Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
130
CHAPTER VI
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PRIVATE HOUSING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND LAND DEVELOPERS
WITH HUDCO, KHB and MUDA
6.1. BRIEF HISTORY AND FUNCTIONS OF HUDCO,KHB AND MUDA
Three important governmental agencies are involved in providing shelter to the
people of Mysore city. They are HUDCO, KHB, and MUDA. This chapter is the
study of brief history and function of HUDCO, KHB and MUDA. The spatio-
temporal analysis and comparative study of private housing co-operative societies and
land developers will also be studied in this chapter.
6.1.1. Housing and Urban Development Corporation-HUDCO
HUDCO-Housing and Urban Development Corporation was established on April 25,
1970. It is an organization fully owned by the Government of India. The Government
institutions channelized their housing finance to HUDCO making it a financial-
technical institution. This in turn enabled it to empower housing boards and
development agencies under the jurisdiction of the state government with limited
resources at its disposal, more resourceful and powerful.
The allocation of HUDCO was under four categories-HIG, MIG, LIG, and EWS.
Moreover LIG had lower interest loan and longer repayment period as compared to
HIG. This meant subsidies in favour of LIG. The housing board, slum improvement
agencies and other government development institutions had been largely dependent
upon HUDCO. As mentioned earlier, a large part of funds was provided to HUDCO
by LIC and GIC. Apart from this, the central government allocates equity capital to
HUDCO through five year plan provisions. From 1987 onwards, the central
government has enabled HUDCO to have a greater excess to market funds. HUDCO
receives applications from the housing boards and development agencies which are
under the jurisdiction of the state governments to support their housing projects.
These projects are assessed for their technical and financial feasibility. Then, loan
agreements are signed and HUDCO monitors the performance of the project. The
131
distribution of funds amongst the states is formula based. In recent years HUDCO
has widened its activities like searching for cheaper building technology, running
training courses in housing administration with relevance to lower income housing.
6.1.1. a. Objectives of HUDCO
To extend long tern finance for construction of residential complexes or to
undertake housing and urban development programs in the country.
To Finance or undertake building of new or satellite town, either wholly or
partly.
Subscribe to the debentures and bonds to be issued by the State Housing (and
or Urban Development) Boards, Improvement Trusts, Development
Authorities, etc., specifically for the purpose of financing housing and urban
development programs.
To fund or take up the setting up of industrial enterprises of building material.
To manage the money received from the Government of India and other
sources as grants or otherwise, for the purpose of financing or undertaking
housing and urban development programs in the country.
To promote, establish, assist, collaborate, and provide consultancy services for
the projects of designing and planning of works related to Housing and Urban
Development programs in India and abroad.
HUDCO has played a stellar role in the implementation of National Housing Policy. It
has been entrusted with the implementation of the priority programmes of the
Ministry like low cost sanitation, slum up gradation staff Housing, Night Shelter for
Footpath Dwellers and Shelter up gradation under Nehru Rozgar Yojana, Rural
Housing under Minimum Needs Programme. Although the commercial banks and the
housing finance companies are doing brisk business in the housing finance sector, the
housing needs of the poor and low income groups have remained unaddressed. In
such a scenario, HUDCO‘s role has become even more significant. In spite of its
commercial orientation, HUDCO has adopted a policy of preferential allocation of
resources to the socially disadvantaged. It continues to emphasize on sectors which
are more socially relevant rather than only commercially viable and profitable sectors.
HUDCO‘s social orientation is evident from the fact that most of houses finance by
132
HUDCO are for the benefit of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low
Income categories. Apart from the corporate office at Delhi, HUDCO functions under
a zonal office, a research & training institute, 20 regional offices, 34 retail finance
units and 9 development offices. HUDCO has been conferred with an award for being
No.1 institution in Construction of Dwelling Units for Poor Sections, by ―Business
Sphere‖ Magazine.
In the city of Mysore, the work of the HUDCO is not worth mentioning. It has
constructed houses prior to 1980 only in three areas of the city, namely
Kuvempunagara, Gangothri Layout and Gayathripuram. In all, it has constructed 1423
EWS, 908 LIG, 454 MIG, and 98 HIG houses. At present HUDCO is not constructing
any houses in the city of Mysore.
6.1. 2. Karnataka Housing Board – KHB
KHB-established under Karnataka Housing Board Act 1962 as a successor to Mysore
Housing Board was constituted in 1956. The primary objective of KHB is ― to make
such schemes and to carry out such works which are necessary for the purpose of
dealing with and satisfying the need of housing accommodation‖. With this directive
KHB endeavors to provide housing to the people of Karnataka at affordable cost and
is therefore recognized as the most important agency for housing throughout
Karnataka.
KHB is headed by a Chairman and a Board comprising 13 members. The Board
consists of 8 officials and 5 non-official members. The Housing Commissioner,
appointed by the Government is the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer of
the Board and a member of the Board. The Act also provides for appointment of Chief
Engineer (General Manager- Technical) and Secretary (General Manager-
Administration & HR). KHB undertakes layout formation, housing schemes and land
development schemes as envisaged in the Act and subject to the control of the State
Government. The schemes are: Composite Housing Schemes (CHS), Group Housing
schemes Multi-storied Apartments, Labour Housing Schemes Sites & Services
Schemes, Satellite Towns and Layouts and Commercial Plazas.
