OBJECTIONS TO MUDA - REVISED ZONAL REGULATIONS

To,
The Secretary to Government
Urban Development Department
The Government of Karnataka
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore – 560 001

Sir,
Sub: Objection for the amendments to zonal regulation of ‘Master Plan’ (Revision II) of the local planning area of Mangalore.
Ref: No.UDD 305 MyAaPra 2010, Bangalore, dated:01-06-2010

Following are my objections to the subject mentioned revised Zoning Regulations.
General and Preliminary Objections:

Publication in Kannada: The notification has been published in English and not in Kannada. Kannada is the official and people’s language. It is mandatory to publish full notification in Kannada or at least summary thereof to enable the citizens to have their say in matters of public importance. Otherwise, calling for objections from citizens becomes a mockery of the system. [ Pls. note that there are millions of common people even unable to read Kannada properly due to illiteracy and also inaccessibility to official gazette copy].
Prior Information: Wide publicity ought to have been given in the print and electronic / mass media inviting the attention of the citizens to the subject mentioned notification as they are directly and personally affected by this notification. The authority has a duty to educate the citizens in a country where participatory democracy is accepted as way of living. Practically, a very few people have access to gazette notifications and commoner reads only news papers. Hence, sufficient notice should have been given informing the general public that the notification is issued and objections/ suggestions are called for.

Prior Public Debate: There ought to have been public debate in the office of MUDA at Mangalore well before the publication of notification as the matter is highly technical and relates to engineering and planning aspects. Common man and ordinary citizens will not be able to understand on their own by going through the subject mentioned notification as it runs into 54 pages [ again very small font sizes] and with full of technicalities drafted in legal language. Even an expert is required to read more than once to understand the essence as some pages are given with interference and shall be read in conjunction with the definitions and related chapters. This requires exchange of knowledge and public debate to enable the citizens to come out with constructive suggestions. Now, the Deputy Commissioner of D.K. District has given a statement in the media that the public debate will be conducted soon !. What is the use of public debate after the passing of the notification ? . So, from this point of view also, the manner in which the process is conducted is bad.

Extension of Time: For the aforesaid reasons, the last date for filing objections to the said notification shall be extended for another 60 days as these Regulations are going to be in force for a decade. Once the same is passed in its present form, then the citizens who are not affected at this stage but will become victims tomorrow will not get a chance to have their say. Therefore, the planners should take the vision of the people also into consideration. MUDA officials are not the only experts in these matters. It is too dangerous to leave the whole thing to the official’s hands alone.

Prior Study Report: An expert committee appointed by the government shall first conduct a detailed study of various planning aspects of the city of Mangalore keeping in mind its topography, environmental conditions, ecology, availability of open space, infrastructural facilities and the local unique land related conditions. Unless such a technical report is prepared in public interest having regard to the national urban development policy, the subject mentioned notification shall not be taken up for consideration at all. This study can be completed in 4 to 6 months time. So, it is again not too late.

Specific Objection in relation to the revised subject mentioned notification:

1. Either TDR or equivalent compensation in cash shall be paid to the citizens in case of land acqusition. The terms and conditions of the present TDR shall be published and made known to the citizens now itself. The citizens shall not be used as sales men to sell the TDR on behalf of MUDA as powerful builder’s lobby will form a cartel and try to dictate the market price of TDR. TDR shall be issued based on market value and not the guideline value fixed for collection of stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act. Provided, the citizen is able to establish that the market value is more than guideline value. The burden to show shall be fixed on the citizens only. This is being done in the case of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act and. Why not the same principles be made applicable here?. Why double standard?.

2. It is said that the citizen are asked shall given the land free of cost in case of road widening. Is MUDA above the constitution of India in view of Article 300 A of the constitution ? This clause is perse unconstitutional and smacks of arbitrariness on the part of the authority.

On Para No. 4.15.9:

My suggestion: The telescopic set back shall be allowed even for the residential building. When the setback is counted on the basis of height of the building and when there is enough FAR left to put one or more upper floors (in case of existing or proposed building), restricting the telescopic setback only for the commercial building is unfair. But in both cases parking requirement shall be fulfilled.

On Para No. No.12- Means of access:

My objection: The ‘MUDA’ authority acquiring the land for road widening on behalf of the developer / builder for his personal benefit should be deleted from Z.R . Because, it will leads to the manipulation of law and also it steals the fundamental rights of the people who are enjoying the property lawfully.

On Sl. No.18 :

My suggestion: TDR shall be given for every property and person who surrenders portion of his land for road widening purpose in each and every case / situation. The MUDA shall not act like a dictator. [ Ex: Now most of the roads are being widened in Mangalore to cater to the commercial needs of some vested builders to enable them to get higher FAR. For this, citizen’s private property cannot be used by putting such arbitrary and unreasonable conditions].
Finally, I should be given an opportunity of personal hearing [ predecisional hearing ] in case the government rejects my objections for whatever reasons.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,

[Vivekananda Paniyala]
Copy to:
The office of Honorable Governor
The Raj Bhavan
Bangalore – 1.