Nandkumar Kamat
SECTION 2, subsection 10 of Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA), 1974 defines ‘development’ with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, quarrying or other operations in, on, over or under, land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, or in the use of any building or land, and includes sub-division of any land”. The definitions of ‘land” and “land use” are also vague and unscientific by modern evolved international UN standards.
Sample these two outdated definitions – subsection (16) defines – land includes benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth; and subsection 17 defines – land use means the major use to which a plot of land is being used on any specified date. Now where is the provision to include land under sea within 200 metres from coastline – a state’s resource rich continental shelf?
TCP Act Outdated
Goa has roughly 2-5000 hectares of continental shelf. The makers of TCPA were blissfully unaware about such an entity in 1974 and did very little to update the act. Such outdated definitions with stress on very superficial and physical aspects without any elements of sustainability precede hundreds of new central and state legislations which followed TCPA in past 40 years. The contents of Regional Plan (RP) were also aimed to fit the requirements of a centrally-administered union territory. But Goa acquired statehood on May 30, 1987 and the entire policy, legislative and planning regime changed drastically requiring a fresh look at TCPA, 1974. The uselessness of RP in terms of its ‘ultravires’ nature vis-à-vis the mandate and physical jurisdiction of other departments becomes clear from a simple reading of Section 10 of TCPA.
We need to keep in mind that not a word has been amended from this during past 41 years. This is a period which saw doubling of population of Goa, tripling of urban population and ten-fold expansion of economy. This is a period which saw heavy influx of migrants and rise of slum-like areas without proper rehabilitation programmes. Section 10 of the outdated TCPA lists the contents of RP as follows – (a) the broad demarcation of areas for agriculture, forestry, industry, mineral development, urban and rural settlements and other activities; (b) the reservation of land for recreation, botanical and zoological gardens, natural reserves, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts and for the preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural scenery, forests, wildlife, natural resources and landscaping; (c) preservation of objects, features, structures or places of historical, natural, archaeological or scientific interest and educational value; (d) the prevention of erosion of soil, provision for afforestation, or re-afforestation, improvement and re-development of waterfront areas, rivers and lakes; (e) transport and communications network such as roads, highways, railways, waterways, canals and airports including their future development; (f) rural and urban centres, both existing and new, indicating the extent of their anticipated growth; (g) for irrigation, water supply and hydro-electric works, flood control and prevention of water pollution; (h) providing for the re-location of population or industry from over-populated and industrially congested areas, and indicating the density of population or the concentration of industry to be allowed in any areas.
Exploitation of Fertile Land
If we consider (a) then it speaks about “demarcation” of “areas’” without providing any rational basis for scientific classification of precious land resources of the state. The town planners are not natural resource ecologists or economic geographers or have expertise in Botany, Zoology or Microbiology. They do not coordinate with geologists, minerologists and soil scientists. RP-2001 had already made a mess of fertile land resources by questionable classification using ill-defined expressions as “natural cover”, “orchard”, “settlements” which resulted in thousands of amendments to the plan. RP-2021 is still worse and it has failed to come out with a knowledge-based improved, realistic scientific classification of the land resources of Goa, at least the 41200 hectares which are left for spatial planning.
Goa deserves nothing less than a knowledge-based integrated land resources classification system following the best practices in EU countries. The political class is not interested in anything that is knowledge-based, precisely mapped, transparent and readily, freely available to common citizens. A lot of care has been taken by all the chief ministers ruling the state since 1987 not to translate TCPA, 1974 in Konkani and Marathi and make it available to common people. The government which has ample funds, banks of computers, technicians, a remote-sensing centre and access to National Remote Sensing Agency and Survey of India has also seen to it that accurate land use maps at the scale of one to 1250 or 2500 are not made readily available. Since 1989 successive governments paralyzed the Goa State Land Use Board (GSLUB) and land resources management committee under the Chief Secretary. The government deliberately delayed the preparation of surveying and marking of high tide line (HTL) or high water mark (HWM) despite data available from Portuguese records for all coastal areas.
All the chief ministers ensured that HTL or HWM would not be transferred to village-wise cadastral maps. The nodal science, technology and environment department refused to upload the HTL map prepared by NIO on its website consistent with the culture among ruling politicians in Goa to misinform the people, withhold information obtained at cost of public. This culture continues with RP-2021.
Land demarcation and reservation are complex issues linked to ownership. Most of problems created by RP-2001 were caused by ill-defined nature of land tenures. Even today the government cannot provide micro level data on this aspect resulting in land scams. Agricultural economist Dr J C Almeida in his “Aspects of Agricultural activity in Goa, Daman and Diu, 1967” informs us that in 1967 government owned 103083 ha, communidades had 36624 ha, Christian religious associations 926 ha, Hindu temples, 9391 ha Municipalities 13 ha, charitable institutions 116 ha, and private owners had 176506 ha. What are the stats now? ( to be continued).
http://www.navhindtimes.in/why-regional-plan-is-regional-pain-iii/
SECTION 2, subsection 10 of Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA), 1974 defines ‘development’ with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, quarrying or other operations in, on, over or under, land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, or in the use of any building or land, and includes sub-division of any land”. The definitions of ‘land” and “land use” are also vague and unscientific by modern evolved international UN standards.
