On the proposed redevelopment of the Central Vista, a report would be prepared of nearly 1,300 objections and suggestions, based on which the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) would submit its recommendations to the Centre about land use for the project.
A hearing was held Thursday at the DDA’s INA office, where those who had made the written objections and suggestions presented their “oral evidence” before the DDA’s Board of Enquiry and Hearing.
The redevelopment plan includes building a new, triangular-shaped Parliament House and moving all Union ministries and offices to the Central Vista in 10 “doughnut-shaped” identical buildings proposed on four tracts of government land between India Gate, Rail Bhawan and Vayu Bhawan.
DDA vice-chairman Tarun Kapoor said, “A committee formed to look into the objections would prepare a report and present it to the Authority. The Authority, chaired by the Delhi L-G (Anil Baijal), would consider it and send its recommendations to the government.”
He added, “The Authority would only decide on the objections pertaining to land use. We have received many objections relating to the type of structures, the number of floors, and others, which we cannot decide upon.”
Among those who presented their “evidence” to the Board was city resident Rajeev Suri, who objected to a public notice issued by the DDA on December 21.
The notice invited objections and suggestions from the public regarding proposed changes of land use, as part of the redevelopment project, of plots falling under Zones D and C.
Suri objected that the
notice ultra vires the Delhi Development Act, 1957 as it was published under Section 11A of the Act, which, under sub-section 1, states that the Authority may make any changes to the master plan or the zonal development plan, “which, in its opinion, do not effect important alterations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land-users or the standards of population density”.
Suri claimed that the proposed change in land use seeks to make fundamental changes in land users and increase population density exponentially which conflict with the inherent premise of Section 11A(1).
Architect Narayan Moorthy, who also presented his objections, said, “My issue was the dilution of the continuum of recognising this space as primarily for the common citizen or public and not for the government. What had happened to justify this change?” The hearing would continue Friday.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines