A controversy has emerged in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) regarding a new urban development scheme. Landowners have discovered that their final plots were allotted in different villages, potentially violating state government guidelines. The issue was raised during a town planning committee meeting, where a proposal for objections and modifications to the draft plan was presented. The scheme, similar to a previous controversial plan, awaits further approval. The AMC must address concerns and ensure transparency in the town-planning process.
A stir has erupted within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) as a result of a preliminary blueprint for a novel urban development scheme in the city's western region. The Sarkhej-Okaf-Fatehwadi-Makarba TP Scheme 86 encompasses the territories of four adjoining villages that were incorporated into the city's New West Zone. However, some landowners have recently discovered, much to their dismay, that their ultimate plots have been allocated in separate villages, seemingly violating the guidelines laid down by the state government.
This discrepancy was initially brought to the forefront in a documented communication to the municipal commissioner on January 31. Subsequently, in February and March, it was reiterated, with a copy of these correspondences in the possession of TOI. The town planning committee of the AMC came across the details of this village switch during a meeting held on June 12. As part of the meeting, a proposal for a "pre-award" process was presented, allowing landowners to voice objections or seek amendments to the preliminary TP plan before its finalization.
The proposal exposed that the designated officer responsible for Scheme 86 had assigned final plots in two cases. In one scenario, a survey number from Okaf village was assigned a final plot in Fatehwadi village, while another case involved a survey number from Fatehwadi village receiving a final plot in Okaf village. This anomaly bewildered the committee members on June 12, as it ran counter to the explicit guidelines set by the state government, which dictate that the final plot should be allocated in the same village as the original plot, ideally in close proximity.
The TP officer assigned to the task defended his actions by citing the principle of "zone change," which permits some flexibility in plot allocation across different zones within a scheme. He contended that since Okaf and Fatehwadi villages both fell under zone A in the scheme, no rules had been violated by swapping plots between them. However, the committee members remained unconvinced by this explanation.
It is noteworthy to mention that TP Scheme 86, approved by the state in 2012 and currently awaiting preliminary approval, bears resemblances to another contentious plan in Makarba, known as TP 204, which faced accusations of showing favoritism towards one village at the expense of another.
The AMC now faces the task of addressing the concerns raised by landowners and rectifying the inconsistencies in final plot allotments, thereby ensuring adherence to the state government's guidelines and fostering transparency in the town-planning process.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
