be put in place on urgent basis. Rural lands
have only two kinds of lands – the agricultural and the residential. To allow
better use of their land, the Land-use of rural residential land should also be
allowed to be changed.

(v) Policy needs to be put-in place for Land-Consolidation to enable private

developers to agglomerate the requisite size of land (1-Ha within TOD-Zone
and 4-Ha outside), to benefit from this policy. This would need liaison with
Revenue Deptt., since it would require alternative provisions for the common-
passages that may need to be absorbed within the agglomerated land-parcel

(IX). LAND-POOLING SCHEME: The current land-pooling scheme is plagued

with following anomalies/deficiencies that shall render it a non-starter or even
deepen the urbanization-mess of Delhi that DDA is frequently blamed for.
(i) Current policy envisages transfer of all land pooled by all private developer
entities (‘DEs’) to the DDA. The DDA shall then devise/formulate a
development plan based on the pooled land and thereafter re-allocate land
back to the Developer Entities. However, the rules do not require that the
DE’s shall be given the same parcel of land that they conveyed to the DDA
or even anywhere near it.

(ii) There is no time limit prescribed for the DDA to pool the land, formulate the
development plan, what happens when such time-limit is not adhered to,
and re-transfer land back to the DE’s.

(iii) It is currently mandatory for cooperative Societies to get the land from DDA.
There have been cases where the cooperative society purchased & pooled
a plot of land, and handed over the same to DDA for re-allotment (as
required by DDA for compliance of the provision requiring “allocation of land
by DDA”), but the land was thereafter allotted to some other applicant
cooperative.

(iv) The proposed allowable FAR is based on net residential land that is
transferred back to the Developer Entity. The Net Residential Land so given
back is 43% (for smaller pools of land) or 53% (for larger pools of land)
depending on the size of land pooled. The retrograde provision of basing
the FAR on net residential land again reduces the effective FAR to
somewhere between 172% to 212%, i.e. even below that allowed for much
smaller & even the smallest category of plots. It is a matter proved
scientifically that larger plots allow greater space for dwelling units since the
common spaces only increase marginally with increase in dwelling units or
dwelling space.

Hence, for a sound policy that caters to the needs of the citizens of Delhi and
survives any legal challenge, it is necessary that

A. The land–pooling is NOT used as just another and even more ingenious
form of land acquisition where the Government doesn’t even need to
pay. Instead, if the land is needed to build common spaces or community
infrastructure, then as is done in Gurgaon or Noida, the Developer Entity
should be required to install/build required physical infrastructure. DDA’s job

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 14

 should be limited to planning i.e. formulating development plan and layout for
the areas. If building of physical infrastructure is left to the DDA, it shall delay
projects indefinitely, and cause use of public money where private funds can
be used.

B. Area of discretion should be reduced to the minimum with regard to allocation

of developed land back to developer-entity. As far as possible, the DE’s
should be allowed to retain the same plot/pool and be required to build the
physical infrastructure for their development. In rural residential lands, whose
land-use remains residential, there should be no requirement for transferring
it to DDA & later get it back. In fact in rural areas, there is currently no
development charge for sanction of building plans.

C. Time Limit should be specified for DDA for formulating development plan &
handing the land back to DE’s. There should also be deterrence in form of
administrative punishment to concerned DDA officials for exceeding such
specified time. That people languish for years and decades for even their
monetary compensation in land acquisition is not unknown.

D. The FAR of 400% should be applied on ‘Gross’ Residential Land. The Net
Land Area lies between 43% and 53% of the Gross area of land, which
effectively reduces the allowed FAR to below 200%.

E. No compulsion for cooperative societies or builders to take land from DDA. It

requires serious consideration whether sanction should be given on the land
directly purchased or acquired under MoU, by the society or private
builders, in accordance with land-use as per Zonal Plan & building-bye-laws
applicable to their proposed development type (Multi-story Group-Housing,
Independent Villas, etc.).

F. Immediate policy action is needed with regard to registered societies being

floated in anticipation of land-pooling policy. Memberships are sold to fund
the planned acquisition of land and the building activity.

