Date: 27.9.2005

To

Sri. Sanjay Jaju, IAS.,

Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.

Tank Bund Road

HYDERABAD

Dear Sir,

                                n

Sub: -

a)       Cutting of trees for road widening

c)       Breaking of rocks, a feature of the deccan plateau

d)      Blanket instruction for demolition of unsafe old buildings.

e)       Sharing the road widening pla

***

We refer to our earlier letters dated 12.9.2005 and 14.9.05. Delivered by hand at your office, to which   so far we have not received your response. We are concerned at the way in which the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, in executing its road widening plan, has caused/ is causing the indiscriminate and avoidable felling of roadside trees, without obtaining proper authority and the breaking of huge rocks which have taken millions of years to form and give the city its defining character of belonging to the Deccan plateau and cannot be replaced. We are also concerned at the blanket instruction reportedly given by you to officials to demolish all old ‘unsafe’ buildings, which if done indiscriminately may lead to the demolition of many buildings which may have heritage value, but have not yet been listed as heritage buildings or which constitute   an indispensable part of a notified heritage precinct.  Finally, we are not sure how far the present road widening plan has been determined after making a proper requisite study of the traffic movements and the prospective traffic growth for at least 10 to 15 years, in the absence of which a further road widening may be needed after a short while, at considerable cost and inconvenience to all concerned, much of which is avoidable with a proper planning.  In the following paragraphs we seek information / comments on these issues.

Felling of trees

We would like to know whether proper permission was taken from the appropriate authority under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002 (Act No 10 of 2002) and the Rules there under, vide G.O. Ms. No. 224 P.R. & R.D. (R.D.-IV) Dept, dated 15-6-02. Attention is further invited to G.O. Ms. No. 49- Forests& Rural Development (For VI) Dept, dated 2.2. 1984 – wherein under paragraph 3 (a) detailed guidelines were issued

Regarding cutting of trees in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Kindly also refer to G.O.Ms. No 129 Energy & Forests (FOR- III) dated 30.04. 1991 regarding preservation and disposal of trees on public premises including roadsides.

We desire to know, whether the prescribed procedures under the Act, the Rules there under, and the specific guidelines issued by the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh from time to time for regulating, preserving, cutting and lopping or eroding the base of such trees by removal of earth, etc., were followed., while carrying out these large scale fellings of road side trees in the city.

In this connection, please refer further  to our detailed letter  dated 12.9.05 on the subject addressed to the District Collectors, Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy districts, copy endorsed to you. A copy of the letter is attached for your ready reference.

Times of India ( TOI), Hyderabad, in their issue of 16.9.05 has reported that you had stated that permission was obtained from the District Collector, Hyderabad. The proper permitting authority was the District Authority under Rule 8(1) of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002, and not the District Collector alone. Further, the latter, vide the TOI report, stated that permission was applied for only in respect of Banjara Hills Road no 2, and Jubilee Hills, Road no 36, and not for the other roads. He added that he would further check up whether permission for other areas was applied for. Please let us know the truth. 

The District Collector had also put a condition that saplings twice the number of trees felled should be planted. You have stated, vide the Hindu dated 23.9.05, that 500 saplings have been planted while 400 trees were felled. This is short of the requirement stipulated by the District Collector.

We would also like to know how many trees were actually felled as the sources in the Environment and Forest Department say an estimated 4000 trees were felled on the ten roads being widened, vide Hindu dated 23.9.05.

We are aware that the need for road widening may sometimes require the felling of trees while at the same time the trees are very valuable for preserving environment and for preventing pollution. It is for this reason that a special expert body was provided for under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002 (Act No 10 of 2002) and the Rules there under, to take a balanced view in such a situation and to examine alternative options. Yet, the Corporation chose to ignore such an expert body provided by the State’s own Act.  The Corporation ignored protests by various eminent persons and bodies, such as Ms Shanta Sinha, Magsaysay award winner, Namrata Chowdhary of Greenpeace India, The Forum For a Better Hyderabad, and even a letter by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests., vide . The Times of India,  dated 16.9.05 .  The action of the Corporation in causing damage to the environment in disregard of expert opinion, is regrettable..

