PDFProvider

495
521220/2023/AD(PLG-LAND POOLING ZONE J & L)
Chapter-1
Overview
1. Introduction
Delhi, as a city , a union territory and also the capital of the country with an area of 1483 sq.
km and a population of 1.68 crore (Census 2011), has a great need for planned development to
make it a world class city. Delhi Development Authority (DDA), an autonomous body under
the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), was established by the Delhi
Development Act (DD Act), 1957. The Act mandated DDA to promote and to secure the
development of Delhi according to Master Plan of Delhi (MPD).
One of the primary functions of DDA is the development and construction of housing colonies
and complexes to meet the housing needs of various sections of the population. For this
purpose, DD Act empowered DDA to acquire, hold, manage, and dispose of land and other
property, to carry out building, engineering, and other operations, to execute works in
connection with supply of water and electricity, disposal off sewage, other amenities and
services necessary or expedient for purposes of such development and incidental thereto.
1.1. Housing Scenario in Delhi
Based on the Census of India (Census 2001) and DDA Sub-Group (MPD 2021), it was
projected in MPD 2021 that the population of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD)
would be 2.30 crore by 2021. Considering this, in MPD 2021 a requirement of about 24 lakh
additional Dwelling Units (DUs) was estimated, which included an estimated 20 lakh DUs for
additional population, backlog of about 4 lakh DUs including dilapidated and kuccha structures
requiring replacement. This requirement of 24 lakh DUs was to be fulfilled by 2021 through
development of housing by various agencies viz., public, private, Central/State Governments,
co-operative societies, residents, and associations. Thus, housing development of NCTD was
one of the priority sectors of the overall urban development planning and development process
of Delhi.
1.2. Functions of DDA in Housing
Since its inception, DDA has launched 54 housing schemes out of which ten housing schemes
were undertaken since 2017-2018 for various economic strata viz., High Income Group (HIG),
Middle Income Group (MIG), Lower Income Group (LIG), Economically Weaker Sections
(EWS) etc. The built-up properties were to be disposed of by way of sale or hire-purchase
which is governed by DDA (Management & Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968.
1.3. Organizational Structure of DDA
The DDA is headed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, who is the chairman. The Vice Chairman
who is the administrative head of DDA, is assisted by Finance Member, Engineer Member and
1
496
Principal Commissioners and Commissioners of various functional wings. Organisation chart

of DDA as detailed below:
Chart 1.1: Showing major department/wing of DDA involved in housing project.
2
497
1.4. Functions of departments/wings of DDA
The overall roles and responsibilities of main departments of DDA related with housing project
are as follows:
 Planning Department is entrusted with the preparation of Master Plan, Zonal Plans,
Layout Plan etc., and polices and proposals for guiding the planned development of Delhi.
Planning Department undertakes correspondence with Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
Government of India, processes all the policy matters and modifications in Master Plan of
Delhi, framing of regulations etc.
 Housing and Urban Projects Wing (HUPW)/Architecture Department is entrusted
with site analysis and research, case studies, developing conceptual design, preparing proposal
details and presentations, convening meeting of Screening Committee1 and obtaining its
approval, obtaining statutory approvals and clearance from Delhi Urban Art Commission
(DUAC), fire safety etc., preparing detailed working drawings, on site coordination till
completion of execution of project on ground to meet various types of housing, commercial,
social, heritage and other infrastructure requirements.
 Land Management Department of DDA is responsible for acquisition of land,
management of land, assisting the engineering wing, co-ordination with various departments
and outside agencies for land management matters, planning and execution of demolition
programmes for encroachment removal and action against unauthorized construction in
development areas.
 Engineering Wing of DDA is responsible for all the construction & development
activities viz., development of land, construction of houses, developing parks and green areas,
constructing flyovers, building sports centers and amusement parks, construction of shopping
and office complexes etc.
 Housing Department allots the ready-built flats/houses by launching housing schemes
for various categories of flats. It also ensures availability of essential services like electricity,
water and sewage disposal, besides other infrastructural facilities required to make the
dwelling units habitable.
 Systems Wing is primarily related to computerization of DDA and the facilitation for
using various IT applications installed for the automation of day-to-day activities of respective
departments.
 Finance and Account Wing is primarily responsible for compilation of accounts and
budget estimates, payment of work executing agencies, disbursement of salary to the staff,
maintenance of demand and collection registers of allottees of flats, shops, and plots besides
furnishing advice on various financial matters to management and administrative wings etc.
Financial Advisor (H) is mainly concerned with examination of preliminary estimates/revised
Screening Committee approves the plans for construction activity. It constitutes Vice-Chairman, Engineering
1
Member, Finance Member, Commissioner (Lands), Commissioner (Planning), Chief Engineer, Chief Architect,
Director (CP), Director (PPW), Director (DC&B).
3
498
preliminary estimates for construction of flats/built up shops for financial concurrence and
fixation of rates to be applied for different categories of flats.
1.5. Flow of work in Housing Projects
Works carried out of various departments of DDA in connection with the housing projects are
represented in a flow chart below:
Chart 1.2: Involvement of department/wing of DDA and agency in housing project.
Planning  Prepares MPD, ZDPs, Developmental controls norms.
 Demarcates land uses categories of the Zones.
Land Management (LM)  Acquires land through Land & Building Department,
GNCTD.
 Hands over the acquired land to Engineering Deptt. for
protection.
Engineering  Conducts survey and constructs boundary wall on the plot

after taking over land from LM.
 Gives the information of the surveyed land to Planning
Deptt.
Planning  Prepares Area Layout Plans.

 Convenes meeting of the Technical Committee for any
changes in land use.
 Forwards Area Layout Plan of Residential Group Housing
to HUPW for preparation of Pocket Layout Plan.
Housing and Urban  HUPW prepares Pocket Layout Plan for Residential
Projects Wing Group Housing Project.
(HUPW)/Architecture  Prepares proposal for number and category of dwelling
unit viz., HIG, MIG, LIG, EWS for the residential group
housing project.
 Convenes SCM for obtaining approval on the proposal.
Engineering  After receiving approval from SCM, concerned Chief

Engineer office prepares preliminary estimates (PE) and
sends the PE to Estimate Approval Committee (EAC) for
obtaining AA & ES.
 Prepares NIT and floats tender.
 Convenes meeting of the Works Advisory Board (WAB)
for approval of the shortlisted Contractor/Agency.
 Awards the work to the selected Contractor/Agency by
signing an agreement.
Contractor/Agency  Prepares drawings and designs of the Group Housing

project.
4
499
 Submits the drawings and designs to HUPW through the

concerned Office of the Chief Engineer for placing before
the Screening Committee Meeting (SCM).
Housing and Urban  Verifies the drawing and design received from the
Projects Wing Contractor/Agency, as per the MPD.
(HUPW)/Architecture  Convenes meeting of the Screening Committee and places
the drawing and design for consideration and approval.
 Sends approval/recommendations of SCM to Chief
Engineer of the concerned Zone.
Engineering  Hands over the approved drawing and design to the

Contractor/Agency for obtaining approval from the
various local bodies and authorities.
Contractor/Agency  Obtains approval from the local bodies and authorities.

 Initiates the construction work and completes all the
works related to the housing projects as per the agreement.
Engineering  Records completion certificates of the housing projects.

 Hands over the dwelling units to Housing Deptt.
Housing  After receiving the inventory of completed dwelling units

from Engineering Deptt., sends the details to Finance
Deptt for computation of disposal cost of the dwelling
units.
Finance  Works out the disposal cost of the dwelling units after
getting approval from the Authority Meeting.
 Intimates the disposal cost to the Housing Deptt.
Housing  Launches the Housing Scheme for sale of dwelling units

after getting approval from the Authority Meeting.
System  Facilitates Housing Wing in conducting draw for

allotment of dwelling units.
Housing  Allots the dwelling units to the successful applicants.

 Issues demand-cum-allotment letter, verifies the
documents, receives the cost of the dwelling units and
issues the possession letter (PL) to the successful
applicants.
5
500
2. Budget and Expenditure
The accounts of DDA are organized under three broad heads, each of which is considered a
separate accounting entity. The accounts are prepared under three major heads viz., Nazul-I,
Nazul-II, and General Development Account (GDA).
 Nazul–I relates to the transactions of the old Nazul estates entrusted to the Delhi
Improvement Trust under Nazul agreement, 1937 which was taken over by the DDA as
successor of the Delhi Improvement Trust.
 Nazul–II relates to the large-scale land acquisitions, development and disposal
activities.
 General Development Accounts (GDA) relates to all the development, construction
and other activities undertaken by DDA on its own accounts and other activities assigned to
the DDA.
Estimated expenditure and receipt vis-a-vis actual expenditure and receipt for DDA for the year
2017-18 to 2021-22 is given in Table 1.1 below:
Table 1.1: Year-wise overall expenditure and receipts of DDA.
(₹ in crore)
Year Budget Estimate Revised Estimate Actual
Expenditure Receipt Expenditure Receipt Expenditure Receipt
2017-18 8415.48 6800.90 5295.01 3637.08 4116.03 2317.88
2018-19 8032.64 5197.21 5651.44 4218.79 4428.62 4009.86
2019-20 6967.62 5476.98 5338.10 4266.55 3913.39 4723.12
2020-21 6244.23 5993.92 4017.63 4030.61 3620.30 4140.95
2021-22 6737.85 6748.68 6482.58 5327.42 4910.24 5278.99
Source: Data provided by DDA
The expenditure constitutes acquisition of land, development of land, construction of houses/
shops, establishment and administration expenditure, expenditure on works and development
schemes etc. The receipts constitute income from disposal of
residential/industrial/commercial/institutional land, disposal of houses/shops, fees, damages
etc.
2.1. Expenditure and receipts on construction and disposal of Houses
Estimated expenditure and receipt vis-a-vis actual expenditure and receipt for
construction/disposal of houses for the year 2017-18 to 2021-22 is given in Table 1.2 below:
Table 1.2: Year-wise expenditure and receipts on construction/disposal of houses of DDA.
(Rs. in crore)
Budget Estimate Revised Estimate Actual
Year
Expenditure Receipt Expenditure Receipt Expenditure Receipt
2017-18 3531.64 2082.09 2186.24 1261.59 2131.88 248.12
2018-19 3585.88 1511.15 2464.28 1257.26 2310.32 997.26
2019-20 3001.55 1266.85 2286.5 1119.3 1855.87 902.2
2020-21 1902.71 3158.4 1327.69 1273.58 1295.37 1143.24
2021-22 2056.24 2941.32 2265.92 1143.11 1872.94 848.76
6
501
Chapter-2
Audit Framework
1. Audit Mandate
The Performance Audit of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is conducted under Section
19(2) of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers, and Conditions of Service)
Act, 1971, read with Section 25(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
2. Audit Objectives
The Performance Audit was conducted to examine whether:
 an efficient and need based planning mechanism was in place for ensuring the proper
identification, prioritization, and timely development of housing residential projects.
 construction activities related to residential housing projects were executed with
efficiency and economy and in accordance with the applicable codal provisions as well as legal
and regulatory framework relating to work specifications, quality of construction, civic
amenities, and environmental considerations.
 allotment of houses was made in a transparent manner to intended allottees as per the
rules and requirements after providing adequate civic amenities for various housing schemes.
 an effective and efficient internal control and monitoring system was in place to ensure
the development and allotment of dwelling units with due regard to need, affordability, quality,
timeliness, and transparency.
3. Audit Scope
The scope of Performance Audit encompasses activities of DDA relating to planning,
construction and allotment of houses carried out during the period from 01 April 2017 to 31
March 2022.
4. Sources of Audit Criteria

The main sources of audit criteria for Performance Audit are:
 Delhi Development Act, 1957
 Master Plan of Delhi (MPD) 2021.
 Policies/SOP/guidelines/instructions/circulars/orders etc. issued by DDA.
 Minutes of various meetings viz., Authority Meetings2, Work Advisory Board (WAB)
2
Authority meeting constitutes of LG Delhi as Chairman and VC, DDA as Vice Chairman, Finance Member
(DDA), Engineer Member (DDA), Addl. Secretary (MoHUA), Member Secretary (NCR Planning Board),
Authority Members, MC (NDMC) and MC (SDMC).
7
502
Meetings, Screening Committee Meetings, Technical Committee3 Meetings etc.

 Housing Regulations 1968, UBBL 2016, RERA 2016.
 Central Public Works Department Works Manuals 2014 and 2019.
 Contracts, agreements, and other relevant and ancillary documents.
 General Financial Rules 2005 and 2017.
 Various circulars/orders/OMs/guidelines/manuals of Ministries and Departments of Govt.
of India, as applicable.
5. Audit Methodology
An entry conference was held in August 2022. Detailed scrutiny of records related to planning,
construction and allotment of houses was undertaken at headquarters office of DDA, and
respective divisions. Methodology adopted for achieving the audit objectives with reference to
audit criteria included:
 Review of planning process of the housing projects.
 Review of vacant/unsold/newly constructed inventory of housing projects.
 Review of all the housing schemes launched during the audit period, including fixation of
cost and allotment process.
 Review of the compliance of environmental laws and local bodies approvals.
 Review of project proposals, estimates, tender files for award of contracts.
 Review of quality assurance cell reports, monitoring during various stages of works.
 Joint physical verification.
6. Audit Sample
Three completed projects and three ongoing projects were selected, out of 23 housing projects
falling within the audit period i.e., 2017-2022 (Annexure 2.1), for detailed scrutiny by using
Probability Proportional to Size and Without Replacement (PPSWOR) sampling method as
detailed in Table 2.1 below:
3
Technical committee advises the Vice Chairman on technical aspects of the planning proposals in respect of fly
over design, alignment plan, modification of layout plan, amendment to the Master Plan like change of land use /
development control norms etc. It constitutes of Vice Chairman, Engineer Member (DDA), Commissioner
(Planning) DDA, Commissioner (LM) DDA, Commissioner (LD) DDA, Town Planner, MCD, Chief Town
Planner (TCPO), Chief Architect (NDMC) Chief Architect, (HUPW, DDA), Chief Engineer / Planning (DMRC),
Chief Engineer (Elect.) DDA, All Addl. Commissioner (Planning, DDA), Secretary (DUAC) Land & Dev. Officer
(L&DO), Sr. Architect (H&TP, CPWD), Jt. Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Delhi, Director (Landscape, DDA),
Director (DC).
8
503
Table 2.1: Details of completed and ongoing selected projects

Sl. No. Name of the Project Code of AA&ES Date of start Date of
the amount completion
projects (₹ in
crore)
Completed Projects Selected for Audit
1 C/o HIG Houses at Pocket 9-B,
Jasola in the 15715 sqm land P5 174.46 22/11/2014 22/05/2019
(Design & Built basis)
2 C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses
by using prefab in Narela, Rohini P11 4128.95 03/05/2013 02/09/2017
Delhi (A Turnkey Project) (Group I)
3 C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses
by using prefab in Narela, Rohini
P12 4322.52 03/05/2013 22/09/2017
Delhi (A Turnkey Project) (Group
II)
Ongoing Projects Selected for Audit
4 C/o 500 Two BHK, 340 Three BHK

& 325 EWS houses (Design & Built
P19 509.29 21/07/2019 77.73
Model) Earmarked in Pocket – 4, at
Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela
5 C/o 520 Two BHK, 250 Three BHK
& 294 EWS houses (Design & Built
P17 441.93 05/08/2019 86.30
Model) Earmarked in Pocket – 14, at
Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela
6 C/o HIG (Multi Storied) Houses,
including internal Development &
electrification in Sector-19(B), P22 767.77 26.11.2017 79.5
Dwarka, Phase-II (A Turnkey
Project)
DDA executes its group housing projects in either in-house mode or design and build/turnkey
mode. Out of 23 projects, six selected projects (Annexure 2.2) were executed in design and
build/turnkey mode. Out of the remaining 17 projects (Annexure 2.3), 10 projects were
executed in design and build/turnkey mode and for the seven projects no information was made
available by DDA.
7. Acknowledgement
Audit acknowledges the co-operation and assistance extended by the officers/officials of
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, DDA and its field offices at various stages of audit in
providing information, records, clarifications, and discussion with concerned officers/officials,
which facilitated completion of Audit.
9
504
Chapter-03
Planning for Housing

Planned development of Delhi is the main function of DDA under Sections 7 to 11A of the
Delhi Development Act of 1957 (Act). The planned development in respect of housing in
Delhi is carried out as per the Master Plan, Zonal Plans, Layout Plans, polices and proposals
which provide guidelines for the works.
3.1. Preparation of planning documents

Planning Department and Housing and Urban Projects Wing (HUPW) i.e. Architecture
Department of DDA carry out works related to the preparation of Master Plan of Delhi (MPD),
Zonal Development Plans (ZDPs) and Layout Plan (LOP), architectural drawing and design
respectively in connection with the residential group housing projects. ZDP provided a link
between the MPD and LOP.
ZDP • A detailed plan/scheme,

• A conceptual layout to
guide future growth and indicates total area of
development. site, area under roads,
• Contains parks, playground,
analysis, •A plan for Zone
recommendations and recreational spaces and
(Division), indicating
proposals for population, other public places.
approximate locations and
economy, housing, • Contains the location of
extent of land uses.
all proposed and existing
transportation, •Contains information on
community facilities and roads, dimensions of
the provision of social
land-use of Delhi. plots along with building
infrastructure, parks, open
lines and setbacks,
spaces, circulation system
location of public
etc.
facilities and services,
MPD etc.
LOP
Chart 3.1: Relation among MPD, ZDP and LOP
The Planning Department prepares Master Plan of Delhi (MPD) which inter alia includes the
development control norms, Zonal Development Plans (ZDP) inclusive of land use distribution
under nine categories4 of land use and Area Layout Plan (LOP)5. MPD is prepared under the
Act, and ZDPs are prepared under the provisions of the MPD as well as the Act. Area LOPs
are prepared after preparation of ZDPs and approved in the meeting of Screening Committee.
An example of Area Lay out Plan and Land use distribution of area LOP are given below:
4
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Recreational, Transportation, Utility, Government, Public & Semi-Public
Facilities, Agriculture & Water Body.
5
The layout plan of entire area and shall define the specific use premises of each plot and will indicate the
location of all proposed existing roads with their widths, areas, public facilities etc. as required by specific
section of development code.
10
505
Pic 3.1: Area LOP (Narela, P-I, Sector A1-A4) Pic 3.2: Land use distribution of Area LOP
(Narela, P-I, Sector A1-A4)
HUPW prepares Pocket (i.e., Scheme area) Lay out Plan (LOP)6 and conceptualizes the project
on the plot of land by preparing conceptual drawing and design based on the provisions of
MPD and development control norms as applicable on residential group housing. It convenes
the Screening Committee Meeting (SCM) and places the proposal of group housing project
before SCM for obtaining suggestions/recommendations and approval. Further, it also verifies
the ‘detailed design’ of the group housing project prepared by the contractor, based on the
applicable provisions of MPD, Building Bye Laws (BBL)/Unified Building Bye Laws
(UBBL), National Building Code (NBC) etc. and places the detailed design to SCM for
recommendations/approval.
Pic 3.3: Pocket Lay out Plan/Conceptual design Pic 3.4: Detailed designs of housing project (Narela,
(Narela, P-I, Sector A1-A4, Pkt-1A and 1B P-I, Sector A1-A4, Pkt-4)
6
A detailed plan showing the proposed placement of plots, parking area, landscaping, open space and other
development features as required by specific sections of development code.
11
506
3.1.1. Preparation of MPD 2021
3.1.1.1. Delay in preparation of MPD 2021
The process of planned development of the National Capital began with the enactment of the
Act7. project
Master Plan of Delhi (MPD) generally prepared for 20 years of the horizon period and notified
by the Central Government (MoHUA erstwhile MoUD). So far, three Master Plans of Delhi
i.e., MPD 1962, MPD 2001 and MPD 2021 have been prepared.
MPD 2021 was preceded by MPD 2001 which was prepared for a period of 20 years and was
to be completed in 2001. Thereafter the next Master Plan of Delhi i.e., MPD 2021 was to be
prepared for a period of next 20 years. However, the MPD 2021 was prepared and notified in
February 2007 only instead of 2001.
Thus, MPD 2021 was notified after a delay of more than 6 years and consequently the effective
period of the said plan was reduced to only 15 years i.e., from 2007 to 2021.
DDA stated (December 2022) that keeping in view the democratic procedures and statutory
obligations, the draft plan was prepared after obtaining the views of the public which included
extensive consultations at the pre-planning stage by involving local bodies, Govt of National
Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Public sector agencies, professional groups etc. DDA
also stated (April 2023) that the applicability of the MPD was from the date of notification and
therefore, till the new MPD was notified the earlier MPD remained in force.
The reply is not acceptable as time for these consultations should have been planned from the
beginning and process should have been decided beforehand if required. In any case, the time
allowed to public for sending objections/suggestion is 45 days only and the process of
consultation should have been completed before the start of next MPD. Further, various
parameters viz., demography, social and economic conditions were changed considerably over
and above the period 20 years which called for a new plan to address the issues in the changed
scenario. Thus, the timely preparation and putting into operation of new MPD becomes
necessary to address the changed scenario.
Thus, by continuing the earlier MPD (i.e., MPD 2001) till January 2007, DDA did not address
the requirements of the present scenario and had only 15 years to implement the current plan
(i.e., MPD 2021). It was also noticed that the lesson was not learnt from the experience of
MDP 2021 as MPD 2041 which was supposed to come in force in 2022, has not been finalized
and notified till date(April 2023).
3.1.1.2. Disagreement in development control norms
The plinth area as defined in Unified Building Bye Laws (UBBL) 2016 (Para 1.4.88) is the
built-up covered area measured at the floor level of the basement or of any storey. Whereas
the carpet area as defined in Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (RERA) Act 2016
7
Delhi Development Act of 1957.
12
507
(Para 2(k)) is the net usable floor area of an apartment, excluding the area covered by the
external walls, areas under services shafts, exclusive balcony or verandah area and exclusive
open terrace area, but includes the area covered by the internal partition walls of the apartment.
Therefore, the area under carpet area is less than that of plinth area as former takes into account
only net usable floor area and the latter, considers the built-up covered area.
Audit observed that there was a conflict between two paras of MPD 2021 prescribing the
development control (DC) norms on the area of dwelling units for EWS category, represented
in the Table 3.1 below:
Table 3.1: Disagreement in development control norms regarding area of EWS dwelling
units between two paras of MPD 2021
Document Provision of paras
As per Para 4.2.1 As per Para 4.4.3.B.(v)
MPD 2021 Plinth area 25 to 40 sqm Carpet area 25 to 40 sqm
(Notified on 07/02/2007)
MPD 2021 Plinth area 25 to 40 sqm Area 25 to 40 sqm
(After amendment on 13/05/2013)
Source: MPD 2021, DDA
It may be seen from the table above that the version of MPD 2021 notified in February 2007,
uses the term ‘plinth area’ in para 4.2.1. and the term ‘carpet area’ in para 4.4.3.B.(v) to
prescribe the range of 25 to 40 sqm of dwellings units to be provided for EWS category.
Further, after an amendment of MPD 2021, the term ‘carpet area’ was replaced with the term
‘area’ in para 4.4.3.B.(v). However, the discrepancy between two paras i.e., para 4.2.1 and
para 4.4.3.B.(v) of MPD 2021 still remained as now one para uses the term ‘plinth area’ and
other the term ‘area’.
The UBBL 2016 were notified on 22/03/2016. Annexure VI of UBBL 2016 contains
development control norms which were adopted from MPD 2021. Para 4.4.3.B.(B) of
Annexure VI of UBBL 2016 uses the term ‘carpet area’ for prescribing the area (25 to 40 sqm)
of EWS dwelling units.
Thus, there was no clear guiding principle to determine whether the area to be considered in
planning an EWS dwelling unit in the range of 25 to 40 sqm was carpet area or the plinth area
in the development control norms on the area for the EWS category prescribed in MPD 21.
The impact of not setting clear guiding principle and not determining a clear distinction
between ‘plinth area’ and ‘carpet area’ for providing dwelling units area of EWS category is
detailed in Para 3.6.
DDA’s response is awaited.
3.1.2. Delay in preparation of ZDPs
Para 16.1 of MPD 2021 states that the zonal plans shall detail out the policies of the MPD 2021
and act as a link between the MPD and LOP. The development schemes and layout plans
indicating various use premises, shall confirm to the Master Plan/Zonal Plans.
13
508
Section-8 of the Act states that the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of ZDP for
each of the zones into which Delhi may be divided, simultaneously with the preparation of
Master Plan or very soon thereafter. Further, Section-16.1 of MPD 2021 prescribes that ZDPs
in the form of structure plans should be prepared within 12 months of the approval of the MPD
2021. ZDPs are notified by the Central Government (MoHUA erstwhile MoUD).
The National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) was divided into 15 Zones (Divisions). For
the planned development of these 15 zones of Delhi, 17 Zonal Development Plans8 were
prepared.
Pic 3.5: Map of Delhi showing location of 17 ZDPs
The MPD 2021 was approved by Ministry of Urban and Housing Affairs (MoUHA) on 07
February 2007 and thus ZDPs were to be prepared by DDA in February 2008.
DDA sent final ZDPs of 17 Zones to MoHUA between February 2009 to September 2009 i.e.,
after two years from the notification (February 2007) of MPD 2021 and were approved by the
MoHUA only in March 2010 to June 2010. However, ZDP of Zone ‘D’ was sent to MoHUA
in January 2020 i.e., after 13 years from the notification (February 2007) of MPD 2021, which
is yet to be approved by MoHUA for notification (Annexure 3.1). This issue was also
commented upon in C&AG’s Performance Audit Report No 31 of 2016, Union Government
(Civil), however DDA did not take any corrective action.
Audit observed that in respect of 17 Zones DDA delayed the submission of ZDPs to MoHUA
for approval which was ranges 12 to 20 months and delay in the finalization of ZDPs was
occurred in the range of 25 to 28 months. Further, in respect of ZDP of Zone ‘D’, delay in
submission of the ZDP for approval was 12 years, which was not finalized till date even after
elapsing of more than 15 years from the date of notification of MPD 2021.
8
Zone A (Walled City and Other than Walled City), B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K-I, K-II, L, M, N, O, P-I, P-II).
14
509
DDA stated (December 2022) that as per Para 16.1 of MPD 2021 in the absence of ZDP of
any area, the development should be in accordance with the provisions of MPD. It further
added that the process of preparation and approval of the ZDPs involved review, survey,
consultation with the stakeholders and expert group etc. Further, it added that draft ZDPs of
all zones except Zone ‘D’, were approved by the Authority by December 2007 and public notice
for inviting objections/suggestions was issued in April 2008. Thereafter, these ZDPs were
submitted to MoHUA by the end of the year 2008 and approval of MoHUA was obtained in
March 2010.
Regarding ZDP of Zone ‘D’, DDA stated (December 2022) that the draft ZDP of Zone ‘D’
(except Lutyen’s Bungalow Zone) was first place before the Authority in October 2008 and it
was decided to refer it to all the concerned stakeholders and agencies for suggestions and
consultation. The draft was sent to MoHUA in April 2015 and MoHUA communicated
approval for inviting objections/suggestions on 01/11/2016. The public notice for inviting
objections/suggestions was issued on 15/03/2017. Thereafter, the draft was approved by the
Authority on 11/12/2019 and sent to MoHUA in 10/01/2020 for approval.
The reply is not acceptable as DDA submitted the final draft ZDP of 16 zones to MoHUA
between February 2009 to September 2009 for approval after a delay of more than two years
from the date of notification of MPD 2021. Further, in respect of ZDP of Zone ‘D’, DDA
submitted the draft to the Authority in October 2008 i.e., after a delay of more than one and a
half years and sent to MoHUA in April 2015 i.e., after a delay of more than eight years. Further,
after considering the objections/suggestions from the public, DDA sent the final draft for
notification to MOHUA in January 2020 i.e., after a delay of 12 years.
3.2. Inadequacy in planning on providing dwelling units
Para 4.1 of MPD 2021 provided that based on the projected population of 230 lakh by 2021,
the estimated additional housing stock required will be around 24 lakh dwelling units (DU).
Out of which 60 per cent i.e., 14.4 lakh of the housing requirement would have to be met
through new housing units to be provided in new areas.
Para 18.3, ibid, also provided that the implementation of plans should be monitored and
reviewed periodically as per the prescribed frequency, by a dedicated monitoring units and
high-level committee under Lt. Governor of Delhi respectively in order to ensure timely
implementation of target of various plans and to identify the need for any changes and
corrections required for the implementation of MPD 2021.
Audit observed that for the construction of dwelling units, DDA did no set any target for itself
and also did not maintain any information as to the number of DUs provided during the plan
period as discussed below:
3.2.1. Dwelling Units under Group Housing
15
510
Para 18.1 of MPD 2021 provided a target of 14 lakh New Housing (N) to be provided by 2021
under six sub-categories9. Further, it provided phase wise targets covering the period 2006 to
2021 for providing new housing under category ‘Group Housing’ along with frequency of
monitoring to be carried out as represented in the Table-3.2 below:
Table 3.2: Phase-wise target of DUs and frequency of monitoring for Group Housing
(Unit: No. of dwelling units in lakh)

