FBH - Heritage Cell

Date: 13-05-2010

To
the Commissioner,
GHMC, the Addl. Commissioner,
GHMC, the Commissioner,
HMDa, Chairman,
HCC and the Director-Planner,
HMDA on widening of 19 arterial roads in city

Dear Sir,

Sub: GHMC resumes widening of 19 arterial roads in city Report in Deccan Chronicle dated 12.5.10.

We enclose the above report which is self-explanatory. Relevant extract is appended:
“Widening of main roads like the Sardar Patel (SP) corridor, Punjagutta to Erragadda, Sangeet to Tarnaka, Charminar to Falaknuma and the Liberty-Himayatnagar stretch, among others, remained incomplete as each stretch had heritage structures and other such constructions that got in the way of the road widening as these structure could not be acquired in time for the work to begin.
For example, the SP road, starting from HPS Begumpet to St. Ann’s High School was widened up to 150 feet but several properties like the Spanish Mosque, the Aladdin Buildings, the Jabbar Buildings and the culvert at Kochar apartments could not be acquired.”
Please advise us, with reference to the proposed widening of the roads mentioned in the report:
1. Whether the roads as mentioned in the report are proposed for widening; if so, whether these are mentioned in the Master Plan, existing or proposed;
2. Whether, and if so, which heritage structures are being affected by the proposed widening; and what you propose to do about such heritage structures;
3. Whether you have obtained permission or are applying for prior permission from HMDA which will act on the advice of Heritage Conservation Committee for such road widening as would affect the heritage structures, as required under Regulation 13 of Huda Zoning Regulations 1981, and as mandated by the A.P. High Court in W.P. No 20387 of 2001
4. Please note that any road widening without prior approval of HMDA, acting on advice of HCC, is illegal and will be challenged by us.

To
the Commissioner,
HMDA on accidents on roads - suggestions

Dear Sir,

Sub: Accidents on Roads-Road Dividers-reg.

We refer to our letter dtd. 6.7.2009 addressed to Sri.S.P.Singh, IAS., Commissioner, GHMC(copy enclosed for ready reference). Kindly inform us whether you have decided to implement our suggestions. In case your decision is not to implement, please favour us with the reasons.

To
the Chief Secretary,
Govt.of A.P., to the Commissioner,
HMDA and to the Managing Director,
BPPA on YSR Meorials planned at IMAX

Sub: YSR memorials planned at IMAX, Lake View Park Deccan Chronicle dated 18.4.10, report .

We refer to the above report a copy of which is attached. We understand that memorials are planned at above sites, and decision taken, as reported, although a G.O. has not yet been issued.

In this connexion, we would like to bring to your notice that a case is pending with the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Haragopal & ORS versus South Central Railway & Others and that the Supreme Court has passed dated 25.4.2004 that pending disposal of the appeal, no further construction shall be carried out except with leave obtained from the SC in, on, or around the lake. The Supreme Court appointed a Committee to examine the matter and the latter in its report since submitted has clearly mentioned IMAX within the protected area of the lake, vide Chapter 7 , para 7.6, Recommendations, ....7 (e)....." Prasads Imax Theatre is clearly on land created from part of the lake……….”

We request you therefore that as the matter is sub-judice, please do not go ahead with your decision for YSR memorial in the locations mentioned above till the case before the Supreme Court is decided.

Kindly advise us of your decision. Meanwhile, please acknowledge receipt.

Date: 15-04-2010

To
the Commissioner,
GHMC on felling of trees in front of the State Government Secretariat on 13.4.2010

Sub: Cutting of trees, numbering about 24, in and in front of the State Government Secretariat on 13.4.10

We are shocked that a large number of trees numbering about 24, in and in front of the State Government Secretariat on 13.4.10, were cut reportedly under the direction and supervision of the GHMC. This is in gross violation of the WALTA, the GO Rt. No. 539 dt 11.12.2008, and the promises made from time to time by different GHMC Commissioners, including the statement by the then GHMC CSO immediately after the great banyan tree was cut in front of the American Consulate office, that all existing orders for felling of trees will be annulled and that in future no tree will be cut by the GHMC without his personal prior approval.

We request you to fully investigate into the matter, determine accountability for this illegal act and punish the persons responsible. Please also take full proof , effective measures to prevent recurrence of such incidents, and to ensure hundred percent compliance with the WALTA and the GO Rt. No. 539 dt 11.12.2008.

Meanwhile, please arrange so that the stubs of the trees cut are not destroyed but replanted within the secretariat and properly nourished. Also, please arrange for compensatory plantation in accordance with the GO Rt. No. 539 dt 11.12.2008.

Please advise us of the action taken by you. Meanwhile, please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Date: 30-03-2010

To
the Director,
A.P.State Archaeology and Museums
on the threat to state monuments by widening of NG 9,

Dear Sir, Sub: Threat to state monuments by widening of NH 9, Hindu report dt 25.3.10

Please refer to the telephone conversation of our Dr. M. Mandal with you on 29.3.10. As discussed, please send a list of the monuments ( 26 or so ) reported to be under threat of destruction by the widening of Hyderabad –Vijayawada NH 9 vide the Hindu dt 25.3.10. Please also send a map showing the location of these monuments along the NH 9, indicating in the road map the proposed extended portion. May we expect the information soon after your annual closing is over ?

Date:27-04-2010

To
the Commissioner,
GHMC, the Commissioner,
HMDA AND TO THE Chairman,
HCC on proposed road expansion
threaten to 3 heritage buildings in the premises of Mehboob College

Sub: Proposed road expansion – Civic plans threaten three heritage structures in Mehboob College,
Secunderabad, the heritage buildings notified in the list of 14 additional heritage buildings
notified by HUDA in 2006 –vide Sl.No.3, 4 and 5–Grade II B- reg.

We enclose a copy of a report in Deccan Chronicle dated 26.4.10, stating that due the proposed road expansion, three heritage structures in the above Heritage Building , namely, the C.V.Padma Rao Memorial hall, the P. Ramachand Pillai Memorial and Sri Moosthiyala Ramanna hall or the Swami Vivekanada Hall are under threat. The C.V.Padma Rao Memorial hall may be completely razed to the ground in the road widening. The Swami Vivekanada Hall will be brought into dangerous proximity to the heavy traffic if the lane bordering the college by 35 feet, as proposed. This is contrary to the set backs of the notified Heritage Buildings.

Please let us know the precise details of the road widening plan affecting this site, and whether it is part of the Master Plan of HMDA. In any case, prior permission is required to be obtained from HMDA/ Heritage Conservation Committee before ant road widening is undertaken which may affect a protected heritage structure. This is a requirement under Regulation 13(1) of HUDA Zoning Regulations 1981. There is a judgment of the A.P. High Court to the same effect in .

We shall be glad to have your advices in this regard.

Date: 26-03-2010

To
Project Director,
YSR Smruthi Vanam Project

Dear Shri Chandra Mohan Reddy,

Sub:‘YSR Smruti Vanam’ project

We thank you very much for the courtesy extended to Shri O.M. Debara and Dr. M. Mandal during their visit to your office on 25.3.2010. You took pains and spent a lot of time in explaining to us the above project after changes made therein. As requested kindly send us a soft copy of the project. We are grateful that you have agreed to arrange a visit to the site and a meeting with interested NGOs on the project. We shall shortly suggest some dates.

Meanwhile, with reference to the project details furnished by you, kindly further advise us on the following:

a) Whether any work of whatsoever nature will be undertaken at the crash site – if so, the particulars thereof.
b) Whether the connecting road from ‘YSR Smruti Vanam’ project to the crash site and the approach road to the crash site / Shiva temple will be changed in any manner, whatsoever.
c) Whether any EIA and application for Environmental clearance from the Ministry of Forests & Environment, GOI has been / will be made; if not, the reasons therefor. Even though no trees may be cut, as you said, the increased traffic flow to the Memorial site, and from there to the Crash site, the noise of vehicles, etc are very likely to impact the environs.

Shall be grateful to receive your advices at an early date.

Date: 26-03-2010

To
Sri.Jairam Ramesh,
the Hon’ble Minister of Environment & Forests,
Government of India

Honourable Minister,

Sub: A separate directorate at Hyderabad to implement ‘YSR Smruti Vanam’

We refer to a report in the Hindu dated 24.3.10, stating that the State Cabinet has taken a decision to create a separate Directorate at Hyderabad to implement the ‘YSR Smruti Vanam’ at the site of the helicopter crash in Kurnool district. The project will come up in the Velugodu reserve forest in Kurnool district and will be completed in three years. The directorate will have 33 officers and supporting staff to oversee the execution of the project, the cost of which has been estimated at Rs. 13 crores. A copy of the Hindu report is enclosed. From the report, it appears that the A.P. State Government has finalized the YSRM project.

So far as we know, no Environmental Impact Assessment of the project been made and no environmental clearance has been obtained for the project; or even applied for.

We consider an EIA and environmental clearance are absolutely necessary for the project, before any headway is made with the project. We request you not to sanction the project till such studies are done, and to advise the State Government accordingly. In this connexion, we refer to the letter dated 1.10. 09 which the Forum and several other organisations had earlier written to the State Government. A copy of the letter is enclosed for ready reference.

We shall be grateful for an early response. Meanwhile, we request an acknowledgement of the letter.

Commissioner,
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Dear Sir, Sub: Your Revised draft Master Plan for Core Area.

Our visit to HMDA office at Green lands to inspect Master Plan ( M.P.) displayed.

Some initial comments.

Our fundamental objection to the Master Plan remains namely, absence of any plan to spread balanced growth throughout the State and concentrate on Hyderabad, now further narrowed down to ‘Core Area’ concept. This approach can never solve the problem of the so-called core area unless this plan of the so-called core area is made part of the master plan for the entire state and as part of a M.P to develop anti-magnet towns and cities. Subject to this comment, some comments on details of the exhibits are made below.

1. Circle-wise maps have been displayed. We need to obtain a copy each of these with better resolution for close study. We also need a copy each of the earlier circle-wise maps to compare the two sets and locate the changes.
2. In the map of Circle IX covering Begumpet and Umanagar, the name of the ST Francis Girls’ college has been wrongly stated as St Annes College. Also, the Country club is shown as a heritage building in a residential zone, whereas the club is functioning on a fully commercial basis.
3. Land use zoning regulations are ambiguous. It is stated that “the uses are not to be treated as exhaustive”. Some ambiguity in their definition cannot by the nature of things be avoided, but further clarity should be tried. A few examples:
I) hostels & boarding houses : banks; post offices; religious premises; clubs; appear under uses permitted under Residential Zone. Whereas, Hotels, banks, guest houses, restaurants, boarding houses, colleges, religious places, post offices, religious buildings, clubs, appear under uses permitted under Commercial use Zone also. Hotels, religious buildings, restaurants appear under Multiple Use Zone also. We consider, some scale of operations be prescribed in respect of these uses which are common to under different different types of land uses, such as number of staff employed, parking space required, requirement for independent premises site, minimum plot size requirement, width of road, etc., should be prescribed for permission in each zone.