Using them as natural road dividers between existing roads and their extended widths could have saved trees on the sides of the roads, and this extended portion could be used as separate lanes for slow moving vehicles, autos, pedestrians. The fellings were, therefore, resorted to without examining alternative options.

In our considered view the felling of these trees is going to adversely affect the air and noise quality levels in the city. This affects a citizen’s right to life. A report in The Times of India, City Express on 15.9.05 under “ Enormous loss to environment” details how much effect a tree has on reducing pollution. Instead the natural barriers to pollution were destroyed. A copy of the TOI report is enclosed.

Breaking of Rocks

Another casualty to the road-widening project is the rock in the heart of the city. These rocks took millions of years to form and give the city its defining character of belonging to the Deccan plateau. They cannot grow again.  We had suggested that the rocks could at least be relocated where they block road widening. No attention was paid to our request. The two huge rocks in the compound of the Greenlands Guest House were broken to pieces.  Even now, the chipping and breaking of rocks is going at full pace opposite the Greenlands Guest House.  We urge upon you to stop this, so as not to destroy the character of the city.

Attention is also invited to a report in Times Of India dated 18.9.05 “ Break rocks and dig your own graves, warns experts”. The International Institute of Information Technology’s (IIIT) Earth Quake Engineering Research (EERC) experts have opined that buildings and mega apartments on rocks  increase the propensity to earthquakes. A copy of the report is enclosed.

Heritage Buildings and Buildings in the Heritage Precincts.

The new compound wall of the Greenland Guest House (GGH) is touching the GGH and will block the view of this notified heritage building. No permission was taken from the heritage conservation committee for making alterations in the compound of the GGH, as required under the Heritage Regulations. The Heritage Conservation Committee has expressed its objections in the matter in their meeting on 16.9.05.

An article in Times of India, dated 18.9.05 under the caption “Now, MCH eyes heritage structures too”,  states that road widening  threatens  the College of Airfare (Caw) in Secunderabad, the Allauddin mansion and the hundred year old Spanish Mosque, both at Begumpet. “ … the compound walls of all the three heritage buildings come in the way of the proposed MCH road widening.”  Please note that these buildings cannot be tampered with in any manner without obtaining prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee in terms of Regulation 13 of the HUDA Zoning Regulations 1981.  Your attention is drawn to AP High Court judgment in W.P. no 20387 of 2001 where the road widening and the resultant demolition activity undertaken by the MCH in the Charminar Precinct was ordered to be stopped by the A.P. High Court as permission had not been taken by the MCH from the HUDA acting under the advice of the Heritage Conservation Committee.  The road widening was allowed to be resumed only after the MCH obtained permission from the Heritage Conservation Committee and gave a written undertaking to the Heritage Conservation Committee to comply with the conditions stipulated by them. 

We draw your attention to our letter of 12.9.05, wherein we had referred to reports in newspapers of orders issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, that all old buildings, which are considered unsafe, should be pulled down without delay and without any hesitation. While we appreciate the anxiety and the urgency felt by the Corporation to prevent any risk of loss of life and property or injury/damage thereto, by any unsafe, old building falling down as a result of natural reasons, we submit that some of the

“Unsafe” old buildings may have heritage value, and may deserve to be notified as heritage building, after proper survey. As you are aware, the list of notified buildings, vide G.O. Ms. No. 102 M.A. dated 23.3.1998, in terms of the Regulation No 13(1) of HUDA Zoning Regulations, 1981, and the subsequent recent notification adding another 19 buildings to the list of heritage buildings, is not the final list of heritage buildings at Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and that the aforesaid regulation provides for additions to, deletions from, the current lists and change of categorization of listed buildings (para 3 of the Regulation).

The aforesaid G.O. and the Regulation also provided for notification of Precincts, which were added to by Notification No. 3023/PR/HUDA/ 2000 dated 30.4.2000.  The said G.O. inter alia, says: “According to Regulation 13 (7) , buildings included in Heritage Precincts shall maintain the skyline in the precinct as may be existing in the surrounding area, so as not to diminish or destroy the value and beauty of the said Precinct. The notification of Heritage Precincts will imply that development proposals, street furniture, road widening proposals and outdoor publicity within the Heritage Precincts shall need to be approved by the Vice Chairman, HUDA, and the Heritage Conservation Committee, before permission is granted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or other competent authorities”.