Component Period of Phase I up Phase II Phase III Target
monitoring to 2011 2011-2016 2016-2021 upto 2021
Group Housing (35% of total 02 years 1.9 3.0 2.7 7.6
dwelling units (DUs)
mandatory not to exceed 2
room or less)
(Source: MPD 2021, DDA)
On being asked for about the number of dwelling units developed during the plan period, DDA
stated (June 2022) that the responsibility of providing housing had been vested with DDA, Govt
of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
(DUSIB), Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and public sector.
DDA did not furnish any information as to the targets vis-a-vis achievements in providing
housing by these public agencies. Besides, it did also not offer any comments as to the targets
vis-a-vis achievement made by it in respect of providing new housing under the category of
‘Group Housing’. DDA, however, intimated (August 2022) that during the period of 2017-18
to 2021-22 a total of 43,158 dwelling units (DUs) were constructed by it.
Audit observed that DDA did not set any internal target for itself for to the number of DUs to
be provided during the plan period based on the overall target for DUs under group housing
component of MDP. Further, though DDA is to coordinate and lead implementation of MDP,
it did not have any information as to the overall and phase-wise target vis-à-vis achievement
made by other public agencies for the construction of DUs as a part of its monitoring and review
activities.
Thus, in absence of any internal targets for itself and non-maintenance of proper records, the
adequacy of the works carried out by DDA in this regard, could not be evaluated from the
standpoint of MPD 2021. Further, absence of information on phase wise targets and
achievements of the other public agencies, if any, shows that DDA did not carry out any
monitoring and review for implementation of MPD 2021.
The inconsistency in monitoring of planned development activities and reviews of MPD 2021
are discussed in Para 7.1.
3.3. Discrepancy in the geographical area between MPD 2021 and ZDPs
9
‘Housing for Urban poor through Slum & JJ approaches’, ‘Houses as Independent Plots & Redevelopment’,
Group Housing (35% of total DUs mandatory not to exceed 2 room or less)’, Employer Housing’, Unauthorised
Regularised colonies’, ‘Other Housing areas upgradation of old area traditional/villages’.
16
511
Para 3.2 of MPD 2021 stipulated that about 48 lakh population had to be accommodated in the
future urban extension, for which an area of approximately 20,000-22,000 hectares of land will
be required within the development time frame of 15-16 years. It further states that the
immediate urban extension could be in the Zones of J, K, L, N, P-I and P-II.
Para 16.1 of MPD-2021 provided that mapping of the NCT of Delhi would be done using
remote sensing and GIS tools and would also be updated from time to time to have valuable
data as regards ground situation and also to have inputs to detect and prevent unauthorized
development and encroachment on public land and to facilitate the protection of greens.
Further, it added that the zonal plans shall detail out the policies of the MPD 2021 and act as
link between the LOP and MPD. The development schemes and layout plans indicating various
use premises shall conform to the Master Plan/Zonal Plan.
Audit observed that there was difference in geographical area zones as depicted in MPD 2021
and ZDPs (Annexure 3.2). The difference of geographical area occurred in respect of eight
zones. There is a total difference of 1382.13 Ha in geographical area between MPD 2021 and
concerned eight ZDPs. In respect of five zones the geographical area shown in MPD 2021 was
more than that of ZDP and for three zones the geographical area shown in MPD 2021 was less
than that of ZDP.
DDA stated (October 2022) that MPD and ZDPs of the individual zones were prepared on the
basis of Survey of India Topo Sheets on the scale of 1:50000 and 1:20000 respectively and the
area of zones were calculated manually taking roads and natural features as boundaries of the
zone on an approximate basis. Thus, differences in geographical area mentioned in MPD and
ZDP might have occurred due to difference in scale and/or overlapping/shifting of zonal
boundaries..
A difference of more than 1000 Ha is unlikely to have occurred due to difference in scale of
top sheets . Further , to make the mapping more precise and in compliance to Para 16.1 of
MDP DDA should have used remote sensing and GIS tools for mapping and area calculation
while preparing ZDPs instead of doing these manually by using Survey of India’s Topo Sheets
and taking roads and natural features as boundaries of the zone on an approximate basis.
Further, DDA didn’t take any actions to reconcile the differences of geographical area between
the MPD and ZDPs.
Thus, due to these inaccuracies in the geographical area of ZDPs the land use plan of the zones
showing land use break up in different land use categories viz., Residential, Commercial,
Manufacturing, Recreational, Transportation etc. were also rendered incorrect information on
the area of land allocated to these categories. Consequently, the residential land of
approximately 20,000-22,000 hectares required to accommodate the targeted population could
not be earmarked accurately in the zones to fulfil the housing need.
3.4. No Assessment of housing requirements
Finding out the general and specific requirements of the users/customers beforehand, helps the
service provider to plan and to deliver as per the present necessities of the public and to serve
optimally the maximum customers targeted for the concerned projects, which also ensure the
desired outcomes of the projects.
17
512
DDA stated (December 2022) that no demand survey had been carried out for the construction
of houses.
It was noticed that though housing development was one of the major functions of DDA, there
was no practice in DDA to assess the requirements of the public beforehand for various housing
projects executed by DDA. Further, DDA did not carry out any market studies before
finalization of any housing projects undertaken and constructed by it.
The issue was also discussed in the first meeting of Advisory Group convened on 29/09/2011
for the review of MPD 2021. In the said meeting, it was suggested to conduct market studies
before finalizing any plan/scheme. However, this suggestion was never implemented.
Audit further noticed that a huge inventory of flats constructed by DDA under different
categories viz., High Income Group (HIG), Middle Income Group (MIG), Lower Income
Group (LIG), Janta, Economically Weaker Section (EWS) etc., which were put up in the
Housing Scheme (HS) of 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2021, were got cancelled/surrendered by the
allottees as shown in the Table-3.3 below:
Table 3.3: Housing Scheme wise no. of flats put up in sale and got cancelled/surrendered
(Unit: No. of dwelling units)

Housing Scheme No. of flats put up in the No. of flats
Housing Scheme cancelled/surrendered
2014 25040 12837
2017 12617 9502
2019 10294 6477
2021 1353 858
2021 (Special Housing Scheme) 9790 00
Total 59094 29674
(Source: Brochure of Housing Schemes, DDA)
It may be seen from the table above that in total of 59094 flats were put up for sale in the five
Housing Scheme of DDA of which 29674 flats were either cancelled or surrendered till
December 2022.
To find out the reasons for the cancellation/surrendering of aforesaid flats by the allottees as
well as non-disposal of the flats, DDA conducted a feedback survey (December 2021) for the
Housing Scheme 2014, 2017 and 2019 in order to take remedial measures.
The reasons for the cancellation/surrendering of the flats stated in the feedbacks by the allottees
were, among others, flats being smaller in size but higher in cost, non-availability of metro
connectivity, flats being located in remote locations and safety issues in the surrounding areas.
Had there been a market or demand survey to ascertain expectations of the users in terms of
size, location and cost, DDA could have avoiding this huge idle inventory of surrendered
houses.
Thus, due to faulty planning and development without user consultation or demand surveys
DDA failed to address the requirements and concerns of the public for its various group housing
projects, which resulted in cancellation and surrendering as well as non-disposal of flats. The
financial impact of unsold inventory due to non-disposal of these flats is detailed in Para 6.9.
18
513
3.5. Mandatory dwelling units for EWS not constructed
Para 4.4.3.(B) (v)10 of MPD 2021 states that the developer shall ensure that minimum 15
percent of the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to be constructed for Community Service
Personnel/Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and lower category.
In three residential group housing projects i.e., (1). ‘P5’, (2). ‘P6’and (3). ‘P4’ DDA did not
provide any dwelling units (DUs) for the EWS category as per the above provision of MPD
2021.
The above three projects were approved in the Screening Committee in its 329th meeting dated
10/04/2015, 332nd meeting dated 24/06/2015 and 329th meeting dated 10/04/2015 respectively.
Audit observed that DDA provided dwelling units only for higher income category (HIG),
middle-income category (MIG) in the project P5, P6 and P4 respectively. However, no
buildings/dwelling units for the EWS category were provided in the aforesaid three projects.
Thus, DDA did not provide mandatory 15 per cent of the component of dwelling units for EWS
category in the aforesaid three projects in contravention to the applicable provisions of MPD
2021.
Case Study 3.1: Land not available for construction of buildings for EWS due to
encroachment on the project plot.
The project ‘P5’ was initially planned to be constructed on a plot of land at Pocket 9B, Jasola
having an area measuring 3.76 hectare. However, it was actually constructed on an area of
only 1.57 hectare of land as the rest of area was encroached.
On 20/03/1999 in a meeting held with VC, DDA, the site at Pocket 19B, Jasola was reviewed,
and it was found that 30-35 percent of the site of the land on south-west corner was
encroached. The VC directed to prepare design of the project and place the same in the next
meeting of Screening Committee. A design of the project consisted of 448 MIG and 224
LIG flats to be constructed in an area of 3.76 hectare, was prepared and placed in the 204
Screening Committee Meeting (SCM) held on 09/04/1999, which was got approved by the
SCM. However, the project was not executed.
Thereafter, on 20/02/2006 Executive Engineer (SED-I), DDA informed Sr. Architect, SEZ,
DDA that the encroachment of land was got increased and an area of 2.22 hectare (approx.)
was under encroachment and the balance 1.54 hectare (approx.) was free from encroachment.
It further added that the available land might be encroached upon if no flats were constructed
thereon. DDA revised the earlier approved design and a fresh design for the construction of
848 DUs on an area of 3.76 hectare was prepared and got approved in the 256 SCM held on
12/04/2007. However, this project was also not executed.
DDA further revised the approved design with a new proposal consisting of 314 HIG flats,
which was placed in the 317 SCM held on 11/12/2013. The said SCM approved the new
10
As modified vide SO 1215(E) dated 13/05/2013.
19
514
proposal and also the proposal for the non-construction of the 15 percent component of EWS
unit along with adjoining HIG units as the site was too small for designing different
categories of houses in the same pocket and it was also decided that after removal of
encroachment the remaining site will be designed in Phase-II.
However, even this project was not executed.
Again, the design was revised and a new proposal consisting of 215 HIG DUs on the area of
1.57 hectare was prepared and got approved in the 329 SCM (10/04/2015) and finally the
same was executed.
Audit observed that in March 1999 out of the total area of 3.76 hectare only 1.13-1.31 hectare
(approx.) was encroached. However, DDA took neither action on the implementation of the
approved design nor any steps to clear the encroachment. Consequently, the encroachment
increased to 2.19 hectare and only 1.57 hectare of land remained available for construction
in December 2013 onwards. Further, no steps were taken by DDA to recover the encroached
land till date.
Pic 3.6: Encroachment on project land Pic 3.7: Encroachment on project land (ariel view)
DDA stated (April 2023) that due to encroachment at site the schemes of the project approved
in earlier SCMs were not implemented.
Thus, due to delay in taking appropriate steps in time by DDA, the encroachment increased
to 58.24 per cent from 30-35 per cent from April 1999 to December 2013 and the encroached
land is still not recovered. As a result, the DUs for the EWS category was not constructed
due to non-availability of land.
3.6. Discrepancies in carpet area of EWS dwelling units
Para 4.1 of MPD 2021 states that it is estimated that around 50-55 per cent of the housing
requirement would be for the urban poor and the economically weaker section in the form of
two rooms or less. Further, Para 4.2.1, ibid, states that more than 50 per cent of the new housing
20
515
would be in the form of one and two room units with an average plinth11 area of about 25 sqm
to 40 sqm.
Para 4.4.3.(B)(v), ibid, states that carpet12 area of dwelling units for Community-Service
Personnel/EWS and lower category shall be minimum 25 sqm and maximum 40 sqm. The same
norm is also reiterated in para 4.4.3 (B)(v) of UBBL 2016.
Bedroom Bedroom
Balcony Balcony
Plinth Area
Carpet Area
WC WC
Lobby Lobby
Drawing/Dining Drawing/Dining
room Bathroom room Bathroom
Kitchen Kitchen
 Total Buildup area exclusive of external  Total carpet area of room

walls  Including Internal walls
 Including Internal walls  Excluding Balcony
 Including Room area  Excluding external walls
Pic 3.8: Plinth area as per UBBL Pic 3.9: Carpet area as per RERA
Thus, the area under carpet area is less than that of plinth area. In general, the carpet area is
about 10 to 20 per cent less than the plinth area.
Housing Scheme Brochure of the year 2014 to 2021 shows that DDA put up flats of different
categories i.e., High Income Group (HIG), Middle Income Group (MIG), Lower Income Group
(LIG), Economically Weaker Section (EWS)/Janata for sale to public. The flats put up in the
Housing Scheme (HS) show the size of the flats as plinth area, which includes common area.
The maximum and minimum size of EWS/Janta category flats as put up for sale through the
seven nos. Housing Scheme Brochures released in the year 2014 to 2021 are shown in the
Table-3.4 below:
11
As per Para 1.4.88 of UBBL 2016, the plinth area is the built-up covered area measured at the floor level of the
basement or of any storey.
12
As per Para 2(k) of RERA 2016, the carpet area is the net usable floor area of an apartment, excluding the area
covered by the external walls, areas under services shafts, exclusive balcony or verandah area and exclusive open
terrace area, but includes the area covered by the internal partition walls of the apartment.
21
516
Table 3.4: Housing Scheme wise range of plinth area of EWS dwelling units
Housing Scheme EWS/Janta

Range of Plinth Area of flat (in Sqm.)
(Min. to Max.)
Housing Scheme 2014 18.85 to 40.00
Aawasiya Yojana 2017 18.80 to 41.22
Housing Scheme 2019 for EWS 29.77 to 37.31
Special Housing Scheme For SC/ST 2019 20.13 to 28.19
Special Housing Scheme 2021 26.11 to 54.08
Source: Brochure of Housing Schemes, DDA
It may be seen from the table above that DDA offered flats to economically weaker section of
the society in the category of EWS/Janta having minimum plinth area of 18.80 sqm and
maximum plinth area of 54.08 sqm.
Audit observed that DDA provided minimum plinth area of 18.80 sqm, 18.85 sqm and 20.13
sqm and maximum plinth area of 54.08 sqm, 52.50 sqm and 41.22 sqm for EWS/Janta dwelling
units in contravention of the provision of Para 4.2.1 of MPD 2021.
Further, the seven Housing Scheme Brochures released in the year 2014 to 2021, stipulated
‘plinth area’ for the area of DUs and also added that plinth area includes common area. Since
area under carpet area is less than that of the plinth area, the minimum plinth area of 18.80 sqm,
18.85 sqm and 20.13 sqm of the DUs under EWS/Janta must be having carpet area less than
the said plinth area.
Thus, the mandatory plinth area as well as carpet of DUs for EWS/Janta category was not
provided as per the standard prescribed in MPD 2021 and UBBL 2016.
3.7. Discrepancies in calculation of carpet area of dwelling unit
Indian Standard No. 3861 i.e., IS 3861 (Second Revision) issued in 2002 by Bureau of Indian
Standard (BIS) under Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government
of India, contains provisions on the method of measurement of plinth, carpet, and rentable areas
of buildings.
Para 2.2 of the said standard states that the carpet area shall mean the floor area of the usable
rooms at any floor level. Para 5.2, ibid, further states that the carpet area shall be the area
worked out from plinth13 area after deducting the area of the wall and excluding the area of the
following portion i.e., verandah, corridor and passage, entrance hall and porch, staircase and
stair-cover (mumty), shaft and machine room for lift, bathroom and lavatory, kitchen and
pantry, store, canteen, air conditioning duct and plant room and shaft for sanitary/water supply
installations and garbage chute, electrical and firefighting, air-conditioning,
telecommunication, lift. The said standard also referred to in National Building Code 2005
and 2016 issued by BIS.
13
As per Para 2.1 of the Standard the Plinth Area shall mean the built-up covered area measured at the floor level
of the basement or of any storey.
22
517
Balcony
 Area under
Bedroom carpet area
Drawing/Dining room WC
 Area not
Lobby Bathroom included in
carpet area
Kitchen
Pic 3.10: Carpet area as per IS 3861
MPD 2021, prepared and issued by DDA under the approval of Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs (MoHUA), GOI, mentions the ‘Carpet Area’ of a dwelling unit. However, it does not
provide any clear definition of the term ‘Carpet Area’ and methods of calculation of carpet area
of any dwelling unit. Similarly, the Building Bye Laws (BBL) of Delhi prepared and issued
by DDA under the approval of MoHUA, GOI also did not define and explain the term ‘Carpet
Area’.
Audit noticed that in the four residential group housing projects i.e., (1). ‘P4‘, (2). ‘P5’ and (3).
‘P11’ and (4) ‘P12’, the carpet area of the dwelling units was calculated differently (Annexure:
3.3).
These four projects were approved by SCM during the period from April to June 2015. Projects
P5, P11 and P12 were approved in the 329 SCM held on 10/04/2015 and project P4 was
approved by 332 SCM on 24/06/2015. However, in all the four projects, the constituent parts
excluded in calculating carpet area were not same. In respect of projects P11 and P12 no parts
were excluded, whereas in project P4, Balcony and Open Terrace were excluded, whereas in
project P5 Kitchen, Bathroom, Toilet and Balcony were excluded while calculating carpet area.
Audit observed that though these four projects were approved between April-June 2015, DDA
adopted different norms for calculating carpet area of dwelling units for different projects.
DDA adopted the norm IS:3861 while calculating carpet area in respect of project P5 and thus
included areas of Bedrooms, Livingroom, Dining room, Lobbies in and excluded areas of
Kitchen, Bathrooms, Toilets and Balconies from the carpet area. However, the said norm was
not adhered to while calculating the carpet area in respect of projects P4, P11 and P12, and thus
included the areas of Bedroom(s), Living cum Dining room, Kitchen, Bathroom, WC & Toilet,
Balcony, Lobby in the carpet area.
Further, had the norms IS:3861 adhered to in respect of projects P11 and P12, the carpet area
of LIG category would have been 23.9514 sqm and that of EWS category would have been
17.8115 sqm/17.9216 sqm instead of 35.50 sqm, 26.04 sqm/25.67 sqm respectively. Thus, due
to non-adherence of standard IS:3861, DDA provided less carpet area in three projects.
14
Livingroom-12.77 sqm + Bedroom 9.29 sqm + Lobby-1.89 sqm.
15
Bedroom-6.79 sqm + Livingroom-9.06 sqm + Lobby-1.96 sqm.
16
Bedroom-6.90 sqm + Livingroom-9.06 sqm + Lobby-1.96 sqm.
23
518
The impact of inclusion of these areas in the carpet area is detailed in Para 4.13.
3.8. Room size for EWS dwelling unit not approved as per norms
Para 4.2.3.4 (vii)17 of MPD 2021 provided that area of dwelling units for EWS shall be
minimum 25 sqm and max. 40 sqm and room size be as per IS:8888. Further, Para 4.4.3 (B)(v)
of UBBL 2016 also reiterates that EWS flats should have a carpet area18 between 25 to 40 sqm.
Para 5.3 of Indian Standard (IS):8888 (Part-1) containing the requirements of low income
housing guide stipulated the size of various types of rooms i.e., Habitable room
(Bedroom/Living room), Kitchen, Bathroom, Balcony etc. for the EWS category. Para 5.3.2,
ibid, states that size of independent Water Closet (WC) and individual Bathroom shall be 0.90
sqm and 1.20 sqm respectively. Further, Para 5.3.4, ibid, states that the width of individual
Balcony shall not be more than 1.2 m.
In five selected residential group housing projects i.e., (1). P4, (2). ‘P17’, (3). ‘P19’, (4). ‘P11’
and (5). ‘P12’, were approved by Screening Committee in its 332, 345, 342 and 314 meeting
held on 24/06/2015, 09/12/2016, 08/08/2016 and 17/05/2013 respectively.
Audit observed that in respect of three projects i.e., P4, P17 and P19 excess widths in the
balcony in the range of 0.7 m to 0.8 m was approved by the SCM. Further, for all the five
projects excess area in WC in the range of 0.45 sqm to 0.16 sqm and in respect of four projects
i.e., P17, P19, P11 and P12 excess area in bathroom ranges from 0.05 sqm to 0.3 sqm were
approved by the SCM (Annexure: 3.4).
Audit further observed that while approving the architectural drawing and design of these
housing projects, DDA did not adhere to the applicable norms of IS:8888 and therefore the
excess width and area were approved in the concerned SCM and the same were provided in the
construction of the dwelling units.
In respect of project at sl. no. 1, DDA stated (December 2022) that the size of WC meets IS:8888
i.e., minimum 0.9 sqm, where in the project the size was provided more. Further, 2.0 m width
of individual balcony was provided as per the provision of UBBL 2016, which was approved
by 352 SCM in 2017.
The reply is not acceptable as according to the IS:8888, the area of WC shall be 0.90 sqm and
not a minimum of 0.9 sqm. Further, room size of the EWS dwelling units should be provided
as per IS:8888 and as per IS:8888 width of the balcony shall not be more than 1.2 m. However,
DDA instead of adhering to the IS:8888 followed UBBL 2016 and provided width of 2 m in
the balcony of EWS dwelling units.
Thus, DDA acted in contravention of provisions IS:8888 in providing individual rooms size.
17
As modified vide SO 2894(E) dated 23/09/2013.
18
Para 2(k) of RERA 2016 defines carpet area as ‘the net usable floor area of an apartment, excluding the area
covered by the external walls, areas under services shafts, exclusive balcony or verandah area and exclusive open
terrace area, but includes the area covered by the internal partition walls of the apartment’.
24
519
3.9. Minimum ceiling for density of dwelling units not fixed.
Para 4.2 provided the density for dwelling units for different categories viz., Slum/EWS,
Category-I, Category-II and Category-III as 600, 500, 250 and 175 DU/Ha respectively. After
modification of MPD in May 2013, Para 4.2 provided that for the development of housing in
new area the upper limit of density of the dwelling units per hectare be taken as 200 DUs/Ha.
(900 person per hectare) with flexible dwelling unit sizes to achieve optimal utilization of land.
In the third Meeting of Management Action Group on ‘Slum Rehabilitation and Social
Housing’ held on 06/06/2013 for the first review of MPD 2021, it was suggested that besides
having an upper cap on residential density, a minimum density shall also be needed so as to
ensure optimal utilization of land.
Audit observed that across all the residential group housing projects the density norms of MPD
2021 were not adhered to while approving these projects. Test check of 20 such projects
revealed that the density achieved in respect of LIG (Category-I) and EWS category was in the
range of 411.87 to 419.57 Du/Ha against the maximum density of 500 DU/Ha and 276 DU/Ha
against the maximum density of 600 DU/Ha respectively. Further, post May 2013 the density
achieved was in respect of LIG, MIG and HIG categories (i.e., other than EWS) was in the
range of 196.04 DU/Ha to 133 DU/Ha against the maximum density of 200 DU/Ha (Annexure:
3.5).
Audit further observed that as per the recommendation of the Committee, DDA did not fix any
minimum density for the DUs to be constructed per hectare of land. Thus, the achievement of
density of dwelling units per hectare as against the maximum density of dwelling unit per
hectare was varied in the range of 67 DU/Ha to 324 DU/Ha in these projects.
25
520
Chapter 4
Construction of Houses
Construction activities involve the overall planning, co-ordination and control of a project from
beginning to completion in order to produce a functionally viable project. The process of
construction works starts from preparation of estimates, selection of executing
agency/contractor, obtaining approvals from authorities, to taking over the site after completion
of work.
4.1. Process of Construction of Works
The construction works of residential housing projectsof DDA covers construction of
residential buildings of different categories viz., LIG, MIG, HIG and EWS; internal
developmental works includes electrification, roads, parks and shops etc.
Implementation of construction works can be broadly divided in two stages i.e., (i) Pre-
construction stage -The activities carried out in this stage are associated with the planning for
subsequent execution of works. Activities involved in this stage are preparation of estimate and
award of work to the selected contractor for the execution of works. (ii) Construction stage –
The activities carried out in this stage are associated with the execution of works according to
the plan done in the pre-construction stage. Activities involve in this stage are management of
contract as per the provisions of agreement and applicable rules, and supervision on the work
carried out by the contractor till completion and handed over of the work, detailed in Chart 1.1:
--Preparation of estimate
Estimate of work
--Obtaining AA&ES
Pre-
Construction work of Group
construction --Preparation of NIT

--Pre-bid conference
Housing Project
Award of work --Receipt/Opening of tenders

--Selection of contractors.
--Award of work.
--Preparation of detailed drawings

--Approval of plans from Local
Contract Bodies
Construction
Management
--Execution of work
--Completion and handing over
Chart 1.1: Activities associated with the construction works
During 2017-18 to 2021-22, DDA implemented 23 residential group housing projects. In all
23 projects, Audit observed time and cost overrun in the projects. The time overrun was in the
range of one year to nine years for completed works and for ongoing works there was a time
overrun of four years, while the cost overrun ranged from ₹ 4 crore to ₹ 948 crore in respect of
completed works and ₹ 105 crore for ongoing works.
26
521
Out of 23 projects, three completed projects and three ongoing projects were selected for
detailed scrutiny as detailed in Annexure 4.1. The deficiencies/irregularities noticed in the
execution of the six selected projects are discussed in the following paragraphs:
4.2. Irregularity in Estimation
4.2.1. Incurring expenditure without obtaining Revised AA and ES

Section 2.3 of Manual states that "Administrative Approval (AA)" is the communication of
formal acceptance of the proposals by the competent authority of the Department requiring the
work. Further section 2.4(a) of ibid states that Expenditure sanction is to be accorded by the
Administrative Department to indicate that funds for the project/work have been provided, and
liability can be incurred.
Further, Section 2.1.2 of the manual states that ‘No work should normally be commenced, or
any liability thereon incurred until an administrative approval has been obtained, a properly
prepared detailed estimate has been technically sanctioned and where necessary expenditure
sanction has been accorded and allotment of funds made’.
As stipulated by Section 2.3.5 of the manual, excess up to 10 per cent of the amount of the
administrative approval may be authorized by competent authority, up to their respective
powers of technical sanction. In case it exceeds this limit, a revised administrative approval
must be obtained from the authority competent to approve the cost so enhanced. No revised
administrative approval is, however, necessary if the excess is covered by the requisite
expenditure sanction.
In the work of construction of 3BHK, 2 BHK and EWS flats in pocket-14, Narela (P17), it was
observed that the AA/ES was accorded by the competent authority initially for ₹459.54 crore.
However, up to December 2022 total expenditure of ₹497.96 crore has been incurred, but, no
revised AA&ES was obtained.
Thus, DDA did not obtain revised AA&ES to the project as per the Clause of the CPWD Works
Manual as a result the expenditure beyond AA & ES was rendered irregular
4.2.2. Deficiencies in Technical sanction
Clause 2.5 of Manual stipulated that a technical Sanction amounts to a guarantee that the
proposals are technically sound, and the estimates are accurately prepared and are based on
adequate data.
4.2.2.1. Technical Sanction not obtained from Competent Authority
As per clause 2.5.1, in case of works for which tenders are called on design and construct basis
technical sanction of such works may be accorded only on finalization of structural drawing,
service drawing and other details on submission of the same by the contractor.
Audit observed that in two out of six selected works, technical sanction was not obtained as
detailed below:
27
522
(a) The work of construction of 3BHK, 2 BHK and EWS flats in pocket-14, Narela (P17) was
executed on “Design & Built/Construct Model” and the Structural / Architectural Drawing of
this work was approved by the Screening committee on 08/08/2016 and after grant of
Extension of Time (EoT), the scheduled date of completion of this work is 12/03/2023. Upto
December 2022, the work was 95 per cent completed and total expenditure incurred was of
₹497.95 crore but the project was not yet technically sanctioned even after lapse of 77 months.
(b) tThe work of construction of three/two BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P19), was executed
under two subheads viz., Subhead-1 and Subhead-2 . The Preliminary Estimate (PE) for the
works was accorded (31/07/2014) by Finance Member, DDA DDA awarded (10/07/2015) the
works to M/s B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. at the tendered cost of ₹ 184.92
crore and ₹ 225.54 crore for the Subhead-1 and Subhead-2 respectively. The drawings for these
two works got approved from Screening Committed on 08/08/2016, Fire department on
25/10/2016, AAI on 12/01/2017 and DUAC on 12/03/2017.
Total expenditure of ₹ 552 crore including ₹ 199.09 crore for Subhead-1 and ₹ 231.59 crore
for Subhead-2 was incurred on the project till 31/01/2023. However, the technical sanction for
the works was not obtained till date.
Thus, the works were executed by the Executive Engineer of the concerned Divisions without
obtaining technical sanction was highly irregular and may result into flats not being constructed
as per applicable standard and specifications as commented in Para 3.7. Further, in absence of
technical sanction audit could not ascertain the technical soundness of the project.
4.2.2.2. Irregular expenditure in absence of revised technical sanction
As per clause 2.5.2 of the Manual, the technical sanction can be exceeded upto 10 per cent
beyond which revised ‘ TS shall be necessary. Audit observed that in two out of six selected
works revised technical sanction was not obtained though the expenditure had exceeded
beyond the permissible limits, while in two other projects technical sanction was not obtained
at all, as detailed below:
(a) In the work construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela (Group-I) (P11), the technical
sanction to the detailed estimates for the work had been given for ₹ 1378 crore in 2013. Though
the expenditure incurred was more than 10 per cent of the TS, the revised TS was sent for
approval only in August 2022. Though the work was completed in 2020. Thus, without
obtaining revised TS, Executive Engineer of the concerned Division incurred excess
expenditure of ₹ 336.92 crore (₹ 1853.16 crore – ₹1516.24 crore) after considering provision
of admissible excess of 10 per cent.
(b) In the work of construction of LIG and EWS flats (Group-II), Narela (P12), the technical
sanction to the detailed estimates for the work had been given for ₹ 1568.55 crore in November
2011. Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was published on 28/12/2011 which showed estimated cost
of work as ₹ 1093 crore. As of January 2023, an expenditure of ₹1675 crore had been incurred
on the work. However, the revised technical sanction was not found in the records made
available to audit.
28
523
Thus, incurring expenditure in absence of revised TS by the Executive Engineer of the division
was irregular.
4.3. Irregularity in tendering process
As per GFR rule 129, no works shall be commenced, or liability incurred in connection with it
until administrative approval has been obtained and estimates containing the detailed
specifications and quantities of various items have been prepared. Further as per manual the
estimate for a project/work should be comprehensive, supported by complete details. As the
NIT papers are very important documents, on which call of tenders and subsequent agreements
with the contractors are based, the same should be carefully prepared. The NIT should include
the eligibility criteria prescribed by the manual. As per appendix 20 of the manual, the Initial
criteria for eligibility shall include assessment of work experience and bidding capacity of the
tenderer. Further, the time schedule for scrutiny of tenders has been capped at maximum 45
days as per Appendix 23 of the Manual. Audit noticed the following deficiencies in the six
selected projects:
4.3.1. Absence of Bidding capacity provision in the NIT
As per appendix 20 of the manual, the Initial criteria for eligibility shall include assessment of
bidding capacity of the tenderer, which should be equal or more than the estimated cost of the
work put to tender. The bidding capacity shall be worked out by the following formula:
Bidding Capacity = [AxNx2]-B.
Where, A = Maximum value of construction works executed in any one year during the last
five years taking into account the completed as well as works in progress.
N = Number of years prescribed for completion of work for which bids have and
B = Value of existing commitments and ongoing works to be completed during the period
of completion of work for which bids have been invited.
Audit observed that though the checking of bidding capacity of bidders is a mandatory
requirement, this provision was not kept in the NIT in respect of three works of construction
of LIG and EWS flats (Group-I), Narela (P11), construction of LIG and EWS flats (Group-II),
Narela (P12) and construction of HIG flats, Dwarka (P22). Further, the tender documents of
the bidders elaborating the maximum value of construction works executed in any one year
during the last five years as well as the existing commitments on ongoing works were not
furnished to audit though called for in January 2023. As a result, audit could not ascertain
whether the shortlisted contractors were eligible for award of works.
4.3.2. Delay in tendering process
As per clause 20.3.1 of the manual, top priority should be given to decide the award of work
on receipt of tenders. Further, in accordance with the Appendix 23 of Manual, the time schedule
prescribed for scrutiny of tenders has been capped at maximum 45 days.
29
524
Audit observed that in all the six selected works there was delay in award of work ranging from
61 days to 433 days as detailed in table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1: Work wise delay in award of work from floating of NIT
Code of the work Date of NIT Date of award of work Total time taken in days Delay beyond 45 days
P5 18/05/2014 07/11/2014 174 129
P11 28/12/2011 18/04/2013 478 433
P12 28/12/2011 18/04/2013 478 433
P17 08/04/2015 22/07/2015 106 61
P19 28/12/2014 10/07/2015 194 149
P22 29/04/2014 12/11/2014 98 53
Delay in award of work resulted in time and cost overruns as summarised in the para 4.1 above.
The time and cost overruns not only impacted the timely delivery of end benefits but also
resulted in enhanced cost of the flats owing to increased cost of construction.
Case Study 4.1: Delayed Tendering led to Cost Escalation of houses
The work of construction of HIG flats, Dwarka (P22) had been approved in 259th Screening
Committee held in August 2007. Accordingly, Preliminary Estimate (PE) for the work was
prepared by DDA for an amount of ₹ 400.57 crore in November 2007 and AA/ES was
accorded by the competent authority in December 2008. The 1st tender was called at the
estimated cost of ₹ 618.00 crore, however, date of call of tender and details of estimated cost
put to tender were not found on records. The pre-bid meetings were held in May 2012 and
November 2012. The technical bid was opened in May 2013. Thus, there was a delay of
more than four years in calling tender from AA&ES approval reasons of which were not
available in records.
The 2nd tender was called in November 2013 at the estimated cost of ₹ 696.00 crore.
However, audit could not ascertain as to how the estimated cost increased by ₹ 78 crore.
Thus, during the period between accord of AA/ES and call of 1st tender, the estimated cost
of project increased by ₹ 217.43 crore and was further enhanced between the period of 1st
call of tender and 2nd call of tender by ₹ 78 crore.
Delay of 59 months in call of tenders even after the AA&ES was accorded, led to enhanced
cost of the project by ₹ 295.43 crore. This enhanced cost shall be factored by DDA while
calculation of construction cost of the houses leading to increase in disposal cost for the
buyers of these units. Consequently, the buyers will bear the cost of DDA’s inefficiency and
delay.
4.3.3. Erroneous calculation of estimated cost and impairment of tendering process

