2012.09.21 letter to ncrpb on carrying capacity and email 19.09.2012 to secy mo ef
Lt Col (Retd) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
Tower 1 Flat 1102, The Uniworld Garden,
Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122018 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244227522
Secretary National Capital Region Planning Board
Ministry of Urban Development,
Core-IV B, First Floor, India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
CARRYING CAPACITY RULE & PLANNING ACCOUNTABILITY
Kindly find enclosed my email of 19 Sep 2012 to you amongst others
which elucidates the gross planning failure of NCRPB with regard to Gurgaon and
Also note the dire picture as regards Haryana water situation by 2050
as elucidated by no less than Haryana Minister Randeep Singh Surjewala in an
article dated 15 Oct 2010 (attached).
Date: 21 Sep 2012
Lt Col (Retd) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
CCP (NCR), Haryana,
Directorate General of Town & Country Planning, Haryana,
Government of Haryana,
Sec.6, Panchkula 134109.
From: Sarvadaman Oberoi <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Forest Policy is mandate. Step 1 Forest Accountability Step 2
Carrying Capacity Rule & Planning Accountability qua NCRPB Regional Plan
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Secretary National Capital Region Planning Board
<email@example.com>, Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chief Secretary <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, CGWA
Forest Policy is mandate of law:
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad 2011 12 SCC 483
"Time has come for this Court to declare and we hereby declare that the National
Forest Policy, 1988 which lays down far-reaching principles must necessarily
govern the grant of permissions under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 as the same provides the road map to ecological protection and improvement
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986."
Mandate of National Forest Policy, 1988 for States to issue State Forest
National Forest Policy 1988
4.15 Legal Support and Infrastructure Development
Appropriate legislation should be undertaken, supported by adequate infrastructure,
at the Centre and State levels in order to implement the Policy effectively.
Once a State issues such legislation/Policy it is also a mandate of law.
HARYANA FOREST POLICY, 2006
The Principal aim of the National Forest Policy, 1988 (NFP) is to ensure
environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance. The derivation of
direct economic benefit is subordinate to this principal aim. The policy stresses on
massive people’s involvement including women, for achieving the objectives.
However, considering the fact that the national canvass is too large to address the
location specific scene and that Haryana is a small state in the Gangetic plains with
very little natural forests, it is necessary to have a State Forest Policy within the
framework of the national forest policy.
4.1 Area under Forest and Tree Cover
National Forest Policy 1988 has set a goal to bring one third of Country’s area
under forest and tree cover. Such a goal can’t be achieved in the state of Haryana
(81% of land under agriculture). Our goal is to bring forest and tree cover to 10% by
the year 2010 so as to realise the ultimate goal of 20% in a phased manner. This
can only be achieved through agro-forestry on Farm lands and tree plantation on all
waste lands in the State."
Hence it is now a clear mandate of law that in Haryana any development plans
beyond 2010 must show how forest and tree cover is proposed to be increased to
10% by the year 2010 so as to realise the ultimate goal of 20%, as against the
National goal of one third.
Carrying Capacity and Forest Law:
National Forest Policy 1988
3. ESSENTIALS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT
3.1 Existing forests and forest lands should be fully protected and -their productivity
4.1 Area under Forests
The national goal should be to have a minimum of one-third of the total land area of
the country under forest or tree cover. ...
4.3 Management of State Forests
4.3.1 Schemes and projects which interfere with forests that clothe steep slopes,
catchments of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, geologically unstable terrain and such
other ecologically sensitive areas should be severely restricted...
4.3.2 No forest should be permitted to be worked without - the Government having
approved the management plan, which should be in a prescribed format and in
keeping with the National Forest Policy. The Central Government should issue
necessary guidelines to the State Governments in this regard and monitor
4.3.4 Rights and Concessions
126.96.36.199 The rights and concessions, including grazing, should always remain related
to the carrying capacity of forests. ...
Carrying Capacity and Development Law:
NCR Plan 2021 Chapter 14 Environment
"14.2 POLICIES AND PROPOSALS
Land is the most crucial and critical environment resource. Every land use/activity
i.e., housing, transportation, industry, recreation, conservation etc. or their linkages
have got environmental impact on air, water, soil etc. and in order to improve the
environmental condition in the region following policies and strategies are proposed:
v) While carrying out activities for the development of the region, provisions under
Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and Rules thereof should be followed. Carrying
Capacity of the region based on Minimum National Standards should be followed in
order to provide a better quality of life to the people in the region. Following factors
should be considered:
• Minimal national standards
• The environmental sensitivity of the region
• The carrying capacity of the receiving water bodies and environment
• The existing quality of environment
• The health requirements in the area
vi) Industrial parks/estates with controlled environment and with Combined Effluent
Treatment Plant (CETP) should be constructed considering the carrying capacity
concept. For the hazardous waste producing industries in the region, land allocation
should be done appropriately for Combined Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facility (TSDF). Similarly, State Governments should encourage/adopt efficient and
clean technology based power plants to meet the growing power demand for
reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) levels."