KHB endeavors to meet the housing requirement to all class of people viz., Low
income Group (LIG), Middle Income Group (MIG) and High Income Group (HIG)
133
categories, KHB townships are provided with basic infrastructure such as asphalted
roads, drinking water, electricity, underground drainage etc. KHB townships provides
civic cum commercial complexes in developed areas. Bigger townships have
commercial plazas. KHB takes care of maintenance of each township till it is handed
over to local municipal bodies. Road repairs, garbage clearance, street light
maintenance, security are taken care of KHB ensures electricity and water supply
from local authorities. KHB has project implementation Unit (PIU) and customer
service unit (CSU) in each of its township and layouts. PIU functions pro-actively to
make living better. CSU is actively interacting with customers and it responds in time
to keep customers satisfied.
6.1. 3. Mysore Urban Development Authority – MUDA
The City of Mysore owes its rich heritage and good planning to erstwhile City
Improvement Trust Board (CITB) which was founded by His Highness Sri Nalwadi
Krishna Raja Wodeyar - IV and it holds the proud distinction of being the oldest
planning institution in Asia. Innovative planning combined with a humanitarian
approach had been the hallmark of this City Improvement Trust Board. The present
inheritor of the C.I.T.B. is the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) which
aspires to carry forward the same high standards set by the C.I.T.B. along with
adopting new technology and techniques to take Mysore on a steep growth curve.
Mysore can boast of having set up the first City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) in
the country way back in 1903. On account of this Act the city has better planned
extensions and housing. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 – regulation
and planned growth of land – use and development of Town Planning Schemes
commenced from 1966. The planning authority prepared the O.D.P for Mysore City
in 1972. The proposed conurbation area was 58.38 Sq.Km for an estimated population
of 5 lakhs by 1986. The C.D.P prepared by the planning authority was approved in
1981 and the proposed conurbation area was 91.37 sq.km, for an estimated population
of 7 Lakhs by 2001 AD. Subsequently Nanjangud Town Planning Area was
amalgamated with Mysore Planning Area and called it as the ‗Mysore-Nanjangud
Local Planning Area‘ in 1984 and in 1988 it was declared as local planning area for
the ‗Environs of Mysore-Nanjangud Local Planning Area‘ covering an extent of
495.32 Sq.km. The Government of Karnataka established the Urban Development
134
Authorities for the planned development of major and important urban areas in the
State and the area adjacent there to and to matters connected herewith under the
Karnataka Urban Developemnt Authorities Act 1987. As per the said Act, the City
Improvement Trust Board (CITB), Mysore and Local Planning Authority of Mysore
was amalgamated and the present Mysore Urban Developemnt Authority came into
existence with the onus of developing the city of Mysore in a manner which preserves
its diverse heritage and culture, to carry the specific ecology features and to provide
the city world class infrastructure so that Mysore becomes a centre of tourism,
education and industries.
MUDA was constituted on 16th
May 1988. Mysore Urban Development Authority
(MUDA) combined in itself the planning functions of the City and Planning authority
and the development functions of the erstwhile MUDA. The Comprehensive
Development Plan of Mysore was revised in 1997 due to rapid industrialization,
population growth, changed economic activities, and land-use. Various industries
including the IT industries form the chief economic base of the city and are also the
main contributors for the development of the city. Mysore acts as an important
agricultural product market and a commercial centre for the neighboring settlements.
As per the KUDA Act 1987, the Commissioner is the Chief Administrator and Chief
Executive of MUDA. The Chairman heads the MUDA. Mysore is growing rapidly in
all sectors. To fulfill the housing requirements of the ever-increasing population,
changes of land-use need to be envisaged, and development needs to be planned
accordingly. The supporting services like water supply, sanitation, electricity,
transportation, etc, need to be planned. MUDA is in the process of revising the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
6.3.1. a. Functions of MUDA
The Mysore Urban Development Authority performs planning and development
functions in the areas within the limits of MUDA.
6.3.1. b. Planning
The Mysore Urban Development Authority is designated as the Planning Authority
under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The planning functions
in brief involve the following: preparation of development plan for Mysore‘
135
preparation of scheme plans; approval of development plans for group housing and
layouts, approval of building plans, other statutory functions under KTCP Act.
6.3.1. c. Development
In addition to the planning functions, the MUDA Act envisages the following
development functions: planning and implementation of schemes for residential sites,
commercial sites, industrial sites, civic amenity sites, parks and playground,
construction of commercial complexes, construction of houses for Economically
weaker sections, Low income Group, Middle income Group, High Income Group and
development of major infrastructure facilities
6.3.1. d. Organization
The authority has the following departments, viz.:
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department is primarily concerned with
the execution of various developmental schemes in the layouts and also infrastructural
works. This department also monitors the execution of water supply and underground
drainage works of MUDA.
