REQUEST YOU TO PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE CARE FULLY AND IF POSIBLE PRINT THIS ARTICLE IN YOUR LANGAUGE. WILL ALSO REQUEST YOU TO SURVEY THE AREA WHERE THESE PEOPLE(TENENTS) ARE STAYING WITH ALL THE HARDSHIPS.
Ref:- Reduction Of Buffer Space for Cessed Buildings.
Dear Sir,
OBJECTION FOR 6 MT OPEN SPACE FOR SMALLER PLOTS
I will like to get to your notice the hardships that is faced by plots having smaller area.
A) Plot reduction due to widening of road either in D.P Plan or T.P Plan or Traffic Plan.( Either of one shows road set back. That means there is no escape for same)
B) Minimum Staircase Area along with landing space.
C) Compulsory Parking space.
D) Most of the plots have shops below. Where to rehabilate them.
E) Minimum open space of 1.5 mt. now proposed 6 mt
F) Then there has to be provision for lift , electrical duct, meter room etc.
The people staying in these old Cesssed buildings are majority old and poor who have ben staying in the same locality for the same amount of years as is the age of the buildings. These people who I have met wish to die in the familiar condition with better lifestyle in a new building which may come up on the same plot which can be developed if Condonation is given on so many hardships that exsist on the plot which they are currently living on. They have been harassed by their landlord by not doing anything in the current building where they are staying in plus at the moment these people are occupying area which are mere 60 to 120 sq.ft of area.
ONE QUESTION THAT THESE PEOPLE WHOULD LIKE TO ASK:-
DON’T THEY DESERVE TO STAY IN THE SAME LOCALITY WITH BETTER FACILITY IN A NEW BUILDINGS, WHEN BENEFIT CAN BE PASSED TO SLUM DEWELLERS WHO ARE IMMIGRANTS ILLEGALLY OCCUPYNG GOVT OR PRIVATE SPACE THEY GET THE BENEFIT FORM THE PLANING ATHORITY WHY CANT THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOYAL TO THE HERITAGE OF THE AREA CANT BE GIVEN CONSESSION.
IS MCGM WILING TO TAKE REPONSIBILTY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO MAY DIE IN EVENT OF COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING DUE TO STRINGENT NORM IMPOSED ON THESE PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEY LIVING IN PLOT WHICH IS SMALL I SIZE ACORDING TO PLANING ATHORITY .
SUGGESTION
IF PLANING ATHORITY FEELS THERE IS SOLUTION LIKE AMALGAMATION OF PLOT. THEN THEY SHOULD ALSO AMMEND THE RULE WHERE LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY SAY FOR THE SAME, AS THESE GREEDY LANDLORDS WIL NEVER AGREE TO RE-DEVELOP THEIR PLOTS UNTIL AND UNLESS THEY DON’T GET THE RANSOM AMOUNT THAT THEY DEMAND.
IN CASE OF AMLGAMATION RULE SHOULD BE SUCH THAT ONLY TENENTS CONSENT IS ENOUGH FOR AMALGAMATION OF PLOTS AND LANDLORDS SHOULD BE COMPENSATED AT ¼ RATE OF REDAY REKONER RATE OF THE AREA WHICH SHOULD BE DEPOSITED BY THE BUILDER TO MCGM WHO IN TURN WILL RE-EMBURSE THE SAME TO LAND LORD IF HE/SHE AGREES OR MCGM CAN RETAIN THE SAME IF THEY REFUSE.
PLEASE I REQUEST TO KINDLY PAY ATTENTION TO THESE DETAIL BEFORE TAKING ANY JUGMENTS AS PEOPLE WHO ARE STAYING IN SMALLER PLOTS ARE ALSO HUMAN.
THANKING YOU
VIJAY RAJANI
Was this information helpful?
Post your Comment