- The document is a surrejoinder affidavit submitted by Respondent No. 4 in response to the applicant's rejoinder. - It denies the claims made in the applicant's rejoinder and reiterates the submissions made in the original reply. - It explains that the issue of inclusion of Natural Conservation Zones (NCZs) in development plans was not originally raised by the applicant. - It provides details of the process undertaken by the State to delineate NCZs on ground through surveys, in line with decisions of the National Capital Region Planning Board. - It argues that NCZs have been adequately protected in development plans through various notifications and zoning regulations.

1. '
-c'f ti,arynl, {e,t )", ro+,,
BtrFoRtr TFIE I'TATIONAL GRtrriN TRTBUNAL Ad4,
PRINCIPAL BENCLI, NEW DELI.II
ORIGINAI. APPLICATION NO. 325 of 2015
lN ]'t-t]l MATTER Otr:
,1.t. Ctil. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
Versus
Union of India & Others
iNDEX
is.Ni
f--t.
i;---/
ir --
l
l
r-;--i 'f.i
l
I
t__i5.
I
[.r.
Particulars Pages
Sur-re-joinder Affidavit of Sh. Arun I(umar Gupta,
Director General-cum-Secretary, Town & Country
Planning Departmenr, Haryana on behalf of
Respondent No. 4.
3o3- 322
Annexure R-4/ 7: Copy of the order dated
20.04.2015 of the Flonble High Court of Punjab &
i_r^-,,^'^^r lal v atla
3ztt - gLt
Annexure R-4/2: Copy of the minutes of the DLC
meeting held on 12.8.2005. 3z?- 33 I
Annexure R-4/3: Copy. of minutes of the State
Level Committee meeting held on 26.6.2006 3?z- 33c
Annexure R-4/4: Copy of the letter No. 163 dated
1.9.03.2010 issued by SDO and Engineer-in-Chief
3p
ie rter IVo. 96-!iB claterl 05.07.2016
Annexure R-4'/5: Copy of the letter letter No. 96-
98 dated 05.07.2016 issued by Engineer-in-Chief
3. hnnotr,^r., Q-Ud.
'23
. Applicant
. . . Flespondents
z 5 | oVl?,rt6
337- ?ta o
FILED BY:
+*,--
ANIL GROVBR
Add1. Advocate General, Haryana
A-I74,2.d Eloor,
Defence Colony, New Delhi
Mob:0987390I295
trm ai1: groveradvo cate@rediffm ail. com
[)LAr]E:
DAT 3D:
NEW DtrLHI
,le)'rlorf
. -*+-"-'''--
+

2. 2 a'lv-J
BEFORE TI-IE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL APPI-ICATION NO. 325 of 2015
l_i! rH.E__4 ArTER_Q_E :
[,t, Cc'1. Szrn'adcr-man Singh ()beroi Applicant
VETSUS
UniorL of tr-raiu & Others . . Respondents
Sur-reioi4der Affidavi! qf Sh. Arun Kumar
.
Gupta, Director General-9gmr'sgcretarv. Tggln
& Countrv Plan4ing DePartment. Harrrana on
behalf of Respondent No. 4-.
RF]ST: trCTFULLY SFIOWETI{
PRI.]LIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
I
1. 'fhat the contents of para no. 1 of the rejoinder are wrong and denied and the
snbmissions madc by thr: answering respondent rn para no. 1 of preliminary
sr"rbmissions of reply are reiterated,.
That the contents of para no. 2 of the rejoinder are wrong and denied and the
submissions made in para no. 2 of the preliminary submissions of reply by
the answering respondent are reiterated. It is stated that the applicant has
raised the issue of inclusion of the Natura-l Conservation Zone in the
Development Pians of Gurgaon Manesar Urbal Complex-2O21 AD & 2025
AD for the first time in this rejoinder. This issue does not find mention in the
original application hled by the applicant. Therefore, the averments made by
the applicant on this issue are not legally tenable in the rejoinder. However,
issue of demaucation of Natural conservation Zone in different statutory
d?S has been explairrecl in the relerzant paras wherever required. The
tion of the erppiicant is that the provision for Natural Conservation
s (NCZ's) h.as not been made as per provisions of the Regional Plan
approved by the National Capital Region Pianning Board under the National
Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (herein after called as Act of 1985)
ir-r the above referrecl two Development Plans. However. this contention of the
applicant is erroneous, miscortcetved.

3. 3o
It is submittecl th{rt the l?egional Plzur 202t has iclentified environrnentallv
sensitive major natural feature like extension of Aravalli Ridge in Haryana,
fbrest areas, the rivers and tributaries of yamuna, Ganga, Kali, Hinclon and
Sahibi, sanctltaries, m.ajor lakes and water boclies such as Badkhal lal<e,
SLrraikund and Damdma in Haryana Sub-Region. The Regional Plan further
refers to identjfication of ground water recharging areas such as water
l:odie-'s, oxbow lal<es and palio channels through the Sub-Regional plan &
Developrnent Plans. The rrotes on the map no. r7.2 appended to Regional
PIan 2021 is reproduced for appreciation of this issue:
"5 The bouud.aries of conservation zones i.e, forest cover, bird & wild
life sanctr.raries, ridge, river bed & flood plains are tentative ancl shall
be in accordance with the Sub Regional Plans/master/Development
Plans/notifications of MOE&F thereof.,,
It may be appreciated that the tentative areas of Natural Conservation
Zones identified in the map No. 17.2 appended to the Regional pan 2o2r
were based on the sateliite irnages of 1999 supplied to NCRPB by National
Remote Sensing centre Hyderabad. Thereafter, the proposed land use plan
haq been prepared considering the features identified in the existing land use
':1an. I{orvever, no grortnd truthing was conducted before reflecting the NCZs
irr the Regional Plan-2O21 AD. Since the location and extent of these areas
'were tentative, actual iocation and extent could be determined oniy by way of
lSround truthing. It is in this context and in the absence of exact details of
lKhasra Nos. forming part of the NCZ's these could not be identilied in the
Development Plan published in 2oo7. Ho'-..r"r, random sampling of the
l-entative areas identified as NCZ in the Regional Plan 2021 was under taken
ln its own for the Haryana Sub Region and major anomalies were noticed in
as identified on the map and actual ground conditions. In some cases,
llage abadi were identilied as Natural Conservation Zones. It is in this
t that the matter for identification NCZ's at ground has been taken up
t#S{Cp Plannir-rg Board and the Board has taken cognizance of this issue in
its different meetings held on 25.04.2014, 09.06.201s & 10.07.201s and
has taken the followins decisions:

4. 2t( 3
?eJ
Meetir-rg clated 25.04.2O 14 :
,,The Board decided that NCZ in NCR be delineated by each
participating State bases on detailed ground truthing along with
verification of State revenue records. This exercise should be carried
or-rt by a team of Officers consisting of NRSC, participating State
Governments amd NCRPB within 30 days. Thereafter, the SRPs would
stand amended,"
Meeting Dated 09.06.20 l 5
"Agenda Item No. 7 (h) After detailed discussions and deliberations it
was deciderl that Ciovt. of l{aryana will prepa-re the fina-l report along
with Maps on the NCZ delineation exercise and amend the SRP-2021
and forwarcl the same to MoEF&CC. MoEF&CC will examine the same
and con{irrn whether their,.views/comments/suggestions have been
addressed/incorporated in the SRP-2021. Subsequently, a
compliance Report will be sent to PMO by Govt. of Haryana through
MoUD, Govt. of Inclia and a copy will also be submitted to the Board's
secretarlat. "
The issue of ground truthing and its conlirmation from Ministry of
Environmerrt and Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) was further
deliberated in a meeting held on 1O.O7.2O15 under the Chairmanship of
Secretarlr MotrF&CC Govt. of India wherein following decisions were taken:
"The Department of Town & Country Planning will prepare geo-
-lu:"
,. referenced maps of confirmed NCZ areas as well as the pockets falling
- .... ..".__r :: {",:...r. ,f, i;i'ir,
.'l t''fi1
t,,n,i: l"iiqeion of NCR 'and cluly shown on the Sub Regiona-l Plan of Haryana.
't:,, '1L. ; ""s. i i-
;;d'"
rf-.'H,T' ::-:';ii, .9' -
' 1,vfi I $n
has been completed and the report of the District Level Committee has been
considered by the Committee at the State Level and the report has been glven
fina1 shape. Since this report is in the form of village wise khasra Nos', the
geo-referencing r,r,ork of this data is being done by Haryana State Application
ce.tre (HARSAC), After completion of the geo-referencing, the geo referenced

5. 306
Sub Regional Plan ancl data will be submitted for confirmation of the
MoEF&CC.
Therefore, the NCZ areas which were tentatively shown on the Regional Plan
2021 published in the'year 2005 have been firmed up on ground through an
elaborate exercise of ground truthing.
It is further submitted that ,n" .o.r...n of the petitioner with respect to
preservation of NCZ within the Development Plan of Gurgaon-Manesar LIrban
Complex has also been taken care of by protecting the areas designated as
NCZ and further covered under the notification dated 07.05.1992 of Ministry
of- Environment and Fogest Govt of India commonly ro* as Aravalli
notillcation which provides for protection of Aravalli ranges, areas notified
under section 4 ancifor section 5 of PunjaU L"ra Preservation Act, 1900
(PLPA 1900), areas coverecl under Arava,lli plantation.
. It is also brought to rhe kind notice of this Hon ble Tribunal that in the
Final Development Plan of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex-2031 AD
pr-rblished vide notification dated 15.11.2012, it has been provided under
Clause-10 of the zoning regulations published alongwith the Development
Plan that the Aravalli Ranges have been designated as Natural Conservation
Zone rn the Plan in accordance with Regional Plan-2A21 except those areas
which a-re coming in the urbanizable oarea. Agriculture, horticulture,
pisiculture, social forestrl', afforestation and regional recreational activities
with construction not exceeding 0.5% of the area
,
are the permissible
activities in this 'zone. Further, Clause-11 of the zoning regulations provides
that for protection of Aravalli, the notification of the MOEF, Government of
Ind,1a dated 07.05.1992, shall be applicable. Similarly, for execution of any
prbject covered in EIA Notification dated 14.O9.2006, the project proponent
will harre to obtain environment clearance in terms of said notification, In
adclition, the areas notified under Section 4 and/or 5 of Punjab Lancl,
Preservation Act, 1900 ancl areas covered under A.rava-lli Plantation have aLso
been considered as 'forest', in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Similarly, the restrictions applicable to the Eco-Sensitive Zone notified
around Sultanpur National Park vide MOEF notification dated 29.O1.2O7O or
Y^
..iU/
/t/__-_;--tw
4
.'i" .i

