This story is from October 26, 2017

Barapullah: PWD secretary ‘delayed’ work

The Dialogue and Development Commission (DDC) of the Delhi government has blamed PWD principal secretary Ashwani Kumar for the delay in construction of Barapullah Phase III.
Barapullah: PWD secretary ‘delayed’ work
The project, which was initially scheduled to be completed in October this year, has been hanging fire for the past two years
NEW DELHI: The Dialogue and Development Commission (DDC) of the Delhi government has blamed PWD principal secretary Ashwani Kumar for the delay in construction of Barapullah Phase III. Chief minister Arvind Kejriwal had asked the commission for a report on the delay. The project, which was initially scheduled to be completed in October this year, has been hanging fire for the past two years due to delay in acquisition of 8.5 acres of land in the Yamuna floodplains.
1x1 polls

The report, which was submitted to the CM on Tuesday, blames Kumar for the delay due to his “inability to take clear and firm decisions” regarding acquisition of land. In the 14-page report, DDC vice-chairman Ashish Khetan has said the process got delayed since Kumar kept insisting that land acquisition under the NHAI Act should be explored. This is despite the highways authority conveying that this was not possible. The file kept shuttling between various departments with no concrete decision being taken for nearly two years observes the report.
While it takes note of the delay on part of the land and building and finance departments, it says that the “primary responsibility for ensuring desired outcomes rested with the PWD” and holds Kumar responsible. “For full one year, the land acquisition file kept doing a merry-go-round (sic) with Mr Kumar oscillating between the options of acquiring land through NHAI, DDA and L&B,” the report stated.
Speaking to TOI, Kumar said, “It was an attempt to cut short the lengthy acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act. But we dropped the idea after NHAI said it was not possible.”
The report accuses Kumar of not pursuing direct purchase of land, as suggested by his predecessor, Chetan Sanghi. Referring to an order issued by Kumar on July 14, 2017 stating that the rate of purchase “should not exceed Rs 35.2 per acre”, the report said: “Kumar knowingly offered such terms of purchase that he knew have almost no chance of being acceptable to the farmers…if land has to be purchased through negotiations, the entire process would be stillborn if a seemingly unacceptable rate is set prior to any negotiations.”

Rebutting the findings, Kumar said the direct purchase option was explored but the rate quoted by farmers was found to be “unrealistic”. “Why are they pushing for direct purchase of land when the farmers are demanding Rs 7 crore per acre? What is the vested interest,” he asked. Officials say that unlike Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, the Delhi government doesn’t have a direct purchase policy. “It was the finance department which had recommended that we should acquire the land under the new land acquisition act and the chief secretary and LG had agreed to it,” said Kumar.
It is important to point out that the PWD had requested the land and building department to acquire land for the project in July-August 2015. Pointing at the inaction of L&B department, DDC said, “It is difficult to fathom why the L&B department didn’t initiate SIA (social impact assessment) in July-August 2015.” The government notified the agencies for carrying out the SIA survey, as mandated under the new Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, only last month.
“The report shows that they are completely ignorant about the land acquisition process, administrative decision-making and financial propriety,” said Kumar.
The report holds Kumar responsible for exposing the “public exchequer to substantial losses on account of escalation in project cost”. Recommending that appropriate action be taken, the report states: “Ashwani Kumar has apparently failed on several counts. It can thus be surmised that given his manner of functioning, lack of competence and absence of commitment, public interest is unlikely to be served so long as he continues in his present assignment.”
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA