Farmers to lose 40% of land in non-town planning areas under Gujarat's common construction rules: Note

By A Representative
The Gujarat government’s recent move to put into force Common Gujarat Development Control Regulation (GDCR) is all set to go controversial. If till now each city or urban area in the state had its own GDCR, the view has gone strong that, while normally anyone would welcome planned approach to development in the state, the state’s policy makers have chosen ad-hocism while coming up with Common GDCR.
Well-known civil rights activist Krishakant of the top environmental group Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Vadodara, who has circulated a note containing the type of objections that should be raised to Common GDCR, has said, already there are “a plethora of amendments being effected” to it, underlining, “This suggests that the government’s interest is not in the planning of spaces but the real estate value and advantage to their near ones.”
Pointing out that the Gujarat government “needs to be challenged on the way they are handling the urban spaces”, as the new Common GDCR intends to “interfere in rural areas too in a manner that can lead to chaotic development”, the note he has circulated wants objections to the Common GDCR should be sent the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Gujarat by May 25, 2018, as demanded by the government.
The note particularly raises objections to the Rule No 8.9.6 on Page 129, which talks of “contribution of land for any development in non-town-planning (TP) areas”.
Here, it says, there is a provision that “the competent authority shall enforce owners/applicants for any development in conformation with zoning or use, where the TP scheme is not declared except agriculture zone use and gamtal (village common land), competent authority … category shall enforce owners/applicant to contribute the land admeasuring up to 40% of land in … for providing roads, public purpose and multipurpose activities”.
The note says, “These Common GDCR rules are following Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976. In this original Act there is no provision of contribution of land by the owners/applicant of land in non-TP areas. Yet, after 42 Years of the Act how this contribution of 40% land provision is made in published Common GDCR?”
The note alleges, “The provision shall result in a big monetary loss, because no compensation would be paid to the original farmers who possess the land near to urban areas and such provision shall be not in accordance with the natural principles of justice.”
It adds, “By incorporating such provision, the government has avoided the procedure of acquisition of land and avoided payment of compensation to the farmers. This is an absolute case of violation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.”
The note further says, in cases where there is new tenure land, and the farmer has already paid premium to the government for change of use of land, he or she would have part with 40% of such land as contribution, “which will result in a big monitory loss to farmers.”
According to the note, “When a farmer applies for non-agricultural (NA) permission, he or she has to pay a big amount as conversion tax and other charges as scrutiny fee and development charges for taking permission from the authority.” Even here the authority would “enforce the famer to contribute 40% of such land … for the public purpose.”
“Moreover”, the note asserts, “This 40% land would be taken from each Serial No as and when required. It means, the land taken will be in fragments and will not serve the purpose of providing public amenity in a proper way.”
“So such contributed land shall not serve the very purpose for providing roads and public purpose and multipurpose activities, mentioned in this rule”, the note says, adding, “Even rule No 8.9.6 (2), (3) and (4) are absolutely hypothetical and such planning shall not be possible.”
“Thus, this provision is against the natural principle of justice, bad in law and hence should be removed from the Common GDCR”, it says.

Comments

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

Penpa Tsering’s leadership and record under scrutiny amidst Tibetan exile elections

By Tseten Lhundup* Within the Tibetan exile community, Penpa Tsering is often described as having risen through grassroots engagement. Born in 1967, he comes from an ordinary Tibetan family, pursued higher education at Delhi University in India, and went on to serve as Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile from 2008 to 2016. In 2021, he was elected Sikyong of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), becoming the second democratically elected political leader of the administration after Lobsang Sangay.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor* Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Search This Blog