6. 3*s
for protection of environment in any manner shall also be followed and
implernetrted. Thus, the State of Haryana has a-lready, taken precautionary
rleasures to protect the environmentally sensitive areas as the NCZ's stancl
dehneated through actual ground truthing.
'l'hat the contentions raised in the para 3 of the preliminary submission of
the rejoinder are malicious and are based on conjectures and half truths. The
contentions in this para further castes aspersions on the judicial process of
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this regard, the submissions
made ir-r. reply to the main application are reiterated. The process of
preparation of Sub Regional Plan was initiated when a project was awarded
:
to a private consultant M/s Scott. Wilson India Ltd. after signing the
zrgreernent on 25.10,2008. The followino chart inclicertes the status of
prcparaLion of Sr-rb i?egional Plal:
Activity Date
Interirn Report-l submitteci to NCRPB 05.05.2009
Observation received on Interim Report-I from NCRPB 16.06.2009
interim Reoort-i resubmitted to NCRPB 07.10.2009
Aealn obser-vations received on Interim Report-l from NCRPB 06. 1 1.2009
Interim Report-Il submitted to NCRPB 10.05.2010
Observation received on Interim Reoort-ll from NCRPB 29.06.20rO
Draft Final Report subrnitted to NCRPB 12.70.201o
Observation received on Draft Final Report from NCRPB 29.rr.2010
DraJt revised fina-l reoort submittbd to NCRPB 30.05.2011
Observation received on Draft revised fina-l reDort from
,orX. NCRPB
{*':)
29.II.2OTT
R -,,tf';fi final rePort submitted ro NCRPB 24.rO.20t3
fiy*4t$tio"
received on Revised final reoort from NCRPB 16.12.2013
p/rb ffigional Plal submitted to NCRPB
'x,/tl
25.02.2014
flffservation of the NCRPB secretariat which irarb not been
incorporated in the revised Sub-regional Plan for Haryana
Sub-Region of NCR-2021 submitted by the Govt. of Haryana
17.O2.2074

7. 6
The plan was discr-rssed by the 63,a Planning Committee of the
NCRPB held on 20.02.2014 and.subsequently in the Special Board meeting
lre1d on 25.04.2O14. After taking into consideration the observations o1'the
Board in the above referred meeting, the Sub Regional Plan was notified on
28.05.2014. The status with respect to notification of Sub Regional Plan was
appraiseci by the Boald in its 35th meeting held on 09.06.2QI5. The only 1
issue which require consideration by MoEF&CC is with respect to the
fir-ralization of tire definition 'Forest' and decision on the areas delineated
uncler tire category of "status yet to be deciclecl". This fact has been further
confrrmed in the meeting held r,vith Secretary, MoEF&CC in meeting heid on
1o.o7.2o15 arrd referred to tire para 2 of preliminary submissions.
It needs to be mentioned that the process of notification of Sub
Regional Plan was under scrutiny of Honble Punjab and Haryana High
Court. It is only after its satisfaction with the process followed by the State in
publication of the Sub Regionai Plan that the interim order dated 16.01.2015
staying the grant of chalge of land use permissions and grant of licences in
Haryana Sub Region of NCR were vacated. {t may be noted that the Union of
India and NCRPB were also represented through their counsels on the said
date and the contentions submitted by the State were not controverted. The
copy of the orders clatecl 20.O4.2O15 of the Hon'ble High Court are annexed
as Annexure R-4/1. It is further mentioned that the last status report with
respect to ground truthing and geo-referencing of NCZ areas has been
submitted to Honble High Court on 13.07.2O16.
,l,ti 5. That the contents of para no. 4 & 5 of the rejoinder to the reply are
'rong and denied and the submissions made in para no. 3 of the preliminary
.t.:.,,:;t"...
:-",,.,11
i
,:- " lbubrr,issions oi the repll' by answering respondent are reiterated. The-. , ? .". 1 .-
'' 1 l,i,
( ., /,,,, r,..,1pp1i.*, has not even now specifically stated what environmental law/rule
at / ' ...
.V .i -
' ' : hF" ;been violate<l by the answering respondents. The:averments relating to
I' .: r .'. .:
': ,: . .,. '.ii n9n effmarking of the Natura-l Conservation Zone in the Development Plans
' t'l
,".,./rn'::-
,t'
|:4i6.-!bt;1 AD & 2o2s AD have already been replied to in para no. 2 above.
. .,.: .:.:.::"::::1.-.
These plans have been published after following due process provided in law.
The law provides for pr-rblication of plan for inviting suggestions/objections.
Olrjections/suggestions received from different department/public"inciuding
) r,t
v/21:

8. ?o( z
NCRPB were taken into consideration. It is categorically stated. that none of
the suggestion of NCRPB were concerning with non-provision of NCZ's in the
developrnent plal. It is not a case of applicant that the ansurering respold.ent
did not publish the plans for inviting objections and suggestion. If the
applicant had any objection that this provisi.on was not made in the
Development Plans published vide notification dated OS.O2.2OO7 aId
24.O5.2O11, he shoulcl have {iled objections when the Draft Development
Plans were published, a.s already submitted in the reply to the marn
application, the provision regarding Natural Conservation Zone has already
been made in the Final Development Plan of Gurgaon Manesar Urban
Complex published vide notification datecl 15.11.2OI2. Further, as already
submitted, the t)evelopmcnt Plans are published in a consultative manner by
compiying with the statutory requirements as provided under the Act of
1963. The'Controiled Areas'are declared under Section 4 of the Act ibid.
Thereafter, the Developrnent Plan is prepared considering the different
par ameters on which the in-principie approrzal of the Govt. is obtained. After
'in-pnnciple'approval of the Govt., the plan for GMUC 2031 was placed
before the District Planning Committee constituted under the Haryana
Municipal Act 1973 in its meeting held on og.o1.2ol2 and was duly
approved. The plan was further considered in the State Level Committee held
on 29.O8.2012 and was also approved. After following due process, the plal
was further published for inviting objections on 04.09.2012 and it is only
after considering the objections and suggestions received. in this regard, the
plan was fina1ly published on 15.II.2O12. TLrerefore, due process as provided
r'inder the statue has been followed in this case. As far as finalisation amd
publication of Sub Regional Plan for HaryaneL Sub Region is concerned, same
, lu* been finalised and published in accordance with the due process laid
d.own in the NCRPB Act, 1985 and explained cletailed in preceeding para.
' ' The petitioner has rajsed contention about water loging of the areas in
. - Gurgaon during Monsoon season in this regard, it needs to be mentioned
;.1:t€ that a temporary problem may exist in some areas during heavy rain.
However, it needs to be seen whether the state authorities have prepared the
plan for providing adequate storms water drainage to take care of the

9. 6.
'1a7 avl
clisposal of rain water during monsoon on the established scientific
pri'ciples. In case of Gurgaon also such system has been planned and is
being implernented by the concerned authorities i.e. HUDA and Municipal
corporation Gurgaon. In case of Ghata e[so, proper drainage has oeen
planned after seeking inputs from the Irrigeition bepartment to take care of
the rain water discharge as explained i'detail in succeeding paras.
That the averments made in para no. 6 ,cf the rejoinder are wrong and
denied ernd the submissions made in para no. 4 of the preliminary
submissions of reply by the answering respondent are reiterated. It is
submitted that a complete procedure as pe,r provisions of Section 5 of the
Act of 1963 was followed while preparing the Deveiopment plans of Gurgaon
Manesar Urba:r Complex. The meeting of the District Level Committee for
the Gurgaon-Manesar Urban comprex D.r*l.op*.nt plan-2021 AD was held
ort r2.8.2o05. This meeting was attende,i by Executive Engineer, irrigation
Department. In this DLC meeting, the E.xecutive Engineer of Irrigatiol
Department had riot raised. any objections against the proposal of sector 5g
as a residential sector in the Draft Development Plan. Copy of the minutes of
the DLC meeting held on 12.B.2OOS is piaced at Annexure-R/4/2. The State
Level committee for the Gurgaon-Manesar urban complex Development
Plan-2o21 AD was held on 26.6.2006. l'his; meeting was attended by the
Financial Commissioner 86 Principal Secretay to Govt Har5rana, Irrigation
Depar-tment. In this meeting a,iso, the irrig:rtion Department did not raise
anv objections against the p.opo.i of sector' 58 as residential sector in the
Draft Development Plan. The minutes of the meeting were circulated among
all the concerned Departments which int.eralia includes the Irrigation
partment as well. The minutes of the State l-evel Committee meeting held
6.6.2006 are enclosed at Annexure -R/4tg. Therea-fter, after following
rocedure, the Draft Gurgaon-Manesa-r urban complex Development
2o2r AD and the Final Gurgaon-Maneseu urban complex Development
-2O2I AD were notihed. It is wrong that the objections received against
the above said Development plars were discarded. All the
objections/suggestions receivecl from the representatives of the various