In view of the aforesaid regulation and G.O.s, we urge upon you to instruct the concerned municipal authorities that before demolishing an old building considered “unsafe.”, they must consider whether such a building is likely to have any heritage value and/or whether the demolition of such a building is likely to diminish or destroy the value and beauty of the Precinct inside which  it may be located. A list of old “unsafe” buildings may be made by the MCH within a time-bound programme, and a quick inspection by the Heritage Conservation Committee, or a team of persons approved by them, may be arranged to inspect such buildings and take an on-the-spot view whether any of them can be demolished without detriment to the value and beauty of the relative Precinct, or because of being devoid of any heritage value. If, on the contrary, this body finds the need for conserving the building, and yet the building is considered unsafe for occupation, it should be immediately evacuated, with a proper signboard regarding its un-safety, and steps should be taken so that the neighbors or passers-by are also not put to any risk. We are confident that it is practicable to take such a measure.  

Road Widening

As per  City Express dated 16.9.05, and the Hindu dated 23.9.05, the road widening will cover Charminar to Falaknama; St Mary’s road to Clock tower;

Liberty junction to Himayatnagar junction; Somajiguda to Rajbhavan;

Banjara Hills Roads Nos 1 & 2; ( Banjara Hills Road no 2 & 3, vide Hindu dated 23.9.05, page 3 –“ MCH told to take up transplantation”) Jubilee Hills road no 36;

Ek-Minar to Darusalam; Vidyanagar to Ramnagar;

Our Request

We request you to ensure that

• Trees,

• Notified heritage structures, structures not yet notified but likely to have heritage value,    structures within notified Precincts which are likely to affect the beauty of the Precinct,

• are not interfered with in any manner without the approval of the respective authorities prescribed under law

• Please stop the breaking of rocks, in the heart of the city, which give Hyderabad its defining character of belonging to the Deccan plateau.  Where these rocks block the road widening, please arrange for relocating the rocks. This may at least be tried. There is no requirement under the law to do so, but we appeal to your love of Hyderabad and we hope nothing will be done to destroy the character of the city. 

• Finally, as a body of citizens concerned with civic problems and environment conservation, we request you to share the road widening plan and also the plans for fly-overs with us. Such sharing will enhance the quality of the plans and help its proper and expeditious implementation.  We would be interested to know whether any study of traffic movement and traffic growth was made with a medium- to- long-term perspective, before undertaking the current road widening plan and the construction of flyovers. Only a few years back, some roads were widened, which now seem to require further widening, which suggest that proper planning was not made at that time. The mistake must not be repeated. Any road widening causes considerable dislocation to the traffic, and loss to the owners/lessees of the properties affected by road widening. If roads require to be widened frequently due to lack of planning, the inconvenience and losses are enhanced and avoidable expenditure of the public funds is incurred at accelerated rate

We shall await your response.

Yours sincerely,

(Capt.J.RAMA RAO)

Chairman

Forum for a Better Hyderabad

540, Road No.12, Banjara Hills

HYDERABAD-500 034

P.NO. 23321350

Encl:      1.            Our letters dated : 12.9.05 and 14.9.05,

               2.                   Times of India,  dated 15.9.05 –“Enormous loss to Environment”;

Times of India,  dated 18.9.05 - “Break rocks and dig your own graves warns experts” and other clippings

Copy to:               

1.             Sri.Mohan kanda,  IAS., Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister,

                Govt. of A.P., for information with a request to direct appropriate action in the matters.

2.             Sri.Bhanu, IAS., Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister,

                 M.A. & U.D. Department, Govt. of A.P.,

3.             Sri.S.P.Singh, IAS., Secretary, MA & UD Department, Govt.of A.P.,

4.             The Vice-Chairman, HUDA, Begumpet

5.                   Sri.Aravind Kumar, IAS., Collector & I class Magistrate, Hyd., Dist.,

6.             Sri.Shravan Kumar, IAS., Chairman, Heritage Conservation Committee     

HISTORY OF SOME LOCALITY NAMES IN HYDERAD CITY

 The Geographic location of Hyderabad is 170 - 22' Northe latitude and 780 - 27' East longitude. The city was built in 1591 AD. by the 5th Golconda King, Mohmad Quli Qutub Shah.

