The Great DDA Rip-off

7 views

Skip to first unread message

Ranjit Sabikhi

unread,

Oct 24, 2006, 11:07:29 AM10/24/06

to cbs...@googlegroups.com

THE GREAT DDA RIP-OFF

Even without the Urban Development Ministry having decided on how they intend to regularize the extensive misuse of premises in the city, the DDA has already worked out and conveyed through the media the charges that they intend to levy on various categories of misuse. If these charges are in fact levied there will be a massive outcry against the sheer audacity and unfairness of these proposals from shopkeepers, professionals, businessmen, residents and people from all walks of life.

DDA’s proposals constitute not only a one time change of use charge but also a massive ongoing annual charge on a square metre basis. This is absolutely preposterous! If the Master Plan is to be revised incorporating change of use in different areas then a one time change of use charge is understandable. What justification is there for DDA to levy an exorbitant annual charge on these premises? What services does the DDA provide to justify such an outrageous proposal?

The DDA has on its own abandoned the leasehold system that prevailed in the city and replaced it with freehold, for which they charge a substantial amount. What they are proposing now amounts to an on going perpetual additional lease charge!

The MCD already charges annual commercial rate of house tax on these same properties. Now, DDA also wants to extort whatever it can.

This is part of an ongoing rip-off that DDA has been indulging in for the past 45 years, and it is time to expose what has been going on and talk about it openly. Consider carefully some of DDA’s responsibilities as laid down by statute and compare it with what they have actually been doing.

1. It is DDA’s responsibility to implement the Master Plan of Delhi controlling growth and development. That they have failed completely in this respect is a fact that needs no elaboration. While rampant uncontrolled growth of the city has continued, a partially re-vamped Master Plan 1962 has been trotted out as Master Plan 2001. It would be a pleasant surprise if something different emerges as Master Plan 2021. So far the same old MPD-62 continues, with its total mis-match between ground realities and Master Plan proposals. It is quite obvious that DDA does not have the required technical expertise to draw up a meaningful Master Plan. It is time that the citizens of Delhi demanded a change - a more transparent plan concept and implementation structure.

2. Another mandate of the DDA is the development and sale of land. It was intended, that with the joint responsibility of implementing the plan and also developing land it would set up an efficient framework for the growth of the city. Unfortunately, the setup as it has evolved is anything but efficient. While plan implementation continues to have serious lapses, the DDA is effectively black-marketing land, ensuring that supply is always less than demand for all categories of need. This is one of the prime factors responsible for the prevailing exorbitant land prices in the city.

3. By their own admission the DDA has failed to implement large sections of the MPD-1962 which was slated for completion in 1981. The plan document for MPD-2001 records in 1990 that of the 15 District Centres proposed in MPD-1962 only three were fully completed and three others were in the process of development. The situation today is not very different and extensive shortfalls still remain. As a result a large section of the retail and commercial needs of the city has been forced to find an outlet in NOIDA and Gurgaon. Tardy implementation of the plan has contributed to the extensive misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes.

4. The major activity of the DDA in recent years has been the sale of land by auction. Considerable profits have been realized from such sales, all of which has been deployed to maintain a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy. Their claim that they are providing housing for low and middle income residents of the city is no longer tenable. The last substantial chunk of housing development was implemented almost twenty years ago. In recent times the entire focus has been on the development and sale of land, with both planning and actual construction of projects being sidelined. A recent news item stated that less than 50% of last years budget was spent on the implementation of projects, and the balance budget allocation has lapsed.

5. The DDA has been on a money making spree. Apart from the sale of land which yields substantial profits, effective exploitation of the power that emanates from the control of development also provides handsome profits. This has been one of the prime reasons why over the years no major change has been made in the land use structure of the city, even when it was quite clear that unsatisfied retail and commercial needs were moving into residential areas. More land for commercial development could have been made available but it was not. Alternatively the Master Plan could have been changed to reflect actual trends but even this alternative was not followed. It was convenient for the DDA and its engineers to maintain the status quo indefinitely, in order to exploit it financially in every possible way.

It would appear that there is no limit to greed and that is at the root of the latest proposals to make money from the change of use of premises on an annual basis. It is important to put a stop to this now! If in order to do this it is necessary to disband the DDA and set up new structures for planning and development control this should be done - and done as soon as possible. The rot has sunk too deep to allow the present state of affairs to continue any further.

By an Act of Parliament DDA was appointed as the nodal agency authorized to prepare a Master Plan for Delhi, although the first Master Plan for Delhi was not prepared by them. MPD-1962 was prepared by the Town Planning Authority (since disbanded), with the help of a group of foreign and local architects and planners assembled for the purpose. The same process can now be followed by co-opting a group of experienced professionals under the aegis of the Ministry of Urban Development, along with representatives of concerned agencies like the MCD, NDMC, DUAC, RWAs and others. Such a body can produce a more effective and meaningful plan for the control of the future growth and development of the city. The time is right for taking serious corrective action now, and perhaps, the Ministry of Urban Development will recognize this before concerted public reaction forces it to do so.