The estimated cost put to tender for the work of construction of HIG Houses, Jasola (P5) was
₹ 75.58 crore. The tenders for the work were invited on 18/05/2014 and the eligibility bids
were opened on 10/07/2014 in which only two bidders submitted their bids. The financial bids
were opened on 25/07/2014 in which the lowest bidder was M/s Varindera Constructions
Limited to whom the work was awarded at ₹ 108.89 crore.
30
525
During the time of approval of the bid at the Work Advisory Board (WAB) level, it was stated
by the Chief Engineer (East Zone) that the estimated cost of the work was incorrectly calculated
by the Superintending Engineer (Planning) of the concerned Zonal office, by considering less
number of storeys for the building. The estimates were framed by considering six storeys
instead of 13 storeys. Hence, the correct estimated cost was stated to be ₹111.86 crore.
However, the zonal office neither cancelled the tenders nor revised the estimated cost.
As the estimated cost of work is one the most important benchmark upon which the tendering
and evaluation process rests, as all the evaluation criteria viz., work experience, solvency,
bidding capacity etc., which are assessed in the tendering process, vary directly with the
estimated cost. Thus, by publishing less estimated cost of the work, the tendering evaluation
process was impaired as the bidding behaviour and assessment results would have changed.
4.3.4. Irregularity in evaluation process
As stated in para 4.3.3 above the contract for the work construction of HIG Houses, Jasola (P5)
was awarded to M/s Varindera Constructions Limited at ₹ 108.89 crore.
The NIT of the work stipulated the following criteria: (i) Experience of having successfully
completed works during the last seven years ending last day of the month previous to the one
in which applications are invited. Three similar completed works costing not less than the
amount equal to 40 per cent of estimated cost put to tender, or two similar completed works,
costing not less than the amount equal to 60 per cent of the estimated cost put to tender, or One
similar completed work of aggregate cost not less than the amount equal to 80 per cent of the
estimated cost; and (ii) One Completed work of any nature (either part of (i) or a separate one)
costing not less than the amount equal to 40 per cent of the estimated cost put to tender with
some Central Government Department/State Government Department/Central Autonomous
Body/Central Public Sector undertaking.
It was noticed from the records that the contractor had not furnished the completion certificates
in support of its claim of having successfully completed the works of requisite value. The
division had considered the two works (C/o residential accommodation for AWHO at sec.23,
Dwarka; and Provision of married accommodation for Ors 744 DUs i/c allied internal &
external services at Hisar) of the agency as completed, however in none of these works, the
supporting completion certificate was attached. Further, the verification report sought from the
concerned organisations for whom these works were executed by the agency, was also not
found in the records. The execution of basement work was also not found in the said works,
though the same was a prerequisite as per the definition of the similar works. Thus, in the
absence of the completion certificates and the verification reports it could not be ascertained
how the division ensured that the agency was eligible for the work.
4.3.5. Tenders invited and work awarded beyond the AA&ES
As per rule 129 of GFR no works shall be commenced, or liability incurred in connection with
it unless administrative approval has been obtained from appropriate authority.
31
526
Audit observed that in the work of construction of HIG Houses, Jasola (P5), tender for the work
was floated on 18/05/2014 for an estimated cost of at ₹ 75.58 crore and the lowest tenderer was
approved by WAB on 25/9/2014. However, the AA&ES of the work was approved only for ₹
59.18 crore. Further, no documents were found in the records produced to audit which showed
that the revised AA&ES was taken by the division before acceptance of the tender at ₹ 108.89
crore. Further, expenditure beyond 10 per cent of AA&ES was also incurred without taking
revised preliminary estimates approval which was obtained in 18/04/2018. This irregularity
showcases the weak internal controls in DDA and puts DDA in a risk of financial
mismanagement and misappropriation.
4.3.6. Award of work without ensuring encumbrance free site
Clause 15.1 (2) of Manual provides that availability of clear site is desirable before approval
of NIT.
The Land Management Department of DDA acquires land through GNCTD and hands over
the acquired land to Engineering Department of DDA for the construction works. In two
projects it was observed that availability of clear site before approval of NIT was not ensured,
as detailed below:
(a). In April 2013, a work of construction of LIG and EWS flats (Group-I), Narela (P11) was
awarded to M/s B. G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Limited. However, due to litigation
between DDA and local villagers, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Delhi had directed
(10/05/2013) both parties to maintain ‘Status Quo’ at the work site located in Sector 34 and 35,
Rohini as a result of which the work could not be started at this site. In lieu of that, an alternative
site at pocket VI and VII in Sector G-7/G-8, Narela was handed over to the contractor in
October 2016.
It was noticed that in pre-bid meeting one of the bidders asked DDA to confirm whether
encumbrance free land will be handed over to the contractor, to which DDA stated that the
Land is available. From the records, it was noticed that the matter was deliberated upon to
provide an alternate site to the contractor and consequently the Vice Chairman, DDA approved
(17/05/2015) alternate site of Pocket VI and VII in lieu of Sector 34 and 35, Rohini which was
handed over to contractor only on 17/10/2016The work in the new alternate site was guided by
the original agreement except that the stipulated dates of start of work and completion was
changed to 27/10/2016 and 26/04/2019 respectively.
Due to allotment of an alternate site the scope of work got increased and DDA has so far paid
₹ 178.63 crore as cost escalation for the work which was completed in September 2020. Thus,
there was cost overrun of 178.63 crore as well as time overrun of 35 months.
(b). Similarly, another work LIG and EWS flats (Group-II), Narela (P12) was awarded to an
agency ‘M/ s B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.’ on 18/04/2013 at a cost of ₹
1394.36 crore, which was to be started from 25/04/2013. The work was to be executed in
Pocket I, III, IV, V, VI of Sector G2 and G6 and Pocket I, II and V of Sector G3 and G4,
Narela. However, Pocket-Vof Sector G-3 and G-4 was not available due to water logging at
the site, while in Pocket- I and II there were existing structures. Therefore, DDA handed over
32
527
an alternate site at Pocket-IXSector G-7and G-8, Narela on 13/10/2016 against the aforesaid
three sites.
Audit observed that the fact of unavailability of site at Pocket I, II and V at Sector G-3 andG-
4 was in the knowledge of DDA since April 2013.
The work in the new alternate site was guided by the original agreement except that the start
of work and completion was changed to 27/10/2016 and 26/04/2019 respectively.
Due to allotment of an alternate site the scope of work got increased and DDA has so far paid
₹ 180.40 crore as cost escalation for the work which was completed in November 2020. Thus,
there was cost overrun of 180.40 crore as well as time overrun of 42 months.
Hence, had the Executive Engineer of the concerned Divisions ensured availability of
encumbrance free land in the initial stage or promptly handed over the alternative site to the
contractor, it could have not only saved on the payment made towards escalation but also the
time required for completion of the project also increased cost of the flats has to be borne by
the general public.
4.4. Irregularities in construction
4.4.1. Wasteful expenditure on site under litigation

In the work of construction of LIG and EWS flats, Narela (P11), it was observed that the site
in Rohini, which was under litigation was handed over to the agency on 26/04/2013. The
agency brought cement (321520 bags) and steel (approx..13399 MT) at the site from December
2013 to March 2016. As the site was later abandoned and another alternate site was handed
over to the agency the whole expenditure was rendered wasteful.
4.4.2. Deficiencies in obtaining approval from local bodies:

As per the Agreements, for all the six selected works, the approval of plans/drawings had to be
obtained by the contractor from the local bodies within the 12 to 15 months as specified in the
respective agreements. These approvals are required as per rules and serve a very specific
specialised purpose19 to safeguard interest of users against danger or concerns in future.
In the six selected works, deficiencies in obtaining approval from local bodies noticed in Audit
are discussed below:
19
Approval from Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) required for the storm water drainage scheme; Approval
from Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) required for the lay out and building plans; Approval from
Department of Fire Service (DFS) required for the fire safety requirements; Approval from Airport Authority of
India (AAI) required for the height of the building; approval from Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC)
Implementation of various environmental/pollution control norms and Approval from Delhi Jal Board (DJB)
required for the layout of sewerage and water supply schemes.
33
528
 In three works i.e., construction of HIG Houses, Jasola (P5), construction of LIG and EWS
flats, Narela (P11) and construction of LIG and EWS flats Narela (P12) , no approval was
obtained
 In other three works there was delay in obtaining approval from the respective local bodies
which ranged from 46 to 2384 days, as detailed in the table 4.2 below:
Table 4.2: Work wise delay in obtaining approval from local bodies:
Code of the project
P17 P19 P22
Local
Date of Start of work: Date of Start of work: Date of Start of work:
Bodies
05/08/2017 22/07/2015 27/11/2014
Date of Delay Date of Delay Date of Delay
approval approval approval
DFS 09/01/2017 158 25/10/2016 96 15/05/2015 nil
AAI 20/01/2017 169 12/01/2017 175 26/05/2015 nil
DUAC 22/03/2017 230 30/03/2017 252 25/05/2015 nil
DPCC 16/05/2017 285 07/07/2017 351 12/04/2016 46
MCD Not provided Not provided 16/08/2018 902
DJB Yet to be Yet to be 06/09/2022 2384
approved approved
Note: In construction of three/two BHK and EWS flats), Narela (P17 and P19) – within 12 months, whereas in
construction of HIG and EWS flats at Dwarka (P22) the same were to be obtained within 15 months.
Delay in approval from local bodies led to time and cost overrun of the works. This enhanced
cost shall be factored by DDA while calculation of construction cost of the houses leading to
increase in disposal cost for the buyers of these units. Consequently, the buyers will bear the
cost of DDA’s inefficiency and delay.
4.4.3. Less Carpet Area provided than norms

Para 4.4.3.B of MPD 2021 stipulated the carpet area of EWS, Cat-I, Cat-II, Cat-III as 25-40
sqm, upto 40 sqm, above 40 sqm to 80 sqm and above 80 sqm respectively.
Indian Standard (IS): 3861 contains “Methods of Measurement of Plinth, Carpet and Rentable
Areas of Buildings” (Second Revision) issued by Bureau of Indian Standards in 2002. Para 5
(Measurement of Carpet Area) of the said Standard stipulated details of the areas which are to
be included and excluded from the plinth to work out the carpet area. As per Standard the areas
of Verandah/Balcony, Kitchen and Bathroom, among others, are to be excluded from the plinth
area to calculate the carpet area of room.
The Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) of the work of construction of LIG and EWS flats, Narela
(P12) was floated on 28/12/2011. The development/architectural controls/norms attached with
the NIT stated that the area of LIG houses were to be up to 42 sqm and EWS houses up to 32
sqm, whereas Sl No. 8 of NIT provided that EWS should have a carpet area between 25-40
sqm. Clause 3 (Carpet area requirement) of Additional Conditions/Clarifications attached with
the NIT states that method of working out carpet area in detail is elucidated in enclosed typical
layout plan with detailed calculation. Clause 30, ibid, further states that the area of Cupboard,
nitch shall be included in carpet area but area of Door jams will be excluded from the carpet
34
529
area. Carpet area will be measured at lintel level. For the purpose of working out carpet area,
balcony area will not be reduced to 50 per cent i.e., full area of balcony will be considered.
The reduction in balcony by 50 per cent area will only be done for calculating the carpet area
for payment purpose.
In the pre-bid meeting held on 09/20/2012, in response to a query of one of the bidders i.e.,
M/s IVRCL, regarding the methods of working our carpet area and inclusion/exclusion of
balcony area in the carpet area of DU, DDA stated that the minimum carpet area to be provided
for EWS DUs and LIG DUs were 25 sqm and 35 sqm respectively and other provisions in this
regard were as per NIT.
The work of construction of LIG and EWS at Narela (P12) was awarded to M/ s B.G. Shirke
Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.’ on 18/04/2013. The works was to be executed in Pocket
I, III, IV, V, VI of Sector G2 & G6 and Pocket XI in Sector G7 & G8, Narela (alternate site).
The terms and conditions of the agreement states that the LIG houses will be as per MPD 2021
having minimum carpet area 35 sqm and EWS houses will be as per IS 8888 having minimum
carpet area of 25 sqm The rates per dwelling unit quoted by M/s B.G. Shirke Construction
Technology Pvt. Limited, for LIG and EWS DUs were ₹ 8,78,299 and ₹ 6,00,352, respectively.
The Agency constructed 3116 nos. and 14424 nos. dwelling units for EWS and LIG categories.
The total carpet area of DUs and the constituent rooms of the DUs i.e., two Rooms, one
Kitchen, one Bath and one Water Closet (WC), a Lobby along with a Balcony are shown in the
table 4.3 below:
Table 4.3: Details of carpet area
Details of room Area of rooms for Area of rooms for EWS Area of rooms for LIG
EWS DU(Type-I) (in DU (Type-II) (in sqm) DU (in sqm)
sqm)
Bedroom 6.90 6.79 9.29
Living/Drawing room 9.06 9.06 12.77
Lobby 1.96 1.96 1.89
(A) 17.92 17.81 23.95
Kitchen 3.41 3.52 6.55
Bathroom 1.25 1.25 1.90
Water Closet (WC) 1.16 1.06 1.16
Balcony 1.94 2.4 1.94
(B) 7.76 8.23 11.55
Total Carpet Area of 25.67 26.04 35.50
DU (A+B)
Audit observed that the contractor provided total carpet area of 25.67 sqm and 26.04 sqm for
EWS DUs and 35.50 sqm for LIG DUs as detailed in table above. Further, as per IS 3861, the
carpet area of the rooms shall be excluding of Kitchen, Bathroom, WC and Balcony. However,
the total carpet area as provided for the DUs of EWS and LIG categories i.e., 25.67 sqm/26.04
sqm and 35.50 sqm respectively, are inclusive of area of Kitchen, Bathroom, WC and Balcony,
which is in contravention of the Standard cited above.
Further, after excluding the area of Kitchen, Bathroom, WC and Balcony i.e., 7.76 sqm and
8.23 sqm, the actual carpet area of EWS DUs comes to 17.92 sqm and 17.81 sqm respectively,
which was in contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement and developmental
35
530
control norms of MPD 2021 cited above. Similarly in case of LIG after excluding the area of
Kitchen, Bathroom, WC and Balcony of 11.55 sqm, the actual carpet area works out to 23.95
sqm, which is also in contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement cited above.
Thus, by non-adhering to the applicable standards and development control norms 7.08 (25-
17.92) sqm and 7.19 (25-17.81) sqm, carpet area was short provided in the two rooms and
lobby area of each of the two types of DUs of EWS category and 11.05 (35-23.95) sqm in each
DU of the LIG category.
Had the applicable standards and development control norms been followed appropriately,
carpet area totalling of 181446 sqm approx. (22061 sqm20EWS + 159385 sqm21LIG) was to be
provided additionally in the two rooms and lobby area of in total of 17540 nos. DUs (3116 nos
EWS + 14424 nos LIG). However, the said carpet area was not provided in the constituent two
rooms and lobby area of the DUs constructed for the EWS and LIG categories.
In spite of non-providing the required carpet area in the DU, DDA released payment to the
Agency. Based on conservative estimation, Audit calculated that DDA released a total amount
of ₹ 439.79 crore i.e., ₹ 50.94 crore22 (for 3116 nos. EWS DUs) and ₹ 388.85 crore23 (for 14424
nos. LIG DUs) to the Agency despite of non-providing the required carpet area.
Similarly in the work of construction of LIG and EWS at Narela (P11), 13420 LIG and 2980
EWS flats were constructed with less carpet area. For these flats DDA paid an amount of ₹
410.51 crore to the contractor despite not providing the required carpet area.
4.4.4. Construction of Non-habitable flats
As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the LIG houses will have minimum Carpet area
consisting of two rooms, kitchen , bath and WC and the work has to be started only after getting
approval from local bodies.
In the two works construction of LIG and EWS at Narela (P11 and 12), it was observed that
drawing was submitted to DUAC for approval. However, the date of submission of documents
to DUAC was not found on records. The DUAC suggested (August 2013) that in high rise
tower the provision of internal shaft were considered unworkable since it is apprehended that
these may turn into dumping space thereby creating problem for the residents living at the
ground floor level. These should be opened at least one side to open green area by skipping or
suitable modification in design of flats.
It was observed that though the contractor did not submit the revised drawings to avoid getting
revised approval and to avoid payment of compensation under contract for escalation.
Accordingly, 616 LIG units (296 in Group- I and 320 in Group- II) were declared non habitable
by DDA. Statement of cost adjustment for items not executed (Bath, WC & kitchen) in these
uninhabitable was worked out by DDA for an amount of ₹11.28 crore24.
20
7.08 sqm X 3116 no EWS DU
21
11.05 sqm X 14424 no LIG DUs
22
₹ 6,00,352/26 sqm X 22061 sqm
23
₹ 8,78,299/36 sqm X 159385 sqm
24
₹ 5.42 crore in Group- I and ₹ 5.86 crore in Group- II
36
531
Audit observed that as the entire flats (616) were rendered uninhabitable and the agreement
provided for payment based upon construction of flats, no payment was to be made to the
contractor for such flats. Hence an amount of ₹ 42.82 crore was needed to be recovered (after
the cost adjustment done by DDA) from the contractor. Construction of non-habitable flats has
r resulted in the increase of per unit expenditure/ cost of the flat, which would ultimately result
in increased selling price and borne by the general public, as also the reduction in the total
number of saleable units.
4.4.5. Non-deployment of Technical Staff
Clause 36 of GCC envisages that ‘the contractor shall provide all necessary superintendence to
technical Staff and employees during execution of the work and all along thereafter as may be
necessary for proper fulfilment of the obligation under the contract. The contractor shall
immediately after receiving letter of acceptance of the tender and before commencement of
work, intimate in writing to the Engineer-in-Charge the name(s), qualifications, experience,
age, addresses(s) and other particulars along with certificate, of the principal technical
representatives to be in charge of the work and other technical representatives, who will be
supervising the work. Non appointment of Technical Representatives would attract recovery
as mentioned in Schedule-F Clause 36(i).
In the six selected works, the requisite records to verify the qualifications and experience of
the technical staff were requisitioned, however no records were provided to audit, in the
absence of which it could not be ascertained whether proper technical staff was deployed in
the work and if not, whether due recovery of ₹ 43.77 crore was made from the contractor. The
details are given in the Annexure 4.2. Further, non-appointment of technical representative
could have an adverse impact on the quality of work of project as commented in para no 4.4.14.
4.4.6. Blockade of fund to DJB
Rule 21 of General Financial Rules 2005 stipulates that every officer incurring or authorizing
expenditure from public moneys should be guided by high standards of financial propriety and
the expenditure should not be prima facie more than the occasion demands.
Audit observed that for construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela (P12), DDA had deposited
₹ 94.83 crore towards infrastructure funds for peripheral sewerage scheme on 24/08/2013
which was demanded by DJB in October 2012. However, DJB in August 2014 demanded
₹ 12.69 crore only for infrastructure fund for peripheral sewerage scheme . Thus there was an
excess payment of ₹ 82.14 crore.
Audit also noticed that in the same project, DDA deposited ₹ 56.89 crore ( February 2013)
towards infrastructure funds for the peripheral water supply scheme, whereas DJB calculated
the infrastructure fund for peripheral water supply amounting to ₹ 19.93 crore. Thus, there was
excess payment of ₹ 36.96 crore.
37
532
Thus in this project, Executive engineer of the Division made an excess payment of ₹ 119.10
crore, which was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 21 of General Financial Rules,
2005.
4.4.7. Variation in schedule of quantities in Agreement and Detailed Estimates
The Clause 2.5 of Manual stipulated that a technical Sanction amounts to a guarantee that the
proposals are technically sound, and the estimates are accurately prepared and are based on
adequate data.
The estimated cost put to tender for the construction of HIG houses at Jasola ( P5) was ₹ 75.58
crore. The tenders for the work were invited on 18/05/2014 and the eligibility bids were opened
on 10/07/2014 in which only two agencies had submitted their bids. The financial bids were
opened on 25/07/2014 in which the lowest bidder was M/s Varindera Constructions Limited
and it was finally awarded the work at the tendered cost of ₹ 108.89 crore.
Audit observed that there was gross variation in the schedule of quantities for the work depicted
NIT vis a vis those approved in the Detailed Estimates as shown below in the table 4.4:
Table 4.4: Variation in quantity
Sl. Description of item- Quantity as per Quantity as per per cent variation
No. construction of Agreement (in sqm) Detailed estimate (in
sqm)
1. Foundation 5238 9031.21 72.42
2. Basement 10476 17174.30 63.94
3. Stilt 5238 8632.2. 64.80
4. RCC superstructure upto 6 14506 16381.68 12.93
storeys
to 9 storeys
to 13 storeys
7. Internal development work 10477 12135.80 15.83
It is evident from the above table that the variation in the quantity ranged from 12.93 per cent
to 72.42 per cent. Further, it was also observed that the sum of quantity of item of Foundation
and Internal development work works out to 15715 sqm, which is also mentioned in the name
of the work itself. However, as per the detailed estimates for the work, the sum of these items
works out to 21167.01 sqm. Thus, there was enhancement of land area by around 34 percent.
In the same project, audit also found that technical sanction to detailed estimate was given in
November 2017, with a delay of more than 3 years of award of work(May 2014). This was in
violation to the codal provisions of the CPWD manual and agreement clause which stipulated
that the Technical sanction be obtained within six months of the award of work.
4.4.8. Engagement of specialized agencies in electrical work
As per Special conditions of the contract for electric works, work of sub-station & LT work,
lift, firefighting system, manual fire alarms system & DG sets come under category of
specialized Works. For these works, OEM/OEA/specialized firms shall be eligible.
38
533
Out of six selected works, in the three works viz., construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela
(P11 and P12) and construction of HIG and EWS flats at Dwarka (P22) as no records were
provided, Audit couldn’t ascertain whether any eligible agencies were engaged for the
specialized works, or it were executed through an ineligible firm.
Engagement of non-specialized agencies had an adverse impact on the quality of work as
noticed during the joint physical verification and detailed in Para no. 4.4.14.
4.4.10. Recording completion certificate despite work being incomplete
As per the circular issued by the office of the Engineer member in 1989, the completion of a
project means total completion of all the works and satisfactory completion of all the services
viz water supply line, sewerage line, sewage line, storm water, drainage, electrical wiring inside
and outside the building. The Divisions need not wait for the allottees to get the work done by
the contractor and complete the work without waiting for the allottees. The division can fix
separate agencies for watch and ward, if needed. The CE should also constitute a small
technical expert unit which should check 2.5 per cent of the housing stock built by the
contractor and should specifically check the installation of all the services. The team should
invariably check within three months after the completion certificate is signed by the Executive
engineer. The CE is to take decision on this report of services. The EEs however need not wait
for this certificate for the completing their final bills.
In contravention to the above circular the work P11 was declared as complete (in two spells in
2017 for pocket IV and V and in 2020 for pocket VI and VII) though the peripheral and internal
sewerage scheme had not been approved by DJB. There was also no provision water supply
line. Further, it could also not be ascertained from the records whether any technical team was
constituted. Further, the final bill of the work has not yet been paid.
4.4.11. Less Number of EWS Dwelling Units Constructed
Para 4.4.3.(B) (v) of MPD 2021 states that the developer shall ensure that minimum 15 per
cent of the proposed FAR or 35 per cent of the dwelling units for Community Service
Personnel/EWS and lower category.
The construction of LIG and EWS houses at Narela (P12) was awarded to ‘M/ s B.G. Shirke
Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.’ on 18/04/2013. The developmental control norms for EWS
dwelling units as adopted in the NIT (28/12/2011) provided that minimum 15 per cent of FAR
or 35 per cent of the dwelling unit, which is more, was to be constructed for the EWS category.
In the pre-bid meeting (09/02/2012) on the query of bidder as to the adoption of the provision
of providing EWS dwelling unit, DDA clarified that the provision of NIT to be adopted.
Audit observed that 14,424 LIG and 3116 EWS flats were constructed in the six pockets as
detailed in the table below 4.5:
Table 4.5: Difference in number of EWS Units constructed
39
534
EWS DUs required

EWS DUs constructed Difference
to be constructed
No of EWS
Sl. Name of the LIG DUs No. of EWS DUs
percentage
No Project at narela DUs constructed constructed
of EWS DUs
(Taking 15 (Taking 35 per cent
constructed
per cent of of LIG DUs)
FAR)
1 2 3 4 5=4*100/3 6=3*35 per cent 7=6-4
Pocket -I, Sector
1 1648 400 24.27 576.8 176.8
G2 & G6
Pocket -III, Sector
2 1520 360 23.68 532 172
G2 & G6
Pocket -IV, Sector
3 1585 360 22.71 554.75 194.75
G2 & G6
Pocket -V, Sector
4 1501 336 22.39 525.35 189.35
G2 & G6
Pocket -VI, Sector
5 1559 240 15.39 545.65 305.65
G2 & G6
Pocket-XI, Sector
6 6511 1420 21.81 2278.85 858.85
G7 & G8
Total 14424 3116 21.60 5048.4 1932.4
From the table above it may be seen that in total of 3116 DUs were constructed in place of
5048 DUs for the EWS category resulting in shortfall of 1932 DUs. Further, detailed
calculation of the DUs based on the 15 per cent of FAR was also not available in the records
produced to Audit.
Audit observed that the norms of providing DUs to EWS category i.e., 35 per cent of LIG DUs
and 15 per cent of FAR whichever is more, was discussed on 23/12/2011 i.e., before floating
of tender and clarification on it was sought from the Planning Department of DDA, but no
clarification on this was furnished. Further, as the norms for providing DUs to EWS category
i.e., 35 per cent of LIG DUs and 15 per cent of FAR whichever is more, was incorporated in
the NIT as well as Agreement, the same was to be adhered to while providing number of DUs
for EWS category. However, in contravention of the above norms of NIT as well as Agreement
less no of DUs for EWS category was provided.
4.4.12. Issue of Cement and Steel during the period of hindrance

