Urban Poor and Housing – Reformed out of the system
Experience of Hyderabad
The case of housing for poor in urban areas has always been a widely contested and mostly acrimonious one. The issue brings out responses which these days belong to two extreme ends and with little scope for a meaningful discussion. Urban poor are widely perceived as encroachers, vagabonds, freeloaders and criminals in the circles that matter in terms of governance. There is at best a half hearted response to their genuine problems and on the issue of their basic rights like housing, livelihood, education, access to health care and so on. The popular perceptions increasingly guided by forces of neo-liberalism seem to be ignorant and apathetic to their plight.
The urban poor are left to fend for themselves in a hostile situation where they have few or none to defend their rights. The gulf between the haves and have-nots is widening. While the population of urban poor is steadily rising, housing stock for them is rapidly dwindling and land availability for the same is next to nothing.
Hyderabad, which is rapidly emerging as a metropolis is no different. Urban poor have been a neglected lot in Hyderabad for a very long time now. Affordable housing stock has always been in shortage leading to a proliferating but precariously positioned slum development. The number of slums has risen from approximately 1250 in 1995 to 2100 in 2007. Close to 37% of the population in HUA (Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration) lives in areas classified as slums or squatter settlements. The housing demand is estimated to be close to 4, 40,000 units in Hyderabad. Close to 99% of these are needed by people in EWS and LIG category. Land requirement for the above given number of units is around 3,400 acres.
Slums in Hyderabad:
The first enumeration of slums dates back to the reports of the City Improvement Board (CIB), a body created after the disastrous floods of River Musi in 1908. CIB was created on the lines of present Urban Development Authorities. It was responsible for planning and executing projects to improve the city. According to Alam (1965, p 119)[a], the CIB completed 19 slum clearance projects between 1912 and 1956, creating eight new residential colonies with 5,000 houses for middle and low income groups. CIB’s counterpart in the adjacent Secunderabad area (now part of Hyderabad city), was the Town Improvement Trust (TIT), which constructed 12,000 houses between 1931 and 1950.
After formation of Andhra Pradesh State, The Andhra Pradesh Slum Area Act of 1956 was enacted. This law is still in force without any major amendments and under the provisions of this act, the government can notify areas which are low-lying, disease-prone, or congested, as a slum. Once an area is notified as a slum, there are two possible options before the government. If the area is considered as un-safe/hazardous the people have to be shifted immediately, or, if the land is considered as safe/non-hazardous, the tenurial rights are granted to the inhabitants after due process. The process is simpler if land on which the slum is located belongs to the government, but if it is located on private lands like most of the older slums did, the government has to acquire it from the owners and then distribute titles.
Table-1: Growth of slums and slum population in MCH
| Year | No. of slums | Population |
| 1962 | 106 | 120,000 |
| 1967 | 194 | 168,000 |
| 1972 | 282 | 300,000 |
| 1976 | 300 | 320,000 |
| 1977 | Not given | 380,000 |
| 1978 | 377 | 400,000 |
| 1979 | 455 | 408,000 |
| 1981 | 470 | 540,000 |
| 1986 | 662 | 859,000 |
| 1994 | 811 | 1,259,000 |
Source Urban Community Development Report, 1995
Government initiatives to upgrade slums in Hyderabad have met with varied degree of success. The major schemes were Slum Clearance Scheme, Slum Improvement Programme, Environmental Improvement Scheme, Housing Scheme for urban poor, Integrated Urban Development Programme, Hyderabad Slum Improvement Project and the Urban Community Development Programme (UCD/UCDP). UCDP has been the most effective so far for various reasons. The project delivered about 20,000 pattas and upgraded 12,000 houses since it was started in 1967[b]
The spurt in the number of notified slums between early 70s and mid 80s can be attributed to UK Overseas Development Agency (ODA) aid for their Slum Improvement Program. The funds from this program were utilised by Urban Community Development Project (UCDP) in the Municipal Corporation. To access the funds under the program the slums had to be notified, without which there was no legal sanctity to their existence or a provision to allocate and spend money for their development. This program and the huge sums of money allocated was one of the key facilitators for large number of notified slums.
