| Clarification Note: |
Reply of the observations is given below:
OBSERVATION: 1. The project proponent has declared the total project cost as Rs. 3.60 Crore in the project report, wherein the cost of land has been indicated as merely Rs. 25.00 lakh, which appears to be on the lower side. No land ownership documents or registered sale deed have been submitted to substantiate the declared cost of land. Since any variation in the project cost has a direct bearing on the applicable Consent to Establish (CTE) fee payable to the Board. The project proponent is therefore required to submit copies of registered land ownership/registration deeds for verification of land cost vis-à-vis ownership, or alternatively, submit the cost of land duly certified by a Chartered Accountant based on the prevailing collector rate of the area.
REPLY: It is respectfully submitted that the land in question is an inherited/ancestral property and the old land registry document has already been attached with the application, along with the Jamabandi, which was duly submitted earlier; however, the same observation has been raised again despite the clarification and documents already being on record, rendering the objection irrelevant and unwarranted, and reflecting arbitrary action by the department, as the repeated insistence on the same point appears unjustified and amounts to unnecessary harassment, further compelling the applicant to submit a certified report from a Chartered Accountant based on the prevailing collector rate with the apparent intention of increasing the valuation of the land and forcing deposit of additional fees, which is neither required nor supported under the circumstances of an ancestral property, thereby indicating misuse of authority, and it is therefore requested that the application be processed objectively and in accordance with applicable rules without insisting on redundant or extraneous requirements.
OBSERVATION-2. It is further observed that the calculation of fresh water requirement, as reflected in the feasibility report, is not in accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part-9), Section 4.1. The feasibility report submitted by the project proponent does not adhere to the above norms. The project proponent is therefore required to revise the calculations relating to water consumption, wastewater generation, treated wastewater recycling and disposal accordingly, and submit a revised feasibility report.
REPLY: It is respectfully submitted that initially the water balance calculation was carried out as per general parameters, after which your department raised observations to calculate the water balance in accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part 9), Section 4.1; accordingly, the water balance was recalculated strictly as per the said provisions and a feasibility report was prepared and submitted. However, it is observed that once again an objection has been raised stating that the water balance calculation is not in accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part 9), Section 4.1. In this regard, it is requested to kindly consider the water balance as submitted in the feasibility report, which has been prepared in full compliance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part 9), Section 4.1. Further, if any amendments, revisions, or updates have been made to the National Building Code, 2016 relevant to the said provision, the same may kindly be provided so that necessary compliance can be ensured and an appropriate reply may be submitted accordingly, as despite reviewing all applicable rules, guidelines, and relevant information, no such amendment pertaining to the above provision could be found.
OBSERVATION-3. The feasibility report also lacks proper details regarding solid waste generation and management. The project proponent has not furnished quantified details of biodegradable and non-biodegradable solid waste generation, nor has it clearly outlined the proposed disposal mechanism. Further, if compost pits or mechanical composters are proposed for biodegradable waste management, the capacity and operational details of the same are required to be clearly specified.
REPLY: It is respectfully submitted that at page no. 14 of the feasibility report, complete and detailed information regarding solid waste management has already been provided, which may kindly be considered. In view of the same, unnecessary delay in processing the application for grant of permission by PPCB may be avoided. It appears that the calculations submitted, which are in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon’ble NGT, have not been duly considered, leading to an unwarranted impediment in the approval process. Furthermore, the details along with the capacity of the mechanical composter are clearly mentioned on page no. 14 of the feasibility report. In addition, it has been proposed to develop vermicompost pits for the treatment of wet solid waste as per the projected occupancy of the project, subject to obtaining the necessary statutory permissions.
OBSERVATION-4. It is further observed that while a 5-metre green buffer is stated to have been left as per the building bye-laws and the project proponent has proposed to develop plantation area as per Karnal Technology in the said area for utilization of its excess treated effluent. Further, the application was earlier also returned with the same above observations. However, the project proponent has re-submitted the same without attending to the observations.
REPLY: It has already been submitted in the earlier reply that, as per the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Building Rules and the Punjab Municipal Building Bye-Laws, 2018, a green buffer/green belt shown in an approved building plan is required to remain an open green area and may be developed only for the purposes of landscaping and plantation. Accordingly, plantation using Karnal Technology is permissible, provided that no permanent construction is raised in the said area. Further, there is no restriction under the applicable law on the development of a green buffer through Karnal Technology. After due verification, no provision, rule, guideline, or any other relevant legal material has been found that restricts or prohibits the development of a green buffer by adopting Karnal Technology. It is respectfully submitted that, despite the aforesaid clarification having already been furnished, the same observation has been raised again without any reason.
