metadata: authors: 0: author: Annez,Patricia Clarke
1: author: Ballaney,Shirley Nand Kumar
2: author: Bertaud,Marie Agnes
3: author: Koshy,Cheruvettolil Kochukoshy
4: author: Nair,Bindu Krishnan
5: author: Patel,Bimal
6: author: Phatak,Vidyadhar K.
7: author: Thawakar,Vasudha
count: India
docna: 0: docna: Inventory of public land in Ahmedabad,
            Gujarat, India
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
theme: Decentralization,Other urban development
majtheme: Public sector governance,Urban development
subtopic: Urban Housing and Land Settlements,Public Sector Administrative & Civil
            Service Reform,City Development Strategies,Urban Governance and Management,Urban Housing,Railways Transport,Water and Human Health,Water Supply and Sanitation Economics,Small Private Water Supply Providers,Municipal Management and Reform,Town Water Supply and Sanitation,Democratic Government,Public Sector Administrative and Civil
            Service Reform,De Facto Governments
teratopic: Public Sector Development,Urban Development,Communities and Human Settlements,Rural Development
abstracts: cdata!: This paper pilots an approach to
            identifying, categorizing, and mapping public land owned by
            the central, state, and local government in urban developed
            areas of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The methodology uses
            information on plot sizes, location, and ownership that is
            publicly available for all areas covered by town planning
            schemes. The study examines the extent of unutilized and
            underutilized public land, which excludes all cemeteries,
            parks and gardens, heritage buildings, slums, utilities,
            infrastructure land, and industrial estates. Unused land
            already earmarked for public purposes were also excluded
            from the valuation exercise. The potentially marketable land
            so identified was valued at both official rates and
            estimated market rates. The value of potentially marketable
            excess land is significant -- in per capita terms, the
            high-value scenario substantially exceeds the estimate of
            total infrastructure investment needs for the next 20 years
            prepared by an expert committee of the Ministry of Urban
            Development of the Government of India.
geo_reg_key: 517198,517212,517191
repnme: repnme: Inventory of public land in Ahmedabad,
            Gujarat, India
display_title: Inventory of public land in
            Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
listing_relative_url: /research/2013/10/18412484/inventory-public-land-ahmedabad-gujarat-india
topicv3: Strategic Urban Planning m1326026 816,Urban Water m1327135 144,Railways m1327400 166,Land and Housing m1327648 817,Public Administration m1327723 723
publishtoextweb_dt: 2013-10-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Public Sector Development,Urban Development,Communities and Human Settlements,Rural Development
no_of_pages: 39
author_keys: 0: author_key: 91855
1: author_key: 1214305
2: author_key: 85917
3: author_key: 1214306
4: author_key: 1214309
5: author_key: 566004
6: author_key: 456316
7: author_key: 988470
model_extractions: WPS6664 Policy Research Working Paper 6664 Inventory of Public Land in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India _Shirley Ballaney Marie-Agnes Bertaud Patricia Clarke Annez C.K. Koshy Bindu Nair Bimal Patel Vidyadhar Phatak Vasudha Thawakar_ The World Bank Sustainable Development Network Finance Economics and Urban Department October 2013
Policy Research Working Paper 6664

# **Abstract**

This paper pilots an approach to identifying, categorizing, and mapping public land owned by the central, state, and local government in urban developed areas of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The methodology uses information on plot sizes, location, and ownership that is publicly available for all areas covered by town planning schemes. The study examines the extent of unutilized and underutilized public land, which excludes all cemeteries, parks and gardens, heritage buildings, slums, utilities, infrastructure land, and industrial estates. Unused land already earmarked for public purposes were also excluded from the valuation exercise. The potentially marketable land so identified was valued at both official rates and estimated market rates. The value of potentially marketable excess land is significant—in per capita terms, the high-value scenario substantially exceeds the estimate of total infrastructure investment needs for the next 20 years prepared by an expert committee of the Ministry of Urban Development of the Government of India.