10. 3ta s
Departments/public were duly examined r,vhile finalizing the Development
Plan None of the objections reigted tc, piarlning of resiciential sector 58.
Subseq,ent to finalisatio.r of the Deveiopme't plan GMUC 202r, HUDA
prepared the drainage plan for the newly added sectors including sector 58
whicl] includes Ghata bandh also. This dral.nage plan includ.ed construction
of a box drain to barry the rain water <lischarge from the creeks following
dorvrrhill the Aravallis as well as the discharge from the Ghata bandh. This
drainage plan was linalisecl after seelcing response from the Irrigation
Department' As informed bv Superintendent IJUDA Circle iI Gurgaon that
the loca-l offices of Gurgaon water Serrvices, Sub division- Gurgaon of
Irrrgation Departrnent provided technica-l details vide letter no. 163 dated
19'03'2010 for the discharge of four nunrber of creeks ancl Ghata bandh for
realignment of Itost nallah ancl the same was estimated to be Z68 cusecs.
The Irrigation Department also provided the clesign ca-lculations alongwith
this correspondence. it m.y be seen that the concerned SDO who has issued
a letter to District To'uvn planner, Gurga.on in year 2011 was part of the
consultation in process held between HLID/. and the Irrigation Department
irr realignment of the Kost Nallatr rn the form of box drain and has in fact
himself provided all the detarls. Therefrrre, the correspond.ence from the
Irrigation Department being referred to by the petitioner is not relevant
because the entire drainage in these sectors has been planed after seeking
inputs from Irrigation Depaltment. The crtntention of the petitioner that the
objections of Irrigation Department (rarse:d throrlgh above referred. letter of
the SDo) are still relevant as far as carving out of sector 58 is concerned is
not correct' This fact has been again got verilied from Irrigation Department.
The Engineering-in-Chief has clearly statecl that HUDA has constructed
tor roads which are higher than the natural surface and storm water
e sectoral road connecting to Kosth naLla has also been constructed.
A. Therefore, the issues raised by the sDo are not relevant. The
r-in-chief has further confirmed the rain water discharge from four
r of creeks and Ghata bandh to be TciB ctrsecs as a_lready confrrmed
said SDo through letter dated 19.03.2t010 referred above, The copies
letter No. 163 dated 19.03.2010 issued by sDo and Engineer-in-chief

11. 3l 10
ietter No.96-98 dated 05.07.2016 are e:nciosEd as Annexure R-4/4 &
Annexure R-+/S,
F-urther, as already submitted in reply to the main application, the
communication from the SDO of Irrigation Department on 0B.O3.2Oil and
06-04.20I| was made almost after four years after publication of the
Development Plan. The measures being put in place to cater to rain water
discheuge through creeks and Ghata bandh were being planned with
consultation of said SDO.
. That the contentions regarding reduction.in area of NCZs indicated in the
Regional Plan is not based on proper un<lerstanding of the subject. The NCZ
depicted in the Regional Plan 2O2l is shovrn on the map with a scale of 1
cm = 6.5 kms whereas the Development Pl;rn has been prepared on a scale
of lcm = 500 mtrs. Since, the satellite image on the scale of 1 cm = 100
mtrs (1:10,000 mtrs) is provided b)'the NRS}C in the form of shape liles only
in December 2Ol4/January 2015 and theLt too on the orders of Horrble
,
Punjab and Haryana High Court, the actr:al ground truthing was carried out
on the basis of NCZ's depicted in these imageries/shape files.'l'herefore, the
calculations of NCZ on the basis of tentative depiction in the Regional Plal
was only an estimated figure. The.ground tmthing exercise completed by the
State is based on the revenue details, therefore, the area being firmecl up
ttnder the NCZ's is as existing on ground. It needs to be mentioned that this
cxercise a-lso includes some of the a-rea{i on which there was no clarity in
Forest Department on account of non finalis;ation of the dehnition of Forest.
F'urther, the Forest Depa:'tment has also included some area categorised as
'Bhood' in the revenue record to be part of area whose status is yet to be
'dpcided. This indicate that while ground tmthing some of the areas which
.,/:i.:' a', ,.
,'i , ot{rpny4se were not categorised as NCZ in t}re Regional Plan have al.so been
,l t,.i,,
",..,,r'?"
,'; '.;1, aeltri'H'hlpd and their status will be decicled aJter consultation with,'.' 1: l.,"f!i
' . rlytorD'n8c,CC. This also indicates that the NCZI's depicted in the Regional Plan..., :..,.,' i;,
,IJ
- -12-O
,lPrwhich were based on the satellite irnages of 1999 were not entirely
::1-""correct and the apprehension shown by the State Govt. while doing.random
sampling were found to be correct. The pe,titioner has no locus starldi to
In
Y/fl'Arr /_

12. 11
vrith
the involvement of all the stake holders zrrd the teams have visited each anci
errerY area shown as NCZ in the Regional F'lan. It is further submitted that
the geo-referencrng of the ground truthing is being carried out by HARSAC
(agaln an expert agency) .
That the contentrons made in para no. B of the rejoinder are wrong and
denied. The submissions made in pa.a no. 3 of reply to the originar
application, para 6 above a'd forgoing para 20 of the sur-rejoi*d.er may be
read in reply to this para.
'fhat the contentions macre in para no. 9 of the rejoinder are wrong and.
rlenied anci the submissions made in parat no. 5, 6, 7 &B of the preliminary
submissions of reply by the answering respondent are reiterated. It is not
even disputed by the applicant that he has not filed. any objections against
t.he Draft Development plan-202 1 AD for Gurgaon Manesar Urban complex
rvherein, Sector 5B was earrnarked as rersidential sector. Thus, havrng
fbrfeited the opportunity to fi1e objectionLs against the DraJt Development
Plars in accordance witir section 5 (s) of the Act of 1963, the present
eLpplicatron filed by the appricant is not maintainable. Regarding
irlenttfrcation of NCZ pockets as per the Regiorear Jran-zo 2r, thesubmissions
made in preceding paras of sur-rejoinder a::e reiterated.
10' That the contents of para no. 10 of the rejoinder are wrong and denied
specifically as no water body in the name of Ghatta Jheel exist in revenue
rr:cords' The subrnissions made in para no.2 and 6 above and reply filed by
o the answering respondent to the main applicat.ion are also reiterated.
I 1' That the contentsi of para no. 1 I of the rejoinrler are wrong and denied. It is
Ghata Bundtr has been destroyed ?S ,'o, licence/cLU permission has
been granted over land forming part of tlee Bandh. The Bandh has been
re tarned as such in the sectoral plan a;pproved for sector sg. The
n)vcl-rallenge the grouncl truthing exercise as thLe sarne has been completed
B.
c)
w'rong that the emswering respondents hia.ve no right to grant licence for
tdT>qvelopment of r,esidential colonies in sector. sB. The said area has been
,,'ii:;:i.7 * l)..
t''1j'i,;4;[i':'iq'VLlha-t-r<ed in the Development Plan as residentiat sector. Therefore, the' lt,,#i*. ii I Y,..;1tr'tarKcu rn rne Lrevelopment Plan as residential sector. Therefore, the
... .t -..{ :j l-' '-,. cL i '
llri illgh:',1j^ tit"tuo[o., Town tL Country planning is cornpetent to grant licence for' ::i ,Y.:c1 31 1.: ri ' ---------o '*
x,lfs' ,

13. L2
submissions made in repl5' to the main application are also reiterated.
12-14. That the contents of para no. 12, 13 & 14 of the rejoinder are wrong and
denied. It is also submitted that in tlee Development Plan of Gurgaon
Manesar Urban Complex-2025 AD, under the head 'Provision of storm rvater
clrain' , it has been mentioned that in the published Final Development Plan-
2O2I of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex, a nallah was proposed passing
through residentia-l sector 58 to 66. A technica-l committee. on the basis of
topographical survey, conducted a feasibility study for construction of nallah
and recommended to re-a1ign this nallah atongwith 90 meters wide Southern
Periphery Road. The committee observed that the proposed nallah was
passing through the residential zone and recommended that it should be in
the form of a covered drain or a box drain as per the design to be prepared by
Engineering Wing of HUDA. Therefore, a storm water box type drain was
proposed to be construct(:d parallel to 30 rneter wide green beit along the
Southern Periphery Rozrd from sector 58 to 66 i.e. upto Sohn,a road beyond
the southern edge of the green..belt. l'hat for the purposes of planned
cler.'elopment in accordance wrth the Development Plan and taking care of
:
expected storm water including from Ghata lJundh, HUDA had realined Kost
Nallah along Southern peripheral Road. Irrigation Department has not only
provided the estimatecl discharge for the rrall.ah but also provided the ciesign
cletails for the saine. This fact that disch,arge of Ghata Bandh and sector 58
has been taken care of has been coniirrrred by Engg-in-Chief Irrigation
Department a-lso as explained in para 6 atrove.
Tirat the averments made in para no. 15 r:f the rejoinder are wrong and
denied. A11 bundhs have not be shown on the Development Plans of Gurgaon
Marnesar urban complex. Ghata Bandh has been shown in the approved
s:ectorai plan for sector-S8. As already explai.ned, the NCZ areas as shown in
'the-'segional Plan are not based on ground truthing. The Forest Department
. .t
t,tr -
' :,1
wasilntegral part of ground truthing exercise. It is on the suggestion of Forest
.pepertment that the linear na,rrow strips along roads and bandhs etc. have
uiiri U"ett shown under the NCZ as exact details of khasra numbers of these
strips is not easily identiiiable on the b;rsis of notification because khasra
numl:ers and exact width of these strips irs not defined. However, such qreas
A
71)4
Ylo^x;
1ir
':.