Para 29.7 of Manual 2014 states that whenever any hindrance whether on part of department
or on part of Contractor, comes to the notice of the Assistant Engineer, he should at once make
a note of such hindrance in the register kept at site, and immediately make a report to the
Executive Engineer within a week. Each hindrance should be entered into the Hindrance
Register, which should be authenticated by the Executive Engineer and Contractor.
Further, Para 26.3.2 (iv)(b) of Manual 2014 states that ‘the cement/steel and other materials
received from stores/local purchase etc. on any particular day, shall not be used in the work or
transferred to any other work for 26 hours from the time of receipt at site, for physical check
40
535
and verification by the Assistant Engineer’. The cement already available in the store should
be consumed first, before issue from the new consignment. Similarly, new steel items should
be stacked in countable shape to facilitate physical check before these are used. It was observed
that during the total period of hindrance from 24/03/2020 to 22/09/2020 (183 days) which was
approved by DDA and EoT granted, DDA issued 4002.55 MT of Cement and 1782.18 MT (of
Steel in case of work of construction of two/three BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P19).
Similarly, in another work of construction of two/three BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P17),
hindrance was granted 100 per cent on the ground of “works stopped due to Covid 19 Lock
down” during the period of 25/03/2020 to 24/12/2020 and an extension of time (EOT) of 274
days was granted to the contractor. However, it was noticed that during the period 08/05/2020
to 21/12/2020 a total of 2097 bags of Cement issued to the agency for execution of work. Thus,
the works was in progress during hindrance period and EoT was granted by DDA which is in
contravention of the clause of CPWD works manual.
4.4.13. Non-compliance with clause 19 K of the agreement
Clause 19K of the agreement provides that the Contractor should deploy qualified skilled/semi-
skilled tradesmen who possess certificate from reputed and recognized Institute managed/
certified by State/Central Government. The number of such qualified tradesmen shall not be
less than 20 per cent of total skilled/semi-skilled workers required in each trade at any stage of
work. The contractor was to submit number of man-days required in respect of each trade to
Engineer in Charge for approval. Failures on the part of contractor to obtain approval of
Engineer-in- Charge or failure to deploy qualified tradesmen will attract a compensation to be
paid by contractor at the rate of ₹100 per such tradesman per day. Decision of Engineer in
Charge as to whether particular tradesman possesses requisite skill and amount of
compensation in case of default shall be final and binding.
Audit observed that in work of construction of two/three BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P17),
the certificate provided by the contractor in respect of skilled employees were not from reputed
and recognized Institute managed/ certified by State/Central Government as the address and
name of the institute provided by the contractor was not traceable. The executive Engineer
also did not levy penalty as per agreement.
DDA did not provide specific reply.
4.4.14. Deficiencies noticed in Joint physical verification
A joint physical verification was conducted by the Audit team along-with officials from the
divisions of DDA to assess the works executed by the contractor.
In the three completed projects viz., P5, P11 and P12 major deficiencies noticed during joint
physical verifications are as follows:
1. Encroachment of site,
41
536
2. Water logging in basement, Seepage in ceiling of basement and on the walls inside the
rooms, Broken and eroded plaster of inside the rooms, Termite infestation on the floors
and walls of the room.
3. Theft of electrical wiring, Plantation and landscaping was not done.
4. In the three ongoing projects viz., P17, P19 and P22 major deficiencies noticed during
joint physical verifications are as follows:
5. Damaged floor tiles inside the rooms,
6. Water pump not commissioned, no provision for exhaust fan in kitchen was provided.
Details of the deficiencies noticed during the joint physical verification are detailed in
Annexure 4.3.
4.5. Irregularities in payment to contractor
4.5.1. Irregular reimbursement of Green Tax Environment Compensation Charge

Clause 38 of the agreement/General Conditions Contract (GCC) of the above work stipulated
that all tender rates shall be inclusive of all taxes and levies (except service tax) payable under
respective statues. However, if any further tax or levy or Cess is imposed by statues, after the
last stipulated date for the receipt of tender including extension if any and the contractor
thereupon necessarily and properly pays such taxes/levies /Cess the contractor shall be
reimbursed the amount so paid, provided such payments, if any, is not in the opinion of the
superintending Engineer attributable to delay in execution of the work within control of the
contractor.
As regards the Green Tax Environment Compensation Charge (ECC), which was made
applicable by the Government from 01/11/2015, CPWD had clarified (24/04/2017) that Clause
38 of GCC, CPWD 7 and 8 shall not apply to it and the Green Tax shall not be reimbursed to
the contractor.
Further, Northern Project Division -2 of DDA in its letter dated 10/07/2020 to the contractor
stated that the clause 38 of the agreement shall not apply and green tax shall not be reimbursed
to the contractor.
Out of six selected works, in three works viz., construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela
(P11 and P12) and construction of two/three BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P17), it was
observed ed that DDA has reimbursed ECC amounting to ₹ 6.92 crore (₹ 4.39 crore for G-I, ₹
1.84 crore for G-II and ₹ 0.69 crore) to the contractor which was not required as per agreement.
It could also be not ascertained from the records that the recovery of the same was made from
the contractor.
4.5.2. Excess payment towards escalation under clause 10 CA
Clause 10 CA of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) states if after submission of the
tender, the price of materials specified in Schedule F increases/decreases beyond the base
price(s) as indicated in Schedule F for the work, then the amount of the contract shall
42
537
accordingly be varied and provided further that any such variation shall be effected for the
stipulated period of contract including the justified period extended under the provisions of
Clause 5 of the Contract without any action under Clause 2. The increase/decrease in prices of
cement, steel reinforcement and structural steel shall be determined by the price indices issued
by the Director General (Works), CPWD and the base price for such items shall be those as
issued by CPWD applicable for Delhi.
Further, as per the OM No. 137/SE(TAS)/10CA/2020/410 dated 21/10/2020 of the CPWD, for
calculation of escalation under 10 CA, with effect from 01 July 2017 the base price exclusive
of excise and VAT (of pre GST period) is to be used. Thereafter GST @ 12 per cent is to be
added by direct calculation method.
Out of six selected projects, in three projects viz., construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela
(P11) and construction of two/three BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P17 and P19), it was
observed that excess payment ₹ 9.53 crore was made towards escalation under 10 CA of as
detailed in Annexure 4.4.
4.5.3. Excess payment of escalation under clause 10 CC
As per clause 10 CC of the General Conditions of Contract appended with the agreement, if
the prices of materials (not being materials supplied or services rendered at fixed prices by the
department in accordance with clause 10 and 34 thereof) and/or wages of labour required for
execution of the work increase, the contractor shall be compensated for such increase as per
the provisions and the amount of the contract shall accordingly be varied.
Out of six selected works, in two works viz., construction of HIG houses at Jasola (P5) and
construction of two/three BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P19) excess payment of ₹ 7.17 crore
was made towards escalation under 10CC and as detailed in Annexure 4.5.
4.5.4. Irregular release of Mobilization Advance and Tools & Plant Advance
As per clause 10B (ii) of GCC forming part of the NIT/Agreement, Mobilization Advance not
exceeding 10 per cent of tendered cost may be given, if requested by the contractor in writing
within one month of the order to commence the work. Such advance shall be in two instalments
to be determined by the EIC at his sole discretion. The first instalment of such advance shall
be released by EIC to the contractor on the request being made by the contractor. The second
instalment shall be released by the EIC only after contractor furnishes a proof of satisfactory
utilization of the earlier instalment to the entire satisfaction of the Engineer-in-Charge.
Similarly, Tool & Plant advance not exceeding five per cent of the tendered value may be given
if requested by the Contractor.
Out of six selected works, in three works viz., construction of HIG houses at Jasola (P5) and
construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela (P11 and P12) discrepancies were noticed with
regard to release of mobilisation and tools & plant advances as given in Annexure 4.6.
4.5.5. Deficiencies in performance guarantee
Rule 171(i) of General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017 states that to ensure due performance of
the contract, Performance Security is to be obtained from the successful bidder awarded the
43
538
contract. Further, as per the agreement 5 per cent of the tendered cost is taken from the
contractor as Performance Guarantee.
Out of six selected works, in three works discrepancies noticed are discussed in the subsequent
paragraphs:
4.5.5.1. Non-revision of performance guarantee
(a) In the work of construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela (P11) was awarded to M/ s
B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. on 18/04/2013 at the tendered cost of ₹ 1229.92
crore, for which PG of ₹ 61.49 crore was obtained from the contractor. However, subsequently
the tendered cost was revised to ₹ 1476.17 crore but appropriate amount of performance
guarantee of ₹ 73.81 crore (five per cent of revised tendered amount) was not obtained from
the contractor.
This resulted in providing undue financial benefit to contractor as contractor has to pay bank
guarantee charges to issuing bank. Further, adequate safeguards were not taken to watch the
interest of organisation.
(b) The work of construction of HIG and EWS flats at Dwarka (P22) was awarded to M/s
Simplex Infrastructure Ltd in November 2014 at the tendered cost of ₹ 617.99 crore, for which
DDA obtained ₹ 30.90 crore from the contractor as PG. However, subsequently the tendered
cost was revised to ₹ 739.66 crore but appropriate amount of performance guarantee of ₹ 36.98
crore (five per cent of revised tendered amount) was not obtained from the contractor. Thus,
adequate safeguards were not taken to watch the interest of department.
Further, for the work mentioned above, the performance guarantee amounting to ₹ 30.90 crore
was submitted by the contractor on 25/10/2014, and the same was extended to 31/03/2022 from
time to time.
Ministry of Finance, vide its OM No. F. 18/4/2020-PPD dated 13/05/2020 instructed that where
an application is made by a contractor who is not in default of any contractual obligations, the
contractee may return the value of the performance security to the contractor as is proportional
to the supplies made/contract work completed to the total contract value. DDA as per its letter
dated 05/01/2021, released 50 per cent of performance security in compliance with circular
dated 13/05/2020, amounting to ₹ 15.44 crore, out of which an amount of ₹ 12.94 crore was
withheld on account of non-achievement of 3rd miles stone, as per the contractor’s request. The
remaining amount of ₹ 2.50 crore shall be released by DDA on submission of fresh bank
guarantee. An amount of ₹ 15.44 crore has been retained by DDA as performance security.
However, it was observed that DDA didn’t realize the amount of ₹ 15.44 crore. Instead, the
whole amount of ₹ 30.90 crore continued as Bank Guarantee which remained in the name of
the contractor till 31/05/2022.
As per the records available, the contractor was in default of his contractual obligations at the
time of issue of above-mentioned OM dated 13/05/2020, as the contractor failed to achieve
milestones and hence doesn’t come under the ambit of the said circular. Hence, releasing 50
per cent of performance guarantee in compliance of this OM, was not in order. The amount of
44
539
₹ 12.94 crore which has been marked as withheld by DDA due to non-achievement of
milestones should have been done from the RA Bill. DDA failed to realize an amount of
₹ 12.94 crore in its name for approx. 17 months (05/01/2021 to 31/05/2022), which resulted in
loss of interest @7.525per cent amounting to ₹ 1.37 crore26.
4.5.5.2. Additional Performance Guarantee not obtained
The work of construction of two/three BHK and EWS flats at Narela (P19) was awarded on
10/07/15 for two sub heads I and II to , M/s B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. at
the tendered cost of ₹ 184.92 crore and ₹ 225.54 crore respectively. The cost of these works
was enhanced by ₹ 30.69 crore and ₹ 49.18 crore for the Subhead-1 and Subhead-2
respectively.
Audit observed that as the cost of two works got increased by ₹ 79.87 crore, the Contractor
was required to deposit additional PG amounting ₹ 3.39 crore (₹ 1.53 crore and ₹ 2.46 crore
(five per cent of revised tendered amount) for the Subhead-1 and Subhead-2 respectively which
was not collected by the division.
This resulted in providing undue financial benefit to contractor as contractor has to pay bank
guarantee charges to issuing bank. Further, adequate safeguards were not taken to watch the
interest of organisation.
4.5.6. Irregularity in revision of milestones
In accordance with the agreement, the work was divided into several milestones and in case of
non-achievement of milestone, a certain amount to be withheld from the running bill of the
contractor.
Out of six selected works, in two works viz., construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela (P11)
and construction of HIG and EWS flats at Dwarka (P22) discrepancies were noticed in revision
of milestones and non-withholding of amount on account of non-achievement of milestones as
detailed in Annexure 4.7.
4.5.7. Irregular payment
The work of construction of LIG and EWS flats at Narela (P11) was awarded to M/ s B.G.
Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. on 18/04/2013 at the tendered cost of ₹ 1229.92
crore with stipulated date of start and completion as 03/05/2013 and 02/05/2016 respectively.
The Tube well water duly treated by R.O. plant was to be provided by the agency till DJB water
available. Further, in response to pre-bid query of M/s IVRCL (another agency), DDA clarified
that "R.O. water during maintenance period of three years and during construction period is to
be provided". It was further clarified that "R.O. plant shall be taken over by DDA after
maintenance period is over".
25
Rate adopted as per Manual clause 30.2
26
Rate adopted as per Manual clause 30.2
45
540
Audit noticed that as the DJB water was not available in these pocket and for providing water
facilities to the residents of these Pockets, Sector G-7/G-8, Narela, DDA incurred expenditure
of ₹96.00 lakh in connection with interim arrangement of providing and laying drinking water
line and carriage and supply of drinking water through tankers in contravention to the
agreement provisions.
46
541
Chapter 5 – Costing of Houses
After the flats are constructed by the engineering wing, the disposal cost of the flats is
calculated by the land costing wing. The disposal cost comprises of two components, the cost
of construction and the cost of land. The cost of construction is calculated based upon the Plinth
Area Rates (PAR), while the cost of land is determined by the Pre-Determined Rates (PDR)
approved by MoHUA. During examination of records of the costing wing, the following
deficiencies were noticed.
5.1 Pre-Determined Rates

The Pre- Determined Rates are the rates of premium chargeable from different categories of
persons entitled for allotment of land at PDR which are determined by notification from time
to time by the Central Government. The persons who are eligible for allotment of land at PDR
include those whose lands have been acquired, socially disadvantaged groups, low- and
middle-income categories and industries which are required to be shifted from the non-
conforming areas.
The methodology adopted for working out the PDR involves computing the Break-Even Rate
(BER) of the preceding financial year through Cost Benefit Analysis and updating the same by
10 per cent, being the anticipated cost of money, and adding the cost of Internal Development,
wherever applicable. To estimate the BER, indexation method is used whereby all expenditures
on development of land incurred as well as anticipated during the next three years assuming
that whole project shall be completed during this period, compensation, and enhanced
compensation on acquisition of land etc. as well as revenue earned on sale of area of land year
wise up to the preceding year are updated at the prescribed rate to their present values. The
physical and price contingencies (@5 per cent) and Service charges (@7.5 per cent) are added
to this amount to derive the total project cost. BER is then determined by dividing the balance
indexed revenue to be earned with the balance weighted area left after reducing the area sold.
During the examination of records, the following deficiencies were noticed regarding
calculation of Pre- Determined Rates:
5.1.1 Sale of flats designed and developed as EWS but sold as LIG
The DDA maintains a separate EWS fund to finance construction of housing for EWS category
and deduct the expenditure incurred on construction of EWS flats from it.
During audit, several instances came to notice where the category of house was changed post
construction. In the DDA Housing Scheme 2014; total 22,494 One-bedroom flats were
included as LIG flats. However, these flats were initially designed as EWS flats by the
Architecture Department and tendering for the same was done by Engineering Department by
referring these flats as EWS flats. Due to this change; the PDR applicable for LIG was applied
by DDA. However, if the PDR for EWS as prevalent in 2014-15 was applied on these flats,
after considering the plinth area conservatively on lower side as per brochure, then the
difference in component of land rate works out to ₹ 238.07 crore. This additional cost will be
47
542
finally transferred to the buyers. Further, as a result of re-categorisation of flats, 22494

prospective EWS beneficiaries were put at disadvantage.
As per agenda of Authority meeting held in February 2019, total 10748 flats had been allotted
in Housing Scheme 2014 and 3337 flats had been allotted in Housing Scheme 2017 by February
2019. Thus at least these allottees were charged a sum of ₹ 79.86 crore in excess, on account
of enhanced land rate as they paid land rate of LIG on an EWS flat.
DDA stated (November 2022) that since these flats are having two rooms, kitchen, W.C. and
bathroom , these were treated as ‘One-bedroom flats’ with the approval of the Vice Chairman,
DDA.
The reply is not acceptable as the composition of these flats was already decided prior to
tendering. These flats were designed by the architecture wing and put to tender by the
engineering wing as EWS flats. Also, as the funds for constructing these flats were drawn from
EWS Fund, selling them as LIG was highly irregular.
5.1.2 Consistent increase in Pre-Determined Rate in respect of developed areas
For calculating the cost of flats, the Pre- Determined Rates notified by DDA are applied to
different categories of flats located in different localities. In respect of developed colonies
where only few isolated plots have been left and are required to be allotted or to be used for
construction of DDA housing flats, the predetermined rates in such developed areas were
determined in terms of Authority's resolution numbers 60/1995 and 32/96 read with resolution
No. 41/2003. The Authority's resolution 41/2003 states that initially the cost of money
considered in Cost Benefit Analysis was @ 17 per cent based on Prime Lending Rate, which
was subsequently revised to 10 per cent considering the decline in interest rates.
Audit observed that these resolutions were followed till the financial year 2010-11. Thereafter,
the said resolutions were not followed and the PDRs for developed areas for subsequent years
were updated by 10 per cent over the PDRs of the relevant preceding years. The reasons for
discontinuing the application of the methodology prescribed in Authority's resolutions was not
found in records. Further, since the Prime Lending Rate is a dynamic rate, and it has been
revised many a times since the inception of Cost Benefit Analysis for PDR; the same was not
being dynamically reflected in the BER as it was revised only once vide resolution No.
41/2003. Thus, since 2010-11, the DDA has been consistently increasing the PDR by 10
percent annually without taking into consideration any financial yardstick. In the absence of
the same, it cannot be ascertained whether increase by 10 per cent correctly reflects the market
scenario in the developed areas.
5.1.3 Discrepancies in Fixation of Pre- Determined Rates
Narela
The following discrepancies were noticed with regard to Narela project area:
48
543
5.1.3.1 Inconsistency in expenditure data in respect of Cost Benefit Analysis
For the cost benefit analysis, the engineering wing furnishes expenditure incurred on various
services in the development of land.
Audit observed that in the Cost Benefit Analysis for the year 2015-16 in respect of Narela
Project, expenditure incurred on various services in the development of land was shown as
597.48 crore by Northern division-IV of DDA on 22/12/2014. However, on 27/12/2014 the
same division furnished the expenditure figure as ₹ 619.59 crore. The division had shown
variation in the anticipated figures for the years from 2014-15 to 2016-17. Further in the Cost
Benefit Analysis for the year 2015-16 the expenditure figure was shown as ₹19.42 crore and
₹151.94 crore for the year 2012-13 and 2013- 14 respectively. However, in the Cost Benefit
Analysis for the year 2016-17 the figures for these years were shown as ₹ 20.71 crore and ₹
194.37 crore respectively. Thus, there was variation in the figures of expenditure also. In view
of above the audit could not vouchsafe for the consistency in the data used for Cost Benefit
Analysis.
5.1.3.2 Non consideration of Total Area
As per the procedure followed by DDA, the area of a project is considered for doing cost benefit
analysis and arriving at the break-even rate.
Audit observed that total awarded area in Narela since 1986-87 was 2370 hectares out of which
2269.35 hectares was physically taken over by the DDA. The payment made by DDA for this
land was ₹ 1162.52 crore. However, the land costing wing was doing calculation of PDR after
considering an area of 1328 hectares (approx.) only. The reasons for taking lesser area and the
procedure adopted for apportionment of expenditure incurred, details of the areas left out he
reasons for taking lesser area, procedure adopted for apportionment of expenditure incurred,
details of the areas left out were not found in records.
In the absence of the any specific reasons/records, it could not be ascertained whether the PDR
for Narela was properly calculated after considering all the aforesaid related issues.
5.1.3.3 Variance in area
Prior to 2017, the total area of Narela project was being considered as 482 hectares.
Subsequently the project area was taken as 1328.89 hectares as per the Architectural wing.
However, the area of the Narela project as intimated by the engineering wing was 1328.23
hectares. Thus, there was difference of 0.68 hectares in the area. It was also observed that the
development works being undertaken in the project area, which were earlier shown under
various heads viz sewerage, fencing water services, horticulture, electric works etc were later
on depicted on lumpsum basis from 2017 onwards. The expenditure on such heads was not
shown by engineering zone. Hence, it could not be ascertained as to how the expenditure on
these heads was watched.
49
544

5.1.3.4 Exclusion of certain areas
It was observed from the records that the area of 2063.08 hectares was not taken into
consideration, though it comprised of area allocated for IFC, Jail, NIT and Sectors G3 & G4,
where group housing projects had been approved. Further, it could not be ascertained from the
records whether any development expenditure was incurred by DDA in this area or the same
had been left unattended and undeveloped. In the absence of such information in the records,
it could not be ascertained whether, proper costing exercise was done after weighing all
parameters and duly segregating the expenditure incurred in the area as a whole.
5.1.3.5 Lapse of acquired land
From the records it was observed that for certain parcels of land it was mentioned that the
acquired land had lapsed under the Land Acquisition Act though payment had been released
by DDA. The current status of such cases was not found in the records and it could not be
ascertained whether the money had been returned back to DDA or the physical possession of
the land had been finally handed over to DDA. In the absence of which the veracity of the land
stock being shown in the costing records could be vouched.
5.1.3.6 Non uniformity in expenditure apportionment
The Land Management wing of the DDA had informed about the total land acquired in Narela
as 2370 hectares for which the compensation of ₹ 1190 crore and enhanced compensation of ₹
92 crore was paid. While doing apportionment of expenditure incurred on acquisition of land,
the land costing wing did not take the complete figures and instead took the figures after
curtailing the amounts given under land acquired and compensation paid. It was also seen that
the amount of enhanced compensation was taken fully without any curtailment. Further, an
amount of ₹ 4.00 crore paid as court attachment was not considered at all, though it was being
shown under enhanced compensation.
5.1.3.7 Cascading effect of incorrect rates
As the figures used for the calculation of PDR for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17
were based upon the incomplete/incorrect data about the total land acquired, development
expenditure incurred, cost of acquisition and enhanced compensation, the resultant PDR were
also incorrect. As these incorrect PDRs were in turn used to determine the PDR of the
subsequent years, the future PDRs were also bound to be incorrect/ deficient to that extent. For
example the PDR for the year 2015-16 for EWS category was taken as ₹ 6122. This rate was
used to determine the revenue realised in the year 2017-18, on account of cost of land utilised
in housing scheme, which was calculated as ₹ 94.08 crore. This figure of revenue realised
50
545
(which was incorrect because the underlying incorrect rate of ₹ 6122) was used in determining
the PDR 2017-18.
5.1.3.8 Discrepancy in revenue receipt from sale of land
It was seen from the record that ₹ 8.95 crore and ₹ 2.81 crore were booked as revenue receipts
on account of sale of residential and commercial land respectively in the calculation of PDR
for the year 2021-22. However, the corresponding deduction of land from land stock pertaining
to these receipts were not found in the records as a result of which it could not be ascertained
whether the same had been accounted for. Likewise, it was noticed that in certain cases the
land stock had been deducted on account of sale of land, however the corresponding revenue
was not booked as receipt on the grounds that the revenue was not realised.
Thus, it was noticed that the system of booking revenue from sale of land was not proper as
complete transactions were not being reflected in the accounts. In such a scenario the cost
benefit analysis done for the calculation of the land rate was not reflective of correct picture.
5.1.3.9 Inconsistent treatment of revenue realized.
It was, further, noticed that for the calculation of PDR for the year 2021-22, only 1/3 of the
revenue realised and the land sold was booked in the accounts so far as the sale of flats was
concerned. However, for the calculation of PDR for the year 2017- 18, the receipts were taken
as full, instead of considering 1/3rd portion. The reasons for such non-uniformity were not
found in the records. The receipt of ₹ 94.08 crore was shown as revenue realised by HAC
branch but the proportionate sale of land corresponding to this receipt could not be ascertained
from the records.
Rohini phase IV and V
The following discrepancies were noticed with regard to Rohini phase IV and V project area:
5.1.3.10 Discrepancy in total area
As per the procedure followed by DDA, the area of a project is considered for doing cost benefit
analysis and arriving at the break-even rate.
Audit observed that for the fixation of Pre- Determined Rate for 2015-16 for the Rohini Phase
IV and V (Covering 12 sectors from 26 to 37), information regarding and receipts was sought
by the land costing wing from various wings. In response to this, the information furnished by
CE Rohini office on 25/02/2016 depicted that area taken up for the development as 1864.22
hectare. As per planning wing, the area of all the 12 sectors was shown as 2235.77 hectares.
Further, while calculating the PDR for the area it was noticed that neither the area of planning
wing nor the engineering wing was taken, instead the Land costing wing took the area as
2268.19 hectare. Thus, 32.42 hectares (2268.19-2235.77) was taken in excess vis a vis the area
51
546
indicate by planning wing. However, when compared with the engineering wing, which was
actually taking up the development works in the area, the excess area amounted to 403.97
hectares (2268.19-1864.22). No reply to the specific issues raised was furnished to audit.
5.1.3.11 Discrepancy in revenue receipt from sale of land
For the calculation of PDR of Rohini phase IV and V for the year 2020-21; an amount of 0.23
Ha, 1.39 Ha and 0.68 Ha was shown as land sold during 2018-19 under the Janta, LIG and
MIG category. However, the underlying records such land sale were not found in the records.
The revenue earned from this sale of land was also not depicted. On the contrary, in respect of
the revenue of ₹ 1.19 crore, ₹ 16.74 crore and ₹ 0.25 crore which was shown on account of sale
of residential, institutional, and commercial land respectively; the corresponding entries of the
land sold in these transactions was not shown in the records. For the year 2021-22, in case of
sale of commercial land, though revenue amounting to ₹ 32.89 crore was realised and
accounted for, the corresponding land was not deducted from the land stock.
Thus, it was seen that for the cases where revenue was realised the corresponding land stock
was not deducted. While in cases where land stock was deducted the revenue was not depicted.
5.1.3.12 Inclusion of areas not covered in the project.
For the calculation of PDR of Rohini phase IV and V for the year 2021-22, it was observed
that an amount of ₹ 6.69 crore revenue realised from sale of a land parcel in sector 41, Rohini
was accounted for, though the land did not fall in the area of Rohini phase IV and V. Likewise
in the PDR for Year 2017-18, land sold in sector 22 for ₹ 0.46 crore was accounted for though
the land did not fall in the area of Rohini phase IV and V.
5.1.4 Effect of change of land use in the Break Even Rate analysis
For conducting cost benefit analysis, the land costing wing seeks information from the planning
wing about the instances of change in land use that occurred in the project area. This
information determines the actual availability of the land stock in a particular category and also
impacts the PDR.
Audit observed that the land use of 22.46 hectares of land in Rohini was changed from
Industrial to Utility category on 25/04/2016. However, this change of land use was not taken
into account by the land costing wing while calculating the Break-Even Rate.
5.1.5 Costing of Land for flats under HIG and SFS category
As per the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 the persons who are eligible
for allotment of land at PDR include those whose lands have been acquired, socially
disadvantaged groups, low- and middle-income categories.
52
547
Audit noticed though the aforesaid rules, do not provide for allotment of Nazul Lands at Pre-
determined rates to the HIG and SFS category, allotment was being done for these categories
at the PDR. Further, the methodology/procedures of determination of selling price of land
under HIG and SFS category was also not found in records.
5.1.6 Accounting of land of flats sold under Housing Scheme
The quantity of land available to be sold is shown under different categories viz EWS, LIG,
MIG, HIG etc. The land sold in a particular year is deducted from the land stock while
calculating the Break-Even Analysis.
Audit observed that in the DDA Housing Scheme 2014, the EWS flats constructed by DDA
were actually sold under LIG category. However, the deduction/transactions carried out in the
land stock of EWS and LIG category was not done hence the transactions in land stock were
not correctly reflected in the PDR analysis.
5.1.7 Application of various multipliers
The total land available for sale with DDA in a project area is classified into various categories
viz residential, commercial, Institutional etc. the categories are assigned multipliers to
determine the weighted area.
Audit observed that various multipliers were being used for different categories of land
(Commercial, Residential, Institutional, etc) to derive the weighted area. For commercial land,
multiplier of 4 was used. Similarly, for EWS, LIG, MIG and HIG flats, the multipliers of 0.5,
0.75, 1.25 and 1.50 were used respectively for which no basis was found in the records
produced. Thus, DDA was applying multiplier factor arbitrarily.
5.2 Plinth Area Rates
As per the Standard Costing resolution (Resolution No.7/2002) of DDA, the construction cost
of the flats is calculated on the basis of the Plinth Area Rates, which in turn is based upon the
weighted average of the actual cost of construction for the current year and total plinth area of
the flats. In this resolution, the DDA decided that the costing of the flats constructed by it would
be to be switched over from Actual Cost to Standard Cost. As per this Resolution, the Plinth
Area Rate of construction was to be calculated and announced twice in a year and would apply
as on 1 April and 1 October each year. The PAR of 1 April will be based on actual costing data
received up to 28/29th February and PAR of 1 October will be based on costing data received
up to 31" August preceding 1st April and 1st October respectively. Thereafter, from 01 April
2018 onwards the PAR was announced only once a year.
During examination of records the following deficiencies were noticed with regard to the Plinth
Area Rates:
53
548
5.2.1 Non-inclusion of weighted average in PAR
Though the DDA had adopted Standard Costing vide resolution No. 07/2002 of the Authority;
but the clear standard operating procedures along with specific illustrative templates were not
devised at the inception of the standard costing.
Further the term weighted average was used but no specific parameter along with the weights
assigned there-to was mentioned in the records. Instead, it was noticed that DDA was using
simple average method for calculation. As per the prescribed methodology the PAR spreads
the cost of construction across the DDA in order to bring uniformity and standardization.
However, it was noticed that the department was many a times relying on the determination of
PAR on actual expenditure on individual projects. Sometimes the department was utilizing
CPWD building cost index for the determination of PAR. However, the audit could not
ascertain the rule or orders vide which the above-mentioned resolution was modified to use
CPWD building cost index.
The Housing Accounts Central branch of DDA stated (November 2022) that weights were
assigned on the basis of plinth area. However, in the absence of any illustrative example it
could not be ascertained how weighted average was being calculated.
5.2.2 Overheads charged in the costing of Flats.
DDA applies overheads to the tune of around 40 per cent in terms of various overheads viz.
administrative, contingency, surcharges, cost of money etc. over and above the key expenditure
(i.e. land cost and construction cost) in deriving the disposal cost of a flat as shown below in
the table.
Component of cost Type of overhead Percentage applied
Pre-determined Rate(PDR) Departmental Charges 11.25
of the Land Admin Charges 7.00
Physical and price contingencies 5.00
Service Charges 7.50
Anticipated cost of money 10.00
Cost of construction (Plinth Contingencies (maintenance charges @1%; 3.50
Area Rate/PAR) (Abstract of Deficiency charges @2%; Rectification of defects @
costing detail) 0.5%) of cost of building works and misc. items
Final Costing/Disposal Cost Departmental Charges on construction cost 15.00
of flat Interest during construction period (for 18 months) 10.00
(on construction cost)
Surcharges (for prime location) 20.00
As is evident from the table there is compartmentalisation of overheads into several categories.
However, the reason behind compartmentalisation of overheads into different categories and
the rates assigned to them were not found in records.
It is pertinent to mention that the CPWD manual provided for application of departmental
charges @7 per cent for construction works costing more than ₹ 5 Crores which is lesser than
the rates applied by DDA. Besides, one of the reasons behind poor sale of flats in Housing
schemes 2014 and 2017 was high disposal cost of flats.
54
549

