If you have already applied for membership, please contact the governing body for your Login Credentials. Thanks!!
The urban development ministry has asked the Delhi government, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and municipal corporations to sort out issues to enable notification of land pooling policy regulations.
In a high level meeting on Tuesday chaired by Rajiv Gauba, secretary, ministry of urban development, senior officials of all the departments discussed issues like notification of 89 villages as urban areas by north MCD (50 villages) and south MCD (39 villages), notification of a total of 95 villages as urban development areas, transfer of about 12% of developed land to the Delhi government, waiver of stamp duty on transfer of developed land by DDA to farmers/promoters and verification of ‘Sajra’ maps for these villages by local authorities.
While North and South municipal bodies have passed resolutions for notifying 89 villages as urban areas, Delhi government has sought some clarifications regarding provision of civic amenities in the developed areas.
Both the MCDs have been asked by the ministry to expedite their reply to the Delhi government.
DDA in the meeting stated that transfer of developed land would be provided to the Delhi government on need basis as is being done now in accordance with the Mater Plan of Delhi.
The Delhi government was requested to consider the issue of waiver of stamp duty on transfer of developed land to farmers/developers.
It was also requested to expedite notification of the villages as urban areas and development areas. The Delhi government assured that local revenue officials would at the earliest verify the ‘Sajra’ maps of these villages falling under land pooling ambit.
The urban development ministry notified the land pooling policy (LPP) for the national capital on May 26 last year, but it is yet to be cleared by the Delhi government.
Under the policy, land parcels owned by individuals or groups are legally consolidated by transfer of ownership rights to the designated land pooling agency. The agency then transfers ownership of part of the land back to the landowners for developing such areas.
The LG has pointed out that circle rates haven’t been revised since 2008 and it is nobody’s case that these shouldn’t be revised as it would benefit the farmers and also add to the government’s coffers.Jung has also pointed out that in 2008, too, LG’s approval was obtained before fixing the minimum rate of agricultural land.
The LG has also explained that he continues to hold the power delegated to him under the Indian Stamp Act, 1989, so the matter ought to be placed before him for consideration.
The circle rate hike was hailed as a pro-farmer decision by CM Arvind Kejriwal. The government had maintained that it did not need to send the proposal to the LG as it was part of the budgetary proposals approved by him. Later, as the LG-government turf war started, the whole circle rate issue became controversial.
While pointing out an infirmity , the LG said, “The rates for agricultural land falling in villages where land pooling is applicable have been fixed. As on date, the land pooling policy is not in operation in Delhi as the proposed villages where such a policy would be implemented are yet to be declared urban. Therefore, these rates can only be decided once such a policy is implemented on ground.“
He also pointed out that in 2008, when the minimum price of land was fixed, there were two categories of land: one that’s agricultural and the other situated on the riverbed between two bunds. But in the 2015 notification, Jung observed, no minimum price was fixed for land situated on the riverbed. He wants the government to rectify it in the new proposal.
Earlier on August 4, the Delhi high court had deemed the AAP government’s notification illegal as it didn’t have the LG’s consent. In the same judgment, the high court had held that the LG was the head of Delhi. Now, the LG has reaffirmed that all executive powers in respect of Delhi vests with him, and if any authority , functionary or person purports to act in his name or on his behalf, then he has to approve it for the action to be valid.