14. L3
l6
rvhich are notiflecl as ,forest,are protected under
no permission will i:e greurted for urbantzittron
areas.
the FC Act 1927, therefore,
purposes in such notified
That the contents of para no. 16 of the .rejoinder are wrong and deniecl. As
alrcacly subrnitted, the Dr:aft Development plan of Gurgaon Manesar Urban
Complex, wherein Sector 58 rvas proposed to be earmarlced as residential
sector, was published,on II.0i'.2006 for inviting objections and thereafter, it
was llnally published vide notification ciatecl s.2.2ooz. whereas, the
apphca't is referring to the objections; filecl on 2o3r plan. since, the
residentia-l sector 58 alread.y stand pro.',,id.ed. in the published Final
Develcrprlent Plan 2O2 I AD, therefore, tLrere was no relevance for filing the
oblection against the proposa-l ,which alreerdy stand fina1ly notifred. Therefore,
the objections filed if any in tLLe year 2O2 against carving out of the above
fiector were not legally maintainable. Regarding the ,contention of the
petitioner that Gurgaon-Manes,ar Urban C:ompiexccould not been approved. in
absence of zrpprorral of Sub Regronal plan b,y the NCRpB, the submissions
rnade in peLra no.2 & 3 of the preliminary submissions are reiterated.
Further, the petitioner himself has stated in this para that he is not
challenging the master plan through the present application.
That the contentions made in para no. 17 of the rejoinder of the reply to the
application are wrong and denir:d and the sul:rnissions mad.e in para no. 6 of
reply of the preliminary submissions of the answering respondent are
reiterated. The licences under tlne Act of 1975; are granted in accordance with
the proposal of the Development Plan pr"pu'r"a under the Act of 1963. As
irlreadv submitted, the DeveloSrment Plan.s of GMUC published in the year
2007.,2011 & 2Ol2 are not against the provirsions of the Act of 1985. Hence,
t-lre.iatio of the judgment in the case of M ,C ]vlehta Vs. State Union of Inclia &
I'i..i 1 i
Othd and Davinder Kumar Tyagi & Others /s. State of UP & Others are not
'..:''b ll
3pp-ficable
in the present case.
'l'hat the contents of the rejoincier oi'the reply made in para no. 18 of the
application are wrong ancl denied. It is submitted that the answering
respondents are aiso concerned about the status of ground water in
(iurgilon. Tlee mitigating measures for grr:unLd water recharging were taken
I'7
IB
I

15. 3r f
bv IIUDA for its sectors vide notifrcation clated 06.11.2001 wherein any
br-rilding having open terrace area more tha.n 1OO sq mtrs are mandatorily
required to make arrangement for rain water harvesting. Similar conditions
have been imposed in colonies licenced by Town & country planning
Department. The Department has also started ensuring that the colonizer
make arrangement of dual piping systern fitr interna-l use of treated waste
wat-er. The building plans are approved only when colonizers submit a
certificate to use the treated water of the sewerage water treatment plant of
FIUDA or use raw ',vater from HUDA water works. The requirement of
drinking water is fulfilled through the sources of water arranged by HUDA.
The responsibility for prohibition on extraction of ground water lies with the
concerneci Deputv Commissioner/Centra] Ground Water Authority. Hence, it
is rvrong that gror-tnd water is being extract,ed through illegal bore wells by
the color-rizers with the connivance of the Department of Town & Country
Planning.
'fhat the a/ermentS made in para no. 19 of the rejoinder of the reply to the
appiicat.ion is based ,on conjectures and surrmises. The petitioner is trying to
bring certain issues which are not directly related with the main prayer in
this case. Moreover, it rs submitted that main licence for the cyber city for
larrd measuring 72,83 acres was granted on 13.02.2002. Therefore, there
was no question of seeking any environment of clearance because such
projects were brought into the preview of EIA notification on t4.O9.2O06.
Since then the Department is unequivocally seeking compliance of above
referred EIA notification. It is also wrong; that the raw water being provided
by FIUDA is even unfit for construction. It is submitted that the sewerage
That the contentions made in para no. 20 o[ the rejoinder of the reply to the
application a-re wrong and denied and the submissions made in para r,o.7 of
reply of the preliminary submissions are reiterated.. It is submitted that the
c
L+
19
-'.,
i.r,r .
'af.
't.t.'rlt .+"'* -*- ""
'':.'.,:
-l )t))
K r-*.
ffi. |L;;;:.r..o',ter
is treated through and establish practice of treatment in sewerage
Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon in its repl'y to CM No. 13013 in CWP.No.

16. 36
13594 of 2009 clarified belbre the Hon'ble High Court that the water table in
Gltrgaon is declining due to the fact that the extraction of ground water is
more than the recharge. [n Gurgaon, the rzLte of deciine in water table was
about 0.5 meter p". rtrr-r'r- from 1980 to 2O10, but in many parts of the
Haryana, the rate of decline is much morr3 than Gurgaon for example in
Narnaul (Mahendergarh Distt.), it is 1..27 rneLerper arrnum, in Mahendergarh
1.08 meters per annum, in Shahabad (Kurukshetra Distt.) 0.8 meter per
annlrm and in Pehowa (Kurukshetra Distt.) the depletion is 0.65 meters per
annr'tm for the above said period, although the pace of urbanization in these
districts is very low. F'urther, for protection and preservation of the ground
water resources latest techniques has been urdopted and adequate steps have
been taken to decrease extraction of ground 'lvater and increase in the
ground water recharge like rain water harvesting system in residential
buildings, Schools, Colleges, Industries, Institutes etc. It has been further
clarified by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurg;aon in the above said reply that
atl
,clirectrons of the CGWA, New Delhi anrl the order of the Hon'ble High
Court passed in CWP No. 20032 of 2008 are being implemented in letter and
spirit. About 25 teams of officers of different Departments have been
constituted by the Deputy Commissioner and strict action is taken as and
when any violation is observed. Thus, it is not correct that all the
clevelopment works in Gurgaon are being ur.dertaking using ground water,
despite CGWA notification of 2OO0 imposing ban on digging bore wells. It is
immateriaL whether any municipal water supply is available in Sector 58,
Gurgaorl or not. The requirement of drinking water is fulfilled through the
sources of water arranged by HUDA. Even i.n ra-re cases, where the drinking
::::'lqater is not avarlable through the water pipelines, the colonizers sources the
""1,
drinking water from HUDA and supply to the residents of their colony
i thlgush their own water tankers. It is also wrong that gooh of large
.._.j
cohs.trirctions in Gr-irgaon are iilegal and unauthorized. The petitioner has
i:ll
.,.,'',i;,.
no;!:bited specific projects for use of ground water in violation of the specific
'' '' hct ar-rcl the chal.lenge to the Environmental clearance is also not supported
by the documentary evidence. In view of the above said position, it is wrong
that the Environment Clearance Certificate granted to the colonizers by the
15
ftt,rJ
vtlt-.--
rl
l' ,...,

17. '21.
?) 16
J'
lviinistry of Environment and Forest is wrong;.
'l'l-rart the contentions rnade in para no.21 of the rejoinder are wrong and
denied and the submissions made in para no. 8 of the preliminary
subtnissions of reply are reiterated. The ave:rments made by the applicant in
tl-ris para are baseless, erroneous, misconceived and hence liable to be
rejected. The averments rnade by the answering respondent in para no. 8 of
thc rcply in the prelimrnary submissions are true and based on official
record. This is proved from the fact that NC:RPB itself has issued the Terms
of Reference (ToR) for ground " truthing/delineation and constituted a
committee under the Chairmanship of Principal SecretarSr, Town & Country
Planning of the participating States for this purpose vide letter dated
12.08.2014 in which the representative of IWoEFCC and NCRPB and NRSC
along wrth officers of Forest Department, Mining Department of State
Governtnent were also the members. In this committee, a decision was taken
to constitute a sub- committee for ground tmthing of NCZ at District level.
The contention of the applicant regar<1ing not carrying out exercise on
satellite imageries and maps on the scale of l:10,000 is wrong as after
receipt of satellite imageries on the scale of 1:10,000 from NCRPB in the
rnonth of December 2014 and Januar;' 2()15 and same were sent to the
concerned District Town Planners and necerssary instructions were issued to
the concerned Deputy commissioners on 24,1,2015 (Annexure- R/416l to
rnrork on the satellite imageries with the scale of 1:10,000 and the work has
been done on the sarne. The groirnd truthing exercise was conducted on the
basis of the shape files of existing land use plan of Regional Plart-2O2l based
on the satellite imageries of the year 1999 provided by NRSC, ELU map of
Draft Revised Regional Plan-2O21 AD based on existing land use plan 2012
and.Status of NCZ pockets in the jamabandi prior to year 2OOS and the
exerciser was completed by 10.04.2015. SuLrsequently, a decision was taken
ir-r tTie'meeting dated 06.07.2015 by the Statee Govt. that all the forests
recorded or notified by the Forest Department including Aravalli Plantation
shail be considered as forest and NCZ irrespective of tl:e fact whether the
same are reflected in the satellite imageries of 1999 or not. Regarding the
reference of the minr-rtes of the meeting held on 20.8.2O 15, minutes of which