It is once again humbly requested that to grant permission of the PPCB, please. |
| File Note: |
Reply of the observations is given below:
OBSERVATION: 1. The project proponent has declared the total project cost as Rs. 3.60 Crore in the project report, wherein the cost of land has been indicated as merely Rs. 25.00 lakh, which appears to be on the lower side. No land ownership documents or registered sale deed have been submitted to substantiate the declared cost of land. Since any variation in the project cost has a direct bearing on the applicable Consent to Establish (CTE) fee payable to the Board. The project proponent is therefore required to submit copies of registered land ownership/registration deeds for verification of land cost vis-à-vis ownership, or alternatively, submit the cost of land duly certified by a Chartered Accountant based on the prevailing collector rate of the area.
REPLY: It is respectfully submitted that the land in question is an inherited/ancestral property and the old land registry document has already been attached with the application, along with the Jamabandi, which was duly submitted earlier; however, the same observation has been raised again despite the clarification and documents already being on record, rendering the objection irrelevant and unwarranted, and reflecting arbitrary action by the department, as the repeated insistence on the same point appears unjustified and amounts to unnecessary harassment, further compelling the applicant to submit a certified report from a Chartered Accountant based on the prevailing collector rate with the apparent intention of increasing the valuation of the land and forcing deposit of additional fees, which is neither required nor supported under the circumstances of an ancestral property, thereby indicating misuse of authority, and it is therefore requested that the application be processed objectively and in accordance with applicable rules without insisting on redundant or extraneous requirements.
OBSERVATION-2. It is further observed that the calculation of fresh water requirement, as reflected in the feasibility report, is not in accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part-9), Section 4.1. The feasibility report submitted by the project proponent does not adhere to the above norms. The project proponent is therefore required to revise the calculations relating to water consumption, wastewater generation, treated wastewater recycling and disposal accordingly, and submit a revised feasibility report.
REPLY: It is respectfully submitted that initially the water balance calculation was carried out as per general parameters, after which your department raised observations to calculate the water balance in accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part 9), Section 4.1; accordingly, the water balance was recalculated strictly as per the said provisions and a feasibility report was prepared and submitted. However, it is observed that once again an objection has been raised stating that the water balance calculation is not in accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part 9), Section 4.1. In this regard, it is requested to kindly consider the water balance as submitted in the feasibility report, which has been prepared in full compliance with the provisions of the National Building Code, 2016 (Part 9), Section 4.1. Further, if any amendments, revisions, or updates have been made to the National Building Code, 2016 relevant to the said provision, the same may kindly be provided so that necessary compliance can be ensured and an appropriate reply may be submitted accordingly, as despite reviewing all applicable rules, guidelines, and relevant information, no such amendment pertaining to the above provision could be found.
OBSERVATION-3. The feasibility report also lacks proper details regarding solid waste generation and management. The project proponent has not furnished quantified details of biodegradable and non-biodegradable solid waste generation, nor has it clearly outlined the proposed disposal mechanism. Further, if compost pits or mechanical composters are proposed for biodegradable waste management, the capacity and operational details of the same are required to be clearly specified.
REPLY: It is respectfully submitted that at page no. 14 of the feasibility report, complete and detailed information regarding solid waste management has already been provided, which may kindly be considered. In view of the same, unnecessary delay in processing the application for grant of permission by PPCB may be avoided. It appears that the calculations submitted, which are in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon’ble NGT, have not been duly considered, leading to an unwarranted impediment in the approval process. Furthermore, the details along with the capacity of the mechanical composter are clearly mentioned on page no. 14 of the feasibility report. In addition, it has been proposed to develop vermicompost pits for the treatment of wet solid waste as per the projected occupancy of the project, subject to obtaining the necessary statutory permissions.
OBSERVATION-4. It is further observed that while a 5-metre green buffer is stated to have been left as per the building bye-laws and the project proponent has proposed to develop plantation area as per Karnal Technology in the said area for utilization of its excess treated effluent. Further, the application was earlier also returned with the same above observations. However, the project proponent has re-submitted the same without attending to the observations.
REPLY: It has already been submitted in the earlier reply that, as per the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Building Rules and the Punjab Municipal Building Bye-Laws, 2018, a green buffer/green belt shown in an approved building plan is required to remain an open green area and may be developed only for the purposes of landscaping and plantation. Accordingly, plantation using Karnal Technology is permissible, provided that no permanent construction is raised in the said area. Further, there is no restriction under the applicable law on the development of a green buffer through Karnal Technology. After due verification, no provision, rule, guideline, or any other relevant legal material has been found that restricts or prohibits the development of a green buffer by adopting Karnal Technology. It is respectfully submitted that, despite the aforesaid clarification having already been furnished, the same observation has been raised again without any reason.
It is once again humbly requested that to grant permission of the PPCB, please. |