After funding under this program expired in mid 90s UCDP stopped the notification of slums. The last notification of a slum in Central Hyderabad was in 1994. Later the notification powers were transferred to Revenue department with a view to speed up the process but it never exercised the same.
The funding for the schemes of the UCD Cell has recently gained statutory provision (as UCD and Services Fund) and is constituted of 10 % of the total property tax collection of the MCH and 30 % of the per capita grants received from the State and Central Governments. This statutory provision has been made in pursuance of the 12th Schedule of the 74th amendment to the Constitution, 1994, which envisages urban poverty alleviation as a legitimate function to be undertaken by the local bodies.
The process of slum notification is a complex process of negotiations between People, Municipal Officials, Revenue Officials, Politicians, Private land owners on which the slum developed and so on. The motives are equally complex – securing votes in elections, access to project funding, real estate market pressures, pressure from agencies getting contracts for the works sanctioned in slums and so on. The ever changing government policies, guidelines and rules contributed very effectively to the chaos. (Table 2)
Another reason why slums were being notified even when they were in reality, encroachments on private properties (at least 2/3rd of notified slums in Hyderabad had come up on private properties) was the existence of ULCRA (Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976). This Act placed a limit on extent of land that can be owned by individuals residing in urban areas (in the case of Hyderabad the limit was 1000 sq.yds). Large tracts of land owned by erstwhile noble families and land holding class of Hyderabad could not be openly claimed by them due to the fear of dispossession. This act was a blessing in disguise for urban poor who could not find affordable land.
Table 2: Programs, schemes and government rules with implications for slums
| 1961: Banned the granting of pattas for government land within 10 miles radius of the limits of MCH. ( G.O. Ms. No.1122, Revenue dept., dated 29-6-1961) 1967: The Urban Community Development (UCD) Project in MCH was sanctioned as a Government of India (GOI) Centrally Sponsored Scheme in one ward with a population of 50,000. The contribution of fund for the project was in the ratio of 2: 1: 1 by the Centre, State and the MCH respectively. ( G.O. Ms. No.583, MA., dated 20-9-1967) 1969: The UCD Scheme was transferred to the State sector funding and the funding was contributed half by the State and half by the MCH. 1974: Two more UCD projects sanctioned under State funding. 1976: UNICEF funding for UCD schemes ( along with the State and MCH funds ). 1976: Slum improvement and slum housing were included as part of the UCD program, with a view to improve their living conditions and help them to construct pucca houses with loans from banks/HUDCO on plots / land holdings when pattas were assigned to them. ( G.O. Ms. No.88, Housing, dated 26-10-1976 and G.O. Ms. No.526, MA, dated 18-11-1976) 1979: ‘Weaker Sections Housing Scheme’ was started. The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited was established to formulate, promote and execute housing schemes for the weaker sections of the society in the State. 1980: 50 slums were listed as ‘objectionable’ – to be shifted to new locations where minimum infrastructure was to be provided and building of houses be facilitated. The ban on granting pattas as per the 1961 G.O. was removed . All eligible squatters / encroachers on government land were to be given pattas if in unobjectionable slums and were to be allotted alternative sites if occupying objectionable slums. Each encroacher was to be given up to 50 sq. m. of land and if occupation of land was more than 50 sq. m. the market value was to be collected for the portion in excess of 50 sq. m. ( G.O. Ms. No.3250, Revenue (L) dept., dated 24-7-1980 ) 1981: Of the 50 slums classified as ‘objectionable’, 30 were reclassified as ‘unobjectionable’ and one previously ‘unobjectionable’ slum was reclassified as ‘objectionable’. ( G.O. Ms. No.1520, Revenue (L) dept., dated 01-10-1981 ) 1981: UCD proposed to construct ( under the Habitat Slum Housing Program ) 10,000 houses in slum areas by obtaining loans from HUDCO. In the first phase it was proposed to build 3955 houses in 26 schemes by taking a loan through the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Board with a State Government guarantee. ( G.O. Ms. No.268, MA., dated 01-10-1981 ) 1981–83: The Hyderabad Slum Improvement Project Phase –I was initiated by the MCH with a proposal to develop 228 of the slums in two years with its own funds. However due to paucity of funds, only sporadic development of amenities could be taken up in 156 slums at about a fourth of the budget originally proposed..Out of 455 notified slums, 142 were covered under the ( EIS ) Environmental Improvement Scheme ( a five year plan activity that is - budgeted and funded under the five year plans ). The scheme envisaged the involvement and participation of the local people. 