18. 3 6
lvere lssuecl on 1'c)'2015, it is to mention that the provisional figures which
were compiled were discussed.' The grou:nd truthing of the area und.er
confirmed NCZ and the a-rea uncler category 'status yet to be clecided,has
been completed. It is submitted that range of Aravalli has not been defined in
any of statute or notiltcation and there is no clear definition of Forest as on
date as Forest Conservation Act, 1927 defines only 'Reserved. Forest, and
'Protected Forest'' Theref<rre, the areas without record.ed Aravalli plantation
but Gair Murnkin Paherr, thick plantation ov'er pqivate land and where there
is ambigr-rity over extent of Aravalli range haLve been tal<en into the category
of 'Status yet to be decicled' . The state lerzel committee has approved the
rep.orts of sub committees for clelineation of NCZ in its meeting helcl on
6.4.2016, 19.s.2016 ancr 2.6.2016. Data has been sent to HARSAC for geo_
referencing. Therefore the objection of the F,etitioner in this regard are not
based on facts and is liable to be reiected.
Further, with regard to the contentionL regarding increase in the NCZ
a;ea in Gurgaon District, it is submitted that the petitioner should not have
any objections to increase in NCZ
"r.^ ""'the
same is environment friendly
zu-ld supports the cause of the petitioner, In case the petitioner finds
encroachment in the NCZ area by a,'y person, he may approach the
appropriate authority for action aeatnst it.
22 J'h:rt the contentions macle in para rto. 22 of r:he rejoinder of the reply to the
application are wrong ancl <lenied and the submissions mad.e in para no. 9 of
reply of the preliminary submissions of the answering respondent are
' reiterated. The position regarding area of the lVatural Conservation Zone has
already been explained in para no. 21 above. It is a-lso submitted that the
report about fa-ll in the ground water level :is based. on the report of the
commissioner' Gurgaon. The contents of the report glven by the
st are denied for want of knowledge. It is also relevant to say that
i,iij " { 'i++1,.'ipt.$.?,iil has now become a global Mlrenniurn city. More than 100 MNc,st,l,''l-.i
i.rl;l,,, .-.,,, Iit/f.'.',-'" ;..r 'i,.lj ..- 'l :.:, itr "t/li,",
" "
"
'',. !::. ;;'"
',.. i;- ::7" / ".* i,t
t' .,.'
':, ir; .:''1,
:r,&'d rsaifkine here and rnore are likeiy to come. To keep the pace oftj:,-,.','
'- r ._- - .:^t' ,nj''.i.,
'.'t' ' --'.-. t7
'i::.:,
- ,--".r$9t'*{onment,
it is the legitimate efforts of the Govt. to provide world class
L7
infrastruclure including the discharge of storm waterf rain water discharge in

19. 3l.1 18
expected storm water through creeks including from Ghata Bundh in sector
58.
That the contents of para no. 1O of the rep15, in the preliminary submissions
m::.cle by the answering respondent to the marn application have not been
disputed by the applicant. Regarding an,erments of the applicant for
protection Natura-l Conservation Zone, the submissions made in the forgoing
paras are reiterated. It is a-lso clarified that the world "except" as used in
clar-tse l0 of the zoning r.egr,rlations of the :eotification dated 15.11.2012 is
being misconstrueci by the applicant. All the areas clearly coverecl under the
Aravali notification dated 7.5.92 have br:en taken in the category of
conltrmed NCZ while carrying out the exercise of ground truthing. Therefore,
the arzerments macle by the applicant in this pa-ra a-re misconstrued and
hence not legally and factually tenable.
l'hat the contentions made in para no. 24 of'the rejoinder of the reply to the
application are wrong ar-rd d"enied and the submissions made in para no. 11
of reply of the preliminary submissions are reiterated. The activities proposed
to be undertaken 1" mentioned in para no. i I of the preliminary
submissions of the reply are an earnest effort- of the State Govt. for protection
of Environment. However, the applicant instr:ad of appreciating the efforts of
the State Govt. is always critic of the Govt. efforts and is only rering on the
newspapers reports without understanding the real issue and ground
reaiities. DTP (Enforcement) Gurgaon is taking action against unauthorized
constructions raised in violation of section 3,6& 7 of Punjab Scheduied
Roacis and Controlied Areas Restriction of Un-regulated Development Act,
1963. The demoiition programs by DTP Enforcement in the villages falling
.1:".
fr,r... . '.qi"thin this 5 KM radius around the SultanFrur National Bird Sanctuar5z has
..'
]":
, '. 1"'',
,..-
, ..,.ri ,..
"bec'. qrrnceqqfirllrz carrie<l out in this drr33- on 24.I2.2013 (Sadhrana) ,- "'"t
/ ' -i:: ;. / . ."1r^
(hl .,t 2l'q'4i2014 (Sultanpur), 06.06.2014 (Garhi Harsaru & Sadhrana),
,:+v .,,. j_;,jl
trt1'; rl.dq,'.zots (Sadhrana), 10.06.2015 (Garrhi Harsaru) & Og.O7,.2OLs
"I'". ''.." .',,i,'i
, ,,-., i, "l
;, (qAdhrana) and a numbers of unauthorized constructions have been
':: .. -, . i:: -
o
"'" removed. Regarding encroachment, the petitioner may approach the
competent authority by mentioning specific case.
That the contentions made in para no. 25 of the
I
) at.
24
25. rejoinder of the reply to the

20. 3>o Le
application are w'rong and denied and the submissions made in para no. 12
of reply of the preliminary submissions are reiterated. It is vehemently denied
that the State of Haryalra is not following the instructions issued by the
Hon'ble High Court Punjab and Haryana. All the instructions/directions
issued by the Hon ble cotirts are being cornpJlied ,irrn ,n letter and spirit.
It is respectfully submitted that the alswering responclents have made
earnest efforts for delineation of Natural ,Conservation Zones by way of
ground truthing in accordance with the decision taken bv NCRpB. A,ll the
pararneters defined in the Regional Plan to determine NCZ area have been
followed in letter and spirit. Rather, wherever there is any ambiguity, the said
area has been identified and has been kept under the category of 'status yet
to be decided'. The answering respondents have also planned the rain water
Cischarge for newly added sectors (includihg sector 58) in the Development
Plan GMUC 2021 arrd subsequently for 2o2s and 2031, in a scientific
:malnner after seeking the details regarding the rain water discharge from
':
.lrrigation Departrgrent. These facts have been confirmeci by the Engineer-in-
tlhief Irrigation Depaltment also.
In view of t.hese detailed submissions supported through facts and
ligures in preceding para I to 25 of the preliminarlz submissions of the sur-
re.Joinder, it is respectfulllr prayed that the application being without any
ments may be dismissed with costs.
BEILLON MBRITS
I That the contents para no. 1 of the rejoi:nder filed by the applicant need
no reply.
That the confentions made by the applicant in para no. 2 of the
nder to written statement are wrong and denied and the
ions made by the answering respondent in corresponding para
mitted even iniwritten statement are reiterated, As already sub
houses for working personnel is required. Therefore, a limit not

21. 6at 20
511
exceeding o.sok of the area fbr cc,nstruction activities have been
permitted. This construction'is not bei.ng permitted in notified forest.
That the conte'tions made by trre applicant rn pa:-a no. 3 of the
rejoinder to written statement are wrong and denied and the
submissions made by the arswering responclent in corresponding para
of the written statement are reiteratecl. It is denied that any grave
damagecl is being causecl by the answering respondent to the NCZ
areas. The submissions made in reply rro the preliminary submissions of
the rejoinder are also reiterated in response to this para.
That the contents pa-ra no. 4 of the rejoinder filed by the applicant need
no rep1.y. The contents of above paras of preliminar5z submissions are
being reiterated.
That the contents para no. 5 of the rej'inder filed by the applicant need
no reply.
That the contentions macle by the eLpplicant in para no. 6 of the
rejoinder to written statement are wrong and. denied and the
submissions made by the alswering respondent in corresponding para
of the written statement are reiterated. The position regarding water
bodies have a-lready been explained in para no.22 are reiteratecr..
.That the contents para no.7 of the rejoinder filed by the applicant need.
no replv.
8,9&10' That the contents para no. B, 9 & 10 of the rejoinder filed by the applicant
. need no reply. The submissions made in para no. 1 to 12 in reply to the
rejoinder made in the preiiminary submissions are also reiterated in
r.ii:.r*r .111;....,
response to the contentions made by the applicant in this para. it is
'' r! I
'
.
'-
, -.. Sq."g that Gurgaon has witnessed unprecedented growth of violation of
',''. t'' t""':
,.,'
i ,,:li ,l11.,,,U,..,t"t.onment laws. Rather, Gurgaon has during the last 15 years
i "i!
: ', l' ..., 4t.lj5""o unprecedented growth of town in planned manner, where'' : ," i;
. i"
,' r., "-pre than 100 MNc companies" have come up and started
.4i
6.
u

22. 21
I l. That the contents Pal-a no'
treed no rePIY'
12 to 15.
16. to 120
2ll 1o
3>v 2L
11 of the rejoirtder filed by the appltcant
Director General-cum-Secretar5l'
Town & rlountry Planning Department'
Haryana, on behalf of Respondent No' 4'
That the contents para no. 12 to 15 of the rejoinder filed by the applicant
need no reply. As already submitted' the averments made by the
,applicarrtinparano'lto12ofther.ejoi-nclerhavenotbeenmadeinthe
application and therefore, these issures cannot be raised in the
rejoinder.Theapplica'tionisliabletobedismissedonthisaccountonly.
.
.l.hat the contents para no. 1 6 to 20 of thr: rej oinder filed by the applicant
need no rePlY'
c
That the contents para no. 2I of the reioinder filed by the applicant
need no reply. As already submitted' the averments made by the
applicant in bara no' 1 to 12 of the rejc'inder have not been made in the
application ancl therelbre, these issues cannot be raised in the
reioinder'Theapplicationisliabletclbe:dismissedonthis.accountonly.
'lhat ttre contents para no. 22 of the rejoinder filed by the applicant
need no rePlY.
25. Tl-rat the contents para r-ro. 23 to 25 of the rejoinder fiied by the applicant
rreed no reply As already "submitted' the averments made by the
applicantinparan<l.lto12oftherejoinderhavenotbeenmadeinthe
appiication ancl t}rerefore, these issues cannot be raised in the
reioinder.Tlreapplicationisliabletotledisrrrissedonthisaccountonly.
Thecontentsofaboveparasofprr:liminarysubmissionsarebeing
reiterated.
lnviewof|actsand'circunrst-ancesnarratedabove,thereisno
i' -,-+ L^^ .^^
^^r
meritintlreoriginalapplicationanclrejoind'er.Theapplicanthasnocauseol
: grievar-rce to file the present application & the Same is liable to be dismissed
,bein[.lvrthout any merit. it is, therefore respectfully prayed that the salne
'22
I
'1.
/": :
/
t Odl
.#+
I
,i'li: i"
rna.rr'kihdtv be dismissed with costs
. "lrj /'
8.,.' '
^..iHra.ce.:
Dated
Chandigarh

23. (c
3>%
z2
VI!RIIIICATION:
Verilted that the contents of para I to 25 of the prelirninary submissions and
para I to 25 of the sur-rejoinder affidavit are true and correct ro my
knowledge and based on information derived from the oflicial record which
arc believed by me to be correct. Legal subnrissions a-re based on advice. No
part of it is fa-lse and nothing rnaterial has been concealed therein.
Place , Chandigarh
Dated Director General- cum-Secretar5z,
Town & Corrntry Planning Department,
Haryaner, on behalf of Respondent No. 4.
lil 1s
,J]IA
RH
xr'l</l
" --cl
" .f*aa,
I {'- 6,J- kr
. ( i (trA!
r -)xi{ t$l
; r;.r n|l
'Lul
j'
c,
..:
,, 'J
i,)
'6"t '-
r. 'J!
$i4
t2 tfi
.14 (gi
brF
--'-'llffitr. jul 7n16
o/nr-J
a
v
o
?
rne lontenls cf tnis 'iiiict'jlt
nave
,o* otuiunC exPlainei i;' |-[;i1!;; Ft
'i;-
t- dePonerii lt{ict untiois
*i;" ;;.';;i ciePolSnf 7a1lll,, , i,,,,or't,ru tht aliiijavit
,6:;;-h
;1.. i .,rll
e 1 -Iii
!, '
Rislrffiff?