5.2.3 Depreciation on the construction cost of flats/dwelling units.
The DDA gives the benefit of the depreciation @1.25 percent per annum on the current cost of
flats from the year of construction subject to maximum of 25 percent. The date of completion
of flats is computed from the date of validity of first time costing against the respective flats is
done.
Audit observed during the approval of PAR for the construction cost of flats for the period
2022-23, it was decided that for the flats offered for the first time in HS 2019 & 2021 no benefit
of depreciation would be given.
Further, capping depreciation to maximum of 25 per cent results in the anomaly under which
the DDA is giving equal treatment to all the constructions which are older than 20 Years
without making any distinction between a flat which is 21 Years old or 30 Years old as far as
costing is concerned. This is also in contrast to the provisions of economic life of a structure
as mentioned in Para 2.5.1(e) of CPWD works manual 2014 as well as in SOP No 3/5 to Para
3.1.1.6 (3) of CPWD works manual 2019 which says economic life of RCC framed structures
shall be taken as 75 Year. Para 2.5.1(e) of CPWD works manual 2014 further states that,
economic life of various internal services/fixtures including electric wiring, water supply
distribution system may vary from 15 to 25 years depending upon the geographical location,
type of the services and its uses. From the records it was observed that though economic life
of flat was assumed as 75 years with residual value of 6%; the depreciation was being capped
at 25 percent.
5.2.4 Irregular levying of Grid Charges amounting to ₹ 83 Crore
In the meeting convened by Vice-Chairman on 17/06/2014 it was decided that ₹ 459/- per sqm
of built-up area shall be recovered from the allottees towards part of infrastructure development
component i.e. establishment of Grid Sub-station (66/33 KV) in the DDA colonies.
Audit observed that expenditure on Electrical works was included in statement of expenditure
incurred on development of land. Further, one electrical division had shown the proportionate
expenditure on substation in the details of expenditure prepared for the purpose of costing. It
was also noticed that the cost of 66 KVA and 11 KV Grid Substation amounting to ₹ 28.42
crore was taken into consideration for the calculation of PAR of Siraspur, Narela, Ph-III in
November 2015. Thus, the expenditure on grid substations was already accounted for by DDA.
However, no records of the year wise and area-wise details of expenditure booked for
installation of Grid Sub-Stations (66 /33 KV) during the period from 2010-11 to 2021-22 in
Delhi in a consolidated manner were provided to audit. The head of account in which such
expenditure was booked by DDA prior to and consequent upon the issuance of the circular was
also not intimated. The details of expenditure incurred on ‘Electrical Works’ and ‘Internal &
External electrification’ were also not provided to audit. In the absence of such records, it
could not be ascertained if the expenditure on installation of Grid substation was never charged
or it was being charged to any other head.
55
550
Thus, it is evident from the above facts that by levying Grid Charges of ₹ 459 /- per sqm
separately, the allottees were being over charged. Moreover, this also inflated cost of flats that
were put up for sale after the issuance of this circular. Amongst these flats a total of 44026 flats
were newly constructed and for which the cost was inflated by an amount of ₹ 83 crore.
Out of these flats it was observed that, 14340 flats have been sold since Housing Scheme 2014
for which amount ₹ 26.31 crore were charged in excess from allottees.
5.2.5 Excess demand of ₹ 1.45 crore on account of inaccurate calculation
During the calculation of Grid Charges @ ₹ 459 per Sq. mtr, certain parameters and
assumptions were considered. The cost of 66 KV Grid Substation was shown ranging from ₹
25 crores to 50 crores and subsequently average expenditure was taken as ₹ 34 crores per 66
KV Grid substation. Likewise, connected load as per DVB/ Discom norm had been taken as
12 KW per 100 sqm and the Maximum demand has been assumed as 40% of connected load.
However, the basic documents depicting the expenditure incurred on grid stations for deriving
the range of cost and methodology for calculating average cost, DVB/Discom norm for
connected load, and assumption of maximum demand as 40% of connected load were not found
in the records.
The calculation was done by considering the cost of 66 KV grid sub-station only, while the
circular mentions for the loading of cost of 33 KV grid substation also. The reasons for not
taking into consideration the average cost and other related parameters for the 33 KV grid
substation was not available in the records. Thus, in the absence of such records audit could
not ascertain the accuracy of calculation of grid charges.
Further in the calculations, the kW to kVA conversion formula used was kW = kVA × PF. As
per DDA, power factor was 0.9 and maximum demand was 4.8 KW per 100 sq. mtr. Thus, if
we divide kW i.e. 0.048 by power factor 0.9, it works out to 0.0533... or 0.053 KVA when
rounded up to 3 decimal places. While DDA had taken maximum demand 0.054 KVA per sq.
mtr. in place of 0.053 KVA. This had resulted into increase of 8 ₹ per sq. mtr. during calculation
of Grid Charges.
As a result of this difference DDA had charged 1.45 crore in excess for costing of 44026 newly
constructed flats since Housing Scheme 2014. Out of these flats, 14340 flats had been sold
since launch of Housing Scheme 2014 for which an amount of ₹ 45.86 lakh was charged in
excess from allottees.
5.2.6 Irregular levy of Arbitration/court case charges and Unforeseen Expenditure
charges
The para no.3 of the agenda of authority meeting 07/2002 states that after the completion of
the scheme, variation in actual cost with standard cost will be worked out and duly accounted
for in the next exercise.
56
551
Audit noticed that DDA had levied Arbitration/ Court Case / Legal proceeding Charges and
Unforeseen expenditure charges while calculating the total cost of the flats. However,
supporting documents about the procedure of assessing such charges was found in the records.
Further, it was also observed that no comparison of the actual cost with the standard cost was
conducted to assess the variation. In the absence of such records/information, audit could not
ascertain whether the project cost was reassessed after completion of project to assess the actual
cost and ultimately the actual PAR for the project. The cases where the legal proceedings were
not initiated, or the unforeseen expenditure was not incurred would fetch savings in the actual
project cost and thereby decrease the PAR of the project. This decreased PAR would decrease
the PAR calculated by the HAC wing for applying to the cost of each flat. Thus, by not getting
the exact cost of the project, the PAR derived to calculate the cost of flats was not true reflection
of the correct picture.
Further from the available records it was evident that DDA had no fixed criteria for levying
Arbitration/ Court Case/Legal proceeding Charges and Unforeseen expenditure charges as
these charges were levied in the range of Nil to 5 per cent while in some cases it was taken as
Lumpsum basis. It was noticed that Project costs were inflated by ₹ 72.78 Crore (25.16 Crore
Arbitration Charges + 47.61 Crore Unforeseen expenditure) by DDA on account of levying
these charges. Thus, DDA had overcharged allottees by ₹ 72.78 Crore.
5.2.7 Inflated ore due to non-adoption of actual cost of construction
Audit observed that in certain cases, Plinth Area Rate was calculated on the RPE/tentative cost
of construction in place of actual cost of construction for housing projects. It was also noticed
that in following cases, the actual cost of completion of the work was found to be less than
what had been anticipated.
Difference in PAR
Sr. Name of No. of Total cost of Total actual PAR PAR Difference Total extra
No. the flats construction cost of calculated calculated b/w cost of charged on
project (RPE/tentative completion by DDA on actual one unit the allottees
cost) on which cost
PAR calculated
(₹ in Crore) (Amount in ₹)
1 Sector 352 173.94 151.54 38223 33302 933937 328745701
19B,
Dwarka
2 Sector 348 186.66 160.43 41823 35944 1131372 393717384
16B,
Dwarka
3 Vasant 1214 444.94 393.62 37600/ 33288/321 Ranging 728985355
Kunj @ 36500 64 from 364213
Mehrauli to 928337
4 Manglapur 276 63.24 40.70 43768 28173 814633 224838808
i, Dwarka
Total 1676287248
As is evident from above table, calculating PAR on tentative cost of construction and
considering it as final, had increased the PAR and cost of the flats under these projects. Thus,
57
552
total cost of flats under these projects had been increased by 167.63 crore. If the PAR had been
calculated on actual cost incurred in the completion of these projects then it would have led to
reduction in the disposal cost of flats. Thus, it is evident from the above that due to inflated
costing of flats the allottees had been overcharged.
5.2.8 Overstated cost of flats at Vasant Kunj by ₹ 21.21 lakh due to incorrect rounding
off PAR
It was observed that while calculating PAR, DDA did not follow uniformity in doing rounding
off; as in some cases the rounding off was done to nearest rupee while in case of housing project
at Vasant Kunj at Mehrauli -Mahipalpur Road, New Delhi, DDA had rounded off calculated
PAR to next 100th rupee. As a result of which the cost of 1214 flats were overstated by ₹ 21.21
lakh.
5.2.9 Costing of old inventory of MIG flats done as HIG flats
For calculating the disposal cost of flats, the PDR off appropriate category is applied to the
flats.
Audit observed that there was total 16 MIG flats located in pockets 6 & 7 Sector 23 Rohini
placed for disposal (these are MIG flats under SFS scheme) under Special Housing Scheme
2021 out of which 7 flats were sold. The costing of these flats was initially done as that of MIG
flats; however, subsequently revised costing was done considering these flats as HIG/SFS and
revised demand letter was issued to the allottees as a result of which the extra amount of ₹
5203406.4/- was demanded from them for the same MIG flat. It is pertinent to mention that
once the flat is unsold in any SFS scheme it is same as any other LIG/MIG/HIG flat as the only
significant distinction between Self Financing Scheme and cash down scheme is payment
mode/plan.
The Housing Accounts Central branch of DDA stated (November 2022) that if as per the details
available in the relevant costing files, the flats are initially categorised as SFS flats then the
rates of PAR & PDR applicable for SFS/HIG category would be applied.
The reply is not acceptable as the flats were put up for sale in the housing scheme under the
category of MIG flats. Moreover, these flats were of the old inventory and would not have been
available for sale in the instant housing scheme, had these been constructed purely as SFS flats.
5.2.10 Pending Refund Cases in respect of unsuccessful applicants and surrendered flats
The DDA launches housing schemes for sale of flats. The amount deposited by the applicants
is refunded in case of unsuccessful applicants or cancellation of allotment. Audit observed that
there were pending cases of refunds. The department had stated reasons like non furnishing
of- correct bank account, NRE account, current account etc. for pending refunds. However, the
year wise efforts made by the department to sort out these issues so that refund could be
effected were not furnished. The issue gains importance considering the fact that some refunds
pertain to a period as old as 8 years back. Further, as regards the refund for allottees of
58
553
surrendered flats, the total amount due as refund was not intimated. Further, in respect of
housing schemes 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2021, the total no of cases, the amount due for refund,
the amount actually refunded and the reasons there-of were not intimated, in the absence of
which audit could not ascertain the current status of refund cases and reasons thereof.
59
554
Chapter-06
Allotment of Houses
6.1. Introduction
DDA has been constructing houses in Delhi for different strata of society. The disposal of such
flats is regulated by DDA Housing (Management & Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations,
1968. Whenever newly constructed flats are ready, engineering wing handover the flats to
Housing department for allotment. The Housing Department launches scheme for disposal of
flats to public. DDA launched the following ten housing schemes between 2017 to 2021 (period
of scope of audit) for disposal of different category of houses/flats at various localities as
detailed in table 6.1:
Table 6.1: Housing scheme launched between 2017 to 2021
Sl. Housing Scheme/ Year Date of launch of
No. Scheme
1. Housing Scheme – 2017 30/06/2017
2. Housing Scheme – online running housing scheme 2019 – old inventory flats on 18/01/2019
first come first serve basis
3. Housing Scheme-2019 (main) 25/03/2019
4. Online running Housing Scheme on first come first serve basis for Gallantry 02/08/2019
Awards of Defence and Paramilitary forces, war widows and the persons who
have got injured/disabled during Action/War
5. Housing Scheme for EWS (Economically Weaker Section) categories – 2019 30/08/2019
6. Housing Scheme for SC/ST categories – 2019 05/09/2019
7. Online running scheme for disposal at Narela “As-Pair” (Amalgamation) 06/12/2019
8. Online scheme on first come first serve basis of EWS flats 2020 07/08/2020
9. Housing Scheme – 2021 02/01/2021
10. Special Housing Scheme 2021 23/12/2021
6.2. Absence of periodicity or basis of launching a Housing Scheme
DDA did not had any laid down criteria for launch of housing schemes. Hence, DDA kept
incurring expenditure towards launching of new schemes without any analysis of demand,
available inventory and real estate market, as there was no set of rules in place for launch of
housing schemes.
Out of ten housing schemes launched by DDA between 2017-2021, six schemes were launched
in the year 2019, and two schemes were launched in 2021. Even after launching eight schemes
in just two years, DDA was unable to sell the majority of flats that it offered in these schemes.
Further, DDA incurred expenditure in excess of ₹ 15.37 crore for these ten schemes for various
purposes like advertisements, re-advertisement, advertisement for extension, draw etc.
In Housing Scheme 2014, DDA offered 25034 flats, out of which 12837 flats were
surrendered/cancelled. These surrendered /cancelled flats along with some other old inventory
of DDA were again put up for sale in housing scheme 2017. The 2017 scheme again received
60
555
a tepid response wherein around 9502 flats out of 12072 flats were surrendered/ cancelled. This
trend continued in future housing schemes as well, and even the public demand diminished for
these housing schemes, as detailed in table 6.2 below:
Table 6.2: Flats offered for sale, number of applicant and flats surrendered/ cancelled
Housing No. of flats offered No. of applicants Total no. of flats
Scheme (Year) surrendered/cancelled
2014 25034 1008985 12837
2017 12072 46674 9502
2019 1792227 (10294) 45045 6477
2019 SC/ST 269 2333 151
2021 1354 22752 858
2021 (Special) 1833528(9790) 12387 Data not provided
(Source: Data provided by DDA)
It is evident that though the housing schemes were aggressively launched, it neither helped
DDA to sell its inventory nor did it invoke cordial public response. For instance, while 2014
housing scheme attracted over ten lakh applicants for around 25000 flats, the housing scheme
2017 was able to get 46000 applications for around 12000 flats. Similarly, in the latest Special
Housing Scheme 2021, for around 18000 flats offered, only 12387 applications were received
which means lesser number of applicants than the total number of flats on offer.
There was also no formal system to take feedback and lessons from performance of each
housing scheme and make improvements in the next. A clear policy framework for launch of
housing scheme would help DDA in achieving its targets more effectively.
6.3. Shortcomings in Housing Schemes
6.3.1. Housing Scheme 2017
In this scheme, surrendered/cancelled flats of housing scheme 2014 were offered. Total 46674
applications were received for 12072 flats on offer. Draw for this scheme was held on
30/11/2017, and 9502 flats were surrendered/cancelled by the allottees.
6.3.1.1 Old inventory put up for sale without addressing the issues raised by public
In 2014 housing scheme, flats constructed as EWS were being sold as LIG (Low Income
Group) flats. The decision to sell EWS flats as LIG flats was taken, citing superior
specifications of these flats. Selling EWS flats as LIG flats led to increase in the cost of flats
which further led to diminished public interest, as was evident from the 2014 housing scheme,
where more than 12072 such flats were surrendered/cancelled due to size issues. DDA without
revisiting its earlier decision again floated these flat as LIG and this invariably led to poor
response as majority of these flats were again surrendered/cancelled in huge numbers.
As the flats in 2017 were a part of old inventory of DDA, the flats were presented at higher
27
Draw held for 10294 flats.
28
Draw held for 9790 flats.
61
556
cost than their cost in 2014 when these flats formed a part of new inventory. An instance of
this case is A-9, Narela MIG flats which were newly built in 2014 had a tentative cost of ₹
67.38 lakh in 2014, while the same flats in 2017 were listed at a tentative cost of ₹ 70.63 lakh.
Similarly, for flats which formed a part of old inventory in 2014 housing scheme at
Jahangirpuri, the maximum listed tentative cost was ₹ 71.42 lakh while the same flats were
listed at a maximum tentative cost of ₹ 78.11 lakh. Thus, demanding premium by DDA for
older flats led to these flats remaining unsold.
It was seen that DDA had observed that small size, inadequate infrastructure facilities, less
popular locations of flats and non-inspection of flats by the applicant before applying were the
main reasons for non-acceptance of flats in 2014 housing scheme. Though these reasons were
known to DDA, prior to the launch of Housing Scheme 2017, no records were made available
where it could be ascertained that these shortcomings were addressed by DDA before launch
of scheme of 2017.
Thus, the absence of appropriate remedial steps by DDA led to majority of the flats being
surrendered/cancelled.
6.3.1.2 Infructuous expenditure on printing of brochures
The Housing Scheme 2017 was launched both online as well as offline mode. For offline mode,
printing of brochures was mandatory. In December 2016, DDA constituted a committee under
the chairmanship of the Pr. Commissioner (LD/H) for printing brochures for the housing
scheme 2017. In a meeting held in the chambers of VC, DDA in January 2017, it was pointed
out by PC (LD/H) that due to stringent condition of forfeiture of earnest money, it is likely that
the demand for brochure will be less in number.
Despite this, the work of printing and supply of brochures was awarded in (March 2017) to
M/s Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. at a cost of ₹ 17.37 per brochure inclusive of all taxes. Thereafter,
owing to the addition of information about the PMAY scheme the number of pages got
increased and the printer was paid additional ₹ 3.30 per brochure. Thus, the cost of printing
one brochure went up to ₹ 20.67, which was approved by the VC, DDA in August 2017.
Audit noticed that there were 46,674 applications in Housing Scheme 2017, which included
applications from both online and offline modes. In addition to the fact that demand might be
lesser being pointed, due to stringent condition of forfeiture of earnest money in case of
surrender of flats.
Thus, the printing of five lakh brochures, when there were only 46,674 applications and that
too including the online ones rendered an expenditure of ₹ 93.70 lakh for 453,326 brochures
as infructuous.
6.3.2. ONHS 2019 – Old Inventory Flats on First Come First Serve Basis
Online Running Housing Scheme (ONHS) 2019 scheme was introduced on 18/01/2019 to sell
unsold one bedroom inventory from Housing Schemes 2014 and 2017. Around 1500 flats were
62
557
offered initially in this scheme.

In the advertisement of ONHS 2019, it was mentioned that “owning this flat will not debar
anyone from applying for DDA flat in future housing schemes including ongoing housing
scheme 2019 where allotment is through draw of lots”. This is in contravention of Housing
Regulations 1968, where it is stated that a dwelling unit or flat in the Housing Estates of the
Authority shall be allotted only to such persons who or his wife/husband or any of his/her
dependent relations including unmarried children do not own in full or in part on free hold or
lease hold basis a residential plot or house in the urban area of Delhi, New Delhi and Delhi
Cantonment. In the absence of records pertaining to this scheme, it could not be ascertained as
to how such a provision was advertised for this scheme and which authority approved such
publication.
Most of the provisions of this scheme were based on housing scheme 2017. However, there
was a change in the amount of application money required for LIG and EWS category of flats.
In 2014 and 2017 housing schemes, application money for LIG and Janta/EWS flats was one
lakh rupees, but the same was reduced at ₹ 15000 and ₹ 10000 respectively for ONHS 2019.
Surrender/cancellation of flats is charged upon application money amount. For instance, this
provision affected the possession requirement of the allottee as per both the housing schemes
if an allottee didn’t take possession even after a lapse of 24 months, his/her flat was liable to
be cancelled and the amount deposited by him/her was to be refunded by the DDA without any
interest with the forfeiture of application money.
Since ONHS 2019 had comparatively a meagre application money amount compared to the
housing scheme of 2017, the speculative buying in this scheme cannot be ruled out. This led to
more than 1900 flats being surrendered in this scheme, even when the scheme was based on
first come first serve basis. Setting up a lesser amount of application money for the same flats
compared to the schemes launched in 2014 and 2017 not only caused increased speculative
buying but it also led to blockade of DDA inventory leading to this scheme being unable to
achieve its objectives.
6.3.3. Housing Scheme 2019 (Main)
DDA launched Housing Scheme-2019 in March 2019 for disposal of 17922 flats of various
categories situated at two locations viz., - Vasant Kunj and Narela.
Initially, when the proposal to launch the scheme was put up on 25/02/2019 before the authority
meeting vide item no. 23/2019, 10370 newly constructed flats of different categories were
proposed for putting up on sale. However, when the scheme was launched on 25/03/2019,
17922 flats were depicted for sale in brochure. During the launch of earlier housing scheme of
2017, Hon’ble LG had issued instructions to DDA that any modifications in scheme needs to
be bought to his notice and then to the authority meeting. In the absence of records, audit could
not ascertain if the approval from competent authority was sought for addition of more than
7500 flats in the scheme. It could also not be ascertained as to why these additional flats were
not included in the original agenda for the launch of this scheme.
63
558
While the scheme was advertised for 17922 flats, draw was held for only 10294 flats, as 7628
flats of LIG (2748 flats) and EWS category (4880 flats) from Narela location were not included
at the time of draw. Hence it could not be ascertained as to why 7628 flats were not included
at the time of draw and whether any public notice was issued informing them of the withdrawal
of 7628 flats.
A total of 45045 applicants applied for allotment of flats through this scheme. Out of 10294
flats included in the draw, only 8468 flats were allotted by DDA. As per the records made
available to audit, out of the allotted flats, 6477 flats were surrendered/cancelled and only 1991
flats were in process of allocation at the time.
It was observed that various works in respect of the housing project at Vasant Kunj were not
completed and Fire NOC could be obtained only in November 2020, although the allotment
had been made by DDA in July 2019. The reasons for the delay in completion of Vasant Kunj
project and including it in 2019 before its completion was not available on the records
produced.
Thus, the delay in completion of flats led to delay in physical possession by the allottees, which
led to litigation against DDA besides hardship to allottees. Also, the delay in the sale of flats
led to blocking of funds by DDA.
6.3.4. Housing Scheme – 2021
This scheme was launched on 02/01/2021 for disposal of newly built-up flats. However certain
flats were marked as part of old inventory in the brochure. A total of 1354 flats were offered
for sale vide this scheme. As per the records available, the scheme attracted 22752 applicants,
however only 537 flats are currently either allocated or in process of allocation.
17 flats of Vasant Kunj of HIG (High Income Group) and MIG (Middle Income Group)
category were marked as a part of new inventory though they were part of old inventory as
these were the surrendered/cancelled flats from housing scheme of 2019. Further, the cost of
these flats was kept the same as in 2019 scheme, so it couldn’t be ascertained if the benefit of
depreciation on construction cost was passed on to the allottees.
Thus, DDA misrepresented the facts in its brochure and further in the absence of records it
could not be ascertained if DDA sold these flats after calculating depreciation on these old
inventory flats.
6.3.5. Special Housing Scheme 2021
This scheme was launched on 23/12/2021, few months after DDA Housing Scheme 2021 and
had flats from old inventory of DDA. The scheme had 18335 flats on offer, however as per the
preliminary records (scheme was live as per DDA records), merely 5225 flats are currently
either allocated or in process of allocation.
64
559
The DDA Housing Scheme 2021 had both newly built-up flats as well as old inventory flats.
An expenditure of ₹ 1.32 crore was incurred on this scheme and ₹ 0.57 crore on Housing
Scheme 2021. Had these flats been launched in a single scheme (both schemes launched within
a year), an expenditure of ₹ 1.32 crore spent on this scheme could have been avoided. Further,
as noted in the feedback of allottees, the underlying cause of large number of
surrender/cancellations was poor infrastructure transport issues, higher cost of flats etc. DDA
in its brochure launched for this scheme made some assurances in this regard, however majority
of the flats offered in this scheme were still either surrendered or cancelled.
6.4. Bulk Sale of unsold ready built flats to CISF
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) requested DDA for bulk purchase of ready built flats
at Rohini in April 2017. Later in Feb 2018, CISF finalized 794 flats at Rohini and Siraspur and
requested DDA for allocation of the same. DDA approved the proposal for allotment of 574
LIG flats at Rohini and 220 LIG flats at Siraspur.
While selling the flats to CISF, DDA allowed 50 per cent rebate on the departmental charges
which amounted to ₹ 4.96 crore. This amounts to benefit of ₹ 62,434 per flat. In addition, DDA
offered 50 per cent refund of amount collected for maintenance which was to be adjusted in
the remaining 10 per cent of the cost of the flat, which works out to a rebate of ₹ 75,000 per
dwelling unit/flat. This benefit was also extended to every allottee of LIG flats of HS 2014 and
2017. This also included paramilitary forces and other bulk buyers. Thus, DDA offered a rebate
of approximately ₹ 1.37 lakh per dwelling unit/flat to CISF while rebate of only ₹ 75,000 per
dwelling unit was accorded to the public. It is pertinent to mention that there were 13176 LIG
allottees from the housing schemes of 2014 and 2017, however only 794 flats have been
allotted to CISF. Thus, no uniform policy was adopted for offering discount.
6.5. Sale of EWS flats as LIG flats
DDA was granted recognition as a “charitable institution” under section 12AA of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 vide Registration Certificate dated 12/01/2006 with retrospective effect from
assessment year 2003-04, being engaged in the public utility services and entitled to claim
exemption under section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961. DDA has been maintaining a separate
reserve fund for EWS housing and withdrawing money from the said fund and utilizing the
same for the construction of EWS houses at different localities in Delhi.
Audit noticed that a housing project for Construction of 18600 EWS houses at Rohini, Narela
and Dwarka was completed in May 2015. Total 20040 EWS flats (Dwarka-2360 EWS flats,
Rohini-11258 EWS flats and Narela-6422 EWS flats) were constructed under this project. Out
of 20040 flats, total 19657 EWS flats (Dwarka- 2360 EWS flats, Rohini-10875 EWS flats and
Narela-6422 EWS flats) were put up for sale under the category of LIG/One bedroom in the
Housing scheme-2014. In the absence of records, the reason behind non-inclusion of 383 EWS
flats at Rohini (11258 EWS Flats minus 10875 EWS flats) in the abovementioned scheme was
not available on the records produced to audit. Majority of these flats remained unsold as the
65
560
allottees surrendered/cancelled flats owing to various reasons viz., smaller size which do not
meet the specification prescribed for LIG category, location of the allotted flats in remote area,
availability of poor infrastructure etc.
DDA again launched Housing Scheme-2017 in which 8339 LIG/One Bedroom flats were put
up for sale at the above-mentioned localities. Again, these flats remained unsold as the allottees
surrendered/cancelled flats owing to reasons as stated above. From the year 2019 to 2021, DDA
launched nine housing schemes for disposal of these flats, but still 3748 flats are lying vacant
out of 20040 flats constructed.
Since DDA has been maintaining a separate reserve fund for EWS housing and deducting the
expenditure incurred on construction of EWS flats from it; the flats so constructed should have
been sold/put to sale under specific EWS category instead of clubbing them under the normal
housing inventory of LIG/One Bedroom category. DDA constructs EWS houses under the
obligation of Income Tax Rules for maintaining its charitable character, the sale of EWS flats
as LIG/One Bedroom flats also misrepresents the activities undertaken under charitable
character. This has not only deprived the economically weaker section of the society of the
opportunity to get flat in Delhi at a nominal rate, but also resulted in blockade of inventory due
to these flats remaining unsold.
Further, whether 383 flats at Rohini were offered in the subsequent housing schemes launched
by DDA or not, was not available in the records.
6.6. Varying income criteria adopted for determining EWS beneficiaries