Supreme Court of India on Sustainability & Carrying Capacity etc:
Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3297 (3 judge bench)
"124....Sustainable development is a balancing concept between ecological
development and industrialisation. Therefore, with a view to improve the quality of
human life, while living within the carrying capacity of the subordinate ecology
system, sustainable development should be maintained by the industry and the
State should ensure environmental protection and prevent degradation thereof."
International Agreements Undertaken by India on Sustainability & Carrying
UN Convention on Climate Change
It is the duty of the State to endeavour to foster respect for international law
and treaty obligations under Article 51.
MoEF, NCRPB, Chief Secretary Haryana and DTCP Haryana are also bound
under Article 51A (g) and Article 51(c) read with Article 253 to make every
effort necessary to protect the environment under Article 51A (g) and
to endeavour to follow all international climate change obligations undertaken
personally by Ms Jayanti Natarajan, our Minister of Environment & Forests at
the Durban Climate Change Conference Nov-Dec 2011.[United Nations
FCCC/CP/2011/9 dated 15 March 2012]
If at all the Haryana Government notifies the Mangar DDP 2031, Sohna DDP
2031 or Gurgaon Manesar DDP 2031 without hearing us first they would be
in complete violation of Article 141 law besides violating Article 51 (c), Article
51A(g) and Article 253 in letter and spirit.
DTCP Haryana and PCCF Haryana must first read and comply with IPCC
Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
2003 and also read United Nations FCCC/CP/2011/9 dated 15 March 2012.
If these two organisations still do not understand that the depredations in the
Aravalli Hill Ranges are leading to fragmentation and irrecoverable self
destruction of the ecosystem surrounding Aravalli Hill Ranges in Delhi,
Haryana and Rajasthan - leading to drying up of ground water - rise in
temperature by 2 to 3 degrees centigrade within 3 to 5 years - then even the
Gods can not save the humans, animals and plants from destruction.
It is to be noted that Gurgaon District per census 2011 has total 15 lakhs
population(grossly under reported as per our information). For a moment we accept
the contention of the State that there is only 15-20 lakhs population in this water
stressed district - Presently ground water table is falling at nearly 1.5 to 2 metres
per annum (400 to 500 per cent Stage of Ground Water Development as against
209 % in 2007 and 300 % in 2010).
Per Plan 2021 norms of 150 lpd water for towns below 1 lakh population and 200
lpcd for towns 1 lakh and above population the water stressed district of gurgaon
cannot carry the proposed 50 lakhs population in Plan 2031 - further Plan 2031
denudes 70 % of the remaining 7 to 8 % forest area to hardly 2 to 3 % forest area in
It is very clear that CCP NCR is in violation of Policy and Law of sustainable
development and carrying capacity concept besides Ch 14 of NCRPB RP 2021
that states at para (ix):
No such activities should be undertaken in the Aravalli range in NCR:
a) Location of any new industry including expansion/modernisation;
d) Construction of any clusters of dwelling units, farms houses, sheds, community
centres, information centres and any other activity connected with such construction
(including roads and part of any infrastructure relating thereto)
e) Electrification (laying of new transmission lines)
It is futile for CCP NCR Haryana to seek protection of a fig leaf that the
NCRPB RP 2021 Map of Water Recharge Areas does not protect the
Mangar DDP 2031 when in fact the 08 July CGWB Affidavit in MC Mehta v
Union of India (attached ) so depicts this area as water recharge zone of
Gurgaon, Faridabad and Delhi at Pages 20-21 of the Affidavit.