24. Annexure -R/ 4l I
lClN CWP No' 19050 of 2A12 1
(lhandra Shet<har Misra
'VS.
tJniorr of tndia and ors'
Present: Mr. Aashish Chopra' Advocate
for the Petitioner
Mr' Chetin Mittal' Assistant Solicitor General with
Mr. Briieshwar Singh Kanwar' Advocate'
Sr- StlnOing Counsel for Union of lndia
resPondent No' 1'
Mr- Amit Parashar' Advocate'
for resPondent No'2'
Mr, Amar Vivek, Addl' A'G" Haryana
Mr' Rahul Garg, Advocate
for resPondents No' 8 and 16'
Mr'Arun Walia, Sr' Advocate with
Mr' Servedaman Rathore' Advocate :
for resPondent No'11-HSPLB'
Mr. Nitish K' Vasudeva' Advocate
for the intervenor'
Ms. Mannu Chaudhar' Advocate
for intervenor"
Videorderdated23,01.2a14'theinstantwritpetitionwas
cjisposed of with a direction that the dr:ve'lopment activities can be
r:arrled on subject to their being in c'cnformity with the Regional
lf,lan as applicable. lt was also observecj that sub-Regional Plan be
preparedbytheState'GovernmentinconformitywiththeRegional
ptan of National capital Region Planning Eloard(for short NCRPB)'
@
llNlsr (!rr4AR
)r19_!!.29:? n.
: illell to tbe dclurlcY 0tu1
irlrqflY or ihi! o€lrhlnr AJV'S'A o,9,
',,r',"i*,.ukirru,arrri:i;r,i,'
% Chlef Coorclinator Planner.
NCR Haty;lna Panchkula

25. 3>f
lolN CWP No. 19050 of 2A12
on16'01'20l5whenthenratterWaStakenupfor
cornpliance of the earliei order dated. 23.01 .2014, it was argued on
behalf of the state that it had prepared tire lSub-Regional Plan' The
Ld. Counsel for NCRPB however pointed out that the shorl-
comings/irregularities pointed out by NCRPB in the preparation of the
sub-Regional Plan had not been removeld by the state authorities.
ln the light of the aforesaid facts, the State cf Haryana was directed
to file a counter affidavit cbntroverting ther aforesaid statement made
by teained counsel for respondent N0.2. While qdjourning the case,
it was directed that no further licenceichange of land use etc, be
granted in the National Capital Region fallling within the State of
Harybna, without obtaining prior approval of this Court.
. On February 10, 2015 the State of Haryana filed affidavit
drated 09.02 .2015 of Additional Chief lsecretary, Town & Country
Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh indicating the comptiance of the
directions issued by this Court, On the said date, the following order
fas passeo:- c
"ln compliance with the directions given by this court vide
order dated 16.01 .2015, Shri P. Raghavendra Rao,
Additional Chief Secretary, Tovrn & Country Planning,
Haryana, Chandigarh, has filed his affidavit dated
09.02.2015. Same is taken on recorcl and its copy has been
handed over to learned counsel frcr the petitioner and other
respondents. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, it has
been stated that after the passing of the order dated
16.01 .2015 by this court, a meeting was held on
30.01.2015, under the Chairmanr;hip of Secretary, Ministry
idlF,iiiSl:mf,,Urban Development, Governrnent of India, which wa!
i'l;?ilil'?l*'*Htfbnded by Officers of Ministry o1' Environment and
% Chief Coordirrator planner.
NCfi l{aryana Panchkula
,)rFc fz//' l/Assistant Town planner/+v

26. 37C
lOlN CWP No. 19050 o12012 3
Forests, NCRPB and the State of llaryana' A copy of !!le
minutes of the da-meeting has bee,n annexed with the
affidavit as Rnnexure R3/Ai ' Frorn l'he said- minutes' it
appears tnat three issues raised by t!9 N91?B have been
abbquately addressed by the participatling State'
Learned counsel appeiering on behalf of the
state of Haryana-suomits tnai'the issue with regard to
Natural Conservation Zone areas is stilt pending and-e!9.{s
wi|lbemadetoadclresstheSamebefore3l.03.2015.
However, it fris'0".n stated in the ilffirjavit that the National
Remote sensng centre is not making available the digital
data and snape"lfes inO because of iron-availability oj.ih.e
saiddataandfiles,detayisoccurringfgr.redressa|ofthis
issue. lt rlr, buun further stated tlhat NCRPB and the
Ministry ot inrionrn"nt & .Forests' Government of lndia'
are not providing man power' On tlrat account also' the
aforesaid issue ciulcl not be redressed in time'
ln view of the aforesaid stand taken by the
participating' Siaie, i-e' the State of Haryana' the National
Remote sensing centre through union of tndia is directed
to maKe ,ujituLtu att the re{uisite data to the state of
Haryana, so-tl-rat Natural Conserl'atircn Zone areas can be
delineated inJ tf''. sub regional prlan can be.finalised' The
NCRPBrnOtheMinistryofEnrrironment&Forests'
Governmeni-ot lndia, are
'also
directed to make available
theneces=ury.nunpowertotheSterteofHaryana'sothat
the sub regionat plan can be finalirsecl at the earliest'
Adjourned to APril 20, 20'15'
The prayer made by the learned State counsel
for vacation oi ihe'interim ordbr da,ted 16.01 .2015 will be
considered on the next date of hearing'"
Today, the State of Haryanet has placed on record
affidavit dated 15 04.2015 of Arun Kumar Gupta, Director General'
-fowrr
& Country Planning, Haryana, Chandligarh to the effect that as
per directions of this court, the National Remote sensing centre
Hyderabad had since provided the data in the form of shape files on
11.03.2015.OINESH KUtrAR
:1015.14.79 r? 44 ,
I lltfat td fne .t(ura(Y nlu
ililqrny ol thi{ deum.nl
:tundqern
After examining this data arrd the soft copies of the
Au*r,,:*A
.P

27. 3L7
lOlN CWP No' 19050 of 2012
ptansearliersuppliedbyNCRPB.,itwasnotedthatthereare69S9
NaturalConservationZone(Ncz)areasspreadallovertheHaryana
SubRegioncoveringanareaofapproxinratr:ly?'48'42Qacres'lt
lras been stated that the ground truthing erxercise required to be
completed by the State slood completed as on April 10' 2015 and
viiJeitscommunicationdated13'04'2015'theSlatehadconveyeo
due compliance tlrereof to NCRPB' True copy of the said letter nas
beten annexed with the affidavit. ln the said communication' it has
br:en. stated that the relevant data shalt be complied on prescribed
profo'rmaandsupp|iedtoNCRPBalongwiththegeo.referenced
maps to amend the existing/proposed landuse plans of Sub
Iri,egional Plan for onward submission to NRSC Hyderabad in the due
course. lt has also been stated that the State Government has also
arpirroved re-drafted para of green buff'er along Highway corridors
and a corrigendum to this effect has been published in the ofiicial
(Sazettee and the NCRPB has been informerd accordingly.
ln the .said affidavit, it has also been reiterated that the
rState Government has atready finalized tfre Sub-Regional Plan and
oublished it on 28.0 5'2CI14, after ensuring rthat it is in conformity with
the Regignal Plan, strictly as per the provisions of Sections 1B & 19
of the National Capital Region Planning Bqard Act, 1985. The State
Government has also addressed the observations made by the
NCRpB and completed the ground truthirrg of Natural Conservation
,'Znn#identified in the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR'
InrrqrtT o' th's cfumenl
"., Ird^
^-wv'
)zJ^/ 1,/
Assistarlt Town Planner
% Chief Coordlinator Planner,
NCR Haryana Panchkula

28. 3>1
lOlN CWP No. 19050 of ?012
Ld.StateCounse|hasarguedthattheissuewithregard
to ijub Regional plan has already been redressed by respondent
No.2 and as far as the issue with regard t0 Natural conservation
Zone areas is concerned, there are some diffr:rences' which will also
be sorted out at the eartiest in consultation with the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. He urges that the restraint order dated
16'l.20l5prohibitinggrantoffurtherticence/changeof|anduse
mily be vacated.
LearnedStateCounselcategoricallyassuresthatifthe
restraint order is vacated the state Government will ensure that any
lic;ence/ change of tand use etc., granted witl be strictly in
conformity with the Regional Plan'
ln view of the aforesaid factual position we hereby vacate
tfre interim order dated 16'01 '2015'
StatusreportbefiledbytheStateon0T,0T.20lSwithan
advancecopytolearnedcounselforthepetitioners'
(sATlsH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
?-0.04.2015
riinesh
C{NESH XOMAR
ior5 04.)9 l? 44
i isEt to the aacuracy a.o
i,ilqr{y oa Sr$ do<t'hc^r
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
JUDGE
o*"1z
i l(--li
i i:t;;1y1;16.'1'
i .r'i if, .;

