M A I N   N E W S

Anandgarh: will govt file SLP?
P P S Gill
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 22
Is the creation of Anandgarh, “an ultra-modern, futuristic’’ city jinxed? Has the high court, judgment (March 28) unplugged the setting up of the “dream project’’? Will the government file a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court or will it prefer to start the process from scratch?

Such questions have started a debate on the political, bureaucratic and legal circuit. With elections to the state Vidhan Sabha round the corner, the question is what will influence the decision to file or not to file the SLP. Politics, bureaucratic insistence or the attorneys?

The final word on Anandgarh is yet to be said. Ever since Mr Justice J. L. Gupta and Mr Justice N. K. Sud delivered the judgment, the government is in a spin. Behind-the-scenes developments indicate an “indifferent’’ attitude of the state.

The judgment has criticised the Chief Minister, Mr Parkash Singh Badal, for the volte face regarding his stance on the new city since he himself had opposed the setting up of “New Chandigarh’’ in the past. Though the Chief Minister agrees, in principle, that the SLP should be filed, he has also asked the Department of Housing and Urban Development to reconsider whether it would be appropriate to do so or start the process afresh with Mr Badal displaying no inclination to bypass the procedures, sources revealed.

The bureaucrats, finding themselves in a vortex after the judgment, were keen on transferring the onus to the attorneys’ enjoying the confidence of the political executive, as they were apprehensive of an adverse outcome of the SLP. In fact, they preferred that the Punjab Advocate-General should lead a delegation to Mr Jagmohan, Union Minister for Urban Development and Housing, who was scheduled to visit Chandigarh on April 18. That visit was “got postponed’’ to save the government from possible embarrassment, it is learnt.

Nevertheless, the Principal Secretary, Mr A. K. Dubey, and the Additional Chief Administrator, New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh, Mr R. K. Verma, were analysing the judgment and preparing background briefs on the issues involved justifying the project and shortlisting law points for the SLP. These briefs are on 1. Issues in the high court judgment, 2. Uprooting of villages 3. The Air defence system—Mullanpur, 4. Exploding cities: an agenda for the 21st century, 5. Accommodating future urban growth, spatial strategies and 6. Statistical tables on the growth of the urban population and role of towns/cities in economic development, etc. On the one hand, these briefs take up all core issues involved influencing the government decision on setting up Anandgarh and, on the other hand, try to justify the government stand that has been “criticised’’ in the judgment.

The inference drawn, so far, by the bureaucrats regarding the “basis’’ for setting aside the land acquisition notifications by the High Court was based on the conclusion given on page 52 of the judgment that states: “On a cumulative consideration of the provisions of the Act, it appears clear to us that the Act entrusts the task of setting the site for the new town to the board. Thereafter, a master plan has to be prepared in accordance with the prescribed procedure. After the master plan is ready, the government is competent to constitute a special agency for the planning and development of the new town. At the asking of the authority, the government can proceed to acquire the land”.

The bureaucrats have identified two issues: Why are there provisions of planning areas, master plan and town development schemes in the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995? Whether Section 56 of the Act is applicable in cases where the land is owned or acquired by the government? The brief concludes, “The action taken by the government and the New Town Planning and Development Authority for Anandgarh is , therefore, perfectly in accordance with the law and the conclusion of the high court as contained on page 52 of the judgment making it mandatory for the government to declare the site for the new town as a planning area and preparation of a master plan before constituting a special agency for planning and development, which can then request the state government for the acquisition of land’’.

In the same way the briefs emphasised that the prescribed restrictions in the Air defence system would be implemented and there would be no uprooting of the villages involved. Anandgarh is not “old wine in a new bottle’’, the bureaucrats have concluded: not only will the people of the area have a place to live but sufficient jobs will be generated by taking practical measures.

The brief on “Exploding cities’’ recapitulates often asked questions explicitly explaining the intent and purpose of some of the existing provisions of the Acts as applicable to Chandigarh and its periphery, concluding that the Anandgarh project was is in complete conformity and consonance with the objectives of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Act, 1952, aimed at preventing the growth of slums and ramshackle construction on the periphery of Chandigarh.

Both Mr Dubey and the Minister in charge, Ms Upinderjit Kaur, went abroad (November 1 to 24, 2000) visiting Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Melbourne and Singapore, in connection with the construction of Anandgarh at the expense of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority.

There is, at present, discernible disagreement among bureaucrats and attorneys on some points of law, interpretation of some Sections (42 and 56) in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 procedural flaws and on the manner in which the Anandgarh was handled.

The failure of the government in projecting of Anandgarh, how it faltered inside the Vidhan Sabha where, the stillborn city found an echo and political rivalries within Akali factions are points now openly confessed by the political executive and the bureaucracy. Both sides are still equally divided, leaving the final word to the Advocate-General asking him to engage either the Solicitor-General of India or the Attorney-General of India for the filing of the SLP.