II) Terms such as ‘service establishments’ under Use for Residential zone , ‘offices’ under Commercial use zone , ‘computer software and Hard ware units/ITES/ IT enabled services’, ‘work centres’, ‘computer software and hardware units’ should be clearly defined. Are ‘offices’ permitted in residential use zones? What about using a part of the residence as a resident’s own use eg, in the case of lawyers, doctors, consultants, etc?

4. The requirement of ‘green building’ should apply not merely to new government buildings but to all new buildings above a prescribed square metres ( reference para 4 (v) on page 13.

5. Water Bodies Zone ( para 7 ): The term ‘construction’ not permitted in the FTL and the buffer belt around the FTL should be clearly defined as “ any type of construction, permanent or temporary , and using any material not necessarily cement”.

6. Sites specifically reserved as Heritage Sites: Item 9 A) i) should mention under ‘special exemption’ incentives for owners/users of heritage buildings and sites. An incentive package should be prepared without further delay on the lines of the recommendations made by INTACH Hyderabad, chapter on 11.3.05.

7. Parking requirements ( page 20), item no b): It should be expressly stated that built-up areas must provide for visitors’ parking, parking for non-residential uses, etc. As of now, residences , on the contrary, display sign boards stating ‘visitor’s vehicles not allowed’ and security guards do not allow visitors’ parking in the parking space provided in a premise and compel them to park on the road.

C.C to: The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad

Commissioner,
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Dear Sir, Sub: Your Revised draft Master Plan for Core Area.

A large number of households do not have toilet facilities in their households, either individually or on a common basis. Particularly, migrant labour to Hyderabad mainly for construction work are not provided such facility either at their place of stay or during working hours. Please include a plan for provision of ample toilet facilities to each household either on an individual or sharing basis. Also, for the migrant labourers at their place of stay and at work site. And fix a suitable norm for such provision, such as number of persons to be served by a toilet. Please let us have your advices in the matter at an early date.

Date: 29.12.09

To
The Hon’ble Minister for
Municipal Administration & Urban Development
D Block No: 345
A.P. Secretariat
HYDERABAD

Dear Sir, Sub: A stock-taking after expiry of BPS / CDS. Some observations and suggestions

A principal avowed objective of the CDS/ BPS scheme was to do away, once for all, all unauthorized constructions in GHMC / HMDA/ area and the areas of the other local municipalities, by regularizing those that conformed to certain prescribed requirements, and by eliminating those that did not, and to take effective steps so that in future, no further irregular construction takes place. Yet, a year after the closure of the scheme, we observe that this objective has been defeated. We make the following comments and suggestions re Buildings constructed in violation of the extant building regulations. In this connexion, we refer to our discussion with the Secretary, MAUD, cum Commissioner, HMDA on 10.12.09.

Observations	Suggestions.
a large number of buildings which are irregular, completed prior to the last date prescribed for applying under the scheme, have not been applied for compulsory declaration under the scheme. Most of these have got undetected.	Detection of all such buildings may be a Herculean task. At the same time, at least on a sample basis, some could be easily detected; For example, those that are located within an apartment complex where owners of some flats have applied for BPS, the others who have not can be easily detected. Also, whether such a building has any floor in excess of the sanction may be checked This will be a signal to others. Deterrent action can be taken in such cases.
A large number of buildings were completed after the expiry date of the BPS, in the hope that these would also be similarly regularized in course of time if a situation of fait accomplice is created for the authorities as in the past. New constructions are still being made in violation of the building rules. These cases have not been detected to any substantial extent.	It is possible to do so by reference to aerial maps which GHMC reportedly has on or recent to 15.12.08 , and compare them to their latest map, to detect (a) new buildings that have come up and (b) whether these are as per sanction. Even the height of a building indicating the number of floors could be ascertained from such maps. If such capability do not exist in GHMC now, it should be built within a specific time period.
GHMC often pleads lack of adequate field and office staff to monitor and detect cases of violation.	This may be true to a large extent. And the problem of “paucity of staff” will remain for some time. We have to learn how to maximize the effect of the resources. One way is selective and sample intelligence gathering, an example of which is given under the first suggestion above (namely, scrutiny of multi-storied apartments where not all apartments' owners have applied for BPS). Another way is taking of action with promptness in cases detected so that a message goes that action will be taken and many others are deterred from violating. A third way is to increase the network of intelligence through liaising with residents' organizations and forming ward committees. Finally, all complaints received from civil society groups/ individuals should be promptly looked into and action taken. This will have a deterrent effect on delinquents. At present the message on the contrary is that violations will go with impunity, and that complaints will not be looked into. This breeds a culture of permissiveness among builders/ owners and a sense of despair among sincere complainants.
Another plea taken, often rightly so, is that of interference by corporators, M.L.As, MPs and even Ministers, and higher officials in protecting violators selectively. Very often corporation is prevented from initiating legal action; This is indeed a real problem	A way to overcome this phenomenon is to bring such cases into the public domain. Here, civil society can play a major role. CSOs may inform the press, to make stories; confront the concerned public representatives/ officials by writing letters to them and asking for information even under RTI. C.S.Os may take up such matters with the party chiefs or the departmental principal secretary or even the Chief Secretary. Ward committees as well as Area Sabha Committees should be formed in the manner prescribed under GHMC Act. Municipal Act(s). GHMC/HMDA may give such information leads through the aforesaid ward/ area sabha committees. The latter bodies may also review all cases of violations.
On the contrary, there is often complaint by builders that Municipal officers, particularly at junior levels and at zonal office levels insist on bribes even for clearing a plan prepared as per regulations. Also, they selectively inspect buildings where payment of bribe money is refused and overlook buildings where underhand money has been paid. No action was contemplated in the earlier BRS / BPS or CDS against the builders while the builders are the ones who have actually corrupted the supply side of the market, so much so that for an honest buyer it is hard to find any building, which does not violate the building rules in some way or other, such as insufficient set back/ additional floor(s)/ pent house, etc. Further, the builders have cleverly built into their pricing the cost of forfeiting a floor kept under lien under G.O 86.	The Corporation therefore should have a mechanism to register meticulously applications for approval and monitor applications pending beyond one month. This list should also be placed before an appropriate higher authority to be prescribed and may be reviewed periodically (say quarterly) by the concerned ward committee.. The Ward/ Area Sabha committee should be carefully constituted as per provisions and so that they are bereft of partisan considerations/ vested interests and do not pressurize for payment of bribes. Levied as processing charge. A suitable G.O. should be issued to take measures against any builder who violates the building regulations in any manner. To start with, heavy fine should be imposed equivalent to twice the value of the additional construction. There should be provision for forfeiting the license of a violator builder Also, there should be a system of supervising all buildings above a certain value, and a good percentage (say 10 %) of other buildings, through authorized agents.
vii) It is not clear from the CDS cum BPS what action is contemplated in respect of i) those buildings that were not declared under BPS or ii) which do not qualify for regularization on payment of penalty, iii) or which have been constructed after the expiry of the last date of application under the scheme. Will these be demolished? Will they be fined at a far higher rate than that applicable to those that applied and qualify?	We propose following action: i) Sample checking of apartments in a multi-storied complex should be conducted; the suitability or otherwise of regularization of deviations should be examined. If deviation permits of condonation by paying penalty, the penalty should be levied thrice the amount which would have been payable if the apartment would have been declared on time for regularization. In cases, where the deviation is beyond the scope of regularization, demolition of the additional built portion with fine plus recovery of cost of demolition, may be considered. ii) It is not necessary nor feasible to do such checking for all buildings, but if sample checking on a random basis is done, it will have the desired effect. iii) Buildings constructed, or additions made to existing buildings, after the expiry of the last date of application under the scheme should be demolished partly or wholly, covering constructions in violation of sanctioned plan, plus recovery of the cost of demolition and penalty for making unauthorized constructions. iv) The High Court should be approached in advance to issue instructions to the lower courts that no stay can be granted by lower courts against an order of the concerned governmental authority and that such discretion will lie only with the High Court ( if such an order has not already been passed).

Simultaneously, the accountability of section officers, planning officers of the GMHC/ HMDA/ Municipalities should be examined for violations in their area(s) of operation, and an assessment of their performance made on the overall compliance with building regulations in their respective areas.

In this connexion, we have also to point out that the following undertakings given to the Court on behalf of the government, in respect of W.P. No 1069 of 2008 were not complied with:
Counter affidavit dated 9.2.2008 on behalf of Pr. Secretary to Government, MAUD: Paragraphs 4, 6 – a, b, h, k, m. 10, 13. In similar vein, undertakings dt 6.2.09 Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation in 7. 8. 9. 1 was not complied with. We would like to have your specific comments in respect of such undertakings. The affidavits are copied and enclosed for your ready reference. The statements made by the Secretary, MAUD to the A.P. High Court in its counter affidavit dated 9.2.08 in W.P. No 1069 of 2008 do not reflect the true state of affairs and remain mere statement of intentions. For example, in reference to paragraph 6 thereof, in how many cases has there been any enforcement of the “stringent provisions” of G.O. no 86 dt 3.3.2006? Such as, non-connection of electric power, water supply, drainage & sewerage; inspection by Fire Services Department and abiding by their report; Issuance of occupancy certificate; “summary demolition” of violated portion of a building; administration of warning followed by de-licensing of habitual violator builders; check by Enforcement Authority against violations; constitution of Building Ombudsman? None of these provisions have been enforced, and there seems lack of a will to do so. The violation, contrary to the counter-affidavit dated 6.2.08 by the Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation do “hamper the basis idea of urban planning”.

The whole exercise in BPS so far seems to be only a game for raising money, without fulfilling its ostensible purpose of making Hyderabad and the State clean, once and for all, of unauthorized constructions. Hyderabad continues to be infested with illegal structures. On the contrary, the BPS and its lack of enforcement has encouraged start of further unauthorized constructions as no substantial action has been taken against the violators in a visible manner. It gives a message that violation pays, as the cost of regularizing through penalty is less than the cost of violations and / or that violations will largely go unnoticed / unpunished. There is consequential damage to civic amenities, such as use of road, drainage, sewerage, water supply, open space, environment, etc. The balance between ‘compassion’ for the violators and the clean living environment for the law-abiding citizens has been lost in favor of the former.
In this connection, we refer to the Hindu report dated 30.8.09, captioned “Stop political support for illegal constructions – Builders have scant respect for regulatory laws: Supreme Court”, particularly paragraph 1 thereof. A copy of the news item is enclosed.

Thanking you,

Date: 01-10-2009

To
Sri Hitesh Malhotra,
Principal Chief Conservator of forests (WL) and Chief Wildlife Warden
Hyderabad

Dear Sir,

Sub: YSR Memorial at site of accident in Nallamalla Forests

From the Press Reports it is learnt that the State Cabinet decided to erect a memorial in honour of late Chief Minister Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy at the Helicopter crash site in the Nallamalla forests. The place where helicopter crashed at Pavurala Gutta(Tippa) is understood to be located in the core Tiger Area known as “Gundla Brahmeswara (GBM) Wildlife Sanctuary”.

