Glaring Mistakes in HMDA approved plan

Ref: Approval of HMDA Metropolitan Development Plan by Government in MA&UD Dept. vide G O Ms no. 33 MA dt. 24-1-2013.

I have perused the above, and am only commenting on the glaring mistakes that HMDA and Government have made in the approval G O given by Government to the HMDA Metropolitan Development Plan (and not looking at the Plan proposals per se,which I can do after procuring teh soft copies of the Plan CD) , as follows:

1. HMDA has merely prepared an ‘extended area Master Plan ’ by taking into account only the areas that were added to the erstwhile HUDA area by the Government vide G O Ms No. 570 MA dt:25.08.2008 and later named it ‘Metropolitan Development Plan’ to comply with the statutory requirement under the HMDA Act,2008, Section 11 provisions. This has been acknowledged by the Government in the said approval; Government Order in para 3 itself! In fact all through the preparation stage since 2007, as well as the Terms of Reference (ToR) entered into with the Consultant from CEPT, Ahmedabad, this planning exercise was called “Master Plan preparation for the extended area” (the concerned ToR and Files in HMDA can be procured through RTI Application.) Further, the Consultant from CEPT was taken on nomination basis even though Technical Bids through newspapers notification were called and CEPT did not participate in the Bid!

2. The HMDA Act Section 11 makes it compulsory on part of HMDA to prepare a Metropolitan Development plan and Metropolitan Investment Plan covering the whole Metropolitan region of HMDA (see definition of Metropolitan Development Plan & Metropolitan Investment Plan in Section 2 (16). Thus this Plan approved by Government cannot be called Metropolitan Development plan since it is not prepared for the whole metropolitan region.

(i) Section 11 of the HMDA Act,2008 further makes it obligatory to prepare the Metropolitan Development Plan & Metropolitan Investment Plan for the whole Hyderabad metropolitan region and not just the ‘extended area of HMDA, consisting of –

(j) Proposals and policies for promoting growth and securing economic development in the Metropolitan area;

(ii) Proposals for conservation, optimum utilization and development of resources in the Metropolitan area;

(iii) A Land Use Plan indicating the broad areas of development and general location of residential, industrial, agriculture and areas for conservation and protection of ecologically fragile areas, including,-

(a) A Infrastructure network Plan showing existing and proposals of major infrastructure facilities like transport, power, communications network and related facilities like power plants, roads, highways, railways, airports, and waterways;

(b) Policies for preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural beauty and scenic spots, and areas of historic and archaeological interest and tourism areas;

(c) Proposals and policies for watershed management, water supply, water harvesting, recharge of ground water, flood control, and prevention of water pollution;

(d) Proposals and plans for river front development and/or lake front development;

(e) Proposals and policies for improvement and development of public amenities and services including water supply, electricity, gas, storm water drainage, sewerage, waste disposal, educational facilities, health facilities, social welfare and prevention of air and water pollution;

(f) Policies for promoting development and regulating uses and activities through zoning and other development regulations;

(g) Policies for promoting housing and community facilities;

(h) Proposals and policies for traffic and transportation and promoting mass transportation facilities;

(i) Proposals and policies for industrial development;

(j) Siting of major development projects;

(k) Strategies and priorities for implementation of the various proposals with time frame and programmes;

(l) Development Promotion Regulations for promoting and regulating development;

(m) Any other matter which may be necessary for the orderly development and management of the metropolitan region.

Excepting for a perfunctory land use plan the so-called ‘HMDA Metropolitan Development Plan ‘ is a sham exercise on part of the nominated CEPT Consultant (who has been paid more than Rs. 2.1 Crores of public money, and HMDA has not ensured that the CEPT Consultant has adhered to the deliverables as per ToR. The CEPT Consultant is getting away with hoodwinking HMDA. Even the finalisation of the Objections and Suggestions was done in-house posting majority of the Planning staff-although this was to be done by the consultant) that has not touched upon any of the above remaining aspects detailed out in Section 11 for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Region in the so-called Metropolitan Development Plan approved by Government.