29. Annexure -Ki + i'2
'"'''i (-',[/
Proceetlingsoftbe'Distt"L'evelCommitteemeetingheldundertbe
chairmanrrrip oi s[. rap.nrrur,twaj, IAs, Deputy commissioner'
Gurgaon on rz.s.ioos regardiug?in*""tof orlrt Developnrent
P lan of G u rgu o"-nn"ot'o'-Urb an C-oinple x-2021 AD'
ln tbe meeting following Otficers wcro pres'ent:-
3vl
Subje,ct;
l.
)
4.
5.
1
8.
(J
1nr v!
I l-
12.
Sh. B.N.Sharnla" Senior Town ?lan:rt:r' (iurgtron'
Sh. Axil Gupt4 Superintending Enplinencr' Inigation' Gurgaon
Sh. J.P.Sihag' Distt"
'l'ou'n Plantler' (iurgaon'
Sb, Virender Singh, Asstt' Towl Planner' Gurgaon'
Dr. C.V.Singh' Regional OtTtcer' I{SPCB' (iwgaon'
Sh. S.P.S. Dahiyq Executive Engineer' irrigation' Gurgaon'
Sli. Ilhupcncler Singh, Exectrtivc Engineer' P-l Gurgaon'
Sh. D.S. Yadav' DI-IBVEN' Grrrgaon'
Sh. Asiiok Verma, Deputy Conservator Forcst' Gurgaon'
Sh.HamvirSingh,Asstt.G.M.(A)HSIDC,(iurgaon'
Sh. Abhey Singh, Chaitman' Zila Parishad' Curgaon'
Sh. C.I{'Sharma' Accounts Offtcer' }Iaryana Roadways' Grugaon'
At the outset, Senior Torr-rr Planner, Gurgaorr explained that in the year 1996 the
Developrnent Plan of Gurgaon rvru publishcd for 2001 A'D' About the 90% area eanrlalked in
rhc said clevelopment plan published in 1996 has already been developed in public and private
se()tor.
.fhe development u'hicil has taken place so far would accomnrodate about 22 laas
population. Since, Gurgaon-Malesar Urban Complex is tocated 4t prirne locatiOn on National
Ilighrnay No. 8 adjoining to lntlira Gandhi National Airport' therefore' this town will continue to
grow irr |uture at 1he same place. ln clrclcr to ensure planned developmerrt, the Town and
cc,unrr.v planning Depari:nent bas prepared Draft Development Plan for Gurgaon-Manesar
r,rban complex for 2021 Acr tbr 32 lacs popuration. rn the meeting, senior Town planner also
i.formed that in order to ensure bencr mobirity betw,:en Delhi Metrop.litan city and Grugaon-
Nlanesar Urbnn Coruple,x, fr:llou'ing new road linkages havc becn propOsed in the atbresaid
dsyclopnrent plan in corrstrltation wilir Delhi Governnlent:-
I
^v9
A+W' -D,/ Is/
Assistant Tbwn Planner
% Chief Coordirnator Planner.
NCR lJaryana Panchkula

30. j7o
?00 rrrus' lvi"de roa<l link from Dwarka tpr'r'rt of Delhi'
;ll::,,:i::{:_t**:T::}ru::i::"g}r
}vlancli - Guwa' i';u6si afea
co nnc ct ilr g Ci rir g-aon- !' andabad roact'
r.re tr-irrner intbrmeci that in order to solve rhe traltic pr,blem of the town 200 mus' wide
f(,3(r rn thg tbrm of ring roacl iras u..n llwored
as shorvn * or''0""-'opsrent
pla* which would
hi,ve dirccr lirLkages ,i* o**, Merroporirarr
city' I. trrc
""*
*u*sable arca the width of all
'"":o'Iroacsf
avetecnT:';:':::Tdii**:;l*J;il::'::::':::J'
rso Ptlinlcd
r:u lhat
i)ir()w !)ilve been ProPosed:-
:;J--
*:- ---riiffil*g )/':..*--- '
-
i n rrre afore s ai <1 D rall D ev e r o pnre'r
: : T l:::'HlT"; iliil:"1,,T:';":T:;
i;;no;A,gg e 9
m nltggg'-"::-- - {t_--
ri::t! l: :;, '
-.1. r' rrii
,,"0",,:,,,J:,:T:::::;:TJJ:#-FJ;';;;;"'
s'!ad'' A*he areas berns
0"u.,o0,..'byI{SIDC,*"0'^uspecialEcononricZorrelraveo""oo,.."*"u::^:"*in|e
ai'resajd Drafl Developme't
plan. ,.,rrr"r"* *en berts have arso becn proposed along nng
Loads' nola, national highways etc
---^:-:io.er, Gr-rgaon) :;uggeste<l
that in order to bearrtrfy thc
.Ihe chair.ra'. ( Deputy commissio.:t'::.::;' "ll'r*,
ro.,,no is being devoloped as
n;- :,,ffi i*,::::"::'T: ;:::' :;Ti *' ;;'"r'[ sv s'iem which was accep'fed
by ill Mi:mbers oi rhe Coinmiftee'
nr nointed or.:,t ilrat provisions oI foilowing eieotric sub
"r.he Executive Engheer, DIIBIN pornted olit litat I
srati.ns should be naclc irr the tlt"vdiopment
plan:-
,rn'4n';,.,..V

31. '1,'l
I . 220 KV Eler'trlc Sub Staton at Maru;sar i:r an area of 10 acrcs'
33
2 zooKvffi *"1::*l'.-::-11':::X:ll-"; . ^,
3. 200 Kv lllecu,c suu statiii,lr**.
Dautt*barl baving an area of 15 to 20 acres'
4. ' 440 KV Powcr i-louse Ilctlr VUraSu ^---'-
o
AGM' HSIDC suggested that llalipacl or Air
"*:':*o::.ffiT':ffi"f*T'
-fo,,vnr,!rip. I{c also suggesred ilrat Nlctro-rail lure should "tt" ,t:;;;; sites outside the
also :;uggestecl that there s'ouid be a ;;";;" of Sotid Wa-sts Disposal Sites
urbarLisable area, ,-.^. ^^inted out that gnrbzrge <lisposal site can be seleoted at anY
-rhe scnior'fown Panncr pointetl
"":::::Tffi l.*oot*' nt*' 'the GovL has
;;::;.H,';,J:l'il'*":',l.'#:#Hff
:'#:,:"'*commissione'r'Gurgaonror
rhe selecri'n of solid wast Dispor* ,r,.. ou ,,0. menrber of the committee
apeed' tbu' the said
site should bc selected by the said commirtee ar later stage in the agriculture zone beyond the
rut,anis.able are a as per provision of Developmcnt
P lan'
.t a provision of bus stand may also
The ciensra Manager' o""0*"" iso suggcstrld ftat a provision of bus
bc,nt.rdei:nM.anesarTown,nrr*.,ou.,softbeCom,ortte"upp,o.,"athet}raftDevelopment
plan by incorporaling aforesarcr ,.*urruo", given' by different offioers approved tbe same and
s"rggcstedthatsaiddevcioprlentpf*o'f'otfdbepublisbedatrheearliesl
'l'he meeting cnde<I with a vote of thanks to the Cb4ir'
^+t
'1,
i)istu''iurr'rrf li;'rutut'
Curgaon I
. ^
ln-o
1LW1
/Tt, )rr,Assistant {own Plarrner
a/o Chief Coordinator Plarri 'i',
NCR l-laryana Pernchkula

32. ,tL
.,i ( |
. :1
Annexure -R/ 413
'T
ire Drrector,
Iown & Country plannrng
i-i.tryana, i-r lJ DA Complex.
:icctor-6. Panchkula
Le,lQl 7?. 2578086, 2581737.
''ron'ltlc 1 rr,5191,
i lr ban Developmenl Depatiln.ent
f1;iryaira, Clrandrgarh
j:irra.cral
conrnrissroner & prrncrpar
secretary tcr (lovernment Haryana,
.tr bart Development Department,
i-r.r'y.ina Chandigarh
Firancrai comrnrssroner & pr ncrpal Secretary to Government Haryana,
Transport Departntent
rlr Crvrl Sectt Chandrgarh
rlharrnran,
r-iaryana State Pollutron Control Board
i:ieclor-6, Panchkula
Cornntrssroner
Excrse & Taxation, flaryana,
SCO 71 75 Sector.17 Chandigarh
Drrector of lndustnes
Haryana, 30 Bays Burldiqg,
Secror,17 Chandigarh
Drreclor
Urban Developnrent Deparlment, Haryana,
Sector-17 Chanclrgarh
ivlanaglnQ Direclor
l-lSlDC Sector-6
Panchkula
iiirecior
{t
Ci
1,j
1. and [Jse Board, 30 Bays Brrrlclrrrq
.)ector - 1 /, Chandigarfr
.Jorrl Ser;retary-cum.Dr.ector,
RLrral Development Deparlment,
I'ta rya rr a, S CO 1 B3- 1 B5
Se:ro'-r 7 Chandigarr,
DepLrly Conrmissjoner
/nrbala .
Deputy Contmissiorrer,
'Y
i:lt'tt rllt;t Nao ar.
l,rcptt 1y (lcrlnt issroner,
Rohtak
Deputy Conrmissiorrer,
Karnal
Depuly Cornmissioner,
Kurukshetra,;, ,
ileputy Q,orrrm
jssioner,
Guroaon.
Deputy Cpmmissioner,
Nui-r
Adnrrt'trstrator. ,
Ftaryana Ur[an D,gvelopment Authority
Gurgaorr.
. State Transport Controller
Haryana, 30'Bays Bld '
Sector.17 Chandiqarh'' -.. .; .,,
r ng rne e r-tn-uniel,
H U DAI Sector:.fi 'P:ancnruta
.,
-). .l
b- rg ttreg f - i11- C h,g f ,
P' /D(B&R);Hr.tiSector-I 9 Ct-andrgarh
' i ::::'i: i
I
lr
rl
18
li)
111
Atw@'o*,o")*"
pranne,
7o€hief Coordinator plan ner.
NCR Haryana panchkuta
2

