HAROON RASHEED

17BALLB044

GJ-1625

MID TERM ASSIGNMENT

LOCAL LAWS

23/03/2022

URBAN DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN INDIA

1. INTRODUCTION

Urbanisation is a broad term and there are wide variations amongst the States and regions in the
level of urbanisation. National Capital Territory of Delhi with 92.73 per cent urbanisation and
the Union territory of Chandigarh with 93.63 per cent urbanisation are the most urbanised cities
while Dadra and Nagar Haveli at 8.47 per cent urbainisation is the least urbanized city in the
country.1 The states with greater urban concentration are Maharashtra with 38.73 per cent of its
population living in urban areas, followed by Gujarat (34.40 per cent) and Tamil Nadu (34.20 per
cent).

While there has been urban growth in some states, in other states and cities there has also been
deceleration. Inter-state variation in the annual growth of urban population and urban-rural
growth differential (URGD) throws more light on the development of urban India and its
underlying characteristics. Except in Kerala, Gujarat and Maharashtra, the URGD is lower in all
other states during 1981-91 than in 1971-81. Conspicuous deceleration in urban growth during
1981-91 has taken place in Bihar, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh.

It is interesting to note that the population growth is more in cities that are big. About one-third
of Urban India (71 million) lives in metropolitan cities (million plus). The number of such cities
in India has increased from 1 in 1901 to 5 in 1951 to 23 in 1991. It is estimated that the number
will go up to 40 by 2001. Out of the total increase in the countrys urban population of 58 million
between 1981 and 1991, 44 million were added to Class I cities alone. 28 million persons were
added in metropolitan cities.

In spite of its prominent role in Indian economy, urban India faces serious problems due to
population pressure, deterioration in the physical environment and quality of life. According to
estimates nearly one third of the urban India lives below poverty line. About 15 per cent of the
urbanites do not have access to safe drinking water and about 50 per cent are not covered by
sanitary facilities.

Traffic congestion has assumed critical dimensions in many metropolitan cities due to massive
increase in the number of personal vehicles, inadequate road space and lack of public transport.

2. INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

In the federal structure of the Indian polity, the matters pertaining to the housing and urban
development have been assigned by the Constitution of India to the State Governments. The
Constitutions (74th Amendment) Act have further delegated many of these functions to the
ULBs. The constitutional and legal authority of the government of India is limited only to Delhi
and other Union Territories and to the subject which State Legislatures authorise the Union
Parliament to legislate. This is because ‘urbanisation generally is a State subject as per Schedule
11 of the India Constitution.

However, the provisions of the Constitution notwithstanding, the government of India plays a
much more important role and exercise a larger influence to shape the policies and programmes
of the country as a whole. The national policy issues are decided by the Government of India
which also allocates resources to the State Governments through various Centrally Sponsored
schemes, provides finances through national financial institutions and supports various external
assistance programmes for housing and urban development in the country as a whole. Policies
and programme contents are decided at the time of formulation of Five Year Plans. The indirect
effect of the fiscal, economic and industrial location decisions of the Government of India
exercise a far more dominant influence on the pattern of urbanisation and real estate investment
in the country.

The Ministry of Urban Development and the Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty
Alleviation are the apex authority of Government of India at the national level to formulate
policies, sponsor and support programme, coordinate the activities of various Central Ministries,
State Governments and other nodal authorities and monitor the programmes concerning all the
issues of urban development and housing in the country.

The Ministry was constituted on 13th May, 1952 when it was known as the Ministry of Works,
Housing and Supply. Subsequently it was renamed as Ministry of Works and Housing when a
separate Ministry of Supply came up. The name of the Ministry was changed to Ministry of
Urban Development in September, 1985 in recognition of the importance of urban issues. With
the creation of a separate Department of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation on 8th
March, 1995, the Ministry came to be known as the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment.
The Ministry had two Departments: Department of Urban Development and Department of
Urban Employment & Poverty Alleviation. The two Departments were again merged on 9th
April, 1999 and in consequence thereto, the name has also been restored to “The Ministry of
Urban Development.

This Ministry was bifurcated into two Ministries viz.

i) Ministry of Urban Development” and

ii) Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation with effect from 16.10.1999.
These two Ministries were again merged into one Ministry on 27.5.2000 and named as Ministry
of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation with two Departments. They are (i) Department
of Urban Development and

iii) Department of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation.

3. NATIONAL POLICIES PERTAINING TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Urban congestion may be tackled in three ways. The most popular one is to go vertical. That
generally makes matters worse because it increases congestion, escalates land prices and hurts
the poor more and more. Expanding horizontally is another option. That increases commuting
distances, worsens the congestion at the center, and is no better than vertical expansion from the
social point of view: children and parents get separated for long hours. This option, though
alluring and more practical, also has various drawbacks in the long run. Moreover, in times of
today’s serious space crunch, this seemingly logical and practical solution is not so parctical
beyond a point. The third (and so far the least successful) solution is the satellite town. Kalyani
near Kolkata and Maraimalainagar near Chennai are standing examples of their limited appeal.
Yet, in the final analysis, the satellite town is the best option as of today.