Creation of “Critical Tiger Habitat”

The proposal to create a consolidated core of “Tiger Reserve” by merging critical Tiger Habitats of “Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve” with entire “Gundla Brahmeswara (GBM) Wildlife Sanctuary” was discussed in the 2nd meeting of the State Board for Wildlife, chaired by non other than late Chief Minister Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy on 9-10-2007 and it was reviewed again in 3rd meeting of State Board for Wildlife, chaired by Hon’ble Chief Minister Sri K. Rosaiah on 11-09-2009.

This consolidated “Core of Tiger Reserve” which will be notified as “Critical Tiger Habitat” along with the notified buffer of the Tiger Reserve, is expected to provide full landscape of more than 6,000 Sq.Kms, where the Tigers can safely survive for the next 200 years, with better chance to flourish.

No Activity will be permitted in the “Critical Tiger Habitat” including “GBM Wildlife Sanctuary”. It will be “NO Activity Zone” after settling the cases of ROFR Act.

Ecological Impact of Memorial

The construction of proposed memorial at the site, associated approach roads /paths, infrastructure facilities, vehicular traffic, large number of visiting pilgrims to the
memorial site etc, right in the protected “Critical Tiber Habitat”, is bound to disturb the ecological balance and endanger the home for thousands of endangered animals, birds, rare medicinal and endemic plants, in the ecologically fragile area in the frightening and majestic Nallamala Forests, the Flora and Fauna of which is pristine and beautiful.

We express our serious concern at the proposal of the State Government to erect a memorial for the late Chief Minister, Dr. Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy at the helicopter crash site in the “Critical Tiger Habitat”, where any activity including construction of roads is banned as per Wildlife Act `1972.

Appeal

The beloved late Chief Minister “YSR”, whose loss is irreparable, demonstrated his love for Nature and Wild life by launching the bold “Operation Restoration of Kolleru” for dismantling fishponds encroaching into the Government lands in the notified Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary. A fitting memorial to “YSR” will be to preserve nature and wild life and not to destroy them. The proposed memorial will, on the contrary, hurt YSR’s values. We earnestly appeal to the State Government to change their decision.

Looking forward for an early response.

Copy to : Sri. Jairam Ramesh, Hon’ble Minister , MoEF , GOI

Date: 06-07-2009

To
Sri.S.P.Singh, IAS.,
Commissioner and Special Officer
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Tank Bund Road
HYDERABAD

Sir,

We write this letter to you to bring to your notice the accidents occurring on the roads of Hyderabad due to various reasons. A look at the newspaper reports pertaining to road accidents makes a sad statement on the safety of road users.

Before pointing out the problems for the safety of road users in our city, we need to point out that the condition of roads in Hyderabad is considerably better than that in many other cities of our country. However, the good condition of roads is disguise in blessing for the common road user. On a smooth road, the drivers tend to drive faster and faced with an adverse situation, the accident turns out to be fatal.

Good, wide roads need a different paradigm for safety. Various provisions on and around the road need to be dealt with sensitively.

Based on the personal experience and newspaper reports, we would like to bring out the following points to your notice, which need urgent attention:

1. Road dividers: Road dividers have been provided at most of the places in the city. These are very helpful in regulating traffic. However, most of the road dividers are not visible at night as they are mostly of dark color. They are neither painted white nor are coated with a reflector paint. Due to this, the road users collide with them if they are not careful and such accidents are mostly fatal.
2. Stationary lorries: Many times, the lorries are parked on roadside at unexpected places. These lorries do not have any reflectors or glow signs. Due to this, any vehicle coming on that road is very likely to collide with these stationary lorry / bus / truck and which results in fatal accident.

Both these types of accidents are being frequently reported in the city of Hyderabad. The road users in Hyderabad are unfairly paying a very heavy price for good roads.

To prevent recurrence of accidents due to above cited reasons, we propose that the authorities should take the following actions:

1. The road dividers should be painted with reflector paint or glow sign prominently. Particularly, the starting and end points of road dividers should be provided with reflectors / glow signs. As a cheaper temporary alternative, the road dividers may be painted white so that their visibility increases.
2. All the lorries entering the city premises or plying within the city limits should be fitted with glow signs / reflectors. This will prevent accident due to stationary lorries. This issue can be taken one step further. The law can be amended to ensure that at the manufacturing stage, the vehicle manufacturer paints the chassis of vehicle with reflector paints and only those vehicles with reflector paints are issued license by authorities.

If it is found that implementation of the first action point is constrained by budget considerations, then advertisers can be asked to prominently display the advertisements at the beginning and end of the road dividers. Such displays should have reflectors or should be self-glowing. This will not only save people from colliding with road dividers but will also earn revenue for road department. As an encouragement to advertisers to choose the starting or end point of road dividers, the rates of advertisements can be reduced.

We sincerely request you to consider these suggestions so that road accidents due to the above two reasons can be prevented in our great city Hyderabad.

Date: 24.2.2009

To Date: 24.2.2009
Shri V. Premchand
Chief Executive, Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
SECUNDERABAD

Dear Sir, Sub: Trees block SCB road widening.

We refer to a report under the above caption appearing in the Deccan Chronicle of date , stating , inter alia, that you may require to remove over 600 fully grown trees , some of them around 100 years old, along either side of the road from Mahendra Hills to Rashtrapati Nilayam and from Safilguda railway crossing to the Secunderabad club to widen the roads. We are encouraged to note that you are considering the option of transplantation and translocation of these trees as far as possible, and have provided funds for there for. Such translocation should be made as near the existing site as possible.

A copy of the press report is enclosed for ready reference.

In this connection, we would like to bring to your notice that as a result of protracted negotiations between us together with other civil society groups and the various wings of the state government, such as the R & B department, HMDA, HMWS & SB etc, and under the guidance of the State Chief Secretary, and the Forest department , an arrangement has been arrived at under which it will be feasible to preserve the existing trees while widening the roads. G.O. No. 539.Dt. 11.12.2008 lays down detailed guidelines considering all possible circumstances , in this regard. We enclose a copy of the G.O. for your perusal and request your strict compliance therewith.

In this connection, we also wish to mention that successful transplantation has taken plantation at Hyderabad at moderate cost. The particulars of such project (s) are attached.

We are sure you will take immediate steps so that not a single tree is felled along the route, and strict compliance is ensured with the above-mentioned G.O. Utmost importance needs to be given to conservation of trees. For any further discussion in the matter, please call us and we can meet at our mutual convenience.

Date: 24.2.2009

To
Dr.K.S.Jawahar Reddy, I.A.S
Commissioner
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
Greenlands Guest House, Begumpet
HYDERABAD

Dear Sir, Sub: Master plan for Hyderabad Metropolitan Area.

We understand that you have taken up the preparation of a master plan, and that the work of preparation of a plan is in an advanced stage. We consider that the concerned civil society groups should be informed and closely involved in the process of planning so that there is democratic participation in the process of planning and the inputs and concerns of various stakeholders and affected parties are duly factored into the plan. We are sure you will agree with this approach. A contrary approach will create problems for all and delay matters. We await your advices in the matter.

C.C to : Dr. C.V.S.K.Sarma, IAS, Prl.Secretary to Govt.MA & UD., Secretariat, Hyd.

Date: 24.2.2009

To
Sri. S.P.Singh, I.A.S
Commissioner & Special Officer
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Lower Tank Bund
HYDERABAD

Dear Sir, Sub: Master plan for erstwhile MCH area.

We understand that you have taken up the preparation of a master plan covering the area of the erstwhile MCH, that you have engaged the services of IIT, Kharagpur for drawing the plan and the work of preparation of a plan is in an advanced stage. We consider that the concerned civil society groups should be informed and closely involved in the process of planning so that there is democratic participation in the process of planning and the inputs and concerns of various stakeholders and affected parties are duly factored into the plan. We are sure you will agree with this approach. We await your advices in the matter.
Thanking you,

C.C to:
1. Dr. C.V.S.K.Sarma, IAS, Prl.Secretary to Govt.MA & UD., Secretariat, Hyd.
2. Dr.K.S.Jawahar Reddy, IAS., Commissioner, HMDA, Greenlands Guest House, Begumpet, Hyd.

Date: 5.12.2008

To
Sri.M.J.Akbar
The Divisional Forest Officer,
Forest Department,
Hyderabad.

Dear Sir,
Sub: Annapurna studios, Survey no 403, village Shaikpet, Golkonda Mandal, Area: 22.03 guntas, Town survey no 1, Block no B, Ward no 9.

According to sources, Annapurna Studios is going to have a swanky new entertainment complex on its premises. For implementation of the project, the Studios reportedly plan to cut down the forest, known as 'Seven Acres', which is used extensively for forest scenes in movies. The Studios reportedly plans to build malls and multiplexes on that land.

Please let us know whether the studio owners have applied for any permission to you; whether you have given any permission to him or to anybody else for the felling of trees in the above premises, and if so, the details thereof, including any plan for translocation of the trees. Meanwhile, we request you not to grant any permission for felling the trees, and to cancel any permission if already given.

Date: 5.12.2008

Sri.S.P.Singh, IAS.,
The Commissioner & Special Officer,
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
Hyderabad.

Sir,
Sub: Annapurna studios, Survey no 403, village Shaikpet, Golkonda Mandal, Area: 22.03 guntas, Town survey no 1, Block no B, Ward no 9.

Radial ring road survey by the Forum, NGOs , Forest Dept, ORR Engineers

The surveillance team observing the proposed Radial Ring road map

the team inspect the requirement of tree transplantation to facilitate Radial Ring Road

A tree, about to be removed with roots for transplantation

Tree with roots being shifted to transplantation site

A transplanted tree

29-08-2008

To
Sri K.S. JAWAHAR REDDY, I.A.S.,
The Commissioner,
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority,
HYDERABAD.

Sub: Tree-cutting near Hi-Tech city junction for proposed flyover – Reg

Dear Sir,

We refer to the report in Times of India of 28.9.08, pages 1 and 3, stating that 15 pupil trees have been chopped off near the Cyber Towers in Hi-Tech city for a proposed fly-over. The trunks, however, still remain. Copies of the reports are enclosed.

We request you to immediately arrange for further suspension of the cutting.

In this connation, we wish to inform you that pursuant to our meeting with the Commissioner & Special Officer, GHMC following the felling of the banyan tree in front of the US Consulate office, the GHMC has suspended all felling of trees for which they had received permission earlier, and has refrained from felling any further trees. In one case, where some trees were felled due to non-communication of their instructions internally, they have transplanted the stubs. The Forest department has suspended all permissions earlier given and are not giving fresh permissions. GHMC has appointed a special experts’ committee to re-examine all approvals earlier granted and new requests proposed. The Forest Department has almost finalized their committee.

Pursuant to our subsequent meeting with the Chief Secretary, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, a decision has been taken at the highest state level to give utmost consideration to the conservation of trees and that an expert committee will be formed to examine afresh all permissions already given or to give fresh permissions. Till such fresh permissions are received, felling of trees will be stopped.