1983–89: The Hyderabad Slum Improvement Project Phase –II was taken up for the improvement of 210 slums. This time the financial outlay was enhanced due to the assistance from the Overseas Development Agency, United Kingdom. 1983: Under the Permanent Housing Program, permanent houses were to be built in place of the ‘hutment’s’ scheme being implemented in the ‘sites and services’ programs until then. 1989–96:The Hyderabad Slum Improvement Project Phase –III was taken up for the improvement of 300 slums. The per family expenditure norm adopted under this phase was Rs.4000/- and in addition to physical infrastructure the development programs covered socio-economic as well as health activities. This phase also received financial sanction and assistance from the Overseas Development Agency, United Kingdom 1989: Establishment of the Andhra Pradesh State Urban Development and Housing Corporation ( APSUDHC ) to cater to the development of urban areas with a special emphasis on housing in the slums and other areas occupied by the poorer sections of the society. The APSUDHC was to implement in the urban areas, the State Government’s programs of providing shelter to the weaker sections of the society, viz.: Urban Permanent Housing Program ( UPHP ) and Shelter Up gradation and Scheme for Housing (SHASU ) ( G.O. Ms. No.98, MA., dated 03-3-1989 ) 1993: Under the EWS housing scheme ( started in 1981 ) undertaken by the MCH, 13,128 units were grounded in 95 slum areas, of which 10,000 houses were completed in all aspects. This housing program was transferred to the Collectorate, Hyderabad. The District Collector who is the Executive Director of the district level office of the Andhra Pradesh State Urban Development and Housing Corporation was made in charge of the implementation of the program including planning, execution and monitoring of the program. 1997: The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited ( APSHCL ) becomes the apex agency for all public schemes for the weaker sections. The Andhra Pradesh State Urban Development and Housing Corporation’s activities and programs are transferred to the APSHCL. 1998: A new category of dwelling unit named ‘Township House’ is introduced by the APSHCL. The cost ceiling for such ‘Township Houses’ is specified as Rs.50,000. This represents the net cost of a 24 sq.m.(plinth area ) tenement completed in all respects, in a multi-storeyed building including the cost of land, and the floor space including common facilities such as the staircase and the corridor. 1998: ‘Policy Guidelines for Weaker Sections Housing in Urban Areas’ identified certain problems such as selection of genuine beneficiaries; unnecessary interference by middle men; frequent sale of assigned house sites: low level of beneficiary participation; scarcity of funds to provide civic amenities; inadequate unit cost specifications for purposes of grant of loan; etc. and established an ‘Empowered Committees’ at the district level which shall co-ordinate and monitor all the schemes in the respective districts in such a manner so as to overcome the identified problems. 1999: Relaxation of norms to expedite housing scheme in Hyderabad City. Wherever shelter up gradation programs are taken up in existing slums, to enable such schemes, particularly where reorganization of plots is resisted, the modified minimum plot size of 24 sq.m. has been permitted. The width of the internal roads also may be modified to the extent necessary instead of the otherwise minimum specified (6 m.) as long as it is motorable. Also the layout open spaces may be reduced to 5% instead of the stipulated 10%. 2001: 3,30,050 houses have been constructed by the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation so far under the urban housing program. Out of these 18,025 houses were built in Hyderabad. This figure excludes the 13,128 dwelling units built by the UCD, before the APSHCL. As per revised guidelines, houses are being allotted in the name of woman beneficiaries, wherever feasible. |
Source: Adapted from Adusumilli (2001)[c]
Housing for Poor in Hyderabad:
The availability or lack of it in terms of housing for poor in Hyderabad is highlighted by the following statistics.