Town Planning Department: The town planning department is responsible for
preparation and revision of the comprehensive development plan for Mysore &
Nanjangud area, preparation of layout plans, approval of development plans for
layouts and group housing schemes and generally assists the authority in its function
as the planning authority for Mysore.
Law Department
The law department advises the authority on various legal issues, and handles
litigation by and against the authority in various courts, etc.
General Administration Department & Site Section
The administration department handles all matters pertaining to allotment of sites,
shops, and houses, assessment of property tax, leases, and shop rents. The department
is also entrusted with the responsibility for all establishment and general
administrative matters.
136
Auction Department
Auction section deals with the auctioning of the corner and intermediate sites of the
authority as per the provisions of the KUDA Act.
6.2. SPATIO- TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF KHB IN MYSORE CITY
Prior to 1981(from1973) KHB had developed many layouts mostly in the old Mysore
city(table 6.1) by acquiring land of 7350 acres and constructed houses of different
categories namely HIG, MIG, LIG, EWS, and others- altogether 1547. In the same
period it had developed land in an area 13.25 acre in Kesere and constructed 756
houses for different groups. The extension of new Mysore city has attracted the
attention of KHB in the same period. KHB with a mega project has constructed 7203
houses of different categories in the vicinity of Mysore like Metagalli, Utagalli,
Gayathripuram etc by acquiring an area of 308 acres of land.
Till the year 1981, out of the total 9506 houses constructed by KHB 1870 belongs to
EWS, 3448 to LIG, 1542 to MIG only 264 to Higher income group and the rest of
2236 belongs to other category. The noticeable point is that the priority of the KHB is
for EWS and LIG groups. As per the data available and the information given by the
officials, KHB is coming up with a layout in the city after 33 years. It has plans to
developed 1123 acres of land in Daripura, Dhanagalli, Kenchalgudu, Udburu,
Kalalavai, Yalachahalli, Gungural Chatra and Kallur Naganahalli at a whooping cost
of Rs 589 crore. In all 6,233 sites and 217 houses will be built which is a composite
housing scheme. It abuts swathes of barren land part of which is under development.
The exact dimension, number of sites and types of houses in each village is not
planned yet.
137
Table 6.1Spatio -Temporal Analysis of KHB in Mysore city
Source: K.H.B. Mysore.
6.3. SPATIAO TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF MUDA
6.3.1. Spatio Temporal Analysis of MUDA Prior To 1981
The MUDA has formed many layouts and distributed nearly 35,000 sites and 10,000
houses after it came into existence. It has also handed over the developed layouts to
Mysore City Corporation for further maintenance. Vijayanagara Layout Fist , Second,
Third, and Fourth stage, formed by the Authority, is the biggest layout in South Asia,
Covering an area of nearly 2000 acres having 25,000 sites. Till date nearly 2.48 lakhs
of applicants are waiting for sites from MUDA. For the purpose of study it has been
divided into two sections as prior to 1981 and 1981 to 2012.
Prior to 1981 MUDA (table 6.2)acquired 2141 acres of land both in old Mysore city
and in fringe villages namely Irangere, Belavatha, Kesare, Sathagalli, Devanuru,
Sl
N
o
Name of the area Year Area in
acres
EW
S
LIG MIG HI
G
OTHER
S
Tota
l
1 Old Mysore Prior to 1981 7350..5 514 1004 249 0 180 1547
2 Kesare Prior to 1981 13.25 168 0 0 0 588 756
3 New Mysore City Prior to 1981 308.7 1188 2444 1293 264 1468 7203
4 Daripura/
Danagalli
2010 200 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Kenchalagudu 2010 161.2 0 0 0 0 0 0
6
Gungralchatra,Yel
challi,
Kallurnaganahalli,
2010 385.1 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Udburu/
Kalalavadi
2010 204.12 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8623.0
0
9506
138
Hanchya,Bogadhi, Mlalavadi,Maragiowdanahalli, Rammanahalli, Kyathamaranahalli,
and Kurubarahalli under Asha Mandhir Yojana.
Table 6.2: Spatiao Temporal Analysis of MUDA Prior to 1981
Sl No. Name of the Village Area in
acquired
(hectare)
1 Irangere, Belavatha, Kesare,Sathagalli,Devanuru, Bogadi,
Malalavadi,Maragiowdanahalli,Hanchya,Rammanahalli,
Kyathamaranahalli, Kurubarahalli. East Medara Block,
N.R.Mohalla north, Mysore, East of Yadavagiri, Bamboo bazar
Layout, Metagalli, N.R.Mohalla East NorthEast of N.R.Mohalla
East Mysore, Karanji tank, Kurubarahalli, Giriyabovipalya,
Bannimantapa, Yadavagiri, Bannimantapa Mahadevapura,
Gayathripuram,Kyathamaranahalli Bade makan,Subashnagara,
Jayanagara,Bannimantapa Layout, Bannimantapa,Saraswathipuram,
Tonachikoppal,Bannimantapa,MahadevapuraLayout, Gokulam4th
Stage, Mahadevapura Layout, Yadavagiri, Gokulam4th Stage, East
of Mysore, Bannimantapa , Layout, Mahadevapura Mysore City,
North East Bannimantapa.