Sample these two outdated definitions – subsection (16) defines – land includes benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth; and subsection 17 defines – land use means the major use to which a plot of land is being used on any specified date. Now where is the provision to include land under sea within 200 metres from coastline – a state’s resource rich continental shelf?
TCP Act Outdated
Goa has roughly 2-5000 hectares of continental shelf. The makers of TCPA were blissfully unaware about such an entity in 1974 and did very little to update the act. Such outdated definitions with stress on very superficial and physical aspects without any elements of sustainability precede hundreds of new central and state legislations which followed TCPA in past 40 years. The contents of Regional Plan (RP) were also aimed to fit the requirements of a centrally-administered union territory. But Goa acquired statehood on May 30, 1987 and the entire policy, legislative and planning regime changed drastically requiring a fresh look at TCPA, 1974. The uselessness of RP in terms of its ‘ultravires’ nature vis-à-vis the mandate and physical jurisdiction of other departments becomes clear from a simple reading of Section 10 of TCPA.
We need to keep in mind that not a word has been amended from this during past 41 years. This is a period which saw doubling of population of Goa, tripling of urban population and ten-fold expansion of economy. This is a period which saw heavy influx of migrants and rise of slum-like areas without proper rehabilitation programmes. Section 10 of the outdated TCPA lists the contents of RP as follows – (a) the broad demarcation of areas for agriculture, forestry, industry, mineral development, urban and rural settlements and other activities; (b) the reservation of land for recreation, botanical and zoological gardens, natural reserves, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts and for the preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural scenery, forests, wildlife, natural resources and landscaping; (c) preservation of objects, features, structures or places of historical, natural, archaeological or scientific interest and educational value; (d) the prevention of erosion of soil, provision for afforestation, or re-afforestation, improvement and re-development of waterfront areas, rivers and lakes; (e) transport and communications network such as roads, highways, railways, waterways, canals and airports including their future development; (f) rural and urban centres, both existing and new, indicating the extent of their anticipated growth; (g) for irrigation, water supply and hydro-electric works, flood control and prevention of water pollution; (h) providing for the re-location of population or industry from over-populated and industrially congested areas, and indicating the density of population or the concentration of industry to be allowed in any areas.
Exploitation of Fertile Land
If we consider (a) then it speaks about “demarcation” of “areas’” without providing any rational basis for scientific classification of precious land resources of the state. The town planners are not natural resource ecologists or economic geographers or have expertise in Botany, Zoology or Microbiology. They do not coordinate with geologists, minerologists and soil scientists. RP-2001 had already made a mess of fertile land resources by questionable classification using ill-defined expressions as “natural cover”, “orchard”, “settlements” which resulted in thousands of amendments to the plan. RP-2021 is still worse and it has failed to come out with a knowledge-based improved, realistic scientific classification of the land resources of Goa, at least the 41200 hectares which are left for spatial planning.
Goa deserves nothing less than a knowledge-based integrated land resources classification system following the best practices in EU countries. The political class is not interested in anything that is knowledge-based, precisely mapped, transparent and readily, freely available to common citizens. A lot of care has been taken by all the chief ministers ruling the state since 1987 not to translate TCPA, 1974 in Konkani and Marathi and make it available to common people. The government which has ample funds, banks of computers, technicians, a remote-sensing centre and access to National Remote Sensing Agency and Survey of India has also seen to it that accurate land use maps at the scale of one to 1250 or 2500 are not made readily available. Since 1989 successive governments paralyzed the Goa State Land Use Board (GSLUB) and land resources management committee under the Chief Secretary. The government deliberately delayed the preparation of surveying and marking of high tide line (HTL) or high water mark (HWM) despite data available from Portuguese records for all coastal areas.
All the chief ministers ensured that HTL or HWM would not be transferred to village-wise cadastral maps. The nodal science, technology and environment department refused to upload the HTL map prepared by NIO on its website consistent with the culture among ruling politicians in Goa to misinform the people, withhold information obtained at cost of public. This culture continues with RP-2021.
Land demarcation and reservation are complex issues linked to ownership. Most of problems created by RP-2001 were caused by ill-defined nature of land tenures. Even today the government cannot provide micro level data on this aspect resulting in land scams. Agricultural economist Dr J C Almeida in his “Aspects of Agricultural activity in Goa, Daman and Diu, 1967” informs us that in 1967 government owned 103083 ha, communidades had 36624 ha, Christian religious associations 926 ha, Hindu temples, 9391 ha Municipalities 13 ha, charitable institutions 116 ha, and private owners had 176506 ha. What are the stats now? ( to be continued).
http://www.navhindtimes.in/why-regional-plan-is-regional-pain-iii/
No comments:
Post a Comment