G. Comprehensive development plan is needed for areas not covered under

land-pooling. This includes rural residential lands, and their unauthorized
extensions.
(X). SUFFICIENTLY INCENTIVIZE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPED
CONGESTED AREAS TO EASE PARKING ISSUE, TO BETTER UTILIZE
SCARCE RESOURCE IN ALREADY DEVELOPED LAND, AND TO INCREASE
HOUSING: Government has in recent past announced several measures for re-
development, but there is hardly any incentive created to encourage any real
activity. There are innumerable authorized and unauthorized colonies with huge
number of smaller plots. While the FAR norms are being eased, they cannot be
effectively made use of since there is no incentive to offset the cost of its
adoption. For Example, the cost of demolition and rebuilding of new structure as
per higher FAR is not offset by an additional floor that can now be built. Further,
for provision of utilities (such as pipelines for storm-water, fresh-water or
sewerage) to cater to higher population requires a much larger population base
to contribute.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 15

 For any cooperative society, it is mandatory to purchase land from the DDA. It is
therefore suggested that DDA consider & evaluate proposals to

A. Allow amalgamation of existing smaller plots in already developed urban

areas for building group-housing projects where the FAR as per proposed
draft building bye-laws is increased to 400%. This will incentivize
redevelopment, ease parking in public streets and provide self-financing of
augmentation of physical infrastructure & utilities.

B. Reduce the allowed FAR and ground coverage in smaller plots that come up
hereafter in any new plotted development, either by Govt or pvt developers.

C. There should be no compulsion for cooperative societies or builders to take

land from DDA. Sanction should be given on the land directly purchased or
acquired under MoU by the society or private builders, as per provisions of
Master-Plan MPD-2021 i.e. the development control norms applicable to
Multi-story Group-Housing in notified Zonal Development Plan for the area.

(XI). SIMPLIFIED SINGLE-WINDOW PROCEDURE: Currently, applicants are

required to obtain and submit NOCs from Traffic Police, Fire Safety (Delhi Fire
Service) or Archaeology Deptt. for building plan sanction. This only
prolongs/thwarts sanction process and again leads to corruption and
mushrooming of unauthorized construction. It is therefore suggested that

a. All such departments should be required to forward their requirements to

the official in charge of sanctions in concerned Municipal Corporation. There
should be no referral of file (relating to sanction-application) to any
department. There should also be no need to get any NOC from them. The
Building Deptt. of concerned Municipal Corporation should be empowered to
evaluate / decide on sanction as per the norms submitted by these
departments.

b. The requirements of other such departments should only be limited to

access-routes and not impose irrelevant/archaic prohibitions such as radius
of construction free zone around a heritage site, etc.

(XII). GENERAL PROVISIONS (‘BULK CHARACTERISTICS’) OF BUILDING

BYE-LAWS: The current provisions are old, obsolete, unnecessarily detailed,
thereby exploited by officials & touts to decline, delay sanctions and lead to
unavoidable violations.
A. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS: Pointless excuses such as Non-availability of Fire-
Tenders to serve tall buildings should not be enabling causes for imposing
illogical restrictions vertical height of buildings – there are several areas in
Delhi where there are skyscrapers. Head-Office of DDA, the Vikas Minar is
itself a tall 20 storied skyscraper. Apart from this, DDA itself has built many
other skyscrapers in areas where no private entity is allowed to build multi-
storied development.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 16

 It is therefore requested through this Hon’ble Court that the following
suggestions be evaluated for amending the existing procedures as regards
fire-safety, for sanction of building plans:

(i) The DFS (Delhi Fire Service) should be advised to procure fire-tenders
necessary for high buildings; If tall buildings can be protected in
Connaught Place, or at ITO (Indraprastha Estate) there’s no reason
why they can’t be protected anywhere else in Delhi. If tall buildings of
DDA can be protected in case of fire, so can be those of private
developers.

(ii) There should be provisions for installation of fire-prevention in

skyscrapers, as in Noida or Gurgaon, where water-tanks for water-
hydrants and fire-fighting pipes are mandatory.

B. BASEMENT:

I. Extent: The basement should be allowed till the plot line, or upto a certain
distance from plot-line (say 2m, as provided for side-setbacks for basement).