Before applying for permission for felling of a tree, the concerned project authority must examine if any modification of the project can be made so as to save the trees, such as realignment of a road, relocation of a construction, redesigning, etc ( in this case the fly over). For this purpose, it may refer to a suitable technical committee, if it cannot decide on its own whether modification is possible, and where the concerned requisitioning authority states that modification is not possible. If modification in project so as to save the trees is not possible, the project authority will examine the feasibility for transplantation of the trees proposed to be felled. The cost of transplantation of trees should not be considered a bar and should be treated as part of the project cost. Only in the rarest of rare cases, will an application be made for felling of trees, after all options have been exhaustively explored. In those cases, prior compensatory plantations must be arranged sufficiently in advance, of matching species, in a proximate location.

All project authorities must incorporate tree conservation as part of their project plan and project cost and include it in the DPR.

Further, even as of now, WALTA 2002 and the WALTA Rules 2004 provide for obtaining of prior permission for felling of trees from the Implementing Agency, which is the Forest Department. Without obtaining such permission, tree felling is violation of the laws.

We, therefore, request you to immediately stop any further felling of trees for which you may have already obtained permission until such permissions are revalidated by the Committee. Please also appoint an internal committee to re-examine all such permissions after considering all options as mentioned in a preceding paragraph, and submit afresh applications to the implementing agency, Forest department. . Please strictly ensure against any felling without prior permission from the Forest department. Please instruct your officials and contractors to strictly abide by such instructions. Meanwhile, please do not proceed further by uprooting the trunks of the trees whose branches have been chopped off.

We request your full co-operation to conserve and promote the green cover of Hyderabad and the HMDA area

Yours Sincerely

VEDAKUMAR. M
President, FORUM.

Cc to: Sri. K. S. RAO. I.F.S. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests, Sri. M.J. AKBAR, I.F.S. District Forest Officer, Hyderabad & RangaReddy Districts.

Top

Date: 1.8.2008

To
Sri K.Jana Reddy
The Hon’ble Home Minister,
Govt.ofAndhra Pradesh
HYDERABAD

Dear Sir,
Sub: Prevention of discharge of duty of GHMC officials by a group including two legislators – reports appearing in the Hindu, Deccan Chronicle and Times of India, etc.

We are shocked by a report appearing in various newspapers of an incident at Chapel road, Abids on 26.7.08, stating that the officials of the GHMC were prevented by a group of persons led by two legislators, from demolishing portions of a building constructed in violation of rules. One MLA fired two shots in the air from his revolver. This group blocked the road for several hours. Police let go the legislators without filing any charges against them on the plea ( as reported in Deccan Chronicle dated 28.7.08) that no civilian had reported to the police on individuals opening fire. Instead the police filed FIRs against the GHMC officials , including the chief city planner under CPC section 307 ( attempt to murder), 147 ( rioting), and 148 (rioting armed with dead weapons), read with 149 (unlawful assembly). Prima facie, the police’s plea for not filing charges against the legislator firing his revolver is untenable – we are not aware of any provisions of law under which the police was prevented from taking suomoto cognisance when the incident occurred in full view of the police and photographs of the incident appeared in several news papers the next day. Equally unconvincing appear the charges framed by the police against the corporation officials.

When wide publicity to the incident was given in the news papers for several consecutive days, the police booked a case (Cr.no.268/2008) against one MLA under sections of the Indian Arms Act, section 353 and section 506 of IPC, and nuisance case against the group of persons for disrupting the traffic, after having received a complaint from the GHMC officials. According to the police the case against the MLA was booked on the day of the incident i.e., 26.7.08 but this was reported in news papers only on 29.7.08. ( TOI dated 29.7.08). According to some reports the case was booked only on 28.7.08.

As you are aware, there is virtually no effective implementation of the Building Regulations in the twin cities and elsewhere. As a result, the state government had to pass BRS and now BPS, with a hope that hereafter there will be no illegal constructions in the city which aspires to be of world class standard.. Alas, if this is the fate of the law-enforcing authorities trying to perform their legitimate functions , and the law breakers go scot free, which official will hereafter like to perform? Besides, it is shocking that this violation is led by some MLA s who are supposed to make laws, not break them. Any public representative deserves our respect, but no one is above the laws of the land. For the sake of good governance, and to motivate officials and citizens to ensure compliance with law, immediate action is warranted against the persons who created the disturbance and violated the law. Action should be taken against the concerned police officials for failure to act promptly. We request you to order a high-powered enquiry immediately into the incident, and to make public its findings and action taken on its report. Unless these steps are taken, public officials will be highly demoralized and the public’s confidence in the administration will get seriously eroded.

We shall appreciate to receive a response to this letter
Thanking you,

Date:1.8.2008

To
Sri.B.Prasada Rao, IPS.,
The Commissioner of Police
Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad

Dear Sir,
Sub: Inaction of police against two legislators forcibly preventing discharge of duty of GHMC officials by a group including two legislators – reports appearing in the Hindu, Deccan Chronicle and Times Of India, etc.

We are shocked by a report appearing in various newspapers of an incident at chapel road, Abids on 26.7.08, stating that the officials of the GHMC were prevented by a group of persons led by two legislators, from demolishing portions of a building constructed in violation of rules. One MLA fired two shots in the air from his revolver. This group blocked the road for several hours. Police let go the legislators without filing any charges against them on the plea ( as reported in Deccan Chronicle dated 28.7.08) that no civilian had reported to the police on individuals opening fire. Instead the police filed FIRs against the GHMC officials , including the chief city planner under CPC section 307 ( attempt to murder), 147 ( rioting), and 148 (rioting armed with dead weapons), read with 149 (unlawful assembly). Prima facie, the police’s plea for not filing charges against the legislator firing his revolver is untenable – we shall be glad to know under what provisions of law was such a stand taken and why the police did not take suo moto action when the incident occurred in full view of the police and photographs of the incident appeared in several news papers. Simultaneously, the charges against the corporation officials appear unconvincing.
When wide publicity to the incident was given in the news papers for several consecutive days, the police booked a case (Cr.no.268/2008) against one MLA under sections of the Indian Arms Act, section 353 and section 506 of IPC, and nuisance case against the group of persons for disrupting the traffic, after having received a complaint from the GHMC officials. According to the police the case against the MLA was booked on the day of the incident i.e., 26.7.08 but this was reported in news papers only on 29.7.08. ( TOI dated 29.7.08).

The handling of the situation by the police officials was neither fair nor prompt.

We request you to take immediate action in the matter. We shall appreciate to receive a response to this letter.

TOP

Date: 24.6.08

To
Sri.Jagannatha Rao,
The Chief General Manager,
Outer Ring Road
HUDA, Tarnaka
Hyderabad.

Dear Sir,

We understand that a large number of projects for road widening, and other developmental activities, although sponsored by different departments, such as R & B, etc., have been entrusted to you for execution. Many of them for their execution, if implemented in a routine manner without any imagination and sensitivity, may require the removal of trees on the route / in the area.

Hyderabad is fast losing its green cover and the quality of the environment, which should cause concern, specially in the context of global warming, to one and all, more so to people in decision-making and authoritative positions. A good infrastructure is of no consequence if the environment is polluted beyond tolerance. In this context of the widespread felling of trees in the twin cities for road widening and other projects, we had taken up the matter with the Commissioner & Special Officer, GHMC, the Chief Conservator of Forests, the Secretary, R & B , and also the Chief Secretary. The Commissioner has immediately issued an order for his officials that all permissions received by his office for tree-cutting should be held in abeyance. The Forest department is re-examining the permissions already given and has kept in abeyance issue of further sanctions.

We request you to re-examine the sanctions that may have already been received by you for felling of trees, and defer action on all existing permissions received by you for tree-cutting. Please also refrain from applying further for felling of trees without exhausting all other options .
As a general rule, we request you to consider the following options:

1. Every effort should be made to bypass a tree as is done for sensitive religious structures. And imagination should be applied for re-aligning the roads, without decreasing its width. This is possible .
2. Transplant an existing tree to another location, irrespective of the cost. The technology and local expertise is available for such exercise which is not prohibitively expensive.
3. Before asking for permission for felling of a tree, every other option to circumvent the cutting should be explored.

4. Expert advice should be taken for this purpose.

5. To ensure proper application of mind, a request to cut a tree should be made by a high-level authority and not at a junior level, in a routine manner, as is now done.
6. A committee approach, involving experts and appropriate NGOs, should be taken for arriving at such decisions.

Further, we request you also to make an advanced planning for conservation of trees that would interfere with your projects. For this purpose, please
examine how your projects under the master plan, and those contemplated outside it, which take quite a few years to be finalized, will affect the existing trees on location. If no such scrutiny of the impact of your projects on the existing trees on the location has been made, in terms of the Master plans and your sub-plans, we request you to do so now and advise us.

Of the trees that would interfere with the projects, some trees can be transplanted, for others compensatory plantations can be taken up well in advance, and proximate locations of compensatory planning be earmarked as such, as essential part of the planning for these projects. This would ensure that replacements of the right species and age are ready when a tree has to be removed.

In fact, we insist that any planning should be holistic and should take into account the effect on environment and greenery, and how such adverse impact can be made up.

We request you to kindly take up this crucial exercise now in coordination with the HUDA/GHMC/Forest department.

We are sure that you have noted that the above suggestions are completely practicable and rational and easy to follow.

We trust you will take our request in the right spirit and take urgent, necessary action. We are ready for a further discussion with you. Please keep us advised.

Yours faithfully,

M.VEDAKUMAR
President, Forum For A Better Hyderabad

C.C to: 1. The Vice Chairman, HUDA, Hyd.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Hyd.
3. The DFO, Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts.

TOP

Date: 21.6.08

To
The Chief Executive Officer
The Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
Court Compound, S.P. Road,
Secunderabad

Dear Sirs,

Sub:Road widening – impact on conservation of trees/Protection of heritage structures.

We refer to a report in the Hindu dated 21.6.08 ( copy enclosed) stating that you have received the permission to widen eight roads , of which two roads in the first phase will be taken up soon viz’, the 8 km road from Mahendra Hills to Military College of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering via Military Hospital and another 5 km stretch from Safiguda railway station up to Secunderabad club via AOC gate.

You are aware of the Regulation no 13 of the HUDA Zoning Regulations 1981 under which no Heritage building ( HB) or Heritage precinct ( HP) can be affected in any manner by any developmental activity, without prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee ( HCC )appointed by the state government. Please, therefore, examine the location of HB/HP on the routes for widening, and ensure that the former are in no way affected. You may also immediately refer to the HCC .

We also draw your attention to sections 29 (1 ) and 29 (2) and also to 30(1) of A.P. Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules 2004, which state:

29(1) : “ Any person, institution, organization or department, public or private, providing a public or private utility service including Roads and Buildings department, Energy department of the Government and Telecommunications Department shall ensure protection of trees and their branches while developing their infrastructure or carrying on their activities”. This is not enforced.
29(2) : Wherever laying of new roads or widening of existing roads involves cutting of existing trees,, the Authority may issue suitable guidelines for protection of such tree growth as it deems fit.

30(1): The Authority may formulate guidelines for tree plantations along with the road margins, canal banks, tank-fore shores, and water bodies.