2141
Total 12 2141
Source: MUDA, Mysore.
6.3.2. Spatio -temporal Analysis of MUDA from 1981to 2011 onwards
For four decades, MUDA has developed 23 layouts out of 7141 acres of land in
different villages of Mysore taluk
139
Table 6.3: Spatio Temporal Analysis of MUDA from 1981to 2011 onwards
Sl
N o
Year Villages/Layouts No. of
Layouts
Area in
hectares
1 1981-
1990
NachanhallipalyaVijayanagaralayout,
VijayashreepuraLayout,Bogadi Layout,
4 1558(21.8%)
2 1991-
2000
Vijayanagara3rd stage,Dattagalli,
Vijayanagara 4th
stage,Vijayanagara 4th
stage 1st& 3
rdphase,Devanure
2nd
stage,Sathagalli 2nd
stage,Alanahalli
2nd
stage,Bogadi 3rd
stage,Devanure
3rd
stage,NadanahalliLayout,Nachanahalli
3rd
stage, Nachanahalli
3rd
stage,SanthaveriGopalgowdannagara
Devanure2nd
and 3rd
Stage,
14 4702(65.8%)
3 2001-
2010
LalBahudurShatrinagara,RavindranathTya
gorelayout,Lalithadrpuralayout, Devanure
1st stage, Alanahalli Devanure 1
ststage
05 881(12.3%)
4 2011-
2012
Nil 0.00 000(0.0%)
Total 23 7141
Source: MUDA, Mysore.
140
6.3.2. a. 1981-1990
During this period MUDA has acquired 22% of the land (table 6.2 & map 6.1) that is
about 1558 acres of land and developed four layouts at Nachanhallipalya,
Vijayanagara, Vijayashreepura, and Bogadi which are at a distance of 6 kms from the
city centre. The maximum area is acquired in the village Bogadi followed by
Nachanhallipalya.
Map 6.1 Spatio Temporal growth of MUDA 1981to 1990
141
6.3.2.b. 1991-2000
This is an important decade in the spatial growth of Mysore. During this period
MUDA acquired a maximum of 65.8% of the land (table 6.2 & map 6.2) accounting
to 4702 acres in and around nine kms from the city centre and developed fourteen
layouts at Vijayanagara3rd stage, Vijayanagara 4th
stage, Vijayanagara 4th
stage 1st&
3rd
phase (Basavanahalli), Devanure 2nd and 3
stage, Sathagalli 2nd
stage, Alanahalli
2nd
stage, Bogadi 3rd
stage, Dattagalli, Nadanahalli, Nachanahalli 3rd
stage and
Santhaveri Gopalgowdannagara. The maximum area is acquired in the village
Basavanahalli for Vijayanagara layout which is one the largest layout in Asia
followed by Bogadhi, Alanahalli.
Map 6.2 Spatio Temporal growth of MUDA 1991to 2000
142
6.3.2. c. 2001-2010
After a great spatial expansion in the last decade MUDA has slowed down its layout
development in 1991 to 2000. This indirectly helped private housing co-operatives
and land developers. During this period MUDA has acquired only 12.3% of the land
(table 6.2 & map 6.3) accounted to 881 acres in and around 12 kms from the city
centre and developed five layouts at Lal Bhudur Shastrinagara, Rabindranath Tagore
layout, Lalithadripura layout, Devanur 1st stage, and Alanahalli. The maximum area
is acquired in the village Yandhalli for Ravindranathayanagara layout by
Lalithadripura, Alanahalli and Bogadhi.After 2011 the MUDA has completely
stopped its work of developing layouts in Mysore city.
Map 6.3 Spatio Temporal growth of MUDA 2001to 2010
143
6.4. COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN MUDA AND PRIVATE HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND LAND DEVELOPERS
Even though MUDA has not actively involved in the development of layouts after
2010, since 1981 to 2011 MUDA has .06% ahead to Pvt. Housing cooperative
societies and land developers in acquiring the land. Pvt. Housing cooperative
societies and land developers has acquired 8.50% of land and MUDA 8.56% out of
total 17.06% of the land from 72 villages. The decadal comparison is given below in
the table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Comparison between MUDA and Private Housing cooperative societies
and Land Developers
Sl
no
Year Villages No. of
Layouts
Area in % Tota
l
Muda P.L.D Mud
a
P.L.
D
Mud
a
P.L.