Citizens' Just Demand:
Kindly identify forest area in Southern Haryana Aravallis including Gurgaon and
Faridabad in consultation with active citizens' groups and intimate the same to
MoEF who shall the verify in consultation with independent experts that the exercise
has correctly been done - only then should Mangar DDP 2031, Sohna DDP 2031
or Gurgaon Manesar DDP 2031 be considered for notification by the MoEF or
Tower 1 Flat 1102, The Uniworld Garden,
Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122018 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244227522
Treasurer Mission Gurgaon Development
Secretary Uniworld Garden Apartment Owners Association
Principal Secretary Federation of Apartment Owners Association
Jaago Re "Aaj Se Khilana Bandh, Pilana Shuru"
India’s Agriculture Magazine
Sutluj-Yamuna Link Canal: Haryana’s Testament of Hope and Faith
Posted by Randeep Singh Surjewala on October 15, 2010
in Policy, Technology, Water5 comments
Water’ and ‘air’ are life itself. Water is a ‘national’ resource; more importantly, a
‘human’ resource. Mankind’s fate depends on continued access to abundant water,
nutritious food and clean air. Of the three, equitable availability of water is the most
important; the other two, food and air, are corollaries. Do Indians always respect
these positions in their water management, especially around its equitable
India uses 90 per cent of ground water for agriculture that requires constant
irrigation. Available ground water in India, reportedly at 600 cubic kilometer per
annum in 1997 (and enough to meet its demand then) will be no more than about
100 cubic kilometer per annum by 2050. By then the annual demand will rise to
1,200 cubic kilometer. The corresponding surface water availability in 1997 was 300
cubic kilometer per annum that is projected to fall to 50 cubic kilometer per annum
by 2050. Alongside, the projected increase in demand for water, by domestic,
industrial and agriculture sectors by 2050, is 1.4 trillion cubic litres, when the
population is slated to be a staggering 1.6 billion (160 crore). Needless to add, this
simple challenge of equitable availability of clean water will be the principal
challenge for the nation state over next decades.
This being the background, there are certain fundamental questions around water
that one needs to ask.
• Can people argue that each drop of water flowing through their soil is theirs?
• Can one control water?
• Can one own water?
• Can one divide water?
• Can one refuse to share water?
• Can one claim proprietory rights over water?
• Can one claim royalty for water?
• Can there ever be exclusive ownership of this life-giving natural resource?
These are questions that states and individuals claiming right of ownership over
water must answer for themselves as also for the future generations of this country.
The future of our children lies in looking within and giving a sincere yet simple
answer to these questions made vexed by Machiavellian machinations of myopic
political interests. Sharing of water and inter-state water sharing disputes – whether
around the Yamuna Link or the Narmada and Cauvery or similar projects have to be
viewed through the prism of these premises.
Consider the historical injustice meted out to Haryana by the persistent denial of its
share of water in Punjab Rivers – known in popular parlance as sharing of the
waters of the Ravi-Beas rivers – by constructing the Sutluj-Yamuna Link Canal.
Rhetoric is free and truth is a casualty in politics but facts are facts:
(i) The Indus Water Treaty of 1960, signed between the then Indian Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan President, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, affirmed the
rights of India (including Joint Punjab) over Punjab Rivers. Post-partition, on the
demand of the people of the Haryana region of Punjab, several committees were
constituted by the joint Punjab government and the Government of India to provide
water to the areas now comprising the state of Haryana. The committees that
recommended a substantial share of water for the Haryana region from Punjab
Rivers included the Food Committee on Land and Water Use in Punjab, constituted
on January 12, 1965 and the Haryana Development Committee, constituted on
January 20, 1965. They recommended 4.56 million acre feet of water for Haryana
areas in joint Punjab.
(ii) Haryana was carved out of the state of Punjab on November 1, 1966. Section 78
of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 made special provisions with regard to the
rights and liabilities of successor states, including those around sharing of the
waters of Bhakra, Ravi and Beas. Yet there were disputes that did not get resolved
and Haryana approached the Government of India on October 21, 1969 for a
decision on the water dispute under Section 78 of the 1966 Act. In accordance with
Section 78 of the 1966 Act, the Indira Gandhi government of the time took an
initiative to allocate water vide order/ notification of March 24, 1976, popularly
known as ‘Indira Gandhi Award’. Haryana and Punjab were allocated 3.5 million
acre feet each of water. There was also a directive that a canal be dug in Punjab
territory to carry Haryana’s share of water.
(iii) Haryana paid Rs one crore to Punjab on November 10, 1976 and another Rs
one crore on March 31, 1979 towards construction of the SYL Canal. Mr Prakash
Singh Badal was then the Chief Minister of Akali Dal government in Punjab.
(iv) Having first accepted money for constructing the SYL Canal, in terms of the
centre’s order notification of March 24, 1976, Punjab backtracked. Haryana then
filed Suit No.1 of 1979 in Supreme Court of India on April 30, 1979 for
implementation of the March 1976 order/notification for constructing the SYL Canal
in the territory of Punjab within two years. Punjab filed a counter Suit No. 2 of 1979
on July 11, 1979 challenging not only the validity of the centre’s March 1976
order/notification allotting Haryana a share of water but the very foundation of the
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
(v) This vexed issue was again settled on Indira Gandhi’s intervention and it
resulted in the signing of a tripartite agreement between states of Punjab, Haryana
and Rajasthan on December 31, 1981. Under this agreement:
• Haryana was allocated 3.5 million acre feet of water.