Please, therefore, study the impact on trees existing on the routes and you are required to protect these trees under the aforesaid Act and the Rules. In fact, tree conservation should be an integral part of your plans for road widening. For this purpose, as a first option, please align the roads in such a manner that the existing trees are not removed. Please examine this seriously and sincerely and if necessary, take the help of outside experts. In case this is not found feasible, as a second option, please arrange for the transplantation of the trees( 2(11) of WALTA) to a nearby location - technology and local experts are available for such purpose, and the cost which should be of no consideration, is not prohibitive. You may refer to us for contacts of such expertise.

If you at all have to apply to the Forest authorities, who are the Implementing Agency under WALTA for trees, for removal of trees , you may explain in detail the exercises you have undertaken before so applying Further, we request you, independent of our aforesaid representation, to plant a canopy of trees along the roads to create the much – needed green cover, as suggested in the Hindu dated 21.6.08 under the caption “ Line up the green goblins to welcome you”. A copy of the relative item is enclosed.

We trust you will take our letter in the right spirit and sincerely work to save the existing trees on the roads proposed to be widened. Meanwhile, please send us a detailed map of the routes of the proposed road widening.

Thanking you in anticipation

Yours faithfully,
M.VEDAKUMAR
President, Forum For A Better Hyderabad

C.C : 1.The Chairman, Heritage Conservation Committee for suitable action.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P.state government, for suitable action.
3.The DFO, Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts, for suitable action.
4.The Vice Chairman, HUDA, Hyderabad, for suitable and immediate action. Such action should be taken before inviting tenders for the work and notifying changing the Defence land from category A-1 to C to permit widening.
5. The Commissioner and Special Officer, GHMC, for suitable and immediate action

Date: 12.12.2007

To
Sri Koneru Ranga Rao
Hon’ble Minister for Municipal Administration
and Urban Development
Govt. of A.P., Secretariat
HYDERABAD

Dear Shri Ranga Rao gaaru,

Sub: Building Regularisation – Concerns/Objections

We would like to take this opportunity to raise our concerns on the proposed Building Regularization Scheme being proposed and as per the news paper reports this scheme has been approved by the Cabinet of which you are a senior member. Sir, as per the same news paper reports we have come to know that the government is about to issue these orders to regularize almost all the Building Rules violations across the state by reinforcing the same through an ordinance.

As an organization which has been engaging the government and citizens of Hyderabad and surrounding areas consistently over the years on issues like Master Plan, Conservation of water bodies, pollution etc and even knocking the doors of the court as a last measure we are dismayed and deeply disappointed with the decision.

We fail to understand the reasons behind the decision. If the intention is to safeguard the rights of people in the urban areas of this state as is being declared by some quarters, we fail to see how this decision will serve that purpose. This decision of yours will, on the contrary put law abiding citizens in an unhappy situation and result in hardships to them. It will lead to increased pressure on Environmental attributes and civic amenities of cities which are already in a poor shape. An innocent law abiding citizen will be put into a proverbial pan-to-fire situation.

This decision will also lead to a situation where unscrupulous builders feel emboldened to persist with their illegal ways and continue building many more structures which are not safe and/ or healthy for the inhabitants as well as put the civic amenities under pressure. This decision will lead to more violations in the future as the state will be seen a soft state which cannot take harsh but necessary decisions and enforce the same.

We fail to understand how the government proposes to address future violations if it cannot address them in the present. Instead of initiating action against the builders as well as errant officials in the harshest manner possible to set the standards of administration really high it seems to have opted for an easy way out of the mess for which it is solely responsible. The bonus of hefty compounding fees seems to have been another inducing agent.
Sir, for a few hundred crores of rupees you are embarking on a journey which will forever condemn the fate of Urban Andhra Pradesh by designating it for a haphazard, unplanned, choked and dirty area to live in. The existing building rules are the product of sound scientific principles of planning and sustainability and play a major role in ensuring the healthy growth and survival of a city and its citizens. If necessary, the rules could be changed and made practically applicable. But, while keeping the same rules, accepting violations, now and then, make people lose faith in the rule of law. The previous attempt of regularization still remains unfinished.

In such circumstances, the judiciary also may not recognize such measures as legitimate, if we go by previous judgments. One of the most recent judgments by the Hon’ble High Court of Tamil Nadu in (W.P.Nos.18898 of 2000, 19998 of 2001, 24316 of 2002 and 17646 of 2006) has reiterated the illegality of such acts. In W.P.No 25011 of 1998 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has declared that regularization scheme announced in 1998 in Hyderabad was illegal. Government in that case promised not to allow regularization in future. In CONSUMER ACTION GROUP -VS- STATE OF TAMIL NADU ((2000) 7 SCC 425) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that BRS can be allowed only as a one time measure and cannot be continued in perpetuity.

In view of the above, we urge you to initiate consultations with the concerned sections of the society, i.e. the representatives of the residents, owners, builders, architects, town planning officials, police, before launching any new regularization process.

Thanking you,
(M.VEDAKUMAR) (O.M.DEBARA)
President General Secretary
Forum For A Better Hyderabad Forum For A Better Hyderabad
Mobile: 9848044713 Mobile. 098480 97188

CC to:
1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The Principal Secretary, MA&UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad
3. The Commissioner & Special Officer, GHMC, Hyderabad.
4. The Vice Chairman, HUDA, Begumpet Hyderabad
5. The Director, Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad

10th July 2007

To, 10th July 2007
The Principal Secretary,
MA&UD Department
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat
Hyderabad

Dear Sir,

Sub: - Objections/Suggestions on Revised Draft Master Plan in HUDA Area.

The Round Table discussion held on 9th July, 2007 at Institute of Engineers, Khairtabad from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on the proposed Hyderabad Master Plan was participated by a number of Civil Society Organisations and Public-spirited individuals, discussed threadbare issues related to the Master Plan in the interest of the formation of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Area.

A power point presentation was made before the participants, to initiate the discussion. The participants unanimously endorsed the contents of the PPT. A copy of the PPT is enclosed.

The participants overwhelmingly felt that the process of Master Plan preparation by the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of A.P., is very faulty and undemocratic. We believe that there are several Master Plans in the HUDA area, some are finalized and some are under preparation. (Viz., CDA, HADA, forming MCH, HUDA, HMA, Cantonment etc.,) No Plan can be prepared for one particular area in such a situation.

The participants felt that the Master Plan should have a statement of purpose, vision, mission and objectives. Reference can be made to the recent MP of Delhi in this regard. The Draft Master Plan for Delhi-2021, put up for Public Notice ( the Gazette of India) by the Delhi Development Authority - ( See link http://www.dda.org.in/planning/draft_master_plans.htm ) has a written Vision and Policy Statement for development of the region around Delhi city ( for balanced regional development and decongestion of the main city ) and approaches adopted in planning various sectors, preceding the land-use maps, which is not provided with the Revised Draft Hyderabad Master Plan. The Plan published in 2003 also has not included the policy stating the direction of growth when compared to the topics covered by the Delhi Master Plan.

Participants felt that the state government must first comply with its undertaking for various measures of local self-government given as per the MOU with the Central Government under the JNNURM. There should be concerted pressure upon the government to do so.

Road widening plans should be undertaken after proper traffic flow study, and after planning for ample tree plantation in lieu of the fast dwindling but yet partially existing tree corridors along some roads which may disappear by Elevated Railways/BRTS.

The participants felt that the absence of a Master Plan permits all parties including the state government to take ad hoc decisions and actions. At the same time it should be framed in the proper manner.

We demand that the Government of Andhra Pradesh should prepare a Single Draft master Plan by incorporating all the existing plans (completed as well as those under preparation) in the coming 3 to 6 months. Such Integrated Draft Plan should be made available in English, Telugu and Urdu for individuals and the public so that meaningful suggestions could be made after public debate. This process cannot be complete without a regional plan for the area.

We also demand the Government of Andhra Pradesh take immediate measures to constitute Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) and follow the provisions of the 74th Constitutional Amendment.

Thanking you,
(M.VEDAKUMAR)
President
Forum For A Better Hyderabad

Mobile: 98480 44713; Fax: 27635644
E-mail: chelimi@yahoo.com

C.C to:
1. The Chief Minister, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Minister, Municipal Administration and Urban Development,
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
4. The Vice Chairman, HUDA, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
5. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad

Top

Date: 7.6.2007

To
Sri.S.P.Singh, IAS.,
Principal Secretary
MA & U.D. Department
Secretariat
HYDERABAD

Dear Sir,
Need for extending the time for Public comments on the proposed master plan of HUDA.

We observe that the time of 15 days given to the members of the public to scrutinize and comment on HUDA’s Master Plan (MP), displayed centrally at HUDA’s office is too short and not fair to the public for whom the plan is intended and who will be affected by it. The time limit for inspection and comments must be extended . The MP has long standing implications, is central to all other development plans, and the approaches and decisions taken in the MP are usually not subject to change. The MP is of a strategic nature.
When the previous MP was displayed , it was displayed for comments for a much longer time. A printed version of the MP was also available for closer scrutiny. Finalisation of such a plan takes a long time as would be evident from the fact HUDA took so much time to present a revised plan after receiving public comments.

We have to point out the following further points in support of our request to extend the time for Public comments on the proposed master plan.

The public notice inviting comments has not been properly displayed by giving prominent ads in the newspapers and television.

The population of 65 lakhs has been given only 15 days (including holidays) to file submissions.

The maps of the master plan are being displayed only at one place for the public to come and see, which is a very centralized form of display and inconvenient to a large number of population. It is not a realistic approach.
The new Zonal Development Plan maps are not being sold to the public which means the people have little opportunity of going through the details at their own pace and place.

All the maps are exhibited on large display boards that make it difficult for anybody, particularly, the elderly/ physically challenged people to spend time standing in front of them to look at the particulars in the map in detail.

We, therefore, urge upon yon you to extend the time to at least three months. Please also bring out a printed version of the draft plan, within say two weeks from now, which can be purchased by interested persons and organizations for scrutiny at their own pace.
Many other persons and organizations, who are not members of the Forum have expressed the need for extending the time for inspection of the Master Plan and comments thereon

Yours sincerely,

(M.VEDAKUMAR)
President
Forum For A Better Hyderabad
Mobile: 98480 44713
Fax: 27635644
E-mail: 27635644

C.C: to 1. Sri.J.Hari Narayana, IAS., Chief Secretary, Govt.of A.P.,Hyd.
2. Sri.Jayesh Ranjan, IAS., Vice Chairman, HUDA, Hyd.
3. Sri.C.V.S.K.Sharma, IAS., Commissioner & Spl.Officer, GHMC, Hyd.
4. Sri.K.S.Jawahar Reddy, IAS., Managing Director, HMWS & S.B, Hyd.
5. Sri.R.V.Chandravadan, IAS., Collector, Hyderabad Dist.,
6. Sri..L.Premchandra Reddy, IAS., Collector, R.R.Dist.,

Top

14th .June 2007

To
Sri.S.P.Singh, IAS.,
Principal Secretary,
MA&UD Department
Secretariat
Hyderabad

Dear Sir,
Sub: - Draft Revised Master Plan – HUDA – Irregularities – Objections
Ref: - 1) Our letter to you Dt: - 08-06-2007
2) Memo No.9225/I1/05 Dt: - 26-05-2007

With reference to our earlier letter Dt:- 08-06-2007 we have requested your office to extend the deadline of the notice given to people to submit objections and suggestions to the Draft Revised Master Plan and have also raised some objections to the way in which the whole process is being carried out.