D
1 1981
-
1990
Nachanhalli palya
Vijayanagaralayout,
Vijayashreepura
Layout, Bogadi
Layout,
Alanahalli,Kyatha
maranahalli,Sathag
alli,Hebbalu,
Bhogadi,Srirampur
a
Chamundivihar,Sat
hagalli,Yaraganaha
lli,=9
4 18 1.86 1.01 2.88
2 1991
-
2000
Vijayanagara3rd
stage,Dattagalli,
Vijayanagara 4th
stage,Vijayanagara
4th
stage 1st&
3rd
phase,Devanure
2nd
stage,Sathagalli
2nd
stage,Alanahalli
2nd
stage,Bogadi 3rd
stage,Devanure
3rd
stage,Nadanahalli
Layout,Nachanahalli
3rd
stage,
Nachanahalli
3rd
stage,SanthaveriG
opalgowdannagara, ,
Devanure2nd
and
3rd
Stage,
Avverahalli,Nazar
bad,Lingambudi,K
urubarahalli,EggaL
ayout,Madagahall,
Sathagalli,Nachana
halli,Nandanahalli,
Lalithadripura,Han
chya,Kythamarana
halli,Kesare,Kergal
li,Dattagalli,Yerag
anahalli,Srirampur
a,Bhogadi,Hebalu,
Alanahalli,Hinkal,
=21
14 59 5.64 1.57 7.21
144
3 2001
-
2010
LalBhudurShatrinag
ara,RavindranathTy
agorelayout,Lalithad
rpuralayout,Devanur
e 1st stage,
Alanahalli
,Devanure 1ststage
Lingambudi,Kurub
arahalli,Eggalayout
,Madagahall,Satha
galli,Nachanahalli,
Nandanahalli,Lalit
hadripura,Hanchya
,Kythamaranahalli,
Kesare,Kergalli,Da
nagalli,Dattagalli,
Yeraganahalli,Srira
mpura,Bhogadi,He
balu,Alanahalli,Hi
nkal,Basavanahalli
,Chikkaharadanaha
lli,Bhugathagalli,K
uppalu.=24
05 494 1.05 3.90 4.96
4 2011
-
2012
Nil Lingambudi,Kurub
arahalli,Eggalayout
,Madagahall,Satha
galli,Nachanahalli,
Nandanahalli,Lalit
hadripura,Hanchya
,Kythamaranahalli,
Kesare,Kergalli,Da
nagalli,Dattagalli,
Yeraganahalli,Srira
mpura,Bhogadi,He
baluAlanahalli,Hin
kalBasavanahalli,C
hikkaharadanahalli
,Bhugathagalli,Ku
ppalu.=24
0.00 257 0.00 2.01 2.01
To
tal
23 828 8.56 8.50 17.0
6
Source: MUDA.
145
Table 6.4: a. Number of Layouts
YEAR MUDA PHCS&LD
1981-1990 4 18
1991-2000 14 59
2001-2010 05 494
2011-2012 00 257
Source: MUDA.
Unpaired t test results
P value of statistical significance:
The two –tailed P value equals 0.1144
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically
significant.
Intermediate values used in calculations:
T=1.8462
Df=6
Standard error of difference = 109.010
Table 6.4.b Area in % (to the total area of the village)
YEAR MUDA PHCS&LD
1981-1990 1.86 1.01
1991-2000 5.64 1.67
2001-2010 1.05 3.90
2011> 00 2.01
Source: MUDA.
146
Top of Form
Unpaired t test results
P value of statistical significance:
The two –tailed P value equals 0.9917
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically
significant.
Intermediate values used in calculations:
T=0.0109
Df =6
Standard error of difference = 1.379
In the first phase of development during 1981-1990, 345.34 acres that is 1.01% of
total land has been acquired by the private co-operative societies and land developers
(table 6.4 & map 6.4) in 9 villages namely Alanahally, Kyathamaranahalli, Hebbal,
Srirampura, Chamundviihar, Sathagally, Yeraganahalli and Bogadhi which are at a
distance of about 6 Kms. During the same period MUDA had acquired 1.8% of the
total 2.88% of land (table 6.4 & map 6.4) that is about 1558 acres of land acquired in
four villages namely Nachanhallipalya, Vijayanagara,(Basavanahalli)
Vijayashreepura, and Bhogadi which are at the same distance of 6 kms from the city
centre. The maximum area is acquired by private housing co-operative societies and
land developers in the villages of Chamundibetta, Satagalli and Alanahalli and
MUDA in the villages of Bhogadi and Nachanhallipalya. 18 layouts were developed
by private housing co-operative societies and distributed 4639 sites to its members
where as MUDA has developed only four layouts.
147
Map6.4 Comparative Study of Private Housing cooperative societies and Land
Developers MUDA: 1981-1990
During 1991-2000, Mysore city witnessed a spatial expansion from 6 kms. to 9 kms.
In this decade private housing co-operative societies and land developers acquired
3346 acres of land that is 1.57% of the total land in 23 (map 6.5.) villages namely,
Averahalli,Nazarbad,Lingambudi,Kurubarahalli,EdigaLayout,Madagahalli,Sathagally
,Nachanahally,Nadanahally,Lalithadripura,Hanchya,Kyathamaranahalli.Hanchya,Kes
are,Keragalli,Nadanahally,Dattagalli,Yeraganahalli,Srirampura,Bogadi,Hebbal,Alana
hally,Hinka by developing nearly 59 layouts and distributed 17981 sites to its
members. Where as MUDA has acquired maximum of 5.64% of the land (map 6.5)
accounted to 4702 acres in and around the same vicinity of nine kms and developed
fourteen layouts at Vijayanagara 3rd stage, Vijayanagara 4th
stage, Vijayanagara 4th
stage 1st& 3
rdphase (Basavanahalli), Devanure 2
nd and3
rd stage, Sathagalli 2
ndstage,
Alanahalli 2nd
stage, Bogadi 3rd
stage, Dattagalli, Nadanahalli, Nachanahalli 3rd
stage
and Santhaveri Gopalgowda nagara. The maximum area is acquired in the village
Basavanahalli for Vijayanagara by MUDA and Nagarthalli by private housing
societies.