• Punjab and Rajasthan were allocated 4.22 million acre feet and 8.60 million acre
feet of water respectively out of the total surplus water of Ravi-Beas rivers.
• SYL Canal was to be completed within two years.
• Based on this agreement, both the aforementioned suits were withdrawn by
Punjab and Haryana from Supreme Court of India on February 12, 1982.
(vi) On April 8, 1982, Indira Gandhi took another initiative to have digging of a canal
in Punjab territory at Kapoori started.
(vii) Ninety-five per cent of the work was completed till June 1987 while the
Congress was in power.
(viii) Meanwhile, Punjab went through a period of extreme turmoil of terrorism and
various leaders of different political shades continued to question Haryana’s claim
on the waters in Punjab Rivers based on riparian principles.
(ix) Matters were again taken up at the central level by Rajiv Gandhi, when he
became Prime Minister. He took the initiative to settle not just the inter-state water
dispute but other inter-state issues as well.
(x) On July 24, 1985, an agreement historically known as ‘Rajiv-Longowal Accord’
was signed between Rajiv Gandhi and the then President of Shiromani Akali Dal,
Sant Harchand Singh Longowal. Mr Surjit Singh Barnala, who rose to become
Punjab Chief Minister after the Rajiv-Longowal Accord, was also party to this
agreement on behalf of the Akali Dal. The Government of India agreed to appoint a
tribunal for adjudication of the share of water as also claims of the states of Punjab
(xi) A judicial tribunal was, accordingly, constituted under the chairmanship of Mr.
Justice V. B. Eradi. This tribunal toured the states of Punjab and Haryana, called for
all the documents and heard extensive arguments. On January 30, 1987, the Eradi
Tribunal delivered its landmark verdict and allocated 3.83 million acre feet of water
to Haryana based on ‘riparian principles’ and 5.00 million acre feet of water to
Punjab. Rajasthan and Delhi were allocated water too.
(xii) In 1991, the Congress government of Haryana instituted a suit for issuing
directions to the state of Punjab for completion of the canal. On September 6, 1996,
the Bansi Lal government instituted an amended suit for the same relief after
withdrawing the earlier suit. On January 15, 2002, the Supreme Court of India
allowed the suit of Haryana government, directing the Punjab government to
complete the SYL Canal within one year.
(xiii) Upon the Punjab government failing to do so, an executory application was
filed for issuing directions to Punjab for completion of the canal. On June 4, 2004,
the Supreme Court again directed Punjab to complete the construction of SYL
Canal within a year, failing which it should be constructed by a central agency.
Punjab filed review petition against the June 4 judgment/order, which was
dismissed by Supreme Court on July 2, 2004.
(xiv) On July 12, 2004, in a blatant affront to federalism and parliamentary
democracy, Punjab passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004.
Considering the gravity of the matter, the government of India intervened by
exercising extraordinary powers of reference under Article 143 of Constitution of
India and referred the validity of the 2004 Act to a Constitution bench of Supreme
Court of India.
• Haryana has a right to the waters of the Punjab rivers being a part and parcel of
the erstwhile state of Punjab.
• Haryana’s right to a share of the waters was affirmed by the Food Committee on
Land and Water Use in Punjab (1965) and the Haryana Development Committee
(1965) when the Haryana area was part of joint Punjab.
• Haryana’s right has been recognized by the 1976 Government of India award
issued in terms of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Even the
Punjab government had acquiesced to this award by accepting money from
Haryana twice (1976 and 1979) for constructing the SYL Canal.
• Haryana’s right to share of water has also been recognized by a tripartite
agreement between Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan (1981), based on which 95 per
cent of the SYL Canal was constructed and completed till June, 1987.
• Haryana’s right to the waters, including its claim as a ‘riparian basin state, was
further recognized by the Eradi Tribunal (1987) that was constituted on the basis of
the historical ‘Rajiv-Longowal Accord (1985).
• Haryana’s right to share of water in terms of verdict of Eradi Tribunal was fructified
by the 2002 Supreme Court judgment in Suit No. 1 of 1995 directing the state of
Punjab and the Union of India to construct the SYL Canal.
• Haryana’s right was further affirmed by the second (2004) Supreme Court verdict,
directing the construction of SYL Canal within a year.
There can be no better case for sharing of water either on facts or in law or based
upon the spirit of brotherhood. The construction of the SYL Canal is not only an
article of faith for the people of Haryana but also a test of democratic resilience and
equitable distribution of resources in this country. It is time politicians rose above
the parochial and myopic vested interests and vote bank politics to ensure equitable
distribution of ancestral family legacy between the two brothers – in this case share
the water through construction of the SYL Canal.