The average elevation of the city is 1735 f1. (M.5.l). The city started expanding from 19th century, towards the Northern side, across the Musi River. The development was into series of villages. The names of these villages are retained as the locality names: Mallepally, Nampally, Gowliguda, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Domalguda, Saidabad, Nallakunta, Ramlote, Malakpet, Seetarambagh etc.

Average level of Musi river bed is 1500 fr + (with a gradiant of 1 ft in 40' to 100'). The lowest level of the rive is at Malakpe1.

GARDENS

Hyderabad was a city of Gardens. Many localities still carry the name of the old Gardens, although there are now no gardens of parks in these place. The names of such localities are as follows: Devibagh, Devideenbagh, Gulbagh, Phoolbagh, Murlidharbagh, Kandaswamy bagh, Indir bagh, Ibrahim bagh, Nazree bagh, Eden bagh, jambagh, Basheerbagh, Moosarambagh, Seetharambagh, Akbarbagh, Zoba bagh, Kanchanbagh, lalbagh, Baghlingampally, Bagh Amberpet and Kundanbagh.

HISTORY OF NAMES

1) Nampally:

Raza Ali Khan, was the Dewan of Nizam's State in 1670 AD. His Title was 'Nekh Nam Khan' A jagir was granted to him, which came to be called nekh-Nampally. This became 'Nampally'.

2) Begumpet:

Basheerunnissa Begum, daughter of Nizam II was married to a Paigah noble. She received lands in dowry. The village cam to be known as Begumpe1.

3) Khairatabad:

The jagir granted to Khairunnisa Begum daughrer of Ibrahim Qutub Shah, came to be known as Khairatabad.

4) Begum Bazar:

Land gifted by Humda Begum ( the wife of Nizam Ali Khan Nizamul Mulk) to the merchants of Hyderabad for trade and commerce, finally developed as Begum Bazar.

5) Sultan Bazar:

After 1933, the Residency bazar was renamed Sultan Bazar, when these areas were returned to the Nizam, by the British (Residency).

6) Afzal Gunj:

The V Nizam (Afzalud Dawlah) gifted land to the grain merchantgs for trade and commerce. The place was named Afzal Gunj.

7) Secunderabad:

Named after Sikander jha (1806) (III Nizam). The Village where British troops were stationed.

8) Ma Saheba Ka Talab:

Hayat Bakshi Begum, wife of Quli Qutub Shah VI - was called Ma Saheba. The tank constructed by her to irrigate lands of Mallepally village, was called Masaheba ka Talab. Finally it was called Masab Tank.

9) Kadve Saheb Ki Galli (lane):

After a person, who was always angry-faced and talked ill of others. This lane is in the old city.

10) Himayat Nagar:

New locality named after Himayat Ali Khan - Azam Jha - eldest son of VII Nizam - Osman Ali Khan ( in 1933). His name was Himayat Ali Khan.

11) Hyderguda:

New locality named after Hyder Ali, who was 1 st Talukhdar (District Collector) and owned lands in the village formerly the Jagir of Vaheed Unnisa Begum, wife of Iind Nizam. The locality is called after him, as Hyderguda.

12) Basheer Bagh:

The garden of Sir Asman Jha, Basirud-dulah - a Palgah Noble, who had a palace at the Garden.

13) Somajiguda:

A revenue department employee, named Sonaji, who owned lands and resided in this village. Sonaji became Somaji and the hamlet came to be called 'Somajiguda'. (Guda is from Godem a hamlet).

14) Malakpet:

Named after Malik Yakoob, a servant of Abdulah Qutub Shah Golconda King where he resided had a market, hence the name Malakpet.

15) Saidabad:

A Jagir village of Sayed Meer Momin, Dewan of Golconda (1591).