148
Map 6.5 Comparative Study of Private Housing cooperative societies and Land
Developers MUDA: 1991-2000
During 2001-2010 the spatial expansion is from 9 to 12 kms. Private housing
societies and land developers acquired 3346 acres of land in 28 villages which
accounted to 3.90% of total land in the villages (map 6.6) namely Lingambudi,
Kurubarahalli, EdigaLayout, Madagahalli, Sathagally, Nachanahally, Nadanahally,
Lalithadripura, Hanchya, Kyathamaranahalli, Kesare, Keragalli, Nadanahally,
Dattagalli, Yeraganahalli, Srirampura, Bogadi, Hebbal, Alanahally, Hinkal,
Kyathamaranahalli, Basavanahalli, Chikkahara, Danahalli, Bugathagalli and
Kuppalur. They developed nearly 494 layouts and distributed 38658 sites to its
members. MUDA has acquired only 1.05. % of the land (map 6.5) accounting to 881
acres and developed five layouts at Lal Bahadur Shastrinagara, Ravindranath Tagore
layout, Lalithadri pura layout, Devanure 1st stage, and Alanahalli. The maximum
area is acquired in the village Yandhalli for Ravindranathayanagara followed by
Lalithadripura and Bogadhi by MUDA where as Madagarahalli, Lingabhudhi,
Kuppualur and Hanchya have been acquired by private housing co-operative societies
and land developers.
149
2011 onwards. For the first two decades MUDA has slight edge over private housing
co-operative societies and land developers in acquiring land for layout developments.
But for the next two decades it is the role of private housing co-operative societies
and land developers. The fourth phase starts from 2011 onwards where MUDA has
completely stopped in developing new layouts in the city. By the end of 2012 private
housing cooperative societies and land developers acquired nearly 1.01% of total land
amounted 1727 acres in one year, if the same trend continues for the coming year
Mysore city will be expanded at least 25kms by the end of this decade.
In one year from 2011 to 2012 the spatial expansion is from 12 to 16 kms. 257 lay
outs were developed by distributing13868 sites of various dimensions in 28 villages
namely Lingambudi, Kurubarahalli, EdigaLayout, Madagahalli, Sathagally,
Nachanahally, Nadanahally, Lalithadripura, Hanchya, Kyathamaranahalli, Hanchya,
Kesare, Keragalli, Nadanahally, Dattagalli, Yeraganahalli, Srirampura, Bogadi,
Hebbal, Alanahally, Hinkal, Kyathamaranahalli, Basavanahalli, Chikkahara,
Danahalli,Basavanahalli,Bugathagalli and Kuppalur.
Map 6.6 Comparative Study of Private Housing cooperative societies and Land
Developers MUDA: 2001-2010.
150
Since 1981 to 2011 nearly 72 villages (map 6.7) were either fully or partially acquired
either by MUDA or by the Pvt. Housing cooperative societies and land develop for
the development of layouts. Up to 12 kms both MUDA and Pvt. Housing cooperative
societies and Land developers starts acquiring land major portion of it is from MUDA
in the villages namely Nagarathalli, Bogadhi Madagarahlli, Hanchya, Ramanahalli,
Kesare, Satagalli, Davanuru, Alanahalli, Lalithadripura, Uttanahalli and Yasndhalli.
The villages namely Kergalli, Hinkal, Malaavadi Bandipalya and Nchanalipalya were
completely acquired by MUDA. But Pvt. Housing cooperative societies and land
developers dominants in the villages which are away from 12 kms from the city
centre.
Map 6.7 Total Area Acquired by MUDA andPrivate Housing cooperative societies
and Land Developers 1981to 2011on wards
6.4.1. Response to facility provided by MUDA
Regarding the resident of the layout is concern 72% of them is resident of Mysore city
and only 63% are the original owners. The layouts were located on an average 8-13
km from the center of the city. Only 79% of the layouts developed by MUDA are
taken over by MCC.
151
Table.6.5: Response to facilities
Source: Field survey, Computed by the author.
