GURGAON: An affidavit filed by HUDA grossly underestimates the population of Gurgaon to be nine lakh, thereby unrealistically lowering the water requirement estimate of the city. The HUDA submission was made in response to the Punjab and Haryana high court ruling prohibiting new construction in Gurgaon without an undertaking on water management.
The court is hearing a petition on the depleting groundwater table in the region.
The HUDA affidavit, a copy of which is with TOI, was filed last Friday (July 27). The figure cited by HUDA, say petitioners, is highly understated and would only adversely affect the court ruling. The petitioners say they will challenge the claims by HUDA. “This figure of nine lakh might just be the cumulative population of the 36 villages falling within MCG limits. According to official statistics, the population is over 20 lakh,” said R S Rathee of Gurgaon Citizens’ Council, the main petitioner in the case.
The upcoming hearing in the case regarding the issuing of fresh licences by HUDA for any new real estate project in Gurgaon is on Tuesday. “HUDA sanctions building plans while the department of Town and Country Planning issues licences which are issued on the condition that the developer shall make arrangements for water supply, sewerage, drainage, etc to the satisfaction of the competent authority till external services are made available for external infrastructure by HUDA…” reads the submission made by HUDA.
The affidavit by the petitioners states that the “colonizer also seeks environmental clearance in which they disclose the source of water for construction purposes”.
The document states that there is a shortfall of 40MGD of water under the current scenario which can be met once the pending work on NCR channel (expected by October this year) and the Gurgaon water supply (GWS) are in place. The document also states that approximately “2.7MGD of water is being drawn from existing 77 tubewells in different areas” for supply purposes. Naresh Kumar Pawar, the executive engineer, division III (representing HUDA in the case) was unavailable for comments on their submission statistics.