This paper is a product of the Finance Economics and Urban Department, Sustainable Development Network. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be contacted at vsarda@worldbank.org and pcannez.clarke.work@gmail.com.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# Inventory of Public Land in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Shirley Ballaney, Marie-Agnes Bertaud, Patricia Clarke Annez, C.K. Koshy , Bindu Nair, Bimal Patel, Vidyadhar Phatak (Consultants) Vasudha Thawakar (World Bank)

**Keywords:** Urban land, Land Policy in India, Urban Infrastructure, Infrastructure finance

**JEL Classification:** R53 Public Investment and Capital Stock, R14 - Land Use Patterns, R38 - Government Policy; Regulatory Policy

**Sector Board:** URBAN
# Table of Contents

|1<br>Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4|
|---|
|2<br>Methodology, Data Sources and Analysis ....................................................................................... 5|
|2.1<br>Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 5|
|2.2<br>Preparing GIS Database ................................................................................................................. 7|
|2.3<br>Identifying Public Land for the Study ...................................................................................... 8|
|2.4<br>Use of Public Land ......................................................................................................................... 14|
|2.5<br>Identifying Potentially Marketable Public Land ............................................................... 16|
|2.6<br>Extent of Potentially Marketable Public Land ................................................................... 19|
|2.7<br>Alternative Methods for Estimating Potentially Marketable Land in Partially|
|Developed Land ......................................................................................................................................... 23|
|2.8<br>Valuation of Potentially Marketable Public Land............................................................. 24|
|3<br>Conclusions: Significance of Revenue Potential ........................................................................ 29|
|4<br>Conclusions: Further Applications ................................................................................................. 29|
|ANNEX I ............................................................................................................................................................. 32|
|ANNEX II ............................................................................................................................................................ 37|

2
# **ACRONYMS**

**AMC** Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

**AUDA** Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

**BRTS** Bus Rapid Transit System

**CBD** Central Business District

**FSI** Floor Space Index allowable on given plot, Index is calculated as the ratio of built floor area divided by the total plot area.

**GIS** Geographic Information System

**HPEC** High Powered Expert Committee

**IDF** India Development Foundation

**TPS** Town Planning Scheme

3
Inventory of Public Land in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

# **1 Introduction**

The urgent need for substantially augmenting financial resources required for investing in urban infrastructure is well recognized. 1 Monetizing public land assets could contribute a substantial share of funds needed, as international experience has shown in other countries.<sup>2</sup> The 13<sup>th</sup> Finance Commission of India has underlined the importance of ensuring proper use of land held by governments, central, state and local as well as government-owned Public Sector Undertakings.<sup>3</sup> The Committee on Fiscal Consolidation has noted that there is considerable potential given the underutilized prime land of Public Sector Undertakings, Port Trusts, and Railways, etc. For realizing such potential, the Committee has considered it as a part of disinvestment and has recommended setting up of a group to work out the policy framework and institutional modalities.<sup>4</sup> The High Power Expert Committee (HPEC) has also recognized that monetizing underutilized public land can be a source of generating finances. The Committee has called for judicious and transparent use of the instrument of unlocking land value and has recommended that the following steps be taken before the ‘sale of land’ is used as an instrument for financing urban infrastructure:

- “A systematic city-wide inventory of land assets must be made to be able to identify core and non-core land assets, and proposing the best use of public land assets must be part of comprehensive planning for the city.

- A transparent and accountable mechanism for sale of public land must be put in place.

- Proceeds from land sales must be used only for capital investment projects/housing for the poor via creation of a ‘Land Capital Fund’ whose governance and operational mechanisms are designed in such a manner as to ensure total transparency.

- A mechanism for sharing revenues between the public agency owning the land and the infrastructure development agency must be established.”<sup>5</sup>

The World Bank and PPIAF, in collaboration with the India Development

> 1 High Power Expert Committee (HPEC): _Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services_ March 2011

> 2 George Peterson: _Unlocking Land Values to Finance Urban Infrastructure_ . The World Bank Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, Washington D.C. 2009

> 3 _Report of the 13th Finance Commission 2010-2015, Volume I_ December 2009

> 4 _Report of the Committee on Fiscal Consolidation, Ministry of Finance, Government of India_ www.finmin.nic.in

> 5 HPEC _op.cit._

4
Foundation (IDF) have agreed to provide support for a consultative process _inter alia_ to examine unlocking the value of public land particularly for financing urban infrastructure in India. In this context, it is considered desirable to have an inventory of public land in Ahmedabad and estimation of the value of potentially marketable land. The present study—Inventory of Public Land in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation—is a part of this effort.