DDA has been nominated State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) for implementation of Vertical
2, 3 and 4 of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna- Housing for all (Urban) in Delhi. As per the
Affordable Housing Scheme guidelines released by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty
Alleviation (now called MoHUA) in 2013, economic criteria for EWS are mentioned as annual
household income up to ₹ 1 lakh. PMAY (Urban) scheme and operational guidelines released
by the Ministry in 2017, define EWS households as those having an annual income up to ₹ 3
lakh per annum.
It was observed that for the eight housing schemes offering EWS/Janta flats, launched by DDA
from 2017-2021, varied income criteria have been adopted for allotting EWS/Janta category
flats as detailed in table 6.3 below:
Table 6.3: Income criteria adopted for allotting EWS/Janta category flats
Housing Scheme/ Year Income criteria for EWS flats
HS 2017; Online Housing Scheme No income criteria
(ONHS) 2019; SC/ST 2019
HS 2019 Should not exceed ₹ 3 lakh per annum
EWS 2019; ONHS 2020; HS 2021; Should not exceed ₹ 3 lakh per annum and household
Special Housing Scheme 2021 income should not exceed ₹ 10 lakh per annum
Thus, DDA has no fixed income criteria for allotment of EWS/Janta flats to economically
weaker sections of society.
66
561
Even while prescribing eligible income criteria, DDA has not adhered to the guidelines released
by MoHUA. Thus, by raising the income criteria or fixing no income criteria for sale of EWS
flats, DDA has put the economically weaker sections of the society at disadvantage, preventing
them from owning house in Delhi at a nominal rate.
6.7. Non-registration of housing projects under RERA
As per section 3 (1) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, no promoter shall
advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any
plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any
planning area, without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority established under this Act. It further states that the projects that are ongoing on the
date of commencement of this Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued,
the promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the said project
within a period of three months from the date of commencement of this Act.
In the information received from DDA, it is stated that total 18 projects of DDA have been
registered under RE(RD) Act as on 31/08/2022 and the appeal has also been filed in REAT
against the ordered given by RERA on 20/12/2021, which stated that there is no provision for
exemption of any entity from the provision of this Act. In the order passed by RERA, a mention
was made that MoHUA has clarified (07/05/2019) that the promoter as defined under Section
2 (zk) of RE(RD) Act 2016 covers DDA.
However, in absence of requisite information, audit is not able to determine whether DDA
ensured compliance to orders/directions issued by RERA in respect of ongoing projects of
DDA.
6.8. Delay in issuance of possession letters to successful allottees
As per clause of brochures of housing schemes, the allottees shall be entitled to take delivery
of possession only after he/she has completed all the formalities, paid all dues, and
furnished/executed all the documents as required in the demand cum allotment letter. Further,
late submission of documents shall be regularized on payment of necessary charges for delay
in submission of documents. But no extension for making the payment of cost of flats, will be
allowed under any circumstances.
During test check of possession letter issued register, it was noticed that possession letter was
issued to successful allottees after more than six years from date of draw.
Further, as per information provided by Housing Department for the Housing Scheme-2017, it
was noticed that payment for 1294 LIG houses has been received from the allottees, however
possession letter of 102 allottees has not been issued. Similarly, for the Online Housing Scheme
(ONHS)-19, payment for 242 LIG houses has been received from the allottees, however
possession letter of 35 allottees has not been issued.
67
562
In absence of requisite records, it cannot be ascertained if and when the possession letter was
issued to the successful allottees of the various housing schemes and the reasons for delay in
issue of possession letters.
6.9. Non-realization of revenue due to unsold inventory of built-up houses
It was observed that DDA has not been able to sell majority of the flats that it has offered in
the ten housing schemes which have been launched from 2017 onwards.
As per the information provided by Housing Department of DDA, 43596 flats are lying vacant
with DDA as on 2 December 2022 detailed in table 6.4 below:
Table 6.4: Various category of flats lying vacant and cost of blocked inventory
Tentative minimum
Flat category Number of flats lying vacant
disposal cost (₹ in crore)
SFS/HIG 412 336.85
MIG 1441 724.10
LIG 31958 4522.06
EWS/Janta 9383 938.30
EHS (A&B) 402 50.25
Total 43596 6571.56
Reasons for the unsold inventory of various categories of flats are given below in table 6.5:
Table 6.5: Reasons for Various category of flats lying vacant
Type of Inventory as Reason for unsold inventory

flats on 02/12/2022
1. Higher cost of flats, surrounding is not good, more affordable

option are available in nearby area.
SFS/HIG 412
2. DDA was not able to decide whether to sale SFS flats as HIG
or MIG.
1. Higher cost of flats, surrounding is not good, more affordable

option are available in nearby area.
2. The cost of MIG flats at Narela was more than the cost of MIG
flats of Vasant Kunj. While Vasant Kunj is a developed area
and even attracts a 20 per cent surcharge, Narela, on the other
hand, is a developing area and does not have adequate facility,
MIG 1441 and yet the cost of flats of similar size and specifications was
kept the same.
3. In Narela only, DDA allowed to amalgamate two adjacent LIG
flats into one flat and the cost of both flats (99.80 Sqm) area
excluding amalgamation expenses was ₹ 44.78 lakh whereas
the cost of MIG flats at Narela was ₹ 96.92 lakh to 98.55 lakh
(90.68-93.53 sqm).
68
563
1. Smaller size which did not meet the specification prescribed

for LIG category, poor specifications of the flats, location of
the allotted flats in remote area, poor infrastructure in the
locality.
2. Further, some of the flats were constructed as EWS flats,
LIG 31958 however category was changed as LIG resulting in higher sale
price as commented in Para 5.1.1.
3. Though construction of 7913 LIG flats was completed in 2017
and 11767 flats was completed in 2020, but these newly
constructed flats have not been included in any HS by DDA
since their completion in 2017 and 2020.
1. The area offered for EWS flats (18.80 sqm to 54.08 sqm)
during various housing schemes was not as per MPD-2021
(25-40 sqm) and PMAY (U) (30 sqm) which resulted in either
smaller area flats offered for sale or the price of flats was not
EWS/Janta 9383 affordable to EWS category.
2. Non provision of basic infrastructure /facilities like water
supply, location of flats in remote area and lack of metro
connectivity, storm water drain, sewerage treatment plant and
boundary wall, electric supply and street light maintenance.
DDA decided not to include these flats in future housing scheme

EHS as people had constructed multi-storeyed flats by amalgamation
402
(A&B) and demolition of the existing structure and ongoing few court
cases.
This has resulted in the capital of DDA remaining blocked in these projects and non-realization
of revenue of ₹ 6572 crore (approximately). Further, passage of time has made the flats prone
to deterioration on account of wear and tear and non-use and DDA has to incur expenditure on
watch and ward and maintenance of these flats details of which were not made available to
audit. In addition, unsold flats also defeats’ the objective of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna -
Housing for all (Urban) a Mission stated by the Prime Minister of India, with an aim of
‘Housing for all’ to be achieved by the year 2022. Also the risk of these flats being
unauthorisedly occupied cannot be ruled out as commented in succeeding paragraph.
6.10. Unauthorized occupation of DDA flats
Cases of unauthorized occupation are dealt in terms of provisions of Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. If any person is found to be occupying built-up flats
without any allotment, Engineering Wing is requested by concerned branch of Housing
Department to seal the property.
Audit observed from the records produced to audit that in Rohini Zone 506 flats were
unauthorisedly occupied. As per information provided by the Housing Department, the
unauthorized occupation of these flats was come into notice in October 2020.
69
564
DDA stated (January 2022) that the eviction notices were issued (30/11/2020) to each
unauthorized occupants, however the unauthorized occupation is yet to be removed and the
expenditure incurred to remove the unauthorized occupancy and revenue realized, as penalty,
if any, has not been worked out.
The fact remains that despite issuing of the eviction notices and a period of 30 days given to
comply to the notice, these flats continued to be unauthorizedly occupied even after a lapse of
more than two years since the issue of these notices. Inability of DDA to remove unauthorized
occupation of these flats indicates non-compliance to processes and improper monitoring at
higher levels. Further, laxity in removing unauthorised occupation may also be indicative of
collusion with DDA staff which needs to be checked by bringing strict compliance to processes
and strong monitoring at higher level.
6.11. Unsold parking garages
DDA vide authority resolution 116/2016 stated that only the original allottees or their legal
heirs/ successors (mutatees) and purchasers of SFS flats shall be allotted scooter/car garages.
After this resolution, as per the records made available to audit, 1060 car garages and 1070
scooter garages at various locations in Delhi, related to SFS flats have been put to auction by
DDA. The sale value of these garages has been estimated as ₹ 92.14 crore.
However, in the absence of requisite information/records, audit could not determine the number
of unsold parking garages, the criteria of allocation of parking garages cases of unauthorized
use of parking garages, criteria of allocation of parking spaces for houses other than SFS houses
etc.
6.12. Unauthorized commercial activities/misuse of properties
As per the overview of the housing department of DDA, one of the main functions of the
housing department is to stop unauthorized construction and misuse in the flats in the
development area of DDA. The department initiates prosecution in misuse cases of residential
flats under DD Act, 1957.
Audit noticed that there were 125 cases (Janta Flats-1 and MIG/LIG/EHS flats-124) where
unauthorized commercial activities/misuse of properties were reported. In this regard, records
relating to notices issued, cases booked, and action taken thereof, total expenditure incurred on
removal/stoppage off commercial activities, total amount realized as penalty, defaulter allottees
who failed to deposit the demand raised on account of commercial activities/misuse of
properties, were not available with DDA. In the absence of basic records, it could not be
ascertained whether, timely and adequate action was being initiated by DDA in all such cases.
70
565
CHAPTER-7
Internal Control and Monitoring

Internal controls activities are an integral process that is designed and effected by an entity’s
management. Internal controls assist the management to achieve entity’s objectives based on
the policies and procedures adopted by the management.
Internal controls constitute activities and safeguards that are put in place in an entity to ensure
that activities are proceeding as planned with due regard to adherence to management’s
policies, orderly and efficient conduct of business, safeguarding of assets, accuracy and
completeness of the records, timely preparation of reliable financial information, and
prevention and detection of fraud and error. Effective internal controls are a prerequisite for
the success and good governance of an organisation.
Audit examined the internal control and monitoring system put in place by DDA and assessed
the effectiveness and efficiency of the system towards development and allotment of dwelling
units with due regard to need, affordability, quality, timeliness and transparency.
7.1. Monitoring and Review of activities of MPD 2021
Chapter 18.0 (Plan Review and Monitoring) of MPD 2021 states that implementation of the
plan can be effective only when monitored and reviewed at appropriate periods.
7.1.1. Inconsistency in monitoring
Table 18.1 (Monitoring Framework for Development) of MPD 2021 stipulated , among others,
the frequency of monitoring under the column ‘period of monitoring’ for different activities.
The aforesaid table stipulated that the activities carried out under ‘Group Housing (35% of
total DUs mandatory not to exceed two room or less)’ should be monitored after every two
years.
Para 18.3, ibid, also states that a dedicated monitoring units should be set up which would be
in-charge of overall monitoring of implementation of the approved development plans and
layout plans with the objective to pinpoint the deficiencies in implementing the MPD-2021 and
take corrective actions to achieve the targets effectively.
DDA stated (June 2022) that initially there was no dedicated monitoring unit in function, the
monitoring of implementation of the approved development plans and layout plans was carried
out by Master Plan and Policy Review (MPPR) unit, Master Plan Review (MPR) unit and the
Master Plan section of DDA at different stages. However, in a meeting (02/08/2019) VC, DDA
instructed that MPD 2021 unit might be designated as the monitoring unit as envisaged and
accordingly the Master Plan and Development Control (MP&DC) unit was designated as
monitoring unit of MPD 2021.
Audit observed that MPD 2021 was notified in February 2007, thus it covers a total period of
15 years (i.e., 2007 to 2021). During the period of 15 years, monitoring for the activities under
‘Group housing’ was to be conducted at least seven times i.e., one monitoring after every two
years. DDA neither set up a dedicated monitoring since 2007 nor carry out the required
71
566
monitoring as per the prescribed frequency. DDA, however, formed a dedicated monitoring
unit only in 2019 i.e., after a delay of more than 12 years from the date of notification of MPD
2021. This issue was also commented upon in C&AG’s Performance Audit Report No 31 of
2016, Union Government (Civil), however DDA did not take any corrective action.
DDA stated (December 2022) that a skeleton monitoring unit was set up on 24/08/2007 under
Director, Planning, DDA which was devoid of modern data, processing facilities for analysis
of data. Further, DDA admitted that in the absence of modern data processing facility and full-
fledged strength, the co-ordination with concerned agencies involved for the implementation
of MPD-2021 was not possible.
7.1.2. Inconsistency in review
Further, Para 18.5 (Review) of MPD 2021 states that timely review of the plan with the help
of prescribed Management Action Groups29, High Level Groups30 and Monitoring Unit shall
ensure mid-term correction and modifications if needed in the plan policies as well as the
implementation procedures, which will help to re-adjust the events in the plan that could not
be foreseen or anticipated during the plan formulation. If the plan is timely monitored and
appropriately reviewed, the policies can be molded in the right direction according to the
present needs of the people of the city.
DDA further stated (June 2022) that MPD 2021 was notified in February 2007 wherein it was
proposed that the Plan be reviewed at five yearly intervals, and the plan period was divided
into three phases taking 2006 as the base year. Further, DDA added that as per provision of
MPD 2021 the first mid-term review of MPD 2021 was conducted in 2012 and the 2nd mid-
term review was initiated after five years i.e., in 2017.
Audit observed that during the period of 15 years review of implementation of activities stated
in the MPD 2021 was to be carried out at least three times i.e., one review after every five
years, by forming the prescribed Groups. DDA conducted one mid-term review in 2011. DDA
did not substantiate its claim of conducting second mid-term in 2017. DDA, however, had not
conducted the third mid-term review yet. This issue was also commented upon in C&AG’s
Performance Audit Report No 31 of 2016, Union Government (Civil), however DDA did not
take any corrective action.
DDA stated (February 2023) that no further meetings of the High-Level Committee were held
after 08/05/2008.
7.1.3 Management Information System
Management information system plays the role of information generation, communication,

problem identification and helps in the process of decision-making. However, audit observed
that the monitoring and documentation were deficient in DDA. Even for the number and details
of housing stock there was a mismatch between two departments (Engineering and Housing)
which led to exclusion of some units from housing schemes. There was no MIS developed and
29
For Demographic, Land use, Housing, Social Infrastructure Transport, Economic Aspects, Environment, Natural Disasters.
30
For Environment planning and coordination, Delhi unified metropolitan transport, Infrastructure development, Enforcement and plan
monitoring, Spatial data infrastructure (SDI), Local level participatory planning, Common platform for building approvals, Slum rehabilitation
and social housing, Legal framework review.
72
567
regularly presented for review of Master Development plan, Zonal plans, Progress of Housing
Schemes and management of unsold inventory and land pockets. No records with regards to
the MIS submitted to the Vice Chairman, LG office and MoHUA with regard to the reporting
progress of works was furnished to Audit. In absence of a proper MIS , higher management of
DDA was not apprised regularly about the issues facing this function and prompt policy
decisions could not be made.
7.2. Deficiency in coordination
7.2.1. Lack in coordination with other Government agencies
Chapter 19 of MPD 2021 states that the role of DDA and/or Govt., among others, to overall
monitoring of provision of relevant infrastructure of water supply, sewerage, drainage, power,
transportation etc. by service providing agencies in a time bound manner.
In the first meeting of the advisory group on review of MPD 2021 held on 23/09/2011,
members advised for the greater co-ordination with other key departments i.e., transport,
environment, etc., in local area planning process and implementing the schemes.
Thereafter, in the third meeting of the Advisory Group on review of MPD 2021 held on
12/01/2012, Commissioner Planning informed that despite letters and reminders to all the local
service proving agencies viz., DJB, MCD and Power Department, GNCTD etc., no inputs were
received about the augmentation works undertaken by them during 2007-11 and the action plan
for 2011-16.
In the fourth meeting of the Advisory Group on review of MPD 2021 held on 23/02/2012, the
VC, DDA suggested to improve supply side of physical infrastructure and asked all the
concerned agencies to revise targets up to 2021 for incorporation in MPD 2021.
DDA stated (June 2022) that the High-Level Committee constituted under the chairmanship of
Hon’ble L.G. for periodic monitoring and review met on 08/05/2008 with agencies concerned
with the development of social/physical infrastructure in the GNCT of Delhi to detail and
resolve the inter-agency coordination issues.
DDA stated (February 2023) that no further meetings of the High-Level Committee were held
after 08/05/2008.
DDA, however, did not offer any information on the periodicity of High-Level Committee
meetings, besides information on the works carried out by the others providing agencies, if
any.
Case study 7.1: Non provision of infrastructure before launch of housing scheme
DDA engaged (27/02/2020) a consultant for the ‘Preparation of Development Plan and Area
Layout Plans’ for Narela Sub-city which included preparation of plan for infrastructure in the
area. On 06/03/2020 the consultant was awarded the work which was to be completed by
73
568
01/09/2020. However, the work of consultant was not completed as on 22/08/2022 for which
no reasons was provided.
Audit observed that 20,335 number of flats under different categories viz., HIG, MIG, LIG,
Janta, EWS etc. located in Narela, were put up for sale under four HS i.e., HS 2014, HS 2017,
HS 2019, HS 2021. Of these, 14,528 flats, (71.44 per cent), were surrendered/cancelled citing
reasons as poor connectivity, remoteness of the area and poor infrastructure facility. Audit also
observed that DDA did not ensure infrastructure facilities and amenities before launching
housing projects as decided in March 2017.
DDA engaged a consultant to carry out planning works for the development of Narela only in
March 2020 i.e., after 13 years and 10 years of finalization of MPD 2021 and ZDPs
respectively and it took measures to address various infrastructure31 issues based on the
feedback given by the allottees only in October 2021 even though it had information on the
flats that were surrendered in 2014 Housing Scheme.
Thus, DDA did not take timely action to develop the Narela Sub-city. Consequently, even
after decades of finalisation of ZDP, the infrastructure development of the Narela Sub-city, as
planned, did not achieve its desired level. As a result, DDA failed to ensure required
infrastructure facilities and amenities in place before the flats were offered to the allottees,
which led to surrender of considerable numbers of flats by the allottees.
7.2.2. Lack of coordination within the departments of DDA
After construction of houses, the details of constructed houses were handed over by the
concerned contractor to the Engineering Wing. Thereafter, the Engineering Wing handed over
these houses to Housing Department for launch in various Housing Schemes.
Category-wise details of houses/flats lying vacant with the Housing Department and
Engineering Wing of DDA are shown in the table 7.1 below:
Table 7.1: Mismatch of dwelling units between Engineering and Housing Department
Number of Vacant houses/flats Difference

Category of
flats/houses As per Housing As per Engineering
Department Department
SFS 166 285 119
EHS 402 587 185
HIG 246 48 198
MIG 1441 1005 436
LIG 31958 10297 21661
EWS/Janta 8179 2822 5357
Total 42392 15867 28695
Audit noticed that total vacant flats/houses remained with the housing department was 42392
and that of with engineering department was 15867. Thus, there was a difference in the
31
Construction roads, water supply lines, storm water drains, sewage treatment, boundary wall, augmentation of
electric supply, provision of metro and construction of UER-II stretch in Delhi through NHAI.
74
569
inventory of flats/houses of 28695 in the six categories of flats/houses between these two
departments of DDA.
DDA did not make available any information as to the method adopted for assessment of
availability of vacant flats/houses. Further, Audit observed that DDA did not fix any criteria
for the categorization of flats, as a result in the inventory of vacant flats/houses, Engineering
Wing showed 823 flats/houses under the category One Room Tenements (ORTs), however no
such category of flats/houses under vacant flats/houses was maintained by the Housing
Department. Further, no steps were taken by DDA to rectify the differences in the figures of
the vacant flats/houses as maintained by Housing Department and Engineering Wing of DDA.
Thus, due to lack in coordination between Housing Department and Engineering Wing of
DDA, the figures of vacant flats/houses remained non reconciled till date.
7.3. Third-Party Quality Assurance
As per CPWD Hqrs. letter no. DG/CE(CSQ)/SE(QA)/G-3/75 dated 11/02/2015 published on

the CPWD website, it has been emphasized that Third-Party Quality Assurance (TPQA) is a
mandatory policy of MoHUA and is to be implemented invariably for all works costing more
than ₹ five crore.
7.3.1. Delay in engagement of TPQA
In the P17 work, the work was awarded to the contractor in July 2015, however, DDA initiated
the process of engagement of TPQA only in August 2018 i.e., after lapse of three years from
award of work and completion of 21 per cent (approximate) of the work. Further, it was noticed
that NIT for engagement of TPQA was floated in May 2019 and agreement was signed with
Delhi Technological University (DTU) on 17/07/2019, i.e., after a lapse of one year.
Further, TPQA agency submitted its Inspection Report for the period 16/12/2021 to 31/12/2021
to Office of the Ex. Engineer Project Division-8, DDA. The same was forwarded by Ex.
Engineer, PD-8 to Ex. Engineer, Electrical Division-7 (ELD-7) on 21/01/2022 for compliance
pertaining to Electric components. The compliance of TPQA Report was not found in the
records.
Similarly, in the P19 work DDA appointed the third-party quality assurance agency (TPQAA)
only in June 2018 i.e., after a lapse of three years.
To safeguard the interest of DDA and to ensure timely completion of all the projects with
specified quality, third-party quality assurance should have been appointed at the earliest.
Initial structures are the base of the buildings (Skeleton of buildings/materials used by the
contractor) and due to delay in appointment of TPQAA by DDA, the base structures were not
verified by the TPQAA. Further, the adverse impact on quality of construction due to delayed
appointment of TPQAA could not be ruled out as commented in para 4.4.14.
7.3.2. Non-compliance of terms of the agreement
In the P22 work as per clause 16 of the agreement, all works under or in course of execution
or executed in pursuance of the contract shall be open and accessible to the inspection and
75
570
supervision of officers from Quality Assurance Cell of DDA or any organization engaged by
the DDA for Quality assurance.
M/s RITES Limited, has been engaged as TPQAA by DDA for the above-mentioned work at
the cost of ₹ 2.39 crore till the completion of work.
Audit noticed that only three out of four of personnel were deployed by the agency. Further,
no experience certificates of the technical personnel employed were provided to audit. Audit
could not ascertain if any penalty was imposed for non-deployment of requisite technical
representatives.
Further, as per TOR 3.5 of the agreement signed between DDA and TPQAA, a proper audit
plan shall be formulated by the TPQAA and the same shall be approved by the Engineer-in-
charge. The same was also not found in the records made available to audit. Hence, adherence
to audit plan could also not be ascertained.
Further as per TOR 3.8 (viii), TPQAA is required to issue provisional certificate about
satisfactory quality of work as per the laid down standards at major milestones. The same was
also not found in the records made available to audit. Hence, adherence to the agreement by
the TPQAA could also not be ascertained in the absence of records.
7.4. Non constitution of technical expert unit
As per the circular issued by the office of the Engineer member in 1989, the completion of a
project means total completion of all the works and satisfactory completion of all the services
viz., water supply line, sewerage line, sewage line, storm water, drainage, electrical wiring
inside and outside the building. The CE should also constitute a small technical expert unit
which should check 2.5 per cent of the housing stock built by the contractor and should
specifically check the installation of all the services. The team should invariably check within
three months after the completion certificate is signed by the Executive engineer. The CE is to
take a decision on this report on services. The EEs, however, need not wait for this certificate
to complete their final bills. The instructions were given in the interest of ensuring total
completion of work, finalization of bills and to ensure proper documentation and additional
check of the services- water supply, sewerage system, drainage water supply etc.
In the Construction of HIG houses at Jasola (P5) work, it could not be ascertained from the
records whether any team, as stipulated by the office order, was constituted and if so, what
were the findings of the team. It was also noticed that the final bill of the work has not yet been
paid, though provisional completion had been recorded.
7.5. Maintenance of records
7.5.1. Improper maintenance of records in Housing Department
In the Housing Department of DDA, it was observed that the following records viz., Register
of Possession Letter (PL), Property register and other inventory records etc., were not
maintained properly as detailed in the table 7.2 below:
76
571
Table 7.2: Improper maintenance of various records in Housing Department
Records Discrepancies in maintenance of records

Register of  PL register was not maintained housing scheme wise,
Possession Letter  Entries of PL were not attested/reviewed by the competent authority,
(PL)
 Reasons for delay in issuing of PL were also not recorded in register,
 No prescribed format was followed for maintenance of PL register.
Property registers  Property register (HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS) of Dwarka, Rohini etc the property
register was not maintained in the prescribed format viz., area, usable floor area, date
of construction, type of construction etc., were not mentioned in the register,
 Entries of cancelled/surrendered flats were not verified/authenticated in the register,
 No remarks/reasons for cancelled/surrendered flats were mentioned in the register,
 Blank entries against certain flats,
 Date of issue of Demand-cum-Allotment Letter and issue of possession letter was
not mentioned in many instances,
 Entries of flats shifted from SFS to HIG or MIG were not attested by the competent
authority.
Other records  Inventory register of flats by individual branches i.e., SFS, EHS, HIG, LIG, MIG
and EWS/Janta, register of misuse of property, register of grant of extension of time
(EOT to allottees by the competent authority, Register of surrendered/ cancelled flats
to be reconciled for putting up in the upcoming/next housing scheme were not
maintained
Since the record of possession of flats was not being maintained in a proper manner, the exact
status of allotted flats could not be ascertained. From the blank entries in the property register
it could not be ascertained flats were allotted/surrendered/unsold. It could not also be
ascertained whether vacant/surrendered flats were included in the housing scheme.
7.5 Improper maintenance of records in various works
In the following works discrepancies were noticed in maintaining various records as detailed
in table 7.3 below:
Table 7.3: Improper maintenance of records in various projects
Project code Discrepancies in maintenance of records

Construction of  Contractor Ledger not maintained.
HIG and EWS at In the absence of contractor ledger, it could not be ascertained as to how the division
Dwarka (P22) monitored the financial transactions made towards the contractor.
Construction of  As per para 4 of the General scope of E&M Services, the contractor shall provide third
two/three BHK party insurance right from the storage to commissioning of various equipment. All
and EWS flat at insurance which the contractor is required to enter under the contract shall be affected
Narela (P17) by any authorized general insurance company and the contractor shall produce the
policies of insurance.
 Records/documents regarding the insurance were not maintained.
Construction of  In site order book, compliance of observations of CTE/SE not recorded.
LIG and EWS
Flats at Narela
(P11)
77
572
All six selected  Records pertaining to the tendering process i.e., bid documents, advertising expenses,
works records of eligibility for technical qualification, records related to financial bids,
comparative statement, justification statement etc., were not maintained.
In the absence of records, it could not be ascertained if the tendering process was held in a
true and fair manner
7.6 Outstanding paras

Audit observed that as on 31/03/2022, 21387 internal audit paras remained outstanding, as
detailed in the table 7.4 below:
Table 7.4: Outstanding paras of internal audit
Outstanding paras of internal audit