Sir, We have come across a glaring lacuna in the whole process in reference to the Memo No. 9225/I1/2005 and comparing it to the actual process and found out that the Maps on display at HUDA Premises in Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad are only Master Plan maps. The existing Land Use maps are nowhere to be seen. On requesting for the same the answer we got was “They are not required to be displayed”. We fail to understand the logic of this statement. The Memo issued by you, which was referred to in the above lines in Paragraphs, marked as No.7 and No.8 clearly specify that the Land Use has to be displayed.

We believe that an Existing Land Use Map is one of the most important documents for people to compare with the Master Plan and try to understand the proposed changes and the impacts it has on the overall development of a Zone/Area. Without being in a position to compare the existing and future scenarios simultaneously how is one supposed to come to any conclusions and accordingly submit suggestions or objections to your office?
In view of the above, we request you to immediately display the Land Use Maps along with Master Plan, come out with a printed version and further extend the date by at least 3 months

Yours Sincerely,
(Omim Manekshaw Debara)
Secretary,
Forum For a Better Hyderabad.
C.C to: Sri.Jayesh Ranjan, IAS., Vice Chairman, HUDA, Begumpet, Hyderabad

Top

15th June 2007

To,

The Principal Secretary,
MA&UD Department
Secretariat
Hyderabad

Dear Sir,

Sub: - Objections/Suggestions on Draft Proposed Master Plan in HUDA Area.

Ref: - 1) Our Letter Dt: 07/06/2007
2) Your Memo No. 9225/I1/05 Dt: 26/05/2007
3) Our letter Dt. 12.6.2007
4) Our letter Dt. 14.6.2007

Dear Sir,
With reference to the above letter of ours and memo issued by your office, We have the following Suggestions, objections to the Draft Proposed Master Plan in Non MCH HUDA area: -

According to the provision in “The A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975”

Chapter III 6. (2) (a) The Master Plan Shall – define the various zones into which the development area may be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used (either after carrying out development thereon or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development shall be carried out.

The stages of development are not given in the maps we have seen at HUDA office at Paigah Palace Rasoolpura

In “The Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1977” the following provisions are there: -

Rule 12. (3) Any Such plan shall include such maps and descriptive matter as may be necessary to explain and illustrate the proposals in the Master Plan and shall include a present Land Use Map.

Rule 12.4 Soon after the preparation of the draft (Master) Plan for the development area or any part thereof, the authorities shall publish a notice in Form No.1 appended to these rules in a prominent place in at least three local daily news papers inviting objections and suggestions allowing a period not less than 15 days from any person or local authority. The said notice shall also indicate the place and time where copies of the draft master Plan may be inspected. Any person residing or owning a property within the inspected area or local authority operating within the affected area will be entitled to represent in writing to the authority any objections and suggestions which they may have in regard to the Land Use Map or Draft Master Plan.

Rule 12.5: After expiry of the said period, the authorities shall prepare a list of objections and suggestions in Form No.II appended to these rules, to consider the representations so made within the time specified and any other information available to it and finalise the present land use map and draft master plan as it thinks fit.

Rule 12.6 The authority will then submit the land use map and the Draft master Plan to the government, as required under section 9 of the Act for their final approval.

Rule 12.7 After the governments approval the Authority shall publish a notice in a prominent place in at least three local daily news papers indicating the fact of the final approval of the Land Use map and the Master Plan and the place(s) and time(s) where a copy of each of the said land use map and the master plan can be inspected.

Rule 12.8 A land Use map and Master Plan published by the authority under Section 10 of the Act shall be conclusive proof of their having been duly made and approved. Such Land Use Map and master Plan shall have the affect from the date of publication of such notice and be conclusive proof of their contents. The Execution of the plan shall be commenced forthwith.

From all the above paragraphs it is clear that Land Use Map and Master Plan are separate documents and Land Use Map is one of the most important document and only on comparing it to Master Plan will we get an opportunity to understand the impacts of proposed changes. But the display in HUDA office is showing only Master Plan Maps and not Land Use Maps. This we believe is against the provisions of the above mentioned rules.
- The Other aspect is the constitution of "Metropolitan Planning Committee" for Hyderabad Metropolitan Area as a whole, in accordance with Article-243-ZE of the Constitution of India.

The "Metropolitan Planning Committee" for Hyderabad Metropolitan Area comprised in one or more Districts and consisting of two or more Municipalities or Panchayats or other contiguous areas, is to be constituted immediately in accordance with Article 243-P ( c ) of The Constitution of India, if not already done. Without the Constitution of the above
committee approving the Master Plan will be in violation of the provisions and spirit of The Constitution of India

Apart from the above specific points please understand that The Master Plan contains the Spatial Policies , programmes and guidelines to the executing and planning agencies in matters of planning and development, apart from indicating the existing Land Use and the Proposed Land Use , to organise environmentally sustainable future urban growth. T he Spatial Policies for the development will have to be looked into, taking into consideration the National and International standards and practices followed for urban planning and development.

Without coming out with a detailed book containing the above details including maps and other relevant data and making it available extensively as it was done in 2003, would be a gross injustice to the people of Hyderabad.

We have noticed that the Land Use Changes permitted under various categories since 2005 have not been incorporated into the Draft Proposed Master Plan Maps being displayed. We believe that this single decision of the authorities not to show the above mentioned changes has ulterior motives behind it. We demand that the authorities come out clean with an explanation as to why the process is being done in a hurry with incomplete details.

We have approached the office of Vice Chairman, HUDA with a request to grant us copies of the Maps so that detailed examination is possible and concrete suggestions can come from our group of committed individuals and organisations to make the Master Plan a well organised, thought out and people friendly, environmentally friendly document. We have been given a copy of Land Use Zoning Regulations, but they could not give us the copies of the maps and directed us to approach your office for the same. The letter addressed by HUDA is enclosed for your reference. We request you to please provide us the same and also a soft copy map of 1: 10000 scale of the Master Plan.

We reiterate on this occasion our earlier request to you, to extend the deadline given for Public comments and ensure that the people of Hyderabad are given every possible document/data so that an informed citizenry can make a well understood choice.

Thanking you,
With regards,
(M.VEDAKUMAR)
President
Forum For A Better Hyderabad
Mobile: 98480 44713; Fax: 27635644
E-mail: chelimi@yahoo.com

C;C to: The Vice Chairman, HUDA, Begumpet, Hyd.
Encls: 1) Our Letter Dt: 07/06/2007
2) Our letter Dt. 12.6.2007
3) Our letter Dt. 14.6.2007

Top

Letter from Principal Secretary,MA&UD to V.C, HUDA regarding Revised Master Plan for Non MCH Area of HUDA area call for objections and suggestions Dated:16.06.2007.

Top

Capt.J.Rama Rao VSM, FIE,
Indian Navy (Retd)

Tel: (040) 2332 1350
Mobile : 09393366000
Email: captjrrao@gmail.com
540, Road No.12, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad- 500 034

JRR /

2006 July 18, 2006

Vice Chairman & Managing Director,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,
1-8-323, Paigah Palace , Rasoolpura,
Secunderabad – 500 003

Sir,

Sub: Clarification regarding Auction of Govt Land by HUDA in Kokapet Village of R.R.District

Thank you for the Lr.No.8875 / Misc. / Plg. / H / 06 dated 17-7-2006 , delivered by special messenger on 18 Th July, in response to letter dated 6-7-06 on the subject.

The good work being done by HUDA, in respect of urban greening and measures being taken to protect some of the lakes, is very much appreciated. That is why HUDA is requested to examine that the land in Kokapet (V), proposed to be auctioned on 20 th July, does not fall within 10 km radius of the lakes and does not attract the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.111

The following observations are offered on the points clarified in the letter quoted above:

a) Annexure-I giving list of 84 villages: It may be mentioned that the list gives the particulars of villages falling in the catchment area of the reservoirs up to 10 Kms. from FTL of the lakes and does not contain the list of villages within 10 Kms radius of the lakes vide Para 3 (e) of G.O. 111.

b) Moreover the list of villages given in Annexure-I is only indicative of area covered in the catchment of the reservoirs and what needs to be considered is the area up to 10 Kms from FTL of the reservoirs, which can be more accurately assessed these days

c) Prohibition of Polluting Industries: The emphasis seems to be laid on Polluting Industries within 10 Kms radius, and the provision in Para 3 (f) –“There shall be total prohibition of location of industries in the prohibited zone” seems to be ignored.

d) As per Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment includes water, air, and land and the inter-relationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, microorganism and property. And also the reference to industries includes other activities that have the potential to generate pollution, which is also
made clear in Para 3 (I) of G.o.111

e) NGRI report submitted in Surana oils case, categorically stated that Hydraulic Connectivity exists across the Dolerite Dyke located in the area, facilitating the ground water movement. In the post monsoon scenario, the ground water table will go up and thereby may result in more ground water flow across the dyke. This aspect needs to be looked into, before clearing any
activity within 10 Kms radius of the reservoirs

f) Even though G.O.111 stipulates that FSI be restricted to 1: 0.5 in the catchment area, directing HUDA to take action for the classification of the 90% of the area as Agriculture which is inclusive of horticulture and floriculture, according EPTRI report, about 200 Farmhouses are reported to have come up in the catchment area of the lakes, more than 50 % of which are used / developed as recreational / resort areas

Finally I would like to refer to the observations of EPTRI in its report on Ecology of Himayat Sagar & Osman Sagar Lakes - “Though the engineered systems can only modify the capacity of a system, but usually result in continued operating costs with negative ecological impacts. It may be concluded that by saying that projected growth should be sustainable otherwise over-development will destroy the ecological conditions around the lakes with existing communities”

It is therefore once again requested to undertake an in depth analysis and careful examination of various aspects of the change of land use, likely to result in due over- development leading to ecological disaster, within 10 Kms radius of the reservoirs

Looking forward for an early response
Thanking You

Yours Cordially

Capt.J.Rama Rao I.N. (Retd)

Copy to:
1.The Chief Secretary to Govt
2.The Principal Secretary to Govt, Dept of MA&UD

Forum

2006 July 27, 2006

The Vice Chairman & Managing Director,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,
Paigah Palace ; Opposite Police Lines,
Begumpet, Secunderabad- 500 003

Sir ,

Sub: Group Discussion on “Environment Protection of Hyderabad ”

We thank you for your Letter no. 147 / HUDA / UF / D5 / 2006 dated 26-7-2006, inviting for the group discussion on 29 th July 2006, of the issues concerning with “Development and Protection of Environment”, like Greenery, Conservation of Lakes, Protection of Rocks etc in Hyderabad city

