<p>This week, while deciding a case about illegal building construction in Uttar Pradesh, judges of the Supreme Court noted that violations of planned development are rampant, and issued a set of instructions applicable broadly. The court’s initiative in going further than the case is understandable. But a closer look at some of the points reveals how difficult it will be to set right our crumbling cities. Here are some notable points.</p>.<p>When a building plan is approved, the builder must give an undertaking to not hand over possession of the property to the owner until the completion and occupation certificates are issued. A copy of the approved plan shall be displayed at construction sites; authorities shall periodically inspect the sites and keep a record of the inspections. Upon completion of the construction, the authorities should either issue the completion certificate without delay, or point to deviations and take necessary action. If certificates are not issued promptly, the owner can appeal and this must be decided within 90 days. Even after issuance of certificates, if violations are observed, action should be taken against the builder, owner and the officials who failed to stop the illegality.</p>.<p>Utilities like water and power shall be provided only after completion certificates are issued. No permission or licence to conduct a business can be issued in any unauthorised building. Banks and financial institutions shall not provide loans against any unauthorised building. A lot of this is familiar from countless previous cases before the courts at different levels. The essence of such thinking is that the statutory Master Plan for an area must be adhered to strictly, and if that is not ensured, we will end up derailing planned projects and be left with pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.</p>.<p>Against this background, however, we must ask a different question – what if the Master Plan does not adequately provide for the housing and commerce needs of the population? Or in a similar vein, what happens if not enough builders and property owners come forward to construct what is needed? Both of these are certainly true in Bengaluru, and I suspect in any large Indian city.</p>.<p>Consider the ground reality – 1,000 people newly settle in Bengaluru each day. Their housing needs alone would be 250 dwelling units daily, and businesses to serve them will need more buildings. But BBMP and BDA together issue fewer than 100 permissions per day. So where should the other 150 families look for options? Any regulation and rule on illegal construction will only work when the required supply of buildings is at par with the demand (at least approximately). If development authorities don’t address the scarcity, people will ‘adjust’, including in corrupt ways.</p>.<p>Will the courts instruct BDA to ensure that 250 houses a day are built either by builders or by itself? Unlikely. How about 50 per day for the well-off, 100 per day for the middle income groups, and 100 for the poor? Without meeting the need adequately within a legal framework, we cannot hope to end <br />illegalities.</p>.<p>The majority of people who live in unauthorised constructions are from the bottom half of the pyramid. In a fair world, 50% of the land and housing in the city should be for their needs. If legal systems do not naturally produce adequate rental housing and low-income housing, inevitably people will choose unauthorised alternatives.</p>.<p>One can of course crack down on those who build unauthorised structures, but who’s going to do that? The same people who let these buildings come up in the first place? Not likely. Nor will politicians. The scarce supply of land and housing causes much of the illegal construction, and it also drives up prices for limited supply of legal buildings. Many elected leaders are invested in the real estate market, and turn a handsome profit from the scarcity. An abundance of scarcity – not only in houses, but also in commercial buildings, schools and health facilities, roads, pipes, drains, and so much else, including trained manpower in government – is now fuelling the scarcity of enforcement. Any number of court orders to set this right by ordering governments to ‘take action’ will not address the shortages themselves.</p>.<p>One other thing in the judgment caught my eye. The judges noted that “State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities... regularisation schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances and as a one-time measure for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment, availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger public interest”. Translation: Swa-ha to Akrama Sakrama.</p>
<p>This week, while deciding a case about illegal building construction in Uttar Pradesh, judges of the Supreme Court noted that violations of planned development are rampant, and issued a set of instructions applicable broadly. The court’s initiative in going further than the case is understandable. But a closer look at some of the points reveals how difficult it will be to set right our crumbling cities. Here are some notable points.</p>.<p>When a building plan is approved, the builder must give an undertaking to not hand over possession of the property to the owner until the completion and occupation certificates are issued. A copy of the approved plan shall be displayed at construction sites; authorities shall periodically inspect the sites and keep a record of the inspections. Upon completion of the construction, the authorities should either issue the completion certificate without delay, or point to deviations and take necessary action. If certificates are not issued promptly, the owner can appeal and this must be decided within 90 days. Even after issuance of certificates, if violations are observed, action should be taken against the builder, owner and the officials who failed to stop the illegality.</p>.<p>Utilities like water and power shall be provided only after completion certificates are issued. No permission or licence to conduct a business can be issued in any unauthorised building. Banks and financial institutions shall not provide loans against any unauthorised building. A lot of this is familiar from countless previous cases before the courts at different levels. The essence of such thinking is that the statutory Master Plan for an area must be adhered to strictly, and if that is not ensured, we will end up derailing planned projects and be left with pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.</p>.<p>Against this background, however, we must ask a different question – what if the Master Plan does not adequately provide for the housing and commerce needs of the population? Or in a similar vein, what happens if not enough builders and property owners come forward to construct what is needed? Both of these are certainly true in Bengaluru, and I suspect in any large Indian city.</p>.<p>Consider the ground reality – 1,000 people newly settle in Bengaluru each day. Their housing needs alone would be 250 dwelling units daily, and businesses to serve them will need more buildings. But BBMP and BDA together issue fewer than 100 permissions per day. So where should the other 150 families look for options? Any regulation and rule on illegal construction will only work when the required supply of buildings is at par with the demand (at least approximately). If development authorities don’t address the scarcity, people will ‘adjust’, including in corrupt ways.</p>.<p>Will the courts instruct BDA to ensure that 250 houses a day are built either by builders or by itself? Unlikely. How about 50 per day for the well-off, 100 per day for the middle income groups, and 100 for the poor? Without meeting the need adequately within a legal framework, we cannot hope to end <br />illegalities.</p>.<p>The majority of people who live in unauthorised constructions are from the bottom half of the pyramid. In a fair world, 50% of the land and housing in the city should be for their needs. If legal systems do not naturally produce adequate rental housing and low-income housing, inevitably people will choose unauthorised alternatives.</p>.<p>One can of course crack down on those who build unauthorised structures, but who’s going to do that? The same people who let these buildings come up in the first place? Not likely. Nor will politicians. The scarce supply of land and housing causes much of the illegal construction, and it also drives up prices for limited supply of legal buildings. Many elected leaders are invested in the real estate market, and turn a handsome profit from the scarcity. An abundance of scarcity – not only in houses, but also in commercial buildings, schools and health facilities, roads, pipes, drains, and so much else, including trained manpower in government – is now fuelling the scarcity of enforcement. Any number of court orders to set this right by ordering governments to ‘take action’ will not address the shortages themselves.</p>.<p>One other thing in the judgment caught my eye. The judges noted that “State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities... regularisation schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances and as a one-time measure for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment, availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger public interest”. Translation: Swa-ha to Akrama Sakrama.</p>