Year No. of unsettled paras
2017-18 19718
2018-19 20836
2019-20 21232
2020-21 21156
2021-22 21387
The reasons for high number of outstanding paras and the steps taken by DDA to reduce the
outstanding paras could not be ascertained. Further, increasing number of outstanding
paragraphs every year indicates that various sections were not serious in taking corrective
action.
Thus, non-compliance of issues raised in internal as well as external audit and high number of
outstanding paras indicates ineffectiveness of internal control in DDA.
7.7 Beneficiary Survey findings
A survey questionnaire consisting of a set of 15 questions related to the application

process/pricing of flats/allotment process/area and quality of flats/amenities etc., with multiple
choice objective answers was framed by audit (Annexure 7.1). Feedback of allottees
(approximately 200 of each category of flats) of various housing schemes launched between
2017 and 2021 was sought and 46 responses were received. The result of the survey is as below:
(1) Majority (58.7 per cent) of the respondents stated that the application process was good
and 67.4 per cent of the respondents conveyed that the allotment process was transparent
and demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on time.
(2) Out of the total respondents, 63 per cent stated that the pricing of the flats was not in sync
with ongoing market rate; while 58.7 per cent of the respondents stated that area of the flat
was inadequate .
(3) Only 8.7 per cent of the respondents stated that the quality of the flat was good. Whereas
91.3 per cent of the respondent informed that it was poor or average.
78
573
(4) Majority (69.6 per cent) of the respondents stated that the possession letter was not issued
timely and 76.1 per cent of the respondents added that at the time of issue of possession
letter, the basic amenities viz. sewerage, water supply, electrical supply, communication
lines, streetlights etc., were not available.
(5) As regards the other services, 58.7 per cent of the respondents stated that at the time of
issue of possession letter, the public/semi-public services viz., parks, bus stops,
hospitals, shopping complexes, schools etc., were not available nearby the location of
flats.
(6) So far as process of allotment was concerned, 56.5 per cent of the respondents stated that
behavior of DDA staff during the process of allotment of houses was poor, while 60.9
per cent of the respondents stated that process of lodging complaint was not easy.
79
574
Chapter-08
Conclusions
DDA has a crucial role in the development and construction of housing colonies and complexes
to meet the housing needs in Delhi. For this purpose, DD Act empowered DDA to acquire,
hold, manage, and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building, engineering, and
other operations, to execute works in connection with supply of water and electricity, disposal
off sewage, other amenities, and services necessary or expedient for purposes of such
development and incidental thereto. Efficient planning and execution of activities related to
housing i.e., planning, construction and allotment of houses require proper co-ordination within
various departments/wings of DDA. Audit observed lack of coordination among the
departments/wings as well as with local authorities and improper monitoring and maintenance
of records leading to huge inventory of DDA remaining unsold.
In respect of planning of houses the assessment of housing requirement was not done by DDA.
Also Planning process of housing projects suffered from weaknesses as there was delay in
approval of MPD, discrepancies in geographical areas mentioned in MPD-2021 and ZDPs;
Variability in density norms of residential group housing projects; variation in carpet and plinth
area of flats and mandatory number of EWS flats not constructed.
In the construction of housing projects, there were irregularities from tendering process to the
issuance of completion certificate. In addition to erroneous calculation of estimated cost,
expenditure was incurred without obtaining the revised AA&ES or revised Technical Sanction.
Delay in tendering process was noticed in all the sampled audited projects and work was
awarded without ensuring encumbrance free site. During execution, irregular payments
towards various advances viz., mobilization advance, tools and plants advance, reimbursement
of green tax, escalation of cements and stell and excess payments to DJB and to the contractor
were noticed leading to wasteful expenditure. Further, deficiencies were noticed in securing
adequate performance guarantees, deployment of requisite technical representatives and
specialized agencies, obtaining mandatory approvals from local bodies, revision of milestones
without valid reasons. Joint Inspections carried out by audit along with DDA representatives
revealed instances of encroachment, waterlogging, missing electrical wires etc. Further
uninhabitable flats were constructed, and completion certificate of incomplete works was
recorded depicting lack of effective execution process.
In respect of costing of dwelling units, discrepancies were noticed in fixation of pre-
determined rates for land, plinth area rates for construction, accounting of revenue receipts
from sale of land, levy of grid charges, arbitration charges etc. In addition, issues like lapse of
acquired land, non-uniformity in expenditure apportionment, non-uniform treatment of
realized revenue, no basis for application of various multipliers for different categories of land,
non-inclusion of weighted average in PAR, and non-adoption of actual construction cost
ultimately led to the discrepancy in the costing of flats at inflated costs.
80
575
In respect of housing department, non-periodicity of launch of housing schemes, not taking any
remedial steps to the issues leading to surrender/cancellation of flats by public or to prevent
speculative buying, ensuring timely completion of housing projects to avoid delay in physical
possession of flats, sale of flats designed and developed as EWS flats but sold as LIG, varying
income tax criteria for determining beneficiaries of housing schemes etc., has led to large
number of unsold inventory of DDA houses and thus non-realization of revenue as well. In this
scenario, many vacant flats lay unutilized for years and DDA could not guard against the risk
of unauthorized occupation or misuse of its own property.
DDA neither had a proper record management system nor did it have a robust internal control
system which was evident from the fact that there were discrepancies in inventory of houses as
per engineering and housing department, lack of coordination with other local bodies, delay in
engagement of TPQ consultant; huge pendency of outstanding paras from internal as well as
external audit which points to poor compliance and improper maintenance of records.
81
576
Annexure-2.1
(Referred to in Para 6.)
Sl. Name of Projects Code of AA&ES Date of start Actual date
No. the (Rs. in of
projects Crore) Completion
Completed Projects
1. C/o 160 Cat II houses four storeyed and 160 scooter
garages in Sector-B, Pocket-II, Vasant Kunj i/c
internal development (LIC Pocket) P1
SH:- C/o 80 HIG Cat II houses and 80 Scooter Garages 8.1 22/04/2014 10/04/2017
in Sec-B, Pocket-II at Vasant Kunj including internal
development Gr-I (Balance work) at the risk and cost
of M/s Shree Durga Const. Co.
2. C/o integrated complex of 273 Multistoreyed EWS
houses with facility building behind DDA project P2
34.91 07/08/2015 05/04/2021
office at Manglapuri, Dwarka (Site No IV). Project on
Design & Construction Basis.
3. C/o 362 (268 MIG + 94 LIG) Multistoreyed & four
storeyed houses i/c basement, internal & external P3
83.52 20/05/2010 18/12/2020
development and internal electrification complete at
Vasant Kunj on Mehrauli Mahipalpur road, New Delhi
4. C/o 352 Multistoried Two Bedroom Apartments i/c
electrification adjoiningPocket-3, Sector-19B, P4 165.90 17/04/2015 10/07/2019
Dwarka, Ph.II.
5. Construction of HIG Houses at Pocket 9-B, Jasola in
the 15715 sqm land including internal and external P5
174.46 22/11/2014 22/05/2019
electrification, firefighting, lifts and internal
development works (Design & Built basis).
6. Construction of 346 (M.S.) MIG Houses i/c Internal
Development and Electrification at Sector-16B, P6 188 17/06/2016 26/12/2020
Pocket-II, Dwarka Phase-II
7. C/o 852 HIG/MIG/LIG houses at Vasant Kunj at
Mehrauli Mahipalpur road near Sultangarhi Tob
25.10.2009 16.03.2021
SH: Part-A: Cluster-2: C/o 223 houses (154 MIG & 69
LIG). P7
C/o 852 HIG/MIG/LIG houses at Vasant Kunj at
Mehrauli Mahipalpur road near Sultangarhi Tob 3/06/2010 31/1/2021
SH: Part-A: Cluster-I, C/o 207 HIG houses.
305.2
Mehrauli Mahipalpur road near Sultangarhi Tomb
9/9/2010 31/01/2021
SH:Part-B: Cluster-3: C/O 213 houses (157 MIG and
57 LIG)
Mehrauli Mahipalpur road near Sultangarhi Tomb 30/5/2010 31/7/2020
SH: Part-B: Cluster-IV C/o 209 HIG houses
8. C/o 2128 EWS & 348 category-II houses on design &
Built basis in Pocket-1C at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela P8 311.91 03/06/2014 25/06/2020
i/c internal Development and Electrification
9. C/o 2561 EWS & 419 Cat-II houses on Design and
Built in pocket 1B at Sector A-1 to A-4 Narela, P9 374.20 29/03/2014 20/05/2019
including internal development and electrification.
10. C/o 1696 EWS & 280 Cat-II houses on design and
built in pocket 1A, sector A1 to A4, Narela i/c internal P10 389.20 29/03/2014 16/05/2019
development & electrification.
11. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by using prefab
technology (having structural RCC members i.e. P11
4128.95
Columns, Beams & Slabs all precast) in Narela,
Rohini Delhi (A Turnkey Project).
577
(i) C/o 11,566 LIG & 2276 EWS Houses at Sector G- 03/05/2013 02/09/2017
7 & G-8 Narela, Sector 34&35 Rohini (Group-I)
(ii) C/o 2618 LIG & 580 EWS houses in Pkt-VI and
2638 LIG, 580 EWS houses in Pkt-VII i/c internal 27/10/2016 30/09/2020
development & electrification at Sector G-7 & G-8 in
lieu of Pocket 6B & 4B Rohini Sector 34 & 35
12. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by using prefab
technology (having structural RCC members i.e.,
columns, beams & slabs all precast or walls and slabs
all precast) in Narela & Rohini, Delhi. (A Turnkey
Project). P12
(i) C/o 13094 LIG & 2579 EWS houses i/c internal
4322.52 03/05/2013 22/09/2017
development & electrification at Sec G-2 & G-6, G-3
& G-4 Narela (Group-II)
(ii) C/o 6511 LIG & 1420 EWS houses i/c internal
27/10/2016 12/11/2020
development & electrification at Sec. G-7 & G-8
Narela.
Ongoing Projects
1. C/o 1568 DU’s/600 Cat-III (312 DU’s 2BHK +
288 DU’s 1BHK) and 968 EWS Multistoreyed
composite houses including internal development P13 280.63 18/08/2019 79
and electrification in Pocket-V, Sector-14,
Dwarka, Ph-II
2. C/o 325 Two BHK, 170 Three BHK & 194 EWS
houses (Design & Built Model) Earmarked in P14 284.43 05/08/2019 89.25
Pocket – 7, at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela
3. C/o 821 Multistoreyed Houses (600 two
Bedroom & 221 EWS Houses) in Pocket-E at P15 316.51 07/01/2020 98.2
Lok Nayakpuram (Bakkarwala)
4. C/o 420 two BHK, 225 three BHK and 250 EWS
houses (Design and Build Model) earmarked in
Pkt-6 at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela.
(a). C/o 225 three BHK and 250 EWS houses P16
30/07/2019 78.5
(Design and Build Model) earmarked in Pkt-6 at
sector a-1 to A-4 Narela including external
391.35
development and external electrification, UGRs,
STP, ESS, etc. for entire Pkt.-6.
(b). C/o 420 two BHK houses (Design and Build

Model) earmarked in pkt- at Sector A-1 to A4
31/01/2019 84
Narela.
578
9. C/O 750 Two BHK, 325 Three BHK & 412 EWS
houses (design & built Model) Earmarked in P21 623.3 05/08/2019 74.85
Pocket -13 at Sector A-1 to A-4 Narela.
10. C/o HIG (Multi Storied) Houses, including
internal Development & electrification in Sector- P22 767.77 26/11/2017 79.5
19(b), Dwarka, Phase-II (A Turnkey Project).
11. C/o 1750 Two BHK, 900 Three BHK & 1016
EWS houses (Design & build model) earmarked P23 1605 04/02/2020 59
at Pocket 11 at Sector A1 to A4, Narela.
579
Annexure-2.2
(Referred to in Para.6)
Sl. Name of Project Code of Mode of execution of
No the project
projects (In house, Design &
Build/Turnkey)
Selected Ongoing Projects
1. C/o 500 Two BHK, 340 Three BHK & 325 EWS houses (Design P19 Design & Built Model
& Built Model) Earmarked in Pocket – 4, at Sector A-1 to A-4,
Narela
2. C/o 520 Two BHK, 250 Three BHK & 294 EWS houses (Design P17 Design & Built Model
& Built Model) Earmarked in Pocket – 14, at Sector A-1 to A-4,
Narela
3. C/o HIG (Multi Storied) Houses, including internal P22 Turnkey Project
Development & electrification in Sector-19(b), Dwarka, Phase-
II (A Turnkey Project)
Selected Completed Projects
4. C/o HIG Houses at Pocket 9-B, Jasola in the 15715 sqm land P5 Design & Built Model
(Design & Built basis)
5. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by using prefab in Narela,
Rohini Delhi (A Turnkey Project) (Group I) Turnkey Project
(i) C/o LIG & EWS houses in Narela- Sector G7-G8 Pkt-IV P11
(ii) C/o LIG & EWS houses in Narela- Sector G7-G8 Pkt-V
(iii) C/o 2618 LIG & 580 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G7-G8
Pkt-VI
(iv) C/o 2638 LIG & 580 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G7-G8
Pkt-VII
6. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by using prefab in Narela, Turnkey Project
Rohini Delhi (A Turnkey Project) (Group II)
(i) C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G2- P12
G6 Pkt-I
(ii) C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G2-
G6 Pkt-III
(iii) C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G2-
G6 Pkt-IV
(iv) C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G2-
G6 Pkt-V
(v) C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G2-
G6 Pkt-VI
(vi) C/o 6511 LIG & 1420 EWS houses in Narela- Sector G7-
G8 Pkt-XI
580
Annexure-2.3
(Referred to in Para 6)
Sl. Name of Project Code of Mode of execution of
No the project
projects (In house, Design &
Build/Turnkey)
Remaining Ongoing Projects
1. C/o 821 Multistoreyed Houses (600 two Bedroom & 221 P15 Not available
EWS Houses) in Pocket-E at Lok Nayak puram
(Bakkarwala)
2. C/o 625 Two BHK, 350 Three BHK & 376 EWS houses P20 Design & Built Model
(Design & Built Model) Earmarked in Pocket – 3, at Sector
A-1 to A-4, Narela
3. C/o 420 two BHK, 225 three BHK and 250 EWS houses P16 Design & Built Model
(Design and Build Model) earmarked in Pkt-6 at Sector A-1
to A-4, Narela.
(a). C/o 225 three BHK and 250 EWS houses (Design and
Build Model) earmarked in Pkt-6 at sector a-1 to A-4 Narela
including external development and external electrification,
UGRs, STP, ESS, etc. for entire Pkt.-6.
(b) C/o 420 two BHK houses (Design and Build Model)
earmarked in pkt- at Sector A-1 to A4 Narela.
A-1 to A-4, Narela
A-1 to A-4, Narela
(Design & build model) earmarked at Pocket 11 at Sector A1
to A4, Narela (North Zone
(design & built Model) Earmarked in Pocket -13 at Sector A-
1 to A-4 Narela.
8. C/o 1568 DU’s/600 Cat-III (312 DU’s 2BHK + 288 DU’s P13 Not available
1BHK) and 968 EWS Multistoreyed composite houses
including internal development and electrification in Pocket-
V, Sector-14, Dwarka, Ph-II
Remaining Completed Projects
9. Construction of 346 (M.S.) MIG Houses i/c Internal P6 Not available
Development and Electrification at Sector-16B, Pocket-II,
Dwarka Phase-II
10. C/o 352 Multistoreyed Two Bedroom Apartments i/c P4 Not available
electrification adjoining Pocket-3, Sector-19B, Dwarka,
Ph.II.
11. C/o integrated complex of 273 Multistoreyed EWS houses P2 Design & Built Model
with facility building behind DDA project office at
Manglapuri, Dwarka (Site No IV). Project on Design &
Construction Basis
12. C/o 852 HIG/MIG/LIG houses at Vasant Kunj at Mehrauli P7 Not available
Mahipalpur road near Sultangarhi Tob.
(i). Sub-head (SH): Part-A: Cluster-I C/o 207 HIG houses
581
(ii). SH: Part-A: Cluster-2: C/o 223 houses (154 MIG & 69
LIG).
(iii) SH: Part-B: Cluster-3: C/O 213 houses (157 MIG and 57
LIG)
(iv) SH: Part-B: Cluster-IV C/o 209 HIG houses
13. C/o 362 (268 MIG + 94 LIG) Multistoreyed & four storeyed P3 Not available
houses i/c basement, internal & external development and
internal electrification complete at Vasant Kunj on Mehrauli
Mahipalpur road, New Delhi
14. C/o 160 Cat II houses four storeyed and 160 scooter garages P1 Not available
in Sector-B, Pocket-II, Vasant Kunj i/c internal development
(LIC Pocket)
SH: - C/o 80 HIG Cat II houses and 80 Scooter Garages in
Sec-B, Pocket-II at Vasant Kunj including internal
development Gr-I (Balance work) at the risk and cost of M/s
Shree Durga Const. Co.
15. C/o 1696 EWS & 280 Cat-II houses on design and built in P10 Design & Built Model
pocket 1A, sector A1 to A4, Narela i/c internal development
& electrification.
16. C/o 2561 EWS & 419 Cat-II houses on Design and Built in P9 Design & Built Model
pocket 1B at Sector A-1 to A-4 Narela, including internal
development and electrification.
17. C/o 2128 EWS & 348 category-II houses on design & Built P8 Design & Built Model
basis in Pocket-1C at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela i/c internal
Development and Electrification
582
Annexure-3.1
Referred to in Para 3.1.2.)
ZDP Zone Submitted to Finally sent Approved
MoHUA to MoHUA by MoHUA
Zone ‘A’ Old city (Walled City) September 2008 11/09/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘A’ Area other than Walled City September 2008 16/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘B’ City Extension (Karol Bagh) September 2008 16/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘C’ Civil Line September 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘D’ New Delhi (Central Delhi) The draft Zonal Development of Zone ‘D’ was
approved by the Authority on 11/12/2019 and was
submitted to MoHUA for consideration and
approval on 10/01/2020. The same is under
process for final notification.
Zone ‘E’ Trans Yamuna October 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘F’ South Delhi-I September 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘G’ West Delhi -I September 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘H’ North West Delhi-I October 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘J’ South West -II October 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘K-I’ K-I, West Delhi-II October 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘K-II’ K-II West Delhi-II September 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘L’ West Delhi-III October 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘M’ North West Delhi-II September 2008 13/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘N’ Zone-N, North West Delhi-II September 2008 13.02.2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘O’ Yamuna River November 2008 17/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘P-I’ North West Delhi-III September 2008 16/02/2009 08/03/2010
Zone ‘P-II’ North Delhi November 2008 Not provided 04/06/2010
(Source: Data Provided by DDA)
583
Annexure-3.2
(Referred to in Para 3.3.)
(Unit: Area in hectare
Zone Geographical Geographical Difference in
area as per area as per ZDP geographical area
MPD 2021 between MPD and ZDP
1 2 3 4=2-3
A (Walled City) 569
A (Other than Walled City) 1159 559.13 30.87
B 2304 2274 30
K-I 5782 6515 (-)733
K-II 6408 5924 484
L 22840 21933 907
M 5073 5543 (-)470
O 8070 9700 (-)1630
Total 51638 53020.13 (-)1382.13
(Source: MPD 2021 and ZDPs)
584
Annexure: 3.3.
(Referred to in Para 3.7)
Project Code Approval of Carpet area (in sqm) Room area included in/excluded
of the Screening from calculating carpet area
proje Committee EWS Others Included Excluded
cts (SCM No &
Date)
(1). ‘Construction of HIG P4 332 SCM, 24.94 HIG-114 Bedroom(s), Balcony(ies),
(Multi Storied) Houses in 24/06/2015. sqm. sqm, Livingroom, Open Terrace.
Sector 19B, Dwarka, HIG plus Dining room,
Phase-II’. Servant Kitchen,
Quarter- Bathroom(s),
135.63 sqm, Toilet &WC,
Penthouse- Lobby.
233.69 sqm.
(2). ‘Construction of HIG P5 329 SCM, Not HIG-100.23 Bedrooms, Kitchen,
Houses at Pkt-9B, Jasola’. 10/04/2015. Applic (or 100.84) Living room, Bathrooms,
able sqm. Dining room, Toilets and
Lobbies. Balconies.
(3). ‘Construction of 24660 P11 329 SCM, 25.67 LIG-35.50 Bedroom(s), Nil
LIG and 4855 EWS 10/042015. sqm sqm. Living cum
Housing by using prefab and Dining room,
technology in Narela and 26.04 Kitchen,
Rohini. sqm. Bathroom,
At-Pkt-IV, V, VI, VII in WC & Toilet,
Sector G7/G8 (Group I). Balcony,
Lobby.
(4). Construction of 24660 P12 329 SCM, 25.67 LIG-35.50 Bedroom(s), Nil
LIG and 4855 EWS 10/042015. sqm sqm. Living cum
Housing by using prefab and Dining room,
technology in Narela and 26.04 Kitchen,
Rohini. sqm. Bathroom,
At-Pkt-I, III, IV, V, VI at WC & Toilet,
Sector G2/G6 and Pkt-XI at Balcony,
Sector G7/G8 (Group II). Lobby.
(Source: Architectural drawing, DDA)
585
Annexure: 3.4.
Project Code Width of Balcony Area of WC Area of Bathroom
of the (in meter) (in sqm) (in sqm)
proje As Provid Diff As Provid Diffe As Provid Diffe
cts per ed in ere per ed in rence per ed in rence
IS:88 project nce IS:88 project IS:88 project
88 88 88
(1). ‘Construction of HIG P4 1.2 2.0 -0.8 0.90 1.11 -0.21 1.20 1.20 0.00
(Multi Storied) Houses in
Sector 19B, Dwarka’.
(2). ‘Construction of 520 P17 1.2 1.9 -0.7 0.90 1.35 -0.45 1.20 1.50 -0.3
Two BHK, 250 Three BHK
and 294 EWS houses in Pkt–
14, Sector A1/A4, Narela.
(3). ‘Construction of 500 P19 1.2 1.9 -0.7 0.90 1.35 -0.45 1.20 1.50 -0.3
Two BHK, 340 Three BHK
and 325 EWS houses in Pkt-
4, Sector A1/A4, Narela’.
(4). ‘Construction of 24660 P11 1.2 1.08 0.12 0.90 1.06 -0.16 1.20 1.25 -0.05
LIG and 4855 EWS Housing and and
by using prefab technology 1.16 -0.26
in Narela and Rohini.
At-Pkt-IV, V, VI, VII in
Sector G7/G8 (Group I).
(5). Construction of 24660 P12 1.2 1.08 0.12 0.90 1.06 -0.16 1.20 1.25 -0.05
LIG and 4855 EWS Housing and and
by using prefab technology 1.16 -0.26
in Narela and Rohini.
At-Pkt-I, III, IV, V, VI at
Sector G2/G6 and Pkt-XI at
Sector G7/G8 (Group II).
(Source: Architectural drawing, DDA)
586
Annexure: 3.5
(Unit: Dwelling units per hectare)
Sl. Project Code Approval of SCM Density Density Differ
No. of the (No, date and SCM as per provided ence
proje item no) develop in (roun
cts ment project ded
control off)
norms
1 2 3 4 5 6 7=5-6
1. C/o 500 Two BHK, 340 Three BHK & P19 SCM 342, 08/08/2016, 200 181.5 18
325 EWS houses (Design & Built Model) Item no-85/2016
Earmarked in Pocket – 4, at Sector A-1 to
A-4, Narela
294 EWS houses (Design & Built Model) Item No-146/2016
Earmarked in Pocket – 14, at Sector A-1
to A-4, Narela
3. C/o HIG (Multi Storied) Houses, P22 SCM 332, 24/06/2015, 200 133.03 67
including internal Development & Item No-70/2015
electrification in Sector-19(b), Dwarka,
Phase-II (A Turnkey Project)
4. C/o HIG Houses at Pocket 9-B, Jasola in P5 SCM 329, 10/04/2015, 200 137.00 63
the 15715 sqm land (Design & Built basis) Item No-26/2015
5. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by P11
using prefab in Narela, Rohini Delhi (A
Turnkey Project) (Group I)
(i). C/o LIG & EWS houses in Narela- SCM 314, 17/05/2013, 500 416.97 83
Sector G7-G8 Pkt-IV Item No-95/2013
(ii). C/o LIG & EWS houses in Narela- SCM 314, 17/05/2013, 500 416.86 83
Sector G7-G8 Pkt-V Item No-96/2013
(iii). C/o 2618 LIG & 580 EWS houses in Not available 500 Not --
Narela- Sector G7-G8 Pkt-VI available
(iv). C/o 2638 LIG & 580 EWS houses in Not available 500 Not --
Narela- Sector G7-G8 Pkt-VII available
6. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by P12
using prefab in Narela, Rohini Delhi (A
Turnkey Project) (Group II)
(i). C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses SCM 314, 17/05/2013, 500 411.87 88
in Narela- Sector G2-G6 Pkt-I Item No-102/2013
(ii). C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses SCM 314, 17/05/2013, 500 418.21 82
in Narela- Sector G2-G6 Pkt-III Item No-103/2013
(iii). C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses SCM 314, 17/05/2013, 500 417.20 83
in Narela- Sector G2-G6 Pkt-IV Item No-104/2013
(iv). C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses SCM 314, 17/05/2013, 500 417.36 83
in Narela- Sector G2-G6 Pkt-V Item No-105/2013
(v). C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses SCM 314, 17/05/2013, 500 419.57 80
in Narela- Sector G2-G6 Pkt-VI Item No-106/2013
(vi). C/o 6511 LIG & 1420 EWS houses Not available 500 Not --
in Narela- Sector G7-G8 Pkt-XI available
7. C/o 821 Multistoreyed Houses (600 two P15 SCM 345, 09/12/2016, 200 189.43 11
Bedroom & 221 EWS Houses) in Pocket- Item No-147/2016
E at Lok Nayak puram (Bakkarwala)
A-4, Narela
587
9. C/o 420 two BHK, 225 three BHK and P16 SCM 342, 08/08/2016, 200 185.32 15
250 EWS houses (Design and Build Item no-86/2016
Model) earmarked in Pkt-6 at Sector A-1
to A-4, Narela.
(a). C/o 225 three BHK and 250 EWS
houses (Design and Build Model)
earmarked in Pkt-6 at sector a-1 to A-4
Narela including external development
and external electrification, UGRs, STP,
ESS, etc. for entire Pkt.-6.
(b). C/o 420 two BHK houses (Design and
Build Model) earmarked in pkt- at Sector
A-1 to A4 Narela.
A-4, Narela
A-4, Narela
1016 EWS houses (Design & build Item no-88/2016
model) earmarked at Pocket 11 at Sector
A1 to A4, Narela (North Zone
412 EWS houses (design & built Model) Item no-89/2016
Earmarked in Pocket -13 at Sector A-1 to
A-4 Narela.
14. C/o 1568 DU’s/600 Cat-III (312 DU’s P13 SCM 362, 24/08/2018, 200 152.19 48
2BHK + 288 DU’s 1BHK) and 968 EWS Item No-78/2018
Multistoried composite houses including
internal development and electrification
in Pocket-V, Sector-14, Dwarka, Ph-II
15. Construction of 346 (M.S.) MIG Houses P6 SCM 332, 24/06/2015, 200 192.00 8
i/c Internal Development and Item No-69/2015
Electrification at Sector-16B, Pocket-II,
Dwarka Phase-II
16. C/o 352 Multistoreyed Two Bedroom P4 SCM 329, 10/04/2015, 200 176.00 24
Apartments i/c electrification adjoining Item No-29/2015
Pocket-3, Sector-19B, Dwarka, Ph.II.
17. C/o integrated complex of 273 P2 SCM 309, 29/10/2012, 600 276.00 324
Multistoreyed EWS houses with facility Item No-136/2012
building behind DDA project office at
Manglapuri, Dwarka (Site No IV). Project
on Design & Construction Basis
18. C/o 1696 EWS & 280 Cat-II houses on P10 SCM 325, 07/10/2014, 200 199.60 Nil
design and built in pocket 1A, sector A1 Item No-113/2014
to A4, Narela i/c internal development &
electrification.
19. C/o 2561 EWS & 419 Cat-II houses on P9 SCM 325, 07/10/2014, 200 196.04 4
Design and Built in pocket 1B at Sector Item No-112/2014
A-1 to A-4 Narela, including internal
development and electrification.
20. C/o 2128 EWS & 348 category-II houses P8 SCM 325, 07/10/2014, 200 199.48 Nil
on design & Built basis in Pocket-1C at Item No-111/2014
Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela i/c internal
Development and Electrification
(Source: Provided by DDA)
588
Annexure-4.1
(Referred to in Para 4.1.)
Sl. Name of the work Code AA/ES Estimate Tendered Actual date Stipulated Actual date Actual
No of the (₹ in d cost Cost of start date of of Expenditure
projec crore) (₹ in (₹ in completion completion (₹ in crore)
ts crore) crore)
1. Construction of HIG Houses at Pocket 9-B, Jasola in the 15715 sqm 59.18 75.58 108.89 17/04/2015 16/04/2018 22/05/2019 133.98
land including internal and external electrification, firefighting, lifts P5 (Prov.
and internal development works (Design & Built basis). completion)
2. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by using prefab technology
(having structural RCC members i.e., Columns, Beams & Slabs all
precast) in Narela, Rohini Delhi (A Turnkey Project).
SH: - C/o 11,566 LIG & 2276 EWS Houses at Sector G-7 & G-8 2840 959.23 1229.92 03/05/2013 02/05/2016 01/09/2017 1562.08
Narela, Sector 34&35 Rohini (Group-I) P11
C/o 2618 LIG & 580 EWS houses in Pkt-VI and 2638 LIG, 580 EWS 03/05/2013 02/05/2016 30/09/2020
houses in Pkt-VII i/c internal development & electrification at Sector
G-7 & G-8 in lieu of Pocket 6B & 4B Rohini Sector 34 & 35
3. C/o 24660 LIG & 4855 EWS houses by using prefab technology
(having structural RCC members i.e., columns, beams & slabs all
precast or walls and slabs all precast) in Narela & Rohini, Delhi. (A
Turnkey Project). 2840 1568 1394.36 03/05/2013 02/05/2017 22/09/2017 1675
SH: -C/o 13094 LIG & 2579 EWS houses i/c internal development & P12
electrification at Sec G-2 & G-6, G-3 & G-4 Narela (Group-II)
C/o 6511 LIG & 1420 EWS houses i/c internal development & 27/10/2016 26/04/2019 12/11/2020
electrification at Sec. G-7 & G-8 Narela.
4. C/o HIG (Multi Storied) Houses, including internal Development & 767.78 696 Cr. 617.99 27/11/2014 26/11/2017 Work in 664.94
P22
electrification in Sector-19(b), Dwarka, Phase-II (A Turnkey Project). progress
5. C/o 520 Two BHK, 250 Three BHK & 294 EWS houses (Design & 459.54 437.56 358.60 06/08/2015 05/08/2019 Work in 399.54
Built Model) Earmarked in Pocket – 14, at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela P17 progress
6. C/o 500 Two BHK, 340 Three BHK & 325 EWS houses (Design & Work in
Built Model) Earmarked in Pocket – 4, at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela Progress
SH:1: 340 Three BHK & 325 EWS houses (Design & Built Model)
Earmarked in Pocket – 4, at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela P19 814.51 235.22 225.54 10/07/2015 20/07/2019 552 Cr.
SH: 2: 500 Two BHK houses (Design & Built Model) Earmarked in
Pocket – 4, at Sector A-1 to A-4, Narela 204.70 184.92 10/07/2015 21/01/2019
(Source: Provided by DDA)
589
Annexure-4.2
(Referred to in Para 4.4.5.)
Sl. Name of the Work Code Date of No. of Technical Penalty to Total
No of the Start, techni representativ be Penalty to
proje Completion cal es for whom recovered be
cts and period repre qualification/ per month recovered
of work (in sentat experience (in ₹) (in ₹)
months) ives certificate
requi was not
red submitted or
not in order
1. Construction of 13094 LIG & 2579 03/05/2013, 61 61 260000 83210000
EWS Houses including internal 22/09/2017,
development & electrification at Sector P12 (53 months)
G-2 & G-6, G-3 & G-4 Narela (Group-
II)
2. Construction of HIG (Multi Storied) 27/11/2014, 63 63 420000 146520000
Houses, including internal ongoing,
Development & electrification in Sector P22 (74 months)
19 B, Dwarka, Phase - II (A Turnkey
Project)
3. Construction of 24660 Low Income June 2013 to 61 61 1570000 81640000
Group (LIG) Houses & 4855 September
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) 2017,
P11
Houses by using prefab Technology in (52 months)
Narela & Rohini (Group-I) (A turnkey
Project)
4. Construction of HIG houses at pocket 17/04/2015 10 10 480000 23040000
9B, Jasola in the 15715 sqm land to
including internal and external 22/05/2019,
P5
electrification, firefighting, lifts and (48 months)
internal development works (Design
and Built basis)
5. Construction of 500 two BHK, 340 22/04/2015, 32 32 480000 86400000
three BHK and 325 EWS houses ongoing,
(Design & build Model) earmarked in P19 (90 months)
Pocket-4 at Sector A1 to A4, Narela
6. Construction of 520 Two BHK, 250 06/08/2015; 15 8 230000 20470000
Three BHK & 294 EWS Houses Ongoing,
(Design& Built Model) Earmarked in P17 (90 months)
Pocket-14, at Sector A1 to A4, Narela
Total 437730000
590
Annexure-4.3
Project Code of Deficiencies Observed by Audit
the
project
HIG flats P5 The housing pocket was surrounded by encroachment comprising of permanent 4-5 storey structures. The open area inside the boundary wall of the
constructed at society was untidy and filled with waste, rubble etc. Green belt of 6 m width was not provided.
Pocket-9B, Two big exhausts were provided in the roof, but the mouth/exit of these exhaust were almost blocked by wall in the front.
Jasola, In the lower basement water was stagnant at places especially near the base of the electric meters installed. The ceiling of lower basement was also
(Conducted on showing seepage as water was dripping from it.
15/02/2023).
Blocked exhaust fan Seepage in ceiling of lower basement Missing green belt of 6m/poorly maintained trees
Lifts installed in one of the blocks were operating simultaneously whenever the button was pressed i.e. both the lifts, instead of one were arriving
at the floor whenever the button was pressed.
The RO plant installed in the housing pocket was not properly covered/ guarded. STP was also installed but was not put into operation as less
number of residents were there. At places the manholes/open reservoirs were not covered.
591
Lift operating simultaneously Uncovered RO plant