Table - 3: Housing Data 1981-1991 – HUDA Area
| Parameter | 1981 | 1991 | Rate of change |
| Occupied Residential Houses | 491713 | 821508 | +67% |
| Households | 51727 | 839421 | +62% |
| Population | 2993587 | 4665950 | +55.86% |
| Persons per house | 6.09 | 5.68 | 0.41 |
| Persons per household | 5.79 | 5.56 | 0.93 |
Source: A plan for sustainable Development – Hyderabad-2020, Draft Master Plan for Hyderabad Metropolitan area, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA)
The demand in 1991 for housing was pegged at around 2,00,000 (HUDA Draft Master Plan 1994) out of which the demand for EWS and LIG housing comprised roughly 1,50,000 units.
As per estimates In 2001 the population for HUDA area is 63.83 Lakhs. This shows that the decadal increase has been 17 Lakhs from 1991 population. By 2021 it is expected to be around 136.43 Lakhs and the demand till 2021 is approximately 80,000/year to remove backlog and replacement of old buildings demand.
Supply agencies for housing to urban poor:
Government Agencies
In the early days of planning, UCD and TIT were responsible for providing housing to urban poor. Later on it was taken up by A.P. Housing Board and HUDA. Currently the unwanted burden has been shifted to Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited (APSHCL) and the District Collectorate offices of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy (Ranga Reddy district encircles the city of Hyderabad). APHB and HUDA are currently restricted to identification, acquisition/ removal of encroachments of land and auctioning the same after providing facilities like Roads, Drainage, Water supply etc.
This method of raising finances has been criticised vehemently by many. Unfortunately, the powers that be, in the state have not retracted from this modus-operandi. The amount of land allotted either free of cost, or at nominal rates, or auctioned off in the last 4 ½ years is close to 15,000 acres in areas in and around Hyderabad. Generosity displayed by the state in these allotments is alarming, considering that the asset being given away is of a permanent nature. The option of leasing out land has rarely been exercised. Land has been given away in certain cases for amounts less than Rs. 50,000/acre.
The nature of investments, objectives and activities occurring or intended to occur in these lands is quite diverse – Software Companies, Semi-Conductor manufacturing industries, Computer Hardware manufacturing units, Apparel units, Multi-product SEZs, Pharma SEZs and units, Leather industry, Hospitality industry, Educational Institutions and so on.
In many cases it has been seen that the government is one who is actually more eager to give away land to ensure that the proposed activity is grounded. The example of Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) at Mucherla village in Ranga Reddy district is a classic case. When the proponents sought 50 acres of land for setting up a University, the government suggested that they turn it into a Multi services SEZ and allotted them 250 acres of land at a mere 8-9% of the market value!![d] . There are many examples like this where land has been doled out indiscriminately. Another project where prime land is handed over is the proposed Metro Rail Project which is attracting lot of criticism for lack of transparency and heavy subsidies linked to real estate business. 270 acres of prime land in the heart of city are being handed over for a period of 35 years with an option of renewing the lease for a further 32 years.
APSHCL has so far (since 1983) built about 18,000 units for slum up gradation in Hyderabad. The norms of APSHCL specify a cost ceiling of Rs. 30,000 per house in Hyderabad for the EWS category considering a subsidy of Rs.3, 000, a loan of Rs.25, 000, and a beneficiary’s contribution of Rs.2, 000. The upper limit of income for an individual to be registered as a beneficiary was stipulated as Rs. 18,000 per annum. Where the existing densities do not permit all ground floor structures, the buildings are constructed in two or more floors. The cost ceiling enables only the grant of land tenure and the building of the RCC frame structure for the multi-level tenements. The beneficiaries are then expected to build the walls/envelope on their own. In such cases, the experience shows that the beneficiaries, do not complete the dwellings for various reasons and therefore, they remain unoccupied. The local body is expected to develop the infrastructure networks and provide the other services.
The current approach to housing being evolved by the APSHCL is to take over the ownership of a piece of government land through official transfer, develop the infrastructure networks, build the tenements, and sell the units. This would make the project integrated and ready for occupation. The cost ceiling for such ‘Township Houses’ was initially specified as Rs.50, 000/- Due to the increase in the cost of land, infrastructure development and construction, the cost ceiling of such ‘Township Houses’ has been increased to Rs.100, 000. The net cost of a 24 sq.m. (Plinth area) tenement completed in all respects, in a multi-storeyed building is thus estimated at about Rs. 100,000 at current prices. This includes the cost of land, development of on-site infrastructure and construction of floor space.