# **2 Methodology, Data Sources and Analysis**

## **2.1 Study Area**

For the purposes of this study, we have examined the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation prior to its extension in 2006. We have done this because this area covers the currently developed areas of the city, which are most relevant to the question at hand, that is, understanding the extent, ownership, locations and potential value of public land in the developed area of this major urban area<sup>6.</sup> Ahmedabad has not been selected because it is especially representative of all urban areas nor is such a city likely to exist. This study is meant to pilot an approach and methodology for shedding light on these important questions, which could then be explored in their own right in many cities in India and elsewhere. The study area, in the context of the present day jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), is shown in Figure 1 and its relationships to the respective jurisdictions are shown in Table 1.

> 6 It could also be very useful to study public land holdings in the full extended AMC and also in rural areas. To keep the scope of this pilot intended to demonstrate the use of a specific methodology for inventorying public lands in the absence of a full-fledged government supported land inventory, we limited our analysis to the developed area of the AMC.

5
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Public Lands Study Area Context<br>Legend<br>——- Railway Track<br>. | Sabarmati River = 481 ha<br>|| Public Land Study Area = 25,617 ha<br>[| Amc Boundary = 44,755 ha<br>7 AUDA Boundary = 18,6696 ha<br>N<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **2.2 Preparing the GIS Database**

This comprehensive study for Ahmedabad is one of the first to use the Geographic Information System (GIS) to make an inventory of public land. Ahmedabad has, through a single source of TPS,<sup>7</sup> authentic maps and ownership data of all the Final Plots.<sup>8</sup> The technology of Computer Aided Design software (AutoCAD Map 3D) was used to digitize the original TPS paper maps.

In a second step, these digital maps were overlaid on recent Ahmedabad Google Earth images from 2010. Maps were geo-coded (projection WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_43N) for a correct reading of latitude and longitude. This process permitted greater accuracy in registering the exact location of land owned by the Central Government, State Government and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC).

To conduct such analysis, the data were extracted from GIS shape files listed below: AMC Boundary Railway Railway Track Buffer Ring Roads Major Roads FP Boundary Sabarmati River BRTS Canal Study Area Metro Phase 1 Gamtal TPS Boundary Metro Phase 2 GIDC Boundary Walled City In Annex II there is a listing of the GIS database “FP Boundary” for the field name abbreviations and their exact contents. Resulting data analysis is presented in succeeding sections.

> 7 Ballaney, Shirley: _The Town Planning Mechanism in Gujarat, India,_ World Bank Institute Washington DC, 2008.

> 8 Town Planning Schemes, as documented in Shirley Ballaney op.cit. and elsewhere are a form of land pooling which has been used in many countries throughout the world.. Town Planning Scheme is a plot reconstitution scheme in which Original plots (OP) are reconstituted into Final Plots (FP) after appropriating land for roads and other public amenities.