Leave Alone Natural Environment
What needs to be done first is to acknowledge that a system of natural ecological infrastructure exists every where, that it functions with or without our presence, and that when we interfere with its functions, the resulting effects are often cataclysmic- despite our attempts to reconstruct, duplicate or mend it. Therefore, it is in our best long-term interests to keep as much of this natural infrastructure –Water Bodies, Greenbelts, Conservation Areas, Rocks etc – as healthy and as intact as possible
Land Use & Environment

The other aspect is the quality of our lives is dependent on the quality of our environment, which is largely dependent on the quality of our Land-Use. Therefore the second and most important lesson to be learned , is the powerful influence that urban land use planning has on quality of our natural environment

Master Plan & Land USE

The Comprehensive Land Use & Environmental Protection should be the integral part of the Master Plan. The Protection & Preservation of natural resources and community's ecological infrastructure should be the major concern of the Master Plan. The Conservation and not mitigation of the damage being done, should be the focus of development, under universally accepted and established “Precautionary Principle” The Zoning Plans and Building Rules should be subordinate to Master Plan. But what is actually happening in Hyderabad is the other way

Urban Land A Commodity

As a result Hyderabad urban land is simply regarded as a Commodity and not part of larger continuum, intimately linked to the surrounding air, water, vegetation and life, inflicting environmental / ecological damage. If Hyderabad city endowed with heritage and nature will have to be saved for the future, comprehensive and integrated land use planning and management are required, instead of treating it as a Commodity for meeting short term needs, which amounts to selling the future of Hyderabad

Failure to Revise and Notify Master Plan 2020

It is therefore a futile exercise to discuss about “Development & Protection of Environment” in Hyderabad, when HUDA and the State Government have miserably failed to modify the Master Plan made in 1980 and notify the revised Master Plans 2010 / 2020, which were being debated since 1994 and resorting to indiscriminate change of land use and auction of all the available vacant lands just to mobilize funds, without public consultation

Thanking You

Yours Cordially
Capt.J.Rama Rao I.N (Retd)
Chairman

Forum/2006

31 st March 2006

To:
Dr. Y. S. Rajashekara Reddy
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh
Secretariat
Hyderabad

Sub: Comments on “ Hyderabad RevisedBuilding Rules, 2006” and appeal

Dear Dr. Y. S. Rajashekara Reddy Garu,

At the outset Forum For A Better Hyderabad congratulate the team for bringing out the “Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 [ HRBR-2006 ]” [G.O. Ms. No. 86, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dt. 3.3.2006] while Master plans are lying in the cupboards – without Master plan/Zonal regulations bringing out building regulations is a futile exercise.

1) General: The HRBR-2006 is too generalized and over simplified to cater the needs of violators of laws at the cost of environment & general public. Under Annexures it state “ The government by Notification may modify, alter or add to the list of the areas given in Annexures below (Annexures I, II & III) . With this, politicians with the tacit support from bureaucracy of the day can play havoc on building regulations through manipulation of rules – this clause also will protect the politicians and bureaucrats from the Courts. That means, the revised rules worth nothing. In fact, this is in contradiction to Para 15 of G.O. Ms No. 423 M.A. dated 31 st July 1998 , “The government or any other Authority shall have no powers hereafter to relax any site from the provisions of these Building Stipulation either in part or in total”. Forum in its letter of March 18, 2005 addressed to Principal Secretary, MA on simplified building regulations urged to include this clause to avoid any mischief by politicians of the day. Forum now also reiterates its' urge to include this clause in the revised rules and also urge to exclude item/clause 5 of the Hyderabad revised building rules - 2006 from any such exemption clauses more clearly.

2) Water bodies: Though it carried separate item (item/clause 5) on water bodies, they lack clarity and highly susceptible to political and bureaucratic games [as presented in 1 above]. Through the destruction of water bodies and gardens the temperatures have already gone-up [contributing to global warming] and that require more power to contain the heat:

(a) Himayatsagar and Osmansagar lakes: These two water bodies are covered under item 5(h) “For areas covered under G.O. Ms. 111 MA dated 8.3.1996 (Protection of catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes), the restrictions on building and development activity imposed in the said government order would be applicable”. However, this is defeated with other clauses in different items. For example: At item 9.1 it states that “High Rise buildings/Complexes shall be permissible only in areas other than those given in Annexures I & II”. Under Annexure II (B-2) it states that “List of areas prohibited from high rise buildings – outside MCH area - areas covered under G.O. Ms. 111 MA dated 8.3.1996 (Protection of catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes) ”. Under Annexure III – Sky scraper zone – it says at (item x) “All along the outer ring road up to a depth of 500 meters on either side in areas other than those covered in G.O. Ms. No. 111 MA, dated 8.3.1996” – what about items i, ii – ix that fall under this GO? Finally, all these are overrun/superceded by the clause under the Unnexures [discussed in 1 above]. The issues pertaining to GO 111 must be brought out from the Annexures I to III to avoid any ambiguity or misuse or misinterpretation of GO 111 plus Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 1-12-2000.

On 27 th March 2006 Vaartha daily newspaper carried out a report saying, “Golconda Hotels Group made available ‘Golconda Resorts & Spa' to public – this is supported by Tourism Department, Tourism department became a destroyer of environment --, which is on the bund of Osman Sagar Lake (Gandipet cheruvu). It is quite surprising who has given them permission in an area covered by GO 111 and this activity in addition require under environmental act to go for public hearing and get clearance from Pollution Control Board – Is HUDA and Pollution Control Board not aware of this activity or they overlooked the illegal activity as the party has high political connections? There are several such activities taking place in the prohibited zone but HUDA and Pollution Control Board is just watching the violations of GO 111 [and the 1-12-2000 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Order on this]. In the past Pollution Control Board rejected Golf-Course near Gandipet as well permission to several industries . Resorts come under category of Hotels that are prohibited by GO 111. Precautionary principle is applicable here as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order of 1-12-2000. In the past, HUDA has given in writing and said orally to Hon'ble High Court and Pollution Control Board that they will see no such violations take place in the prohibited zone of GO 111.

(b) Musi River: Under item 5
(a) it states that “No building/development activity shall be allowed in the bed of water bodies like river, or nala, and in the Full Tank Level (FTL) of any lake, pond, cheruvu or kunta/shikam lands. Followed this under 5
(b-iii) it states that “The above water bodies and courses shall be maintained as recreational/Green buffer zone, and no building activity other than recreational use shall be carried out within – 9 meters from the boundaries of Canal, Vagu, etc. –
(item c) Unless and otherwise specified in the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan, the space to be left in and around the Canal/Vagu (including the actual Canal/Vagu bed width and alignment) shall be minimum 15 m. This may be developed as Green Buffer/recreational and/or utilized for road of minimum 9 m width, wherever feasible”;
(d) Under Annexure III
(ii), it states “Sky scraper zone - Along River Musi outside present MCH limits”. With all these it is clear that builders could mutilate River Musi -- this is already happening with the tacit support from concerned authorities. At Attapur-bridge some body is filling Musi River with rubble and a bit further upstream some body put a board saying HUDA approved layout -- to identify such evil things you need a watchdog committees

Under Musi beautification the government is contemplating to spend around 900 cores and yet Revised Building Rules allow upstream of River Musi from MCH area to Himayat Sagar & Osman Sagar lakes for building activity along its banks and contaminate water of River Musi, they in turn contaminate the water treated in MCH area wasting 900 crores of public money. Alas! It is a national waste. It is proper to extend the clause instead upto MCH area on the upstream side it should extend up to the Himayat Sagar & Osman Sagar lakes . In fact Forum members in their submissions to MCH Commissioner on the Musi beautification after the JNTU workshop made similar suggestions and clearly brought out the need for such thing.

(c) Use of Buffer zone:
Item 5 (b) – It states that “The above water bodies and courses shall be maintained as recreational/Green buffer zone, and no building activity other than recreational use shall be carried out within [I, ii, iii, iv, c] ---“: What is meant by recreational/green buffer zone? Is it similar to those of Food Courts/Jalavihar around Hussain Sagar, where in commercial activities are being carried out by constructing permanent structures in which alcohol is also sold [is it ethical to permit to sell alcohol in a recreational place where wife – husband comes with their children to have breathe of fresh air] , constructed projections into Hussain Sagar water, etc – which means, giving the prime land to influential people at throughway price to establish commercial activity in violation of pollution control board consent for establishment order and court orders and encourage unsocial activities! This shall be a green buffer zone only. The road, if any, shall be outside this buffer zone only and not within the buffer zone – similar to Necklace Road around Hussain Sagar Lake.

3) The other issues: With reference to item 3, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3: builders rarely abide these. A team can go round and see the factual situation prevailing in and around twin cities – the concerned government departments are simple spectators of these illegal activities [Ex. How many of them have the clear and established approach road of minimum 9 m Black topped Road ]. For successful implementation of such, there shall be watchdog committees all round.

The item 7: “There are no plot size stipulations based on use or occupancy of the building. The setbacks and height stipulations given hereunder are applicable for all types of buildings”. This is highly improper and malafide decision. This is against the basic zoning regulations. That is why Forum argued that building regulations must go with Master Plan/Zoning regulations. At present government is changing residential zones into commercial zones overnight causing hardships to public and at the cost of destruction of pleasant environment by cutting trees or filling the lakes, etc. This is unethical practice. The rules must follow the zoning regulations – based on use or occupancy of the building - [residential, commercial, etc.] otherwise it creates more problems in future to residents as well as to environment and contributing to global warming.

With reference to Greenery Clause: Item 7.1 [vi to viii, xi] & 9.9 – is highly biased by the shape of the plot. For example for a plot of 5m x 5m = 25 sq. m, the 1 m green belt on four sides means 16 sq. m; the same for a plot of 6m x 4m = 24 sq. m, 1 m green belt on four sides means 16 sq. m; the same for a plot of 7m x 3 m = 21 sq. m, 1 m green belt on four sides means 16 sq. m. Instead fixed width, by taking percent area this bias could be easily eliminated – in fact this was used in item 7.1 – viii & 9.9a. This is also true with setbacks. In the case of setbacks the minimum width required for fire service can be stipulated wherever it is applicable.

In the case of Table IV,
(i) Minimum road width should be 18 m; and
(ii) Minimum all-round open space on remaining sides should be in per cent area of the plot size by leaving minimum width required by fire services on all sides similar to that specified in Table VI to avoid bias based on plot shape and size. In the case of Table VI, separate residential building and use 30% and 20% while for the rest use 40% and 30%; above this group use 50% and 40%. Hospitals and residential complexes do not go on the same wavelength in terms of traffic/parking.

There is imbalance/fallacies in Table I and Table III by adhoc plot size limits selection and they vary from table to table and clause-to-clause and such fallacies gives raise the builder or owner of building violate the rules. Thus, it gives the impression that these rules are framed for benefiting the violators only. Let us take few examples under IIIB – less than 12.2 m road width.

