Akrama-Sakrama redux? Bill passed to regularise 15% building violations
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Piloting the bill, urban development minister BS Suresha (Byrathi) said the amendment would apply only to unlawful buildings that can be regularised under existing building bylaws or relevant Acts. "This will not apply to buildings that have been ordered for demolition," he said.
Under the provisions, municipal commissioners can issue occupancy certificates (OCs) by levying a penalty if they had not obtained commencement certificates (CCs) before construction.
A penalty can also be levied for deviations from sanctioned plan or zonal regulation limit as may be specified in the bylaws.
Suresha said the threshold for permissible building plan violations is being raised from 5% to 15%.
He recalled that in Jan 2017, the Supreme Court stayed the Akrama-Sakrama scheme, which sought to regularise unauthorised urban buildings for a fee.
"We cannot frame rules (for Akrama-Sakrama) as the matter is pending before the court.
But we can regularise small sites," he said. "We will specify the size in the rules, but it'll be mostly 20x30 and 30x40 sites. We are exempting them from requiring CC and OC. This will help the poor and middle-class."
He emphasised: "This is not the same Akrama-Sakrama scheme. Unlicensed properties are not being exempted from CC/OC requirement."
Professionals to sanction plans
The bill also allows municipal corporations to empanel professional architects, engineers, structural consultants, environment consultants and town planners as 'authorised persons' to inspect buildings before, during and after construction, sanction building plans, and certify compliance.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"Empanelled engineers will be allowed to approve building plans up to 4,000 sq ft," Suresha told the House.
In another key provision, the authority to sanction building plans will now rest with the commissioner or chief executive of urban local bodies (ULBs), instead of elected councils.
Opposition members objected, calling it undemocratic. But Suresha said: "We are proposing to enable the commissioner or CEO to sanction building plans, as there are instances of the council not meeting for more than six months despite the norm that they must meet once a month. The proposed bill is being brought to ensure speedy issuance of plan sanction."
Opposition members including CN Ashwath Narayan, opposed the clause making CC and OC mandatory for electricity connections. Suresha responded: "This clause is to comply with Supreme Court's directions."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
16 minutes ago
- India Today
Parliament paralysis: Should no work, no pay be implemented for MPs? Experts debate
In this episode of India First, the programme examines the Monsoon Session of Parliament, which ran from July 21st to August 21st. The session experienced significant disruptions, with the Lok Sabha operating for only 37 of 120 scheduled hours, resulting in productivity falling below 40%. Independent MP Umesh Patel staged a protest, advocating for a 'no work, no pay' policy for lawmakers and demanding that the entire salary and allowances of MPs for this session be withheld, with House running expenses recovered from them. The discussion explores the growing bitterness in Indian politics, parliamentary dysfunction, and the estimated ₹121 crore of taxpayer money lost due to disruptions.
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Criteria tweak ‘cuts' Assam forest by 99%
New Delhi: A retired forest official has flagged how Assam's restrictive technical criteria to define what is a forest led to 99% of acknowledged woodland — roughly 1,153 of 1,168 hectares --- in Dima Hasao region to be stripped of forest safeguards. Criteria tweak 'cuts' Assam forest by 99% The dramatic reduction, detailed in a February Central Empowered Committee report, occurred despite state authorities acknowledging the area consists of 'unclassed state forest' with 20% to 70% tree cover that 'falls within the definition of forest as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.' The revelation comes amid growing concerns about states undermining Supreme Court orders through narrow definitions. Earlier this week, Haryana redefined the 'dictionary meaning' of forest with criteria that environmental activists say could exclude most of the state's remaining Aravalli forests from legal protection. The Assam controversy relates to a project in Dima Hasao, a hill district characterised by rugged mountainous terrain and significant natural forest cover. The region is part of the North Cachar Hills, falling within a biodiversity-rich landscape. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court, while probing an application by a cement company to refund money paid for forest clearance formalities, found that the firm contended that seven new limestone mining blocks adjacent to its existing mine in Dima Hasao did not require forest clearance. The company had paid ₹56.85 crores in compensatory afforestation costs, net present value, tree operation costs and other fees for clearing its original site as part of environment protection regulations. After plotting coordinates on the environment ministry's Decision Support System, the company found none of the proposed new blocks were classified as recorded forest land. Concluding it had unnecessarily obtained forest clearance for its earlier mine, the company sought a full refund of all charges paid, along with accrued interest. Restrictive 2022 definition applied At the heart of these claims is Rule 2(1)(e)(iii) of the Assam Trees Outside Forest (Sustainable Management) Rule, 2022, which states that an area qualifies as forest only if it constitutes 'a continuous patch of 10 hectares or more having not less than 200 naturally grown trees per hectare on an average,' alongside reserved forests and officially recorded forest areas. When the CEC visited the site in September, 2024 and asked Assam for its state expert committee report on deemed forests — as required under the 1996 TN Godavarman Supreme Court order — the state government failed to produce one. Earlier that year, the Supreme Court had ordered states to classify forests as per the 'dictionary meaning' of the word, a ruling that meant states had to follow broad, common-sense interpretation of the word forests. Instead, special chief secretary (forests) MK Yadava and other officials proposed using the 2022 definition. The entire 1,168-hectare patch of unclassed forest covering six mine areas was then surveyed using drones, with only 14.53 hectares meeting the restrictive tree-counting criteria. 