Tukey HSD Test (Honestly Significant Difference)
HSD[.05]=11.01; HSD[.01]=13.66
M1 vs M2 Good vs Poor P<.01
M1 vs M3 Good vs Low P<.01
M1 vs M4 Good vs Very low P<.01
M2 vs M3 Poor vs Low nonsignificant
M2 vs M4 Poor vs very low P<.05
M3 vs M4 low vs very low nonsignificant
When question regarding the basic facilities provided by MUDA are analyzed (table
6.5 & graph) generally it is rated as good out of 10 services 7 rated more than50% as
good (59%-75%). In the services like bank, social security and Marketing it is rated
as 45%, 31% and 38% respectively. One thing concern in both layouts is social
security. As most of these layouts are developed far away from the CBD and in
rurban (transitional zone neither rural nor urban) area which is having less movement
of people during late evening the inhabitants of the layouts feel insecure. As the
Service Good
M1
Poor
M2
Low
M3
Very low
M4
Water supply 61 23 12 04
Electricity. Service 75 14 08 03
UGD 71 15 9 05
Road 69 21 04 06
Parks 70 17 04 09
Space for Places of
Worship
61 21 10 08
Educational Institutions 59 20 11 10
Banks 45 29 16 10
Social security 31 24 31 14
Marketing 38 29 17 16
152
policing is not comes under the urban jurisdiction and rural policing is cluster with
several villages.
6.4.2. Comparative study
In the past decade, however, the old model of city planning has been abandoned as the
new expansion of the city is managed by private developers and not by MUDA.
MUDA has mostly become an approver of private initiatives. How has this changed
the nature of Mysore‘s urbanism? Is an argue that even though the private developers
and cooperative societies are required to abide by the MUDA guidelines while
forming their layouts, there are two significant ways in which their projects differ
from MUDA developed areas. First, the cityscape itself changes since private
developers often do not plan for parks and wide streets; given the focus on
maximizing profit, developers frequently even violate MUDA regulations. Second,
the developers are also free to sell housing plots to any individual, to even a non-
resident of Mysore, and more significantly in any number, thus fuelling a speculative
boom. In contrast, MUDA regulations exclude not only non-residents but also those
who already own a house in Mysore from even applying for MUDA developed
housing plots. Moreover, MUDA regulations are based on the notion of equitable
distribution of housing plots, whereas private initiatives of the past decade are more in
the nature of speculative investments. As a consequence, there has been close to a
tenfold rise in prices since 2003-2004, effectively keeping large sections of middle
class Mysoreans from ever owning a house in the city. Thus, we have begun to notice
a change in the ownership patterns as well.
Garette Ranking Technique- The response of the facilities provided by the MUDA
to its members was analysed through a Garette Ranking Technique (Table 6.6.a).
Development of roads, providing electricity and developing Underground drainage
were the top three services that were addressed. Parks and water supply were rated 4
and 5. Developmental activities for Educational institutions and Bank facilities were
low, while provision for Space for Places of Worship, Marketing and social security
was rated last.
153
Table 6.6 Comparative study of private housing cooperative societies and land
developers and MUDA
Field survey, Computed by the author
The tow tailed P value is less than 0.0001
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically
significant.
Service Private.
(phcs&Ld MUDA
Water supply 35 65
Electricity 41 59
UGD 29 71
Road 19 81
Parks 14 86
Temples 43 57
Educational Institutions 27 73
Banks 12 98
Social security 43 57
Marketing 21 79
154
Table 6.6.a.Garette ranking for the response to facilities provided by the Mysore
Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
Services Good x81 poor x70 Low x66 Very
low
x63 Total Average Ra
nk
01 02 03 04
1 Water
supply
61 4941 23 1610 12 792 04 252 7595 75.95 4
2 Electricity
Service
75 6075 14 980 08 528 03 189 7772 77.72 1
3 UGD 71 5751 15 1050 09 594 05 315 7710 77.10 2
4 Road 69 5589 21 1470 04 264 06 378 7701 77.01 3
5 Parks 71 5751 17 1190 04 264 09 567 7772 77.72 1
6
Space for
Places of
Worship
61 4941 21 1470 10 660 08 504 7575 75.75 5
7 Educational
Institutions
59 4779 20 1400 11 726 10 630 7511 75.11 6
8 Banks 45 3645 29 2030 16 1056 10 630 7335 73.35 7
9 Social
security
31 2511 24 1680 31 2046 14 882 7119 71.19 9
10 Marketing 38 3078 29 2030 17 1122 16 1008 7238 72.38 8
Source: Field survey, Computed by the author.Number of respondents 100, x Garett
ranking table values.1. Good, 2.Poor, 3.Low, 4.Very poor. (Response to facilities
provided by MUDA.)
When opinion of the residents of the private layouts were elicited in order to make a
comparison of private layouts(table 6.7) with that of the layouts developed by
MUDA, the emerging opinion was in favour of MUDA. The rating they have given
to the MUDA layouts is 65%-98% except in the service of electricity and social
security where the rating is 59% and 57% respectively. But the rating for the private
layouts where they are already residing was less than 50%. It ranges between 12% -
41% for the services given by private layouts.
6.5. PROBLEM AND PROSPECTS OF PRIVATE HOUSING CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
To fulfill their objective of providing shelter at affordable prices to the needy people,
the private co-operative housing sector faces numerous impediments like finance,
availability of land at cheaper rates, proper legal framework, lack of cooperation etc.
155
which hinders the smooth functioning of housing co-operatives. Though the private
co-operative housing sector is playing an important role in resolving the housing
problem in the city, the performance of this sector over the years has been highly
influenced by politicians and land grabbers.
