Chandigarhs old and new pitch two states in battle

Hooda has termed the move unethical. “How would it sound if we rename Gurgaon ‘Newborn Delhi’?” he has said,besides: “If Punjab now has a new Chandigarh,it should leave Chandigarh to us.”

The chief minister’s office Punjab has refused to acknowledge Hooda’s objections. But others in Punjab have picked up the debate. Punjab’s town and country planning department,for instance,feels Haryana’s objection reflects a “jealous neighbour”.

“Haryana has benefited immensely from its proximity to New Delhi and Chandigarh. Faridabad,Gurgaon and Panchkula account for most of the development in Haryana,” says Manvesh Singh Sidhu,chief administrator with Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and the state’s director for town and country planning. “The rest of it is still trying to wriggle out of ancient times. Why raise a hue and cry about Punjab’s developing areas around Chandigarh?”

Punjab’s move has had a surprise supporter in People’s Party of Punjab president Manpreet Singh Badal. He says there is a great need for a city like “New Chandigarh” in Punjab,as the state does not have a beautiful and well-developed city to match Chandigarh. “The state government’s initiative to develop cities on the pattern of Chandigarh is laudable. The PPP has no objection to it,” Manpreet has said.

Deputy chief minister Sukhbir Badal,while finalising the concept plan for New Chandigarh,approved an expenditure of Rs 1,278 crore for the development of the town’s infrastructure. This has led to Punjab Congress spokesperson Sukhpal Singh Khaira demanding a CBI inquiry into the Badals’ interest in the area.

“The name New Chandigarh gives the area a modern tinge. Going by Haryana’s logic,Delhi should have still been called Shajahanbad or Lutyens’s Delhi,” Sidhu says.

The plan

The government plans to develop New Chandigarh as the state’s medical and education hub. The Mullanpur Master Plan,yet to be notified as a New Chandigarh Master Plan,says the 15,272.5 acres in the foothills of the Shivaliks can be used only for low-density development. “The New Chandigarh LPA presents an opportunity for a well-managed eco-town environment with a variety of new and exciting developments to encourage diversified growth in tourism that balances economic growth with environmental,cultural and community values. The rivers and water bodies within the local planning area offer an opportunity for the development of New Chandigarh as a waterfront urban village,” states the GMADA website,which already has a link for selling New Chandigarh areas to private developers.

“The Greater Mohali Area Regional Plan for 2008-2058 had identified seven economic clusters,each with distinctive economic activities. New Chandigarh is one of these seven clusters where the broad planning intention is low-density country living,a resort centre and the northern gateway to GMADA,” says Sidhu.

Other than private developers such as Omaxe and DLF that are setting up their projects there,the government has planned residential areas — Eco City phases 1 and 2. Phase 1,spread over an area of 412 acres,was launched in 2011 and nearly 1,60,000 applications were received for 836 residential plots.

Medicity,also planned in two phases,is expected to be a health services hub. Nearly 100 acres has been acquired,of which 50 acres has already been allotted to the Department of Atomic Energy for a Cancer Hospital. In phase 2,160 acres will be acquired,for which notices under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued. Land acquisition is under way for an education city of 1,700 acres.

The precedent

This is also not the first time the state has faced a protest against the renaming. On October 14,2011,the Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed a public interest litigation against Mullanpur being renamed New Chandigarh. Though the name was not yet been made formal,the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority had been using “New Chandigarh” in its publicity campaign. The court observed,“If there can be Navi Mumbai,why not New Chandigarh?”

The petitioner had argued that Chandigarh had acquired a special significance because of its history and using the name to rename Mullanpur was being done by GMADA so that private builders could sell their projects better. The petitioner had said Chandigarh’s name had a constitutional history and sanctity and its special status had been recognised by Acts of Parliament.