After Congress government came to power in 2004, it was announced that 1 lakh houses in Hyderabad and 1.50 lakh houses in Rangareddy would be built. Due to scarcity of land and extremely high prices, the Government banned issue of pattas in these two districts and cancelled 1,600 pattas issued by the Telugu Desam Government. When the Revenue Department Conducted Survey in October, 2007 the housing demand in Hyderabad was for 2.40 Lakhs.
Under JNNURM 49,000 Houses were sanctioned in Hyderabad – Only 5,000 have been completed and even when completed have not been allotted to beneficiaries in many cases. It is due to various reasons like, pending litigation on land, allotment of single tenement to multiple beneficiaries and consequent litigation, poor quality of housing due to which allottees are rejecting the units etc.
A major factor for the people not being receptive to government housing projects is the distance of relocation. In majority instances, the alternative housing being allocated to slum dwellers is far away from their original place of habitation. The new place also cuts out access to their old jobs and is a major dampening factor.
Most of the new projects being announced for providing housing to EWS and LIG housing are on the outskirts of the city. Instead of being developed on lands freed up after slum removal, they are being shunted away to far away places with no access to basic amenities like, clean water, sanitation, schools, electricity and, most importantly, lack of access to a livelihood. It would appear that the government is not interested in removing poverty; instead it seems only interested in removing the poor from the main city. By default, dislocation happens under the guise of relocation and hence the opposition.
Private Sector:
Supply of serviced land for housing is mostly done by Private real estate agencies which, prior to 2008 were under no obligation to provide housing to poor. The supply by private agencies is mostly by way of large plots of land and apartments for the upper middle and higher income groups. Prior to 2008 no urban development or municipal legislation in Andhra Pradesh had any specific concessions for the urban poor.
The role of public agencies like Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and UDAs is insignificant in terms of number of houses constructed. A small sample survey was made by COVA (Confederation of Voluntary Agencies) a NGO; of HUDA approved residential layouts and the following details emerged:
An average plot size of 273 sq.m. (350 sq.yds) is far beyond the reach of most salaried persons even in the upper middle-income groups. All others therefore depend on the supply from developers who sell plots with/without development of amenities and without taking permission from the UDAs and local bodies. These are commonly classified as unauthorised layouts. The main motivation for unauthorized layouts is the low cost compared to land in Authorised layouts. A history of government regularising unauthorised layouts on payment of penalty on occasions helps. The latest regularisation drive of layouts is in progress, spread across the length and breadth of urban Andhra Pradesh and will help the middle and upper middle classes only, without much relief for lower middle class weaker sections.
Reforms and Policy Changes:
The progression of government policies and projects is a mixed bag of tall promises and short achievements. On one hand a slew of projects and reforms intended to address the housing shortage are being announced, whereas, the end results are counter productive.
The plan budgets for EWS and LIG locations are increasing while spending is stagnant or going down. The plan allocations and actual utilisation are a conclusive proof that the promises are far from being implemented. The allocation and spending disparity is clearly reflected from the table* below which shows the spending of UCD (Urban Community Development) project wing of GHMC (Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) which is responsible for creating and developing infrastructure for urban poor in Hyderabad city.
Table 3
In Lakhs
| Year | Amount Budgeted | Actual Amount Spent |
| 2002-2003 | 3990 | 1420 |
| 2003-2004 | 2150 | 900 |
| 2004-2005 | 4537 | 1175 |
| 2005-2006 | 7880 | 2250 |
* - Information received under Right to Information Act.
JNNURM, the flagship programme of UPA for urban revival has been touted as the cure to ailing cities and has been aggressively pushed across the length and breadth of urban India and Hyderabad is one of the 7 major cities apart from 56 other smaller cities to be covered under this scheme. The total finances expected to pour in, into Hyderabad at the end of 7 years of the mission are more than Rs. 40,000 crores. This mission mode project has been launched in December 2005 and is a 7 year programme.
Under this program the Central, State and Local (Municipal Corporation) governments are expected to invest in key projects to help in the revival of cities facing a lack of funds and hence unable to develop. The Central government share is a grant. The programme has certain key policy and legislative changes which are mandatory. It is claimed that these changes will improve the finances, governance and growth of the city and help in the overall economic resurgence of the areas. The claims, however, are falling woefully short when counter posed against the reality.
