Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brief Suggestions On BBL (MPD-2021)
Brief Suggestions On BBL (MPD-2021)
Brief Suggestions On BBL (MPD-2021)
[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.
(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.
(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.
(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,
(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.
"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)
(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
(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.
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.
(c) Where the owners of such sub-divided plots are ready and undertake to
keep it free of construction.
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.
(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
(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.
(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
(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.
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%.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
(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
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%.
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.
(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.
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).
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
(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.
(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