3. As per Section13 (2) of the Act mandates HMDA to prepare and submit the Metropolitan Investment Plan together with the Metropolitan Development Plan to the Government for approval. This has not been prepared and submitted to Government along with the Metropolitan Development Plan. Nor was section 13 (1) complied with viz. when calling for public objections and suggestions or consultation with the local authorities, the Metropolitan Investment Plan was not notified or discussed.(This can be verified from HMDA’s Public Notification calling for objections and suggestions and from the official letters to the local authorities.)As per the said Section 11, the Metropolitan Development Plan is incomplete and not valid without the Metropolitan Investment Plan.

4. Further, there is no mention of the status of the 7 Master plans and their zoning regulations. Does this so-called metropolitan Development Plan supersede these 7 master plans? What happens to these plans? Which zoning regulations are required to be applied? How can HMDA ignore the GHMC area, the erstwhile HUDA area ,the 2 Municipalities and Shamsabad NAC-even though these are covered by separate Master Plans as stated in the said GO 33 by Government in para 2 ?

Doesn’t the Metropolitan Development Plan require consolidation of all the 7 Master Plans in the Draft proposals? How is HMDA and Government taking up change of land use cases and approvals under Section 15 of the said HMDA Act. Isn’t the whole exercise of Change of land use approvals/GOs null and void?

HMDA has taken up selective and part consolidation of areas of the said Master Plans by including area of the ORR and HUDA inside the ORR – which is at best selective, arbitrary and piece-meal. (Mentioned by Government in para 2-this is not as per section 11.

Doesn’t the Metropolitan Investment Plan not require to consider these important areas ? What sort of metropolitan planning by HMDA is this?

5. The said GO 33 does not anywhere mention approval of the Metropolitan Development Authority of the said HMDA Metropolitan Development Plan forwarded by the Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA as per para 6 of the said GO. This is legally not tenable since Section 13 (2) of the Act requires the Metropolitan Development Authority’s actions and not metropolitan commissioner’s actions (viz. in the form of resolution , Agenda Note, etc.) It may be noted that that the HMDA authority is a high power authority representing the CM, Minister for Municipal Administration, Chief Secretary and Principal Secretaries of all key Departments. (See Section 4(1) and Section 6 (1) of the HMDA Act)

6. Section 14 (1) of the said Act makes it compulsory on part of the Government to consult the Metropolitan Planning Committee. This was not done by the Government since there is no mention of the same anywhere in the said G.O. Thus the government cannot sanction the said Metropolitan Development Plan submitted by HMDA without consulting the Metropolitan Planning Committee. The Government in para 7 clearly mentions sanction of the Metropolitan Development Plan for the Hyderabad Metropolitan region contradicting its statement in para 3 –which, in short , amounts to lying and hoodwinking the public by such false statements.

7. While inviting public objections and suggestions, HMDA published the draft Development Promotion regulations which among other things included and drafted detailed ‘Land Pooling Scheme Regulations, Road development Regulations’ and ‘Development Schemes Regulations’ these are mandated under section 11 (1) (m).(Ref. HMDA Draft Plan DCRs Report made available to public). For reasons not disclosed, these have been omitted both by HMDA and by Government in the said GO 33. ( It is reliably understood this has been done at the instance of the two Master Plan Consultants who have been given further extension for undertaking the ‘Land Pooling Scheme stipulations’ so that their extension can be justified by entrusting the said regulatory exercise).

8. It is reliably learnt that while submitting the Metropolitan Development Plan to the Government, the approval of the Member (Urban Planner) was not taken and only the plan was signed by the 2 Master Plan Consultants who are on contract and are not authorized to sign!. Without the signature of the Head of the department, the Plan is not a valid document! The Member (Urban Planner) is a statutory authority and head of the department of the planning department under Section 9 (1) of the said Act. Thus the HMDA Metropolitan Development Plan was approved and submitted to the Government without the approval of the technical head of HMDA!

9. Now we hear from HMDA sources that MC,HMDA has given the job work of rectifying the Base map of HMDA (this after the Master Plan is notified and is in force and having forked out more than Rs. 2.5 Crores to the main CEPT Consultant who has given up, pocketed the money and has vanished!) to a local private Consultant at a cost of more than Rs. 10 lakhs! The worst fears of the then Director (Planning) Sri Vishwanath Sista are ringing true!

10. Therefore the request to the new Government of the state of Telangana is to immediately come out clean on the whole issue and set things right or affected parties may go to the court of law citing the above glaring mistakes and get the approved Plan struck down as not legally tenable, causing embarrassment to not only HMDA but to the beleaguered Government as well.