Table 6.7: Problem and Prospects of Private housing co-operative societies
Source: Field survey, Computed by the author.
6.5.1. Problems of Private Housing Co-Operative Societies
Availability of land is the most critical input for housing. The shelter costs are most
sensitive to land price as it can often account for over half the cost of shelter. It is thus
a key parameter where policy reforms are necessary. Past efforts of the Public
agencies‘ direct interventions in the land market through bulk acquisition of land as in
the case of many cities. The private sector was explicitly excluded from the entire
process of land development and shelter constructions. The eventual result of such a
program me has been, predictably, counter-productive. It is difficult for a public
agency to develop land fast enough to keep pace with demand due to organizational
and financial limitations. Land availability can be increased through innovative
methods of land pooling and land readjustments etc. The efforts need to be
Service
Problem posers
Land
owners Government
Local
people Costumers
Environment
Type of land 00 00 00 00 09
Purchase of land 21 19 10 13 16
Registration 19 14 08 00 00
Conversion of land 00 24 00 00 12
Plan
approval/MUDA 00 31 00 10
00
Water supply 00 17 00 6 00
Electricity 00 12 00 5 00
Customers 00 00 00 00 00
Finance/Charges
stamp duty
00 23 00 00 00
Security 00 00 18 00 00
156
supplemented with larger participation by the private sector. Private developers have
been inducted into the formal system by a facilitative regulatory and support system
by providing license for development of land. This has considerably helped in
developing large chunk of land in urban areas. A heavy vacant land tax can enable
release of considerable land for housing..
At present, there is no basic mechanism for smooth property transactions from seller
of agricultural of land to purchaser of land and from customer to developers. In this
given situation, real estate is still not a liquid commodity, as selling and buying both
required clearance of various issues. Developers today need 26-40 approvals for
developing land. Moreover, the cost of transaction in land and housing is also
significantly higher than any other commodity. Towards this end, the authorities need
to bring down the stamp duty to an affordable level. Stamp duty and registration costs
are very high in ranging between 6-15 %.Moreover, there is no authentic data or
information as regards price, procedures, and processes, and this is why the investors
find it difficult to make investment decisions. As regards information, people are still
banking on the unorganized and unreliable brokers.
The problem faced by the private housing co-operative societies and land developers
starts from the scratch till the completion of layouts and allotment of site to its
customers. The problems and the problem posers are listed and rated in the above
table 6.7. The main problems faced by majority of the private housing societies are at
the time of purchasing of land. The problem they face from land owners is at 21%.
The problem from the land owners are listed as lack of cooperation, demand for more
money after the agreement and the major problem is litigation. Some time the land
owners after agreement motivate their family members to file a case in the court just
to demand more money or more number of sites. Secondly 19% of the problem is
from the government. The problems are delay in the movements of records, demand
for bribe, and demand for unnecessary documents. Local people and customers are
also the other problem posers. The local people show their negative attitude towards
the developers and there is lack of cooperation. Create problems demanding huge
amount of money towards charity for the construction of temples and choultry etc.
The customers some times are not interested in the location of the layouts; demands in
changing the location are the problem posed by the customers. The rocky land,
157
marshy soil, threat from the local environmentalists at the time clearing of trees are
the major problems of environment, faced by the developers at the time of purchasing
of land. At the time of development of layouts as per the opinion of the developers,
again it is the government and the government agencies that pose problem at the time
of registration (14%), conversion of land (24%). The issue of bribery garners the
highest percentage at 31% as a core problem faced by the respondents. They were of
the opinion that they have to pay huge amount of bribe at different levels for the
approval of plan from MUDA. Electricity, sanitation and water supply are other fields
where the developers have to face the problem of bribe.
6.5.2. Prospects of Private Housing Co-Operative Societies
The city with its huge population has a great demand for housing. After 2010 the
MUDA is inactive in the development of layouts for the citizens of Mysore city. Till
date 2.48 lakhs of application is pending before MUDA for the disbursement of sites.
This large number of pending applications before MUDA has attracted large number
of private investors like private housing co-operative societies and land developers
in the housing sector in the Mysore city. 25% of the respondents (investors) say that
from government side there is good prospects for the private housing as the policies of
government like permission for purchasing land and conversion of land are made easy
through smooth policies. During the recent times in order to encourage private
housing in solving housing problems, the government has also liberalized some of its
stringent policies like conversion of yellow marked area around city which is
earmarked for conversion for housing of the urban areas. (Vijay Karnataka Kannada
daily dated 17th
December 2013) This facilitates the c-operative societies in
developing and distributing the sites much early.
A number of financial institutions have also come forward for financing both, the
developers as well as to the customers in purchasing sites either from the land
developers or from the Private housing co-operative societies. All these are a blessing
in disguise to the private housing co-operative societies and land developers. After
realizing the importance of private housing co-operative societies and land
developers, people of Mysore have stared t trusting the private housing co-operative
societies and land developers for their shelter. These factors prompt the private
housing co-operative societies and land developers to invest huge amount for the
development of layouts.