Area of the Plot = Dimensions	Area Under Setbacks in %
	Depth X Width	Depth X Width
200 sq. m. = 10m x 20m	47.5%	57.5%
800 sq. m. = 20m x 40m	55.0%	60.0%
1480 sq. m = 20m x 74m	48.1%	55.4%
1500 sq. m. = 20m x 75m	53.8%	64.8%

From the above results it is clear that for a simple decrease in area by 1.33% [from 1500 sq. m. to 1480 sq. m.] the percent area under set backs increase steeply [in the above example it is 16.7%, which is equivalent to 250.5 sq. m.]. This happened just because 1480 sq. m falls under 750 to 1500 sq. m group and 1500 sq. m. falls under 1500 to 2500 sq. m. group and by changing plot shape for 1500 sq. m. plot, the area under setbacks changes from 53.8% to 64.8%. That is, by changing width and depth [shape of the plot with respect to road facing] the percent area under set back also changed drastically. In addition to these, the front set back under road width from 12.2 m to 30 m and above in the case of 100 – 200m, etc. have no meaning. This is arising basically because of meaningless Table I.

Therefore most of the tables, particularly Table III must be re-worked out to give realistic and meaningful [with no scope for manipulation] plot size vs road width vs height vs setbacks. Not only the plot size but also the shape of the plot shall define the setbacks and thus this must be accounted in the revision. These revisions must go with land use. There shall be huge penalties & demolition of such violations.

Table II was not prepared by taking into account the practical problems [traffic & air pollution, parking, etc.] with different activities in respect of road width. These are over simplified to benefit vested interests only. The table shall present more realistic by taking into account the present experience in different localities by keeping into account the future congestions. The revision must go with land use.

Based on the plot shape in addition to plot size and local weather conditions must be taken into account while stipulating items 7.1 [iii to xvi] similar to item 8.

Item 5 (g) relates to Banjara Hills- Jubilee Hills area covered by Block 1 & 2, and part of Block No. 3 of ward no. 8, MCH area, the building restrictions imposed vide G.O. Ms. No. 601 MA dated 5-11-1988 read with G.O.Ms.No.423 MA. dated 31-7-1998 would be applicable. Against this is also included Annexure II (A-3). With this can also be mutilated by the government whenever they want. This is already under taken by the public – near by the Lotus pond, near Prashashan Nagar, etc by individuals, Road No. 36 in Jubilee Hills was changed from residential zone to commercial zone overnight, government has sold through auction around 23,500 sq. m. area at the check-post for commercial venture and special GO was issued for 6-month period for construction of Hotels. When the government is developing Outer Ring Road and radial roads, where is the need to tamper the existing GOs?

Appeal: From the above brief discussion – though a bit harsh in the presentation -- it is very clear that the “Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006” was issued in a hurry to better serve the vested interests/violators of law. The rules must be for public and at the same time safeguard the environment but not to provide shelter to violators of rules. The Forum For A Better Hyderabad, herewith appeal Dr. Y. S. Rajashekara Reddy Garu, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh that in the light of above brief discussion and by keeping in view the government's proposals such as Greater Hyderabad, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, etc.:

First, the government shall bring out the Master plan/zonal regulations by using HUDA as planning body rather than making HUDA another center for real estate mafia. This is very important in regulating traffic and solving parking & air pollution, water pollution problems, etc in future;
Government shall create watchdog committees with people of the locality with integrity for timely control of illegal construction activities;
The ‘Hyderabad Revised Building Regulations – 2006” shall be re-worked out in light of the above presented brief discussion and that too after the Master plan/Zonal regulations are issued by the government – at present these are in draft form only. The revised rules shall include the clause “The government or any other Authority shall have no powers hereafter to relax any site from the provisions of these Building Stipulation either in part or in total” and also water bodies shall be free from government manipulations/exemption clauses. The government shall assign the task of revision of the rules to people with integrity and good understanding of the subject.

With Regards

S/d 26/3/2006

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
General Secretary
Forum For A Better Hyderabad

CC:-

The Chief Secretary, GOAP
The Principal Secretary, MAUD, GOAP
The Principal Secretary, E. F. S. & T., GOAP
The Commissioner, MCH
The Vice-chairman, HUDA
The Member Secretary, APPCB

Top

Capt. J. RAMA RAO VSM, FIE,
Indian Navy (Retd)
Tel: (040) 2332 1350
E-mail: captjrrao@eth.net
Mobile: 09393366000
540, Road No. 12,
Banjara Hills,

Date: 25th December 2005

Dr.Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy
Hon'ble Chief Minister
Hyderabad–500 022.

Respected Chief Minister

Sub: Rule of Jungle in Concrete Jungle of Hyderabad

Hyderabad Master Plan 1980

This is to bring to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, that Hyderabad Master Plan prepared in 1980 continues to be in force even today with several Adhoc modifications, during the currency of which several unplanned and unauthorized developments have come into existence on the ground. The important developments taken place since then–Liberalized Economic policy, unmanageable Road Traffic problems, 2001 Census Data etc have serious adverse impacts on quality of life of the citizens

Revised Draft Master Plan 2020

The draft proposals of Hyderabad Master Plan were being discussed since 1994, but the revised Master Plan did not see the light of the day. It is regrettable that undue delay is taking place in finalization of the revised “Master Plan 2020 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Area”, the draft of which was discussed in January 2001 and notified in January 2003. The draft plan in respect of the area covered by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is not notified even till to day.

Role of HUDA

From the above, one gets the impression that HUDA, which is entrusted with the job of Urban Planning and Development, is mainly concerned with more of development / commercial activities, than the planning. As a result, the revision and finalization of the Master Plan, which is of vital importance for comprehensive, energy efficient and eco-friendly urban land-use, is being neglected and taking the back seat.

Change of Land Use

Many of the Environmental problems, Traffic congestion, Automobile pollution, Flooding of Roads & Residential colonies etc, being experienced in Hyderabad, are mainly attributable to lack of proper Land-Use Plan and non-implementation of whatever the Land-Use plan exists. As a result, the Urban Land is being simply treated as a “Commodity” and not part of a larger continuum, intimately linked to the surrounding air, water, vegetation and life.

Once the Master Plan is finalized and notified, the change of Land–Use should not be permitted at least for a period of 5 years from the date of notification of Master Plan. Any change of Land-Use, with particular reference to Water Bodies, Parks, Playgrounds, Lung-Spaces earmarked for Recreation and Conservation etc should not be entertained at all as it is gong to adversely affect the quality of life.

All proposals for change of the Land- Use stipulated in the Master Plan, should have wide and elaborate public consultation, as was followed while finalizing the Master Plan. The Section 12 of AP Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 and the relevant Rules need to be modified, so as to prevent suvo-moto change of Land–Use by the Government

Building Rules, Violations & Relaxations

The State Government, reportedly after holding discussions and deliberations at various levels, issued G.O. No.423. M.A. dated 31 st July 1998, to rationalize the FAR values and standards of Building requirements for different types of Buildings, uses and occupancies in Municipal Corporations and Urban Development Authority Areas.

Even these Rules, with regard to FAR, Road Width, Height of Buildings etc, which are very liberal and diluted when compared with the guidelines of The National Building Code and the Standards being followed in other Metros including that of Delhi. But they are being flouted by the builders, apparently with the collusion of the official machinery, which is entrusted with the task of carrying out mandatory inspections at various stages of construction of the building and issue “Fit for Occupation Certificate”

The State Government also granted liberally relaxations and exemptions to the provisions of the G.O.423 in spite of the stipulation that “The Government or any other authority shall have no powers hereafter to relax any site from the provisions of these Building stipulation either in part or in full”.

Simplified Building Rules

But regrettably, the State Government with out streamlining and strengthening the regulatory system for ensuring the “Rule of Law” by strict implementation of the Building Rules, issued Memo dated 15-01-2005, notifying the draft “Common Building Rules” in the name simplification of Building Rules. This is nothing but further diluting the existing Rules, which are very liberal and already diluted as stated earlier.

Building Regularization Scheme (BRS)

The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. No 419 M.A. dated 30 th July 1998 with the view to facilitate the individuals, who constructed the buildings unauthorizedly or in deviation of the sanctioned plan up to 30-6-1998, to get them regularized by paying the penal amount prescribed for the purpose. This has sent the wrong signals that the illegal constructions can get away easily by paying the penalty, which is considered to be peanuts. Again there is a talk of declaring another BRS, which encourages only the “Rule of Jungle”, converting Hyderabad into a Concrete Jungle making things worse.

Traffic Planning

In the absence of revised Master Plan for the last 10 to 15 years, during which explosive growth of population and the haphazard and un controlled growth of the City have taken place, resulting in today’s traffic and the allied problems Instead of opting for the energy efficient and fast Rail based Public Transport system, we have chosen the energy inefficient Road-Automobile traffic system, with focus on personalized vehicle transport, which has become a nightmare because of Traffic congestion, Noise and vehicular Air pollution.The Hyderabad City is being developed for Cars and not for People by widening roads and building Flyovers. The Ratio of the areas utilized for “Parks” to “Parking Lots” may be the best single indicator of the livability in Hyderabad City. “Building more Roads and Flyovers to ease Urban Traffic is kind of like trying to cure Obesity by loosening the Belt”

Recommendations

*Master Plan 2020 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Area including MCH Area be
   finalized and notified with out any further delay, to replace the Master Plan
of 1980, which is currently in operation *The change of Land-Use, with particular reference to Water Bodies, Parks,
    Playgrounds, Lung-Spaces earmarked for Recreation and Conservation etc
    should not be entertained as it is gong to adversely affect the quality of life. * Any change of Land–Use should not be permitted at least for a period of 5
    years from the date of notification of Master Plan * The Section 12 of AP Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 and the relevant
     Rules need to be modified, so as to prevent suvo-moto change of Land–Use
     by the Government   * The draft “Common Building Rules” notified on 15-01-2005 in the name of
     simplification of Building Rules, be scrapped in the light of finalizing the Master Plan
* The Building Regularization Scheme be scrapped to enforce the Rule of Law * The officials and builders responsible for the illegal constructions taken place so
     far be identified and subjected to stringent and deterrent punishment. * The Officials concerned be made accountable to ensure enforcement of the Building
     Rules in force without any deviation * The State government should not grant any relaxations / exemptions to the Rules
      in force without extensive Public debate * The Recommendations of the committee headed by Sri A. Raghotham Rao for
     Traffic & Transportation Management in Hyderabad Metropolitan Area be
     implemented expeditiously

Conclusion

In the light of recent the directive of Hon’ble AP High Court regarding Illegal Buildings and the Demolitions ordered in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, necessary steps may please be initiated to prevent further construction of illegal buildings or in deviation of the approved plans in accordance with the Rules in force

Thanking you, Sir

Yours Cordially

Capt.J.Rama Rao I.N. (Retd)

Copy to 1) The Chief Secretary

2) The Principal Secretary, MA&UD

3) The Commissioner, MCH

4) VC & MD, HUDA.

Top

Sub: Rule of Jungle in Concrete Jungle of Hyderabad

Hyderabad Master Plan 1980

Revised Draft Master Plan 2020

Role of HUDA

Sub: New Construction Projects – Environmental Clearance

J.Rama Rao

Date 01-08-2005

Sri. Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy

Quote

Unquote

PRESS RELEASE