'Therefore, the CEC has given its finding/order that except for the 14.53 ha is a forest the rest of the area, i.e. 1,153 ha is not a forest and can be used for mining without having to obtain forest clearance,' the former forest official told HT, asking not to be named. Special chief secretary Yadava confirmed to HT that the 2022 rules will now be applied statewide to classify forests, and thus, environmental protections. 'A new state expert committee will identify deemed forest areas based on the trees outside forest rules and revenue records,' Yadava said, adding that the definition applies statewide. The case exposes stark contradictions in official positions. Both the divisional forest officer and the secretary of environment & forest department told the CEC that the mining area 'falls within the definition of Forest as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' and consists of 'Unclassed State Forest' under the Dima Hasao Division (West) in Haflong. However, despite this acknowledgment in a June 14, 2024 response, 'no documents pertaining to Unclassed State Forest were submitted by either the Forest Department or the Applicant,' the Central Empowered Committee noted. The committee then ultimately concluded that except for 14.53 hectares, 'the rest of the area, i.e. 1153 ha is not a forest and can be used for mining without having to obtain forest clearance,' according to the retired forest official who analysed the case. Forest analyst Chetan Agarwal said Assam's approach reflects a troubling pattern across states. 'Assam has proposed a threshold of 200 trees per hectare for identifying deemed forests. This is a high threshold particularly as small trees are sometimes not treated as a 'tree' while counting trees for such purposes as a matter of practice of enumeration from a timber perspective.' He noted that the threshold 'may not be met by much of the officially notified forests either and is meant primarily to exclude all but the most dense forest cover with many young trees. As they mature, the stems per ha reduce over time.' Agarwal drew parallels with other states: 'Recently Haryana too has come up with an extraordinarily high minimum level of 40% forest canopy cover for an area to be treated as a deemed forest. This threshold too will not be met by most of the notified forests in the state either, let alone the potential deemed forest.' The December 12, 1996 Godavarman judgment defined forests broadly as any area fitting the 'dictionary meaning' regardless of official classification or ownership, directing states to form expert committees within a month to identify such areas. The Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023, notably does not recognise 'unrecorded deemed forests' as a protected category, with the objective of reviewing and limiting the Supreme Court's 1996 verdict. Eleven retired government officials and environmental activists successfully challenged this amendment, leading to an interim order reaffirming the broad dictionary definition. The Central Empowered Committee denied the cement company's ₹56.85 crore refund request, ruling that since substantial vegetation had already been removed from the earlier mining area, it was impossible to determine the original forest status when the lease was granted years earlier.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC seeks clarity on govt's move on Kaleshwaram project report
1 2 Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Thursday sought clarity from the state govt on whether it intends to place the Justice PC Ghose Commission report on the Kaleshwaram project before the assembly first or whether it will act on the report and then lay it before the House for discussion. "This is a crucial question. We need clarity before proceeding further. We need not observe anything more without your answer," a division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin told advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy, who appeared for the state. On his request to obtain instructions, the court adjourned the matter to Friday. The bench was hearing petitions filed by former CM K Chandrasekhar Rao and former minister T Harish Rao, who challenged the commission's notices and findings. Their counsels argued that the notices issued were defective as they were only summons and not notices as mandated under section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. They contended that this denial of due process vitiated the proceedings. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad | Gold Rates Today in Hyderabad | Silver Rates Today in Hyderabad 'Violation of rights' The petitioners further alleged that the report was already widely circulated in the media and on govt platforms, even before being formally placed in the assembly. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Passive Income Ideas Sitting at Home Mone Click Here Undo They produced photographs of newspaper articles, press conferences by the CM and other ministers, and even a power-point presentation given by a minister, all based on the commission's findings. They stressed that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who deposed before the commission, a violation of their rights. "The commission was tasked with inquiring into the planning, design, and execution of the project—not into allegations of corruption or irregularities. Yet, imputations against the petitioners are being made public without due process," the counsels argued. Citing judgements in the cases of inquiries held on former IPS officer Kiran Bedi and former Union home minister LK Advani, the counsels sought to strike down the notices and also the findings of commission report. Countering these arguments, the AG submitted that the petitioners were well aware of the notices and even sought documents from the commission, which were duly provided. "A notice does not become invalid merely because a specific section is not cited," he argued. He also contended that since both petitioners are members of the state assembly, they would have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the commission's report once it is tabled in the House. Any judicial intervention at this stage, he cautioned, could impede legislative proceedings. "The commission was set up in the larger interest of the state to identify what went wrong. Its report must first be debated in assembly. Any orders here may pre-empt that process," the AG told the bench. Public domain controversy On the petitioners' grievance that the report had already entered the public domain, the AG denied it. He assured the court that the cabinet has decided to place the report before the assembly shortly for discussion. The petitioners, however, pressed for court protection, alleging that their reputations were being irreparably harmed. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