7
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Legend Public Land Study Area 256 Km2<br>CC] Public Land Study Area = 25,617 ha<br>HN Walled City = 527 ha<br>PO camtal = 481 ha<br>—— Major Roads<br>——- Railway Track<br>| | Railway Station & Corridors = 452 ha<br>iz Sabarmati River within Study Limits = 481 ha<br>| Cantonment Boundaty 2 A<br>Sabarmati River é<br>|__| AMC Boundary =} Cee a L><br>ae \y ; 4 "<br>TC] Airport Boundary ¢SLIM <,<br>a a a a a<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> .<br>.<br>Public‘ Land a: Private. Land<br>.<br>Central Public Private Restricted held<br>Government Go’Z InstitutionsSpee InstitutionsSie Tenure Free ho<br>ee s 3 s¢s - ‘ e °<br>st—_&£oceS &-—ao6c efGe€ 3$s 7«2 (oO§G ~&c€ s.5 B=}=~2 =ou° ancwva tr]2oc< fm= i=4=5 ys=6Sbee"i =&v9= em]=—o ei=2=< Z.6 7s+gv= gs€Sw<br>mes = o 5 © a a Fal ag v 2 = & = — 3<br>oo of & bo v — 5 uv a: 7 bo = bre ° al = a<br>& ee © € & 2 ¢ * @ 2 8a < a 5 —- FS<br>= ens € a os a 5 £ Gg = soo = vw = 3 = vas<br>SsSs 8¢£€ oO7@ ao je4 Tan} vSs —° sa [S]Pe ssSao -% azcx A= boec 3v =ao<br>5 — % mS = v = os. ie > 2 a 5 gf<br>ats5 Go =2 ~c 5 2F osa =a &a e_—?a av o= As!w av bsa o= mebo aKg<br>+£32 oOoOtb boa“ =Oss> =fS@6 §== Ssa¢= 3AZ=Ei =So2 —e€a as8sa2 a0F=, 3a= awvw Leeo)a3 <oS£ eea$5 5aFS<br>= ~ O | = I Sac s ct i an rT =<br>qv bo : Pay a] 2 6 st o roe Py os ©<br>. ri] = = G bo ar oO c c 7 $ bo y be<br>bcd ~ bo = ; c , #8 = 5 s ES F} bo<br>v & a = ° er bo gt =< os ig : © a<br>oO> a aG a £[= - es< -a bor -a<br>5 ==€ a)~~ =s-boa bo¢ =wvx =a° a =a<br>5 = zG os. C* > =°<br>£E 2c 8z s =] =$ oeG<br>o 7 % . ah £ Fe<br>°> cSa s csGa &o =vi<br>oO ° s a a a<br>tb I~a 2 a— oytes bsFi<br>a < * < 3 £<br>==}a rs. tov 3a &bo<br>bp s LU} a<br>a . =<br>oy.s wnpts<o<br>The namesinstitutionsmentioned above are illustrative examples fromthe study area a<br><!-- End of picture text -->
as clusters of land holdings without separately identifying individual holdings. There might be some public land in Gamtals and Walled City but it has not been covered in this study, due to lack of readily available data and the fact that such public land is likely to be small and already committed to local community use having very little market potential if any. Walled City and Gamtals that together account for only 3.94 % of the study area are therefore treated as entirely private.

The basic property rights records and records of rights over land are maintained by the Revenue Department of the State Government. These are amended once the Town Planning Scheme is sanctioned. Since TPS provide map-based records of ownership, in the present study wherever TPS are available they have been used as the source of data for public land. In non-TPS areas the extracts from the record of rights from the Revenue Department have been used. (These are called 7/12 extracts.) Thus public land and its use in the study area were identified by using following data sources and survey methods:

- (a) Public land indicated on maps and data of TPS,

- (b) In case of non- TPS areas, cadastral records (called 7/12 extracts of record of rights) were used to identify public land.

- (c) The use of such public land, including the public agency that owns the land, was identified through field surveys.

These details were then incorporated in the GIS database. Based on the shape files in GIS, a geographical distribution of public land owned by Central Government and State Government is derived and shown Figure 4.