II. Height: The basements up to the building-line should be allowed to be raised

to a height of 4-5 ft above the ground level to allow natural ventilation. The
basement beyond building line should be retained to ground level and should
have a retaining wall along all 4 sides. The ramp from the plot-line to building
line can be used to ply the cars into & out of stilt parking.

C. Shaft / Cut-Out in Stilt-Roof should not be insisted upon, as it creates a

security risk, and also passes on heat (due to friction of car-tyres) into the
dwelling units. Stilts being open are anyways Well-ventilated.

D. Lift and staircase lobbies should compulsorily be the same (share the same
floor-landing) to allow passengers who alight from the lift during an emergency
to immediately reach for stairs to come down.

E. For plots in urban areas that face/abut more than one public street/road directly,
or through common private passages, the minimum road width regulation should
be eased.

F. Height of Buildings: In rural areas, pucca roads do not exist. Building such
roads uses up a lot of height. Therefore, to ensure that entrances to buildings do
not sink below the front-road when the same is first built or after several cycles
of rebuilding of such roads, the stilt-floor should be allowed to be higher than
current 6-inches or 9-inches above the road level.
[5]. LAND POOLING POLICY: The much touted latest land-pooling policy in its current
form is not only illogical as discussed above, but is also illegal and ultra-vires the new
land acquisition law namely the “Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013”. The policy of land-
pooling in its present form is a ploy to bye-pass the new land acquisition law. It
seeks to get land (by avoiding the phrase ‘acquiring the land’) for no compensation in
the name of need for infrastructure. The Section 2(1) of the Right To Fair

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 17

 Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013 reads as under:-
“2.(1)The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition,
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, shall apply, when the
appropriate Government acquires land for its own use, hold and
control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public
purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely:-
(a) for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force, and armed
forces of the Union, including central paramilitary forces or any work vital
to national security or defence of lndia or State police, safety of the
people; or
(b) for infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely:-
………………………………………..”
(A) Therefore, the law does not permit any policy to get land without adhering to the
provisions of the above enactment relating to land acquisition, compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement. The said policy deserves to be stayed for this
single reason.

(B) That the said land-pooling policy seeks in its present form to perpetuate the
policy of more privileges for the privileged. The larger tracts of land are proposed
to be given more benefits by returning a greater portion of land back to the
developer in form of developed land.

(C) That the said land-pooling policy is contrary to “Directives” in as much as it

ignores from its purview already existing huge chunks of residential land in rural
areas of Delhi (Lal-Dora and extended Lal-Dora lands) where the civic authorities
and Government is bound to provide infrastructure facilities even without any
land in return. If economy is constraint, there can be charged a reasonable
amount as development charges. But it is no less than criminal negligence of
duties to ignore the areas altogether relegating them to second grade or third
grade status merely because they are not part of privileged few to come within
the limelight of powers that be.

(D) The said land-pooling policy does not have any inputs, to the best of belief of the
petitioner, from GNCT of Delhi and a civic body in Delhi has become an
organization that lays down rules for the state government to obey. The attention
of honourable Prime Minister court is invited to regulation for regularization of
unauthorized colonies in Delhi which have been made and notified by DDA to be
implemented by GNCT of Delhi. The result is before everybody to see.

(E) The said land-pooling policy in its present form is supposed to be notified for
specific areas of Delhi thereby implying that there is no prospect of development
by private sector in remaining areas. It is submitted that this is too hefty a price
which the city of Delhi can ill afford to pay only to perpetuate monopoly of DDA
and serve certain vested interests. The land-pooling policy is in public domain for
a couple of years now and people with resources have accumulated huge
chunks of several hundreds of acres for taking advantage of land-pooling policy.
Therefore, the benefits stand already hijacked by few. There is no policy in sight
to allow private development in a straight forward manner. The land-pooling

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 18

 policy is a means for DDA to acquire land through land mafia and not a means to
allow citizens or private developers to engage in development/construction
activities as per master plan in a straight forward manner without having to
collaborate with DDA.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROVISIONS OF BBL/MPD-2021 Page 19