Construction of P11 There were many inhabitable hollow units on the ground floor of each block. During the discussion with DDA staff it was learnt that these were
24660 Low carved out to facilitate the shopping area. Later this would be used for community/facility purposes.
Income Group
(LIG) Houses & In meter room of Pocket IV/V many meters along with wirings were not found. A manhole was also seen in the room where meters were installed.
4855 This was found to be in violation of the guidelines for installation of meter. The Fire hose was also not found at many places.
Economically
Weaker Section
(EWS) Houses
by using prefab
Technology in
Narela & Rohini
(Group-I) (A
turnkey Project)
Hollow Unit Missing Fire House Manhole in Meter room
Very few plants/herbs were found in the green area. The grass in the ground was also not in good condition.
592
Green area not maintained

Construction of P12 Plantation and landscaping work not done as per the agreement. Negligible plants/shrubs etc. were found in the green area. The grass in the ground
13094 LIG & was also not in good condition. There were 320 Inhabitable hollow units on the ground floor of each block.
2579 EWS
Houses In the meter room of Pocket VI &XI of G2 and G6 electrical wirings were not found. Abandon site (Uncleared site) in pocket VI of G2 G6 sector.
including Most of Sanitary items were not found in dwelling unit at site.
internal
development &
electrification at
Sector G-2 & G-
6, G-3 & G-4
Narela (Group-
II)
Green area not maintained Missing electrical wires Inhabitable hollow units
C/o HIG (Multi P22 The platform of kitchen of sample EWS flat was not in line and level.
Storied) Houses, Provision of exhaust fan in the kitchen of sample EWS was not available.
including
internal
Development &
electrification in
Sector-19(b),
Dwarka
593
EWS Kitchen Slab & exhausts point

594
Annexure-4.4
Projects Code of Observation of Audit Comments of DDA Comments of Audit
the
projects
Construction of 500 two P19 The NIT of the aforesaid two DDA while accepting (February 2023) the fact that Reply of DDA is not acceptable as during
BHK, 340 three BHK and works were floated in December base price for any material covered under Clause 10 the pre-bid meeting (January 2015) for
325 EWS houses (Design 2014. In the Schedule F of the CA was not mentioned in the Schedule F of NIT and the works, the Contractor M/s B.G.
& build Model) earmarked NITs of the aforesaid two works it was only fixed at pre-bid meeting and also the base Shirke Construction Technology Pvt.
in Pocket-4 at Sector A1 to no base price was mentioned. indices i.e., value of Cl0 were not intimated to be Ltd. Asked to clarify the base price of
A4, Narela However, the base price was bidders, DDA stated that the date of submission of Cement & Steel, since both were not
decided as ₹ 5800 per MT and ₹ tender was 12/03/2015 hence the corresponding time mentioned in Schedule-F for the purpose
43600 per MT for cement and of these base prices was March 2015 being the month of 10CA. In the meeting, it was decided
steel respectively in the Pre-bid of submission of tender as per tender documents. that base price for Cement & Steel shall
Meeting held in January 2015. DDA further stated that the office of DG, CPWD be ₹ 5800 per MT and ₹ 43600 per MT
DDA awarded (10/07/2015) issues the base prices of the material covered under respectively. However, the indices were
works under above two subheads Clause 10CA and All India Price Index on monthly not intimated to the agencies.
to a Contractor, M/s B.G. Shirke basis for the operation of Clause 10CA and method The date of submission of tender for the
Construction Technology Pvt. of calculating the All India Price Index of that month works was 12/03/2015. As per CPWD
Ltd. At the tendered cost of ₹ was also mentioned. In the said memorandum issued memorandum a clear-cut formula for
184.92 crore and ₹ 225.54 crore by the office of DG, CPWD at footnote, it was working out the indices have been
for the Subhead-1 and Subhead-2 specifically mentioned that ‘these base prices are provided in every circular. As per
respectively. The works under applicable for Delhi, Faridabad, Gurgaon, CPWD memorandum dated 01/04/2015
both the Subheads were started on Ghaziabad and Noida only’ and for the remaining base price of the Cement (OPC) was ₹
22/07/2015 with stipulated date of part of the country, the concerned Zonal Chief 4700 per MT with corresponding indices
completion on 21/01/2019 and Engineer of CPWD issued only the base prices for as 83.89 & for Steel the rate is 42080 per
20/07/2019 respectively. the area under their jurisdiction on monthly basis MT with corresponding indices as 78.93.
The division had paid escalation and for price index, all Zonal Chief Engineers had to As per the rates adopted for Cement i.e.,
to the contractor upto January follow the All India Price Index issued by the office ₹ 5800 per MT, indices should be 5800 X
2022 in respect of the works under of DG, CPWD for that month for the operation of 100/5600 =103.57 and for Steel i.e., ₹
aforesaid two Subheads. While Clause 10CA of CPWD form 7/8. 43600 per MT indices should be 43600 X
calculating payments on account DDA added that from the above it was clear that All 100/53314=81.78. Contractor raised the
of escalation of cement and steel India Price Index (Clo/CI) issued by the office of DG, bill for 10CA considering the base index
under Clause 10 CA of the CPWD were fixed for each month and could not be for cement as 83.89 and for steel as 78.93
agreement, the division had altered/modified/proportionated on the basis of base instead of 103.57 for cement and 81.78
adopted the base prices of cement prices issued by the Zonal Chief Engineer Hence, for steel. Hence, the corresponding price
as ₹ 4700 per Metric Ton as the All India Price Index issued by the office of
595
against the base price of ₹ 5800 DG/CPWD for the month of March-2015 was fixed index of cement and steel were taken
per Metric Ton fixed in the pre- i.e., 83.89 and 78.93 or cement and steel incorrectly for the calculation of 10 CA.
bid meeting. Similarly in case of respectively. Therefore, the observation of Audit to Thus, by adopting the different base price
steel, the base price was taken as consider the price index by proportionating on the of cement and steel, DDA paid an
₹ 42080 per Metric Ton instead of basis of base prices issued by any authority other amount of ₹ 7.87 crore in excess to the
₹ 43600 per Metric Ton decided than DG, CPWD was beyond the provision of contractor while making payment for the
during the pre-bid meeting. contract clauses of agreement. DDA further added escalation under 10 CA in respect of the
Thus, by adopting the different if the base prices of cement and steel had been aforesaid two works.
base price of cement and steel, adopted as ₹5800 per MT and ₹43600 per MT
DDA paid an amount of ₹ 7.87 (mentioned in minutes of the pre-bid meeting)
crore (calculation sheet A & B) against ₹ 4700 per MT and ₹42080 per MT for
in excess to the contractor while March-2015 (as issued by DG, CPWD applicable for
making payment for the Delhi, NCR), the payment would be on higher side.
escalation in respect of the In view of above, it was emphasized that no excess
aforesaid two works. payment had been made to the Contractor under
escalation 10CA and 10CC. Therefore, no action
was required to be taken by this office.
C/o 11,566 LIG & 2276 P11 The division had made payment Reply not furnished. NA
EWS Houses at Sector G-7 on account of escalation by using
& G-8 Narela, Sector the base prices given in the
34&35 Rohini (Group-I), schedule F, instead of taking those
pocket VI and VII, Sector Base prices which were without
G7-G8 Narela, Excise and VAT. Resultantly, the
division paid excess amount of ₹
43.63 lakh to the contractor.
C/o 520 Two BHK, 250 P17 The division had made payment Reply not furnished. NA
Three BHK & 294 EWS on account of escalation by using
houses (Design & Built the Base prices given in the
Model) Earmarked in schedule F, instead of taking those
Pocket – 14, at Sector A-1 Base prices which were without
to A-4, Narela”, Excise and VAT. Resultantly, the
division paid excess amount of ₹
1.22 crore to the contractor.
596
Annexure-4.5
Project Code of Observation of Audit Comments of DDA Comments of Audit
the
projects
C/o HIG Houses P5 It was noticed that the division had paid 5 escalation bills Reply not furnished. NA
at Pocket 9-B, pertaining to clause 10CC. In the 5th 10CC bill it was
Jasola. observed that the division had taken enhanced minimum
wages for the unskilled labour, which were different from
the rates notified by the Government. Further, it was also
observed that the provision in respect of justified period
extended under provisions of clause 5 of the contract
without any action under clause 2, which stipulated that
the minimum wage prevailing on the last day of the
quarter previous to the quarter pertaining to stipulated
date of completion or minimum wage prevailing on the
last date of the quarter previous to the one under
consideration , whichever is less, should be considered
was also not followed. Though the least of these two
wages was ₹536/-; the same was not considered while
calculating escalation.
Keeping in view, the above two irregularities it was found
that the division had made excess payment to the
contractor. Considering the payment of 5 th 10cc bill, the
total interest @ 10% p. a. on the excess amount paid
worked out to ₹ 1.80 crore. Thus, cumulatively, the
contractor was given undue benefit of ₹ 6.60 crore, while
the government exchequer was put at loss. Details are
given in the annexure.
Construction of P19 The NIT of the aforesaid two works were floated in DDA while accepting (February 2023) the fact that Reply of DDA is not acceptable as
500 two BHK, 340 December 2014. In the Schedule F of the NITs of the base price for any material covered under Clause 10 during the pre-bid meeting (January
three BHK and aforesaid two works no base price was mentioned. CA was not mentioned in the Schedule F of NIT and it 2015) for the works, the Contractor M/s
325 EWS houses However, the base price was decided as ₹ 5800 per MT was only fixed at pre-bid meeting and also the base B.G. Shirke Construction Technology
(Design & build and ₹ 43600 per MT for cement and steel respectively in indices i.e., value of Cl0 were not intimated to be Pvt. Ltd. asked to clarify the base price
Model) earmarked the Pre-bid Meeting held in January 2015. bidders, DDA stated that the date of submission of of Cement & Steel, since both were not
in Pocket-4 at DDA awarded (10/07/2015) works under above two tender was 12/03/2015 hence the corresponding time mentioned in Schedule-F for the
subheads to a Contractor, M/s B.G. Shirke Construction purpose of 10CA. In the meeting, it was
597
Sector A1 to A4, Technology Pvt. Ltd. at the tendered cost of ₹ 184.92 of these base prices was March 2015 being the month decided that base price for Cement &
Narela crore and ₹ 225.54 crore for the Subhead-1 and Subhead- of submission of tender as per tender documents. Steel shall be ₹ 5800 per MT and ₹
2 respectively. The works under both the Subheads were DDA further stated that the office of DG, CPWD issues 43600 per MT respectively. However,
started on 22/07/2015 with stipulated date of completion the base prices of the material covered under Clause the indices were not intimated to the
on 21/01/2019 and 20/07/2019 respectively. 10CA and All India Price Index on monthly basis for agencies.
The division had paid escalation to the contractor upto the operation of Clause 10CA and method of The date of submission of tender for the
January 2022 in respect of the works under aforesaid two calculating the All India Price Index of that month was works was 12/03/2015. As per CPWD
Subheads. While calculating payments on account of also mentioned. In the said memorandum issued by the memorandum a clear-cut formula for
escalation of cement and steel under Clause 10 CC of the office of DG, CPWD at footnote, it was specifically working out the indices have been
agreement, the division had adopted the base price of mentioned that ‘these base prices are applicable for provided in every circular. As per
cement as ₹ 4700 per Metric Ton as against the base price Delhi, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad and Noida CPWD memorandum dated 01/04/2015
of ₹ 5800 per Metric Ton fixed in the pre-bid meeting. only’ and for the remaining part of the country, the base price of the Cement (OPC) was ₹
Similarly in case of steel, the base price was taken as ₹ concerned Zonal Chief Engineer of CPWD issued only 4700 per MT with corresponding
42080 per Metric Ton instead of ₹ 43600 per Metric Ton the base prices for the area under their jurisdiction on indices as 83.89 & for Steel the rate is
fixed in the pre-bid meeting. monthly basis and for price index, all Zonal Chief 42080 per MT with corresponding
Thus, by adopting the different base price of cement and Engineers had to follow the All India Price Index indices as 78.93.
steel, DDA paid total amount of ₹ 56.92 lakh i.e., ₹ 30.68 issued by the office of DG, CPWD for that month for As per the rates adopted for Cement i.e.,
lakh for Subhead-1 and ₹ 26.23 lakh for Subhead-2 the operation of Clause 10CA of CPWD form 7/8. ₹ 5800 per MT, indices should be 5800
(calculation sheet E & F) in excess to the contractor DDA added that from the above it was clear that All X 100/5600 =103.57 and for Steel i.e., ₹
while making payment for the escalation in respect of the India Price Index (Clo/CI) issued by the office of DG, 43600 per MT indices should be 43600
aforesaid two works. CPWD were fixed for each month and could not be X 100/53314=81.78. Contractor raised
altered/modified/proportionated on the basis of base the bill for 10CA considering the base
prices issued by the Zonal Chief Engineer₹ Hence, the index for cement as 83.89 and for steel
All India Price Index issued by the office of DG/CPWD as 78.93 instead of 103.57 for cement
for the month of March-2015 was fixed i.e., 83.89 and and 81.78 for steel. Hence, the
78.93 or cement and steel respectively. Therefore, the corresponding price index of cement
observation of Audit to consider the price index by and steel were taken incorrectly for the
proportionating on the basis of base prices issued by calculation of 10 CA.
any authority other than DG, CPWD was beyond the Thus, by adopting the different base
provision of contract clauses of agreement. DDA price of cement and steel, DDA paid an
further added if the base prices of cement and steel had amount of ₹ 56.92 lakh in excess to the
been adopted as ₹5800 per MT and ₹43600 per MT contractor while making payment for
(mentioned in minutes of the pre-bid meeting) against the escalation under 10 CC in respect of
₹ 4700 per MT and ₹42080 per MT for March-2015 (as the aforesaid two works.
issued by DG, CPWD applicable for Delhi, NCR), the
payment would be on higher side. In view of above, it
was emphasized that no excess payment had been made
to the Contractor under escalation 10CA and 10CC.
598
Therefore, no action was required to be taken by this

office.
599
Annexure-4.6
Project Code of Observation of Audit
the
projects
C/o 11,566 LIG & 2276 P11 It was noticed that the contractor was given Mobilization Advance
EWS Houses at Sector G-7 (MA) in three installments: First installment of ₹ 98.39 crore was
& G-8 Narela, Sector 34&35 paid to the contractor on 03/05/2013, second installment of ₹ 19.77
Rohini (Group-I) crore on 26/03/2014 and third installment of ₹ 29.46 crore on
06/09/2017. Further, Tool & Plant (T&P) advance was given in two
installments (First installment of ₹ 19.26 crore on 1/1/2014 and
second installment of ₹ 26.28 crore on 15/03/2014). It was noticed
that the work for which Mobilisation advance and T&P advance was
given, included portion for Sector 34 and 35, Rohini the work on
which could not be constructed us per direction dated 10/05/2013 of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, it was observed that the
advances as stated above could have been appropriately calculated
taking into actual availability of site for commencement of work.
The project cost for Rohini sector 34 and 35 was ₹ 216.39 crore,
Hence the proportionate MA and T&P advance for this site works
out to ₹ 20.75 crore and ₹ 8.00 crore. Thus, payment of 28.75 crore
towards MA and T&P advance pertaining to the disputed site was
irregular. Further the third installment of MA was also irregular, as
the agreement clause stipulated release of advance in two
installments.
C/o HIG Houses at Pocket 9- P5 The work was awarded to the contractor in November 2014, the
B, Jasola, Mobilization Advance was given to the contractor (in two
installments) in January 2016. The request made by the contractor
for the advance was also not found in the records. Further, it was
also noticed that the first installment of ₹ 5.44 crore was released on
07/01/2016, while the second the second installment was released
immediately within a period of less than a week on 13/01/2016
without obtaining proof of satisfactory utilization of the earlier
installment. The documents depicting the utilization of the 1 st
installment were also not found in the records.
Thus, that the MA was released to the contractor in contravention of
the agreement.
Construction of 13094 LIG P12 As per the terms and conditions of the acceptance letter conveyed to
& 2579 EWS Houses the successful Bidder M/s B.G. Shirke Construction Technology
including internal Pvt. Limited on 18/04/2013, the tenderer was to quote his rates per
development & dwelling units and the payment for dwelling unit will be made for
electrification at Sector G-2 the actual dwelling units constructed. The rates per dwelling unit for
& G-6, G-3 & G-4 Narela LIG, EWS and development work quoted by M/s B.G. Shirke
(Group-II) Construction Technology Pvt. Limited, were ₹ 8,78,299 per DU, ₹
6,00,352, per DU and ₹3247 per sqm. of the site respectively.
The work was awarded to an agency ‘M/ s B.G. Shirke Construction
Technology Pvt. Ltd.’ on 18/04/2013 at the tendered cost of ₹
1394.36 crore which was to be started from 25/04/2013. The works
was to be executed in Pocket I, III, IV, V, VI of Sector G2 & G6
and Pocket XI in Sector G7 & G8, Narela.
Audit observed that the Agency made a request to DDA on
27/04/2013 for the release of entire MA of ₹ 139.43 crore. DDA
released (03/05/2013) the first instalment of MA of R109.32 crore,
to the contractor and the second instalment mobilization advance of
₹ 24.72 crore to the contractor was released by DDA on 26/03/2014.
DDA did not made available any records regarding utilization,
recovery, and release of further mobilization advance for the
600
alternative pocket at XI at Sector G7 & G8 though asked for. In the

absence of such records, Audit could not ascertain whether the
second installment was released after checking the proof of
satisfactory utilization of the earlier installment and further
mobilization advance, if any, released to the contractor for the
alternative site handed over in October 2016. Further, Audit could
also not find the records relating to recovery of mobilization
advance released till date as no records was made available to Audit
though asked.
Initially, the aforesaid works was to be executed in Pocket I, III, IV,
V, VI of Sector G2 &G6 and Pocket I, II and V of Sector G3 & G4,
Narela. In three pockets of Sector G3 and G4 in total of 3242 nos
LIG DUs and 720 nos EWS DUs were to be developed.
However, Pocket-V of Sector G-3 and G-4 was not available due to
water logging at the site and as to the Pocket- I & II of the said Sector
the sites were not available due to existing structure of Metro Vihar
station and Senior Secondary school. Therefore, DDA offered an
alternate site at Pocket-IX, Sector G-7/G-8, Narela against the
aforesaid sites at Sector G3 & G4 on 13/10/2016.
The unavailability of site at Pocket I, II and V at Sector G-3 & G-4
was in the knowledge of DDA since April 2013. Since the sites at
G3 & G4 were unavailable, the mobilization advance w.r.t the work
at G3 & G4 should not have been issued by DDA until it ensured
the availability of the site. However, while releasing the 1st
installment of mobilization advance, DDA calculated the
mobilization advance on the whole tender amount, which was
released in May 2013. Further, before the releasing the of 2nd
installment of mobilization advance on 26/03/2014, the
unavailability of complete site at G3 & G4 was noted by DDA.
Despite this DDA released the full amount of mobilization advance
to the contractor. Based on the conservative estimation, undue
benefit of ₹ 35.94 crore i.e., 10% of ₹ 3,594,527,918 (LIG DUs
720* ₹6,00,352 + EWS DUs 3242* ₹ 8,78,299 + Development Cost
of site area 96960 sqm * ₹ 3,247) was granted to the contractor in
the form of mobilization advance for G3 & G4 where the work never
been started.
601
Annexure-4.7
(Referred to in Para 4.5.6)
Project Code of Observation of Audit
the
projects
C/o 11,566 LIG & 2276 P11 The approval of Service plan in respect of sewerage scheme was still
EWS Houses at Sector awaited from DJB, however, DDA has failed to withhold an amount
G-7 & G-8 Narela, of ₹ 9.89 crore on account of such non achievement of first milestone.
Sector 34&35 Rohini In case of alternate site at Pocket VI and VII, the milestones were not
(Group-I) fixed as a result of which audit could not ascertain the progress as well
as the achievement of the different stages of work.
Construction of HIG P22 The work was awarded to M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd at the
(Multi Storied) Houses, tendered cost of ₹ 617.99 crore in November 2014. As per the
including internal agreement, the contractor had to submit all the structural/architectural
Development & drawings, Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) clearance, service
electrification in Sector drawings, etc. and get those approved.
19 B, Dwarka, Phase - It was noticed that environment clearance was obtained by the agency
II (A Turnkey Project) on 12/4/2016 and 270 days hindrance with 100 per cent weightage
(from 17/07/2015 to 12/04/2016) was considered by the competent
authority and accordingly the milestones were shifted. While
calculating the hinderance, 17/07/2015 was taken as the date of start
of hindrance on the basis, that all the drawings and approvals except
EIA clearance were available at that date and EIA clearance was
granted on 12/04/2016.
As per agreement, the first milestone included preparation and
submission of all structural/architectural drawings, EIA clearance,
preparation, and submission of service drawings to service providers
and getting approval from service provide₹ The period accorded for
getting such approvals was set at 15 months (22/02/2016). EIA
clearance was accorded on 12/04/2016. Thus, the delay attributable
due to EIA clearance was merely 50 days (22/02/2016 to 12/04/2016).
However, the competent authority while revising the 1st milestone, has
calculated the hindrance as 270 days. Thus, extra benefit of 220 days,
has been accorded to the contractor while revising the milestones.
602
Annexure-7.1
Si.n Question Option-1 Option-2 Option-3 Option-4
o
1. How was the application process? Good (27) Average (9) Poor (10) --
2. In your opinion, whether the pricing of flats was in line Yes (17) No (29)
with the ongoing market rate?
3. Whether the allotment process was transparent? Yes (31) No (4) Can’t say
(11)
4. Was the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on Yes (31) No (15)
time?
5. In your opinion, whether the area of the flat allotted was Yes (19) No (27)
adequate?
6. How was the overall quality of flat that was allotted? Good (04) Average Poor (29)
(13)
7. Was the possession letter issued on time? Yes (14) No (32)
8. At the time of issue of possession letter, were the basic Yes (11) No (35)
amenities viz. sewerage, water supply, electrical supply,
communication lines, streetlights etc., available?
9. At the time of issue of possession letter, were the Yes (19) No (27)
public/semi-public services viz., parks, bus stops,
hospitals, shopping complexes, schools etc. available
nearby the location of flats?
10. How was the behaviour of DDA staff during the process Good (07) Average Poor (26)
of allotment of houses? (13)
11. Whether any complaint was lodged? If so, reasons for Application Allotment Quality of Others
the same process (3) process (11) constructio (please
n (12) specify)
(20)
12. Whether the process of lodging complaint was easy? Yes (11) No (28) Can’t say
(07)
13. Was the complaint resolved to your satisfaction? Yes (08) No (34) Not
applicable
(04)
14. Whether the maintenance of flats is being done Yes (06) No (40)
satisfactorily?
15. How was the overall experience with the process of Good (03) Average Poor (27)
allotment of houses by DDA? (16)

PDFProvider

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDFProvider

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

495

521220/2023/AD(PLG-LAND POOLING ZONE J & L)

1.1. Housing Scenario in Delhi

1.2. Functions of DDA in Housing

1.3. Organizational Structure of DDA

Principal Commissioners and Commissioners of various functional wings. Organisation chart

1.4. Functions of departments/wings of DDA

1.5. Flow of work in Housing Projects

Engineering  Conducts survey and constructs boundary wall on the plot

Planning  Prepares Area Layout Plans.

Engineering  After receiving approval from SCM, concerned Chief

Contractor/Agency  Prepares drawings and designs of the Group Housing

 Submits the drawings and designs to HUPW through the

Engineering  Hands over the approved drawing and design to the

Contractor/Agency  Obtains approval from the local bodies and authorities.

Engineering  Records completion certificates of the housing projects.

Housing  After receiving the inventory of completed dwelling units

Housing  Launches the Housing Scheme for sale of dwelling units

System  Facilitates Housing Wing in conducting draw for

Housing  Allots the dwelling units to the successful applicants.

2. Budget and Expenditure

2.1. Expenditure and receipts on construction and disposal of Houses

4. Sources of Audit Criteria

Meetings, Screening Committee Meetings, Technical Committee3 Meetings etc.

Table 2.1: Details of completed and ongoing selected projects

4 C/o 500 Two BHK, 340 Three BHK

Planning for Housing

3.1. Preparation of planning documents

ZDP • A detailed plan/scheme,

Chart 3.1: Relation among MPD, ZDP and LOP

3.1.1. Preparation of MPD 2021

3.1.1.1. Delay in preparation of MPD 2021

Pic 3.5: Map of Delhi showing location of 17 ZDPs

(Unit: No. of dwelling units in lakh)

(Unit: No. of dwelling units)

3.5. Mandatory dwelling units for EWS not constructed

3.6. Discrepancies in carpet area of EWS dwelling units

 Total Buildup area exclusive of external  Total carpet area of room

Housing Scheme EWS/Janta

Pic 3.10: Carpet area as per IS 3861

3.9. Minimum ceiling for density of dwelling units not fixed.

construction --Preparation of NIT

Award of work --Receipt/Opening of tenders

--Preparation of detailed drawings

Chart 1.1: Activities associated with the construction works

4.2.1. Incurring expenditure without obtaining Revised AA and ES

Case Study 4.1: Delayed Tendering led to Cost Escalation of houses

4.3.3. Erroneous calculation of estimated cost and impairment of tendering process

4.4.1. Wasteful expenditure on site under litigation

4.4.2. Deficiencies in obtaining approval from local bodies:

4.4.3. Less Carpet Area provided than norms

Table 4.5: Difference in number of EWS Units constructed

EWS DUs required

4.4.12. Issue of Cement and Steel during the period of hindrance

4.5.1. Irregular reimbursement of Green Tax Environment Compensation Charge

Chapter 5 – Costing of Houses

5.1 Pre-Determined Rates

finally transferred to the buyers. Further, as a result of re-categorisation of flats, 22494

5.1.3.1 Inconsistency in expenditure data in respect of Cost Benefit Analysis

DDA’s response is awaited.

5.2.1 Non-inclusion of weighted average in PAR

DDA’s response is awaited.

6.2. Absence of periodicity or basis of launching a Housing Scheme

6.3.1. Housing Scheme 2017