33. IrqrfterJr,rn-Chtef,
') ,ry0(Pl-1 ) Haryana, Sr:clor_l g
- rrclt nec.r, i rr- O lrref
lr llqatlOn [)elparlnrent Harya6;r
irjt nchar Bharwern S>ecloi_it
Panch k ula
Chref Enctrneer (p&C)
iIVPN Sector-6 panchkula
Chief Engrneer
IIHBVN Hrsar
tn:
;1.
Clranclrrlarlt
fulenro l',lo CCp(NCR)/2006i l? gq.- tBZK Dared IU_q-gO o (
Meeting of the State Level Comrnittee to be helrj on 26,06.2006.
'lui
'ji
33)
Level Comnittee meetrncl hllrl rrrrrlt,r llrir
of the Draft Developnrenl pl;tr,, ,.)(),,t
I iti t
Kuruksnetra. Mehant. llcl-il;ri (.rrlrjirlri
"- , *"'u/
t / fi.t
lrr u{
2i
5iti,1Lrr.1
i(rr 1lr{; lOVil"lS
'.Lrtr;
:|itl ftlil
i , /r llrf)ri:
' r 'l t r|slttp ol
Plr:atse fr'ci encloseci lrererwr,r the appr.ovecl ,,-.,n,',',,r, of State
l-lorr'l;le Chief Mrnrster l_laryana on 2ti 06 200€i fclr approval
'/anruna Nagar-Jagadhri Salra, Ambala Nrlttkheri_Taraorr.
r infornration and necessaf y actron.
ol
Il
r.':'ri,,i,lt)/2i)iltrr
t g2q -- tgZ 6ot)/ rii lorwar(jerl lo lirc followrnq fi;r rrrlor.mattorr preasLr
Dateri lrt_?_R
.,i,'r;y,1.]1t'1 for krncl rnfornratior.r lt ti c t-ioribte it.,r:]t V,,',,sr,;r Fl;rryir.;r
r:; 'r-ill()r'tor krrtrj tr.r[111113116;1 l,l llre Irrrilncrar] :
,,ir"r/ilnit f owD iL Counlry plaI t]|tg Deparlrrterrl
,,(rtllllssl(_rt tDl .-.i pi"trrt;ri;el
:lctr:ir:l:i, y ir .
,(l;lllll.r li{
I ,,,-l ,t.'p fr,r nrrtrJ ,lorntaillt)ft rtl lltt.Drr.i::Cl,rr To,,vr-r ,i ,l.Lrr.rlr/ plantirrrr.l, tlaltyana, Cll.ra'lltctarll
. '.:'J?,.zul.u lar-' -{ i - ' --
' (,,) ls r.rrr.rrrrel 11,'-, i;'". i- .',"
li'ii i,,rL)l_ro:;ati to litis offtcc rn-ri|:ljl;iielV litrorl,lir Si,ri:i ;ri
AL'ql---l
r...)r
i'l ii l
.i ,l
Drstrrct T
-itre616,r 1o"rt,
ttr ) a
t- r "'-,(-
l,tk8 rtiicesSal
l't1)llsfllc(jt
ilrr,rr'; 1l 1i.1'1
I rl r
;, l:)l;,tl rltr r,.;
;l | ';-tri{tl rk i tl, l

34. '1.
Su sJ rcr:
t),
j?q
Mtruurrs oF TFtE MeErtuc oF 5TATE LEvrl corrrr,arr--rr' HELD
IJNDER rNE CTiNIRMAN:;HIP OF HON'Br.r CM, HARVNruA ON
26-06-2006 Fon Appnovnl or DRnrr- DEvrLor,rrar,Nr
Pmr.i 202.| AD Or Tru Towrus Or HnnynNn.
lhe lrst of lr.rrticrpants v;ho .rttencjed the State t.evel (,.onrrnrtte(,
nreetrnq on 26.6,2006 s efrclosed lrerewrth.
Ar rh€, oLrt.5,.i, DTCp, l,.lr, infornrecl that there are telr Dr.rlt lr.vt,ltrpr.(,iiiIrlarrs wrth persl-reclive Ietrrnrnal yr:ar 2021 zD f or ihr, l,r*ns o, O."nOa,o Si,r lr;r Yirrir;rr r
Nag'r r'Jac1'rrJbr' r(urur<shetr.r, r'irlor<hc.-Taraorr, l{oiltar(, Meirarn. Nu', Iaoru arrcrc'Lrrcl;ron He nf orrl.ecJ lrrat air these prarr:; rrave been approved by rhe r)rstricr l everLonlr-nittee.rrrd are llo!,berng pl.r<.eri beforc the Sfate L,cvel Cornmjftce lor iIl'lflll'oval Aiter aJll-,rov;t l' thr:se slral br: got pLr blrsrrecl f or rnvrtincJ ,lrJr,rr li.nsi'itr(l(Jestrofls from qe.erai 1tublrc, Al'ter consid.ratio..f objectrons, ri any, tfre:;t: shalltrtr rL: pui;lrshecj as Frnal Dcveloprrent plan
Thereafter ccP N:-R cxplarned the cleve ropnrent pla.s of the.rbr_ivtj r(rwrr5 ()n..ily-o11 e to the comrnlttee After detarled deliberations the commrtteo rrr:cirrr.cl rocrpprove all the cjevelopnrent pi.rns with the followinq observations
Am bal a
I Se(.tor lB (, anci 20 propose ci alc,ng Clran c)igarh roacJ will l)r, ,,1
,,,,icJftct(:l
IncJust'ra usr: rnsread of resrcientra{ with a ',0o meters wrdo (lr(rr,, i)ertatonq the Natronal HtghwaV
I lt was clecicir:cJ that the cx.rct alrgnrreat of flre cJrarn r)cls!incJ ,,r rrrril (,,,r lr'r)6ti7 will lte shown on tl-re Dcve,lopnront I)lan lry llr," lrr,r1,ri,,r,
Departrnent.
I Secror t6 wrll be provided wirh 50 a
tackre the p'obrem or .ood nq o,,,,,ltulju"j:'.::ni;tJ:::;i
tn rtver Cnaggar
' Ii Sector lg ancj l64 proposed between
wrll be [rstrtr_rtrOn.rl u5e
Saira f ht' ytropost:cl pla n of Saha was aplrr'ved
(rs a i.il(c (o
watel leveis
Charldigarh road ancl thc r.rilway lrrre
Yalruna Nagar.
t Thr: .xistinq l,(Jl_tstrial i,state bc extenciecl upto peripher"tl r.r>,rrJ wrrl 150
. metres wrde green belt betrveen perrpheral road ancj propos(,(l rrrcluisIrr,]t)rFa
2 The sites of Sewerage l-reatrnent l)la't and If'[r uerrt tre.:rrn-]enr I,r"r'l wrJl b<.:' f inalized by rire Ptrblic health clep.ranrent in consu'i.1tro. wrrir rrrr<l.r(.r..cepartment Thereafter the sejectedr srtes will be Incorp()r.,rrr,(r rrr frrr,Developrnent f)lan.
a clause in the explanatory note ol tite
for an addrtjonal drain atonc,1 the c1r<rerr belr ol
slorrr) water discharge
Nilokheri Taraorr: FCT, l-1r observeci that thararca rncircare cJ as Z9(, unrllt lr.,rn.,1torrand conrmunlcatlon Zone appear to be wrongly indicarecL arrcl ilray bp rt,_calculated sutlject to such re-verificafron of the area l.r ,rrq r:rr(ri:rTranspori and Communication Z
pran.
qrru -urrrrirurllcdtlon lone' thq committee approved tirr'l Jlr,llclsc:cl
Kurukshetra: lt was decicied to add
Development [)larr to provide
;:errpheral roacj to tacl<le the
Nuh I he proposecl plan of Nuh w.rs approvcC
, -gd
,,4t1'
lI;Hs.,"tar{tK,v{| , r,,
% Chief Coordinator Plorrr,.,r,
NCR Harysna Panchkuta

35. -"'-) l-
/ .f" r,'{sF)
tll l. *l
${ ,/
33r
.l
he plan was apl)rovecJ sub,yect to rrExpresswcry ancl rhe change.-ove,.
oo,n,'.u'tuu
afte' tn" cor'rst'r.r( frrirr .r r(vrt)
-l-he
proposed plan of Curgaon was approveci.
'l-lre
proposed plan of Rohtak was approvecr, as rrrodified.
Fraryana, T:::t :t
acquisition of rncjustriai ur.u,
-ou
HsiDC, tlrc cM,
i ;t : ff j*, tn hj ;i, :[i";,,
: ; :
j:., :.; ffJtt; ;' ; nj :i
rhe Deveropmenr pran rr was . ;"'JJ.:::,1i':;.:'ir:l".i'T;;li:
:lDepartment wrt nor acqurre a.eas other than Industr.rar areas.
The proposed
ltlan of Mt.harr was approved.
trtC, l;UDA
)il'rr,'i,;rnreiit plans.
' suggesteci that Soiid waste Disposal sites rn;ty be slrr.rw. {.)r1 ;r rl
[he nreeting ended wrth a vote of tiranl<s to the Chair..
,4tV'lqd
!/o Chief Coorciinutor plariner
NCR Haryana Panchkula
l-.trlrU.
Curgaon:
tiohrak:
NIChilfTl