The day DNA got access to the copy of an order by the urban development (UD) department about deleting a public/ semi-public zone (PSPZ) of two crucial plots of land, it has been continuously trying to get a response from the National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) to know why the director sent a letter to the UD principal secretary, requesting the deletion of the zoning.
But as of Wednesday evening, no official reply was available from NCL. Hence DNA is publicly asking some important questions which the NCL director needs to answer.
The response of the NCL director, S Sivaram, in this case has become necessary as the UD order (No TPS 1810/1756/CR.2452/2010/UD-13) clearly mentions that in the development plan (DP), the land (survey no. 19A/2B and 18(pt) of village Pashan has been designated for existing PSPZ for NCL purpose and the landowner, Prakash N. Baldota, and director, NCL have requested the government to delete the said land from the existing PSPZ.
Sivaram has said in his letter, “the entire campus of NCL is shown in PSPZ (demarcated for institutes) in the sanctioned plan of Pune. However, as the land bearing S No. 19/A/2B Pashan, Pune admeasuring 88R (88,000 square feet) and the land bearing S No. 18, Pashan, Pune admeasuring 2R (2,000 square feet) since belongs to Mr PN Baldota, it needs to be deleted from the public-semi public zone.”
Sivaram’s letter on July 30 this year to the UD principal secretary was crucial in passing the order under section 50 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. In this regard, Sivaram should answer the following questions to clear doubts:
1. Why did Sivaram send the letter to the state government to request change of zone of these two plots of land?
2. Sivaram has mentioned in his letter that the NCL has accepted the judgment of the court in 2006 that the ownership of the land is with Prakash Baldota, then why did he give his opinion about the piece of land which does not belong to the NCL?
3. Sivaram’s letter says, “For the convenience of both the parties, we have exchanged our land against the equivalent land which belongs to Prakash N Baldota.” What convenience did the land-swap serve to the NCL, which has a huge campus of 400 acres?
4. The disputed land owned by Baldota did not have access and was landlocked. Why did the NCL agree to part with some of its land, which provided the badly-needed access to the plot of land owned by Baldota, and why did Sivaram later ask the state government to delete the zoning of the crucial pieces of land which provided access to the landlocked plot and the deletion of zone which made it possible to use the land commercially?
5. After the plot of land owned by Baldota was marked as PSPZ in the DP of the city in 1987, the NCL could have acquired the land irrespective of its ownership by requesting the authorities concerned. What efforts did the NCL make to acquire the land? (Baldota has claimed that the PSPZ was marked on his plot by mistake).
6. Is it true that the NCL has lost claim over the piece of land by the letter sent by Sivaram to the state government?
7. In what capacity did Sivaram decided that the land needs to be deleted from PSPZ when the planning authority is the Pune Municipal Corporation?
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}