16) Abid Shop:

A Valet and steward of Nizam (VI) Mahboob Ali Khan. This man had his first shop here.

17) Saroornagar:

Named after Sarwari Afzal Bai, mistress of Arasthu Jha. Dewan of Hyderabad, who granted a Jagir,and constructed a palace and Garden for her.

18) Debirpura:

The village named after Abdul Samad with the titles; Babeer-ul Mulk, a noble man.

19) Noor Khan Bazar:

A market developed by Noor Khan, who came from Lucknow, during the time of the II Nizam.

20) A.C.Guards:

A locality to the West of Lakdi-ka-pul. The barracks of Abyssinian Cavalry Guards of Raja of

Wanaparthy - (1910) (Abyssinia is the old name of Ethiopia, an East African country).

Compiled by: (c SARVOTHAM RAO)

In a Government Order No 263 M.A. dated 14 May 2003, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was entrusted with the responsibility for the conservation, maintenance and deve\opment of Heritage Buildings within the municipal limits, and the HUDA was given the responsibility for areas outside the Municipal limits, but within the jurisdiction of HUDA. This responsibility however remains largely on paper, as there seems to be no machinery in either of the two bodies for the onerous task entrusted to it.

In fact, if one were to ask for a map of the city and metropolitan region showing the heritage buildings, one would not get it. HUDA has published a Heritage List, but the buildings are listed according to the category (or 'Grade') in which they fall. Grade I Buildings are those of national or historical importance, representing excellence in architectural style, design, etc., or associated with a major personality.

Grade II buildings are of regional or local importance possessing special architectural or aesthetic merit, though of a lower scale. Buildings in Grade II A can be altered only with the prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee, while those in Grade II B do not. Grade III Buildings and townscapes are those which 'evoke architectural, aesthetic or sociological interest, of a lesser order.

What neither HUDA nor MCH has done is to provide the public with a booklet which lists the buildings area by area, and indicates by a photograph and a location on the map as to where the building actually is located.

INTACH, (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) is a voluntary organization which is based in Delhi and has branches all over the country. Several years ago the Hyderabad chapter of INTACH published a book by S. P. Shorey, entitled "In Search of Monuments, " which contains area by area maps and photographs of every building protected by the ASI and the state archaeological department. Unfortunately this publication has long been out of print. Moreover, it contains only buildings protected by the ASI and the state government, and not those protected by the HUDA, which were notified only later, in the period 1995-1998.

Among the major complaints against the heritage regime as it now operates in Hyderabad, the following are the most obvious. These require the urgent attention of the authorities, and the most urgent action for the rectification of the situation:

1.  The number of monuments notified under all the three lists is very low. In the case of the first two categories (those preserved by the ASI and the State Archaeological Department) the excuse may be made that there is inadequate funding for purchase of new buildings for preservation, as all or most of their protected buildings are owned by the Department. However the argument of lack of funds can no longer be put forth by these two agencies, since the ASI is hamstrung in its efforts more due to administrative failures than to funding shortage. So far as the State Archaeological Department is concerned, it has been placed under the Tourism Department for the past few years. The failures of Tourism have often been due to violating the principles of conservation (as in the case of the Taramati pavilion, as Sajjad Shahid- points out in his article cited below.

2. In the case of the HUDA list, the argument of paucity of funds does not apply, as HUDA is flush with funds. It is not clear why it has refrained from appointing staff to monitor the buildings and precincts which it has itself notified in 1995, 1998 and 2000. Additional buildings proposed for inclusion in the list have not been considered for notification. The HUDA list should contain all buildings notified by the ASI and State Archaeology, as there is no legal bar to this. Some decades ago, the State Department of Archaeology de-notified even major Qutb Shahi structures like the Char Kaman and the Darus Shifa, which had been notified by the late Ghulam Yazdani, the Director of Archaeology of Hyderabad State. Subsequently, in 1998, the HUDA listed some of them, but not the Shah Raju Tomb, which is a fine example of later Qutb Shahi architecture, and a few others. All state and centrally protected monuments should be on the HUDA list. A policy should also be formulated for watching the maintenance of religious buildings which a