Matching Fragments
(b) The Janta/EWS category flats by themselves constituted 25.5% of the total number of flats constructed in F zone.
(c) As regards the Vasant Kunj area (in Sub-zone F12) it was contended that the Janta/EWS flats formed 4.5% of the total housing stock and that the short fall of 0.5% would be met by the construction of 1500 LIG/EWS flats proposed to be constructed in Sector-D, Pocket-6 near Sultangarhi.
(d) In the areas adjoining Vasant Kunj there were Janta flats and that these flats were being allotted to the weaker sections of society. However, there could not be any check over the subsequent reselling of these flats. The petitioner further filed a reply to this affidavit contesting the correctness of the data submitted by the respondent DDA.
HIG 9845
MIG 232
LIG 324
Janta/EWS 120
46. Thus, of the total flats constructed in Vasant Kunj (10521), over 90% constituted the HIG category of flats. The LIG and EWS flats constitute only around 4% of the total number of flats constructed by the respondent DDA in Vasant Kunj. Clearly this is grossly inadequate and is nowhere near the Master Plan targets. This was sought to be explained away by Mr. Anil Baijal in his additional affidavit of September 10, 2003 by stating "while that could be possible shortfalls in respect of the LIG housing in the Vasant Kunj area, these have been adequately compensated by construction of such housing in other areas in the zone." Further he admitted that there was a predominance of HIG housing in the Vasant Kunj area but that in the broader context of the housing provided by respondent DDA in LIG/EWS categories "throughout Delhi, these may not be considered as a violation of the Master Plan."
48. The petitioners make a valid point on how these figures provided by the respondent DDA should be understood. The MPD 2001 anticipated that for the entire F Zone area there would be a population increase of approximately 5 lakh persons during the years 1981-2001. This therefore required that one lakh dwelling units would have to be provided for. As per the MPD 2001 norms these one lakh units had to comprise 25,000 EWS plots (25%), 3,000 Resettlement Units (3%) and 43,000 fully or partially built units (43%). Therefore, the percentages have to be worked out on the basis of these target figures. Thus when respondent DDA, in the affidavit of Shri Jaglan in January 2004 claims that it has constructed a total of 52694 flats in the entire F zone and that of these the combined number of 17,780 LIG and EWS flats (4469+13311) constitutes 33.74%, it may not be the correct way of looking at it. The 17,780 EWS and LIG flats constitute only 17.78% of the one lakh dwelling units that were expected to be provided. EWS constitute 13.3% and LIG 4.4% whereas the target percentages were 25% and 20% respectively. There can be no manner of doubt that these targets have not been met and that there is an implementation backlog even if we take F zone as a whole. This is the position even without going into the aspect that respondent DDA was to provide EWS 'plots' and not flats for the EWS category.
49. Further, the plea that the shortfall in one sub zone (F-12) has been made up by constructing adequate number of LIG and Janta flats in adjoining sub zones is also not correct when the actual figures are compared against planned targets. The figures for sub zones F-13, F-14, F-15 show either no LIG flats (F-13) or no LIG or EWS flats (F-14 and F-15). Further it is clear that in the up-market sub zones like F-1 (Friends Colony), F-2 (Kailash Colony), F-3 (Siri Fort), F-4 (Safdarjung), F-13 (Vasant Vihar), F-16 (Saket) the low income housing is far short of the target. Thus the the MPD 1962 and 2001 objective of integration of EWS/LIG housing into the neighborhood at the sub zone and community levels appears to have been defeated. The plea that the achievement of targets must be examined by taking the city as a whole as suggested in the additional affidavit of Mr.Anil Baijal is clearly contrary to what the MPD 1962 and 2001 envisages and is clearly a desperate attempt to explain away the abject failure of the respondent DDA to comply with its statutory obligation of providing integrated low income housing.