A City Development Plan (CDP) is mandatory for any city to access funds under this mission. The CDP comprises of sectoral plans for the identified sectors for a time horizon of 20 years outlining policy framework and investment interventions to achieve the vision.
The document titled “Guidelines for Project Proposal” issued to all the cities involved clearly states the following:
“The origin of project concepts is expected to be done by the concerned urban local body (ULB) governing the eligible city. The proposal for every such city is to be prepared by the concerned local body governing the city and/or the State government and through a consultative or participatory process with community participation”.
According to guidelines issued, the CDP should have emerged as a result of bottom-up discussions. The opposite has happened in the case of Hyderabad city. An existing CDS (City Development Strategy) document which was the product of UN-HABITAT project was used to prepare the CDP. CDS was prepared with minimal citizen participation.
Key objectives of CDP are:
- Enhancing City Productivity
- Reducing Poverty
- Improving Urban Governance and
- Enhancing Financial Sustainability
The CDP which thus emerged out of CDS was equally insensitive to demands from the voiceless urban poor.
The evaluation of CDP by NIUA (National Institute of Urban Affairs) came to the same conclusion but was very diplomatic while stating so (See Box Below).
The reforms have actually created a situation where urban land is prominently, the key growth engine. This growth engine, unfortunately, drives events which result in benefits accruing to a miniscule proportion of the population.
An analysis of major developments in the recent past triggered by Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) will help one in understanding things better.
- Repeal of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (ULCRA), 1976
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this Act was to secure land for all in urban areas by limiting the amount of land that can be owned an individual in an urban area. The limit fixed in Hyderabad was 1000 sq.yds/person. This Act was never implemented in the right spirit due to clout of landed class who were in key positions to influence the enforcing mechanism to go slow. However, to its credit, this law did help in freeing large tracts of urban land from the clutches of few people.
The land thus freed up helped in keeping the land prices in check. The landed class, however, did resort to a multitude of ways to escape from this Act. Land was registered in names of proxy persons, joint properties were sub divided into numerous units, multiple registrations in the name of same person, which, could not checked due to an outdated system of land registration and so on.
As part of mandatory reforms to be implemented by any city/state intending to access funds from the Central govt. under this programme, ULCRA had to be scrapped completely. Andhra Pradesh government has accordingly repealed the Act, in March 2008. The government has announced a scheme for regularising lands held in violation of ULCRA before the repeal and not surprisingly, applications requesting for regularisation to the tune of 18,000 acres have come in Hyderabad city alone. Apart from these another 28,000 acres of land in various stages of litigation in different courts of law will also escape from the application of this law.
The huge amount of land clearly shows that the Act has never been implemented fully and that the landed gentry have escaped from its provisions by various methods and means. In contrast the land requirement for EWS and LIG housing in Hyderabad and surroundings in only 3,400 acres till 2021. While the government has been busy allotting land to corporates to the tune of 15,000 acres, the poor, searching for housing have been suffering.
Government announced Rajiv Swagruha programme with much fanfare to cater to the demands of lower income and moderate income class of people. In Hyderabad alone the programme received more than 60,000 applications which are not processed even after 2 years due to a shortage of land availability in the city and surroundings. The scrapping of ULCRA will make availability of land that much more difficult as there is no legal obligation anymore, to surrender land. The state of affairs clearly reflects the priorities of ruling class – rich over the poor.
- Earmarking at least 20-25 per cent of developed land in all housing projects (both public and private agencies) for EWS/LIG category with a system of cross subsidization
As per this reform requirement, the local bodies and government had to ensure that at least 20-25 percent of developed land in all housing projects is allocated to EWS/LIG categories. The legal requirement was fulfilled by incorporating some provisions into the Master Plan of Hyderabad vide G.O. Ms.No. 288 Dated: 3rd April 2008. While the requirement was to allocate 20-25 percent, the government fixed the limit at 15 % (5% for EWS and 10% for LIG). This is a huge cut of 5-10% in land allocations across the city and is a huge loss against which there was no informed debate/opposition. The realtors on the other hand have raised a hue and cry and have challenged the Master Plan provisions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming irreparable damages if it were to be enforced. While the case awaits adjudication the government has further modified this GO through G O Ms No. 526 Dated: 31st July 2008 and reduced it to 10% (5% for EWS and 5% for LIG). At this point an intervention petition has been filed in High Court by groups working for Housing Rights on the need to enforce GO 288 as per the agreement signed with Central Government under JNNURM. The case awaits a decision.