For instance, people prefer to live in Delhi and to commute everyday to work in the
neighbouring industrial town of Faridabad. This practice sharply contrasts with the USexperience
where the fashion is to work in the city but live in far away rural counties. in India, the old city is
the dormitory, the satellite town the work place. In the US, it is the other way round. That
happens because American satellite towns offer high quality services of the type that may be
described as tele-ineffective the kind of services that have to be close to the home and are of no
use if they are far away. Indian satellite towns are poorly designed in this respect.

4. STATE POLICIES PERTAINING TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT

1) Draft infrastructure policy - Infrastructure Development Department (Government of

Orissa) (2001)

This policy document by the Government of Orissa outlines the draft infrastructure policy
designed to promote development of the state of Orissa. The policy promotes private sector
participation through provision of guidelines for private investments in infrastructure. It
encourages public private partnership, and provides a broader institutional and legal framework
for implementation of projects through cross sectoral perspective. It provides details of the steps
that will be taken to enable better implementation of the infrastructural projects in the context of
public private partnerships.

2) Gujarat integrated township policy - Gujarat Urban Development Company (Government

of Gujarat) (2008)
The document includes the Gujarat integrated township policy by the Gujarat Urban
Development Company (GUDC) (Government of Gujarat) that aims at promoting the
development of townships with high quality built in environments and services with reliable
infrastructure. The proposed ‘Township Policy provides a framework for ensuring that this
happens in an efficient manner in predefined areas for township development.

3) Rajasthan urban housing and habitat policy (RUHHP) and guidelines for action plan

- Urban Development and Housing Department (Government of Rajasthan) (2006) The

RUHHP-06 is broadly in consonance with the National Housing and Habitat Policy-2005. The
document goes on to highlight the present urban and rural situation in Rajasthan, the increasing
population density in the urban areas because of migration of people from rural to urban areas
and the housing issues arising because of this increased density of population in urban areas. The
policy thus focuses on balanced development, promotion of in situ- urbanisation, vertical
construction and the use of sustainable development models.

5. CONCLUSION

Attitudes to urban growth within the country tend to swing between two extremes. Cities are
seen either as an unavoidable evil or in a more positive way as engines of growth. The former
view is held by those who focus on the growth of slums and squatter colonies, the congestion on
the roads and environmental degradation. The others, in contrast, focus on the bustling formal
and informal sectors in urban areas and their contribution to the economy, the diversification of
occupations away from traditional land-based ones to newer forms of production and services,
and the lower levels of poverty as compared to rural areas.

There is, in fact, evidence to show that urbanisation is likely to have been a key determinant of
economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s, boosted by economic liberalisation. From this point of
view, the moderate pace of urbanisation in the country has been a cause of disappointment.
There is, however, no rural vs. urban conflict either in terms of national growth, or in
development priorities. In fact, perhaps because of the success of rural development programmes
along with the limited availability of land for squatting in central urban areas, there seems to be
no runaway migration from rural to urban areas.
Good urban governance calls for adequate policy and legal frameworks, the existence of
regulatory and planning authorities, human skills, a sound revenue base, accounting and
accountability. Substantial work has already been done to upgrade the urban infrastructure and
several parastatals and urban development authorities have acquired considerable skills in
planning and executing projects. Programmes such as the Mega City project for five selected
cities, the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT), and the Accelerated
Urban Water Supply Programme (AUWSP)have shown varying degrees of success in meeting
some of the urban needs. In particular, parastatal agencies and bodies such as development
authorities, need to play a supportive role to the elected bodies rather than taking over functions
which properly belong to the ULBs. The objective of devolution and decentralisation should be
carried forward by making parastatals and authorities partners and agencies of the democratically
elected ULBs, thus making a gradual transition to local management while continuing to use the
expertise of the organisations set up and supervised by the State Governments. Initiating the
necessary processes for partnerships between the State and its agencies on the one hand, and the
ULBs on the other, is a part of the exercise of capacity building in the ULBs.

Experiences of few cities provide some important lessons for improved urban governance. These
lessons are:

a) Build credibility of local government through improved administration;

b) Make initial efforts in a few critical areas that are visible and affect daily lives of most
residents;

c) Changes have to come from within the system, not forced by state or national
government;

d) Demonstration effects are important and more cities will learn from few success stories;

e) Dissemination and networking of local governments is crucial;

f) State and national governments may not always support the initiation of changes, but will
yield only when citizen support is received; and

g) Responsive administration for citizen grievances is essential.

The strategy for improved governance should include enablement, participation, and capacity
building.

Triggering Urban Reforms - Reforms can be triggered by creating external pressures on

municipal bodies and city administration. For instance, in Surat, extreme circumstances such as
the plague in early 1990s lead to various progressive reforms. Local leadership in terms of
Commissioner in Ahmadabad, Mayors in Alandur and Indore, and President of Textile Exporters
Association in Tiruppur lead the reforms in these cities. The State Government played a key role
in reforming Hyderabad city. The Bangalore Citizens Report Cards was an attempt towards
improving accountability by involving citizens in performance assessment of public agencies.

JNNURM has also played a crucial role in introduction of far reaching reforms in ULBs. A
recent report by TERI (2009) has said the following could trigger reforms:

a) Informed and tax-paying citizens demanding better services and greater accountability;

b) Creating competitive pressure by comparing performance of ULBs;

c) Linking all Government and multilateral funding to performance of ULBs on MoUDA’s

Standardised