Both the GOs show a nexus of Politicians and Bureaucrats with Real Estate developers and attempts to undermine the efforts of reforms. Unfortunately the central government which could have immediately stopped/suspended funding the project for non-compliance has not taken any action in spite of repeated appeals. This clearly shows preferences of the ruling class which are against the urban and unsheltered poor.
- Forced Relocation to New Housing Projects
Since 2005, after the launch of JNNURM and the massive funding for urban poor housing, most of the notified slums, along with many squatter settlements in Hyderabad, are facing the threat of eviction. This pressure of eviction is increasing because of the repeal of ULCRA due to which the dormant original landowners are increasing their attempts to “reclaim” their land. The magnitude of the problem is understood when one realises the fact that nearly two thirds of slums in Hyderabad are located on private lands.
The threat is from various quarters like local real estate developers and land mafia, bureaucrats under pressure from their superiors to meet the targets for the housing programmes initiated with JNNURM funding.
A large number of people in notified slums do not want to move out because of the organic linkages they have developed over years with their neighbourhoods. The relocation and resettlement sites have been till now only on the outskirts of the city, in spite of demands to locate the new housing stock in the same area of present settlement. This is due to the fact that most of them are located on lands of high real estate value. The lands for resettlement projects are relatively cheaper being on the outskirts. The whole process is intended to unlock the value of land by dispossessing the poor who are in possession of it.
The average distance of relocation has been around 17km and most of the relocation sites do not have sufficient access to civic amenities. The new housing projects have a standard G+3 (Ground + 3 floors) model design which does not give them the flexibility of their earlier homes in terms of maximisation of potential of space by innovative and creative designs. Further scope for additional built up area does not exist. The design of these houses is insensitive to requirements of women and elderly.
Access to public transport is minimal in the current scenario and the future public transportation projects also will bypass these areas. This makes them highly dependant on private operators which is very expensive. In some instances the expenditure on transport to work and back is as high as 22% of the daily wages! This coupled with other reasons like lack of access to healthcare, education and fear of termination of existing opportunities of livelihood, severance of existing social networks and lack of political leverage in the new area, makes the slum dwellers extremely reluctant to move to the resettlement colonies. One other major factor is the quality of construction of the new housing stock – which is very poor.
There is however on the other hand a large segment of slum dwelling population which does not have any shelter and which feels that it need not repay for the new houses in future which is willing to migrate to these new dwellings.
Conclusion
Housing for poor in Hyderabad has been neglected over the years and more so in the recent past. Agencies which were supposed to have built and delivered housing stock to poor have fallen woefully short in catering to the demand. Instead of correcting this trend, recent governments have allowed and abetted this trend. By not utilising provisions incorporated in laws like ULCRA which try to redistribute scarce resources like urban land in equitable manner, the governments seem to have done away with the directive principles of Constitution of India and have consciously moved away from the concept of a welfare state.
Citing scarcity of land for housing urban poor and simultaneously gifting away urban land at nominal rates to rich corporate entities reeks of double standards at the highest level.
The neoliberal reforms being pushed through under the guise of urban renewal in the form of JNNURM, Housing Reforms, etc. are pushing urban poor to the brink by severing the social ties and tearing apart their livelihoods.
[a] Alam, S. M. 1965. Hyderabad-Secunderabad, Twin Cities: A study in urban geography: Allied Publishers.
[b] Irfan Basha, “Urban Land and Access to poor- A case study in Hyderabad” (Chapter 9), in Rekindling Hope?, A.P Social Watch Report 2007.
[c] Adusumilli, U. 2001. Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading: Hyderabad, India. Paper read at International Workshop on Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading, May 17, at Bourton-on-Dunsmore.