10
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Public Land Ownership<br>Central Government and State Government<br>Legend<br>|| Ownership- Central Government<br>|| Ownership-State Government a<br>—— Distance from CBD (Km) a ae<br>—— Railway Track a _ _ 14K<br>[| TPS Boundary ~~ a oo ~<br>WalledounCity ~ay YS yoV _. 2K—~ awe\<br>|| Railway Stations & Corti )» | J ,oKm > I \<br>Sabarynati River“ NN \ \<br>C_] Public Land Study Limi \ pe<br>CL][___} i Airport / Bounda an/ ou ly Lim jaif i a,A pe 1 6Km /~\> \ io>K" nN\\<br>/<br>/ Cantonment Bound ° aJ oe,5 ori4 isy aeBa ‘ \\<br>| , SYbse ; L Pead. Yb Ke oe,<br>\ yA ¢ 8 Ca. ie ay<br>\ \ eee Sy Ng = tN GY al hae =<br>\ a A oe e /<br>ned _ <i Si A<br>a a a a a<br>0 25 5 10 15 20<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Public Land Ownership - Municipal Corporation<br>Legend<br>Zz Ownership- Municipal Corporation<br>— Distance from CBD (Km)<br>—— Railway Track<br>[ TPS Boundary a oN<br>Walled City a —<br>iz Railway Stations & Corridors“ —_ _ie ~14Kma<br>([_] Sabarmati River 1\ _ yo TM ~12Km ~ .<br>| Public Land Study Limits 7 A rl _—~ \<br>C_] Airport Cantonment Boundary Boundary Y4‘\ /rp / WINtom YY \ \ \<br>/ i ‘ hh gee se Do NA 6k 2 R > Harada es \\<br>/ FX Ree<br>/ ee oat Wey if i. « SEP. Le \ |<br>/ / NN\ egyogafame: ASSS roeteoyeeln! 4” \ ‘\ Airport ‘eve\ A oteceedeS osha |3 \\<br>| a at +] See Pg "3 La Cantonmenp \ gt A AVS a tac fs \ \<br>ae: Bo te fe me ey \oe 4 Ok et ese a al 4 |<br>° y fit ® ef eel A - - Wis<br>\\\ \\\ pota veme OR. te40 ce BSSeeOE4 A.hy b Saaefeyor OyAUA=reeima:ee7 aJb es _/|| fi|}<br>\\ \yt oS a. mgrtA g Fepacgereseed ake b RaBBRe ad feeee eaTetry }r //<br>\\\\ \\\ \ an oYOereyeeBP eei es,ee Ep Smeeen SEN a SueESan Sake‘natet yrea,/ /<br>\\\\\ |\y L - f-4— asoPaespateeefacetaisEON gaPefe2) 7wdAl 3gleeeeei“Valve‘stY Beolropet4(LG/Ce;stpeeey //_/ f./ ///<br>\ 9 PET EN, OPS FG /<br>KG ‘ as oe Ae, LX 7<br>‘x~ Ster aenaoTY cade ben NAst" 4 :Pi ‘<br>SN , ad ln # a XK ‘4 N<br>Nf eee Oe<br>a1da a a<br>0 25 5 10 15 20<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Total Study Area<br>No. of Plots Area (Ha) | % of Public % of % of Study<br>Land Developable Area<br>Land<br>PUBLIC LAND<br>MunicipalStateCentralGovernmentGovernmentCorporation dehemmedmmm tS8025 conanfet1,001.59dt tO2PAO 4B)OOnnneonrnannreo,Zh9%Me, WS)13%)5% nounmente,tO:3.91%d1%72%<br>SubTotalROADS.Sabarmaticcnnnnmninmnnnnnnnnineersnnnnnnennnsnapenannnind| C240] 850.16]tee: 80] nnn61%PO rounnmnennnnninnisersnnenan32% 26.74%de, 5%<br>OtherRailwaysWaterRIVETBodies ammf suppunmmmnmninnnnmnnefnenmnmmnnmnenenenefeannnmnneanna452.02SEOto OADOA)A.smneanennnnnnd cuneneuninenn 4%teOd wmmmnmnmnnennnnfimnenennnenesdtunminmnmnnnnnenninefnnmnnennenates1.76%Sose 2|<br>SubTotalTotal CT t—“‘CSC*rLSCOCOC(*édG,3390.93[ 39%] | 17.14%<br>Public Land PC‘ C11,2.41.09 100%| 43.88%<br>esCO CO<br>Walle”GamtalsCity.(VillagemmmmnnmnnenefnnnnmnennnninnninSites enmmnnanninn481.19rg gS) annnenonennan pounmnennnnn1.88%eer ee<br>Total Private Pp | 14,376.21] | BM 56.12%<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad - Pubic and Private Lands in Study Area<br>Total Private Land 56.12%<br>Ganitals (Village Sites) | 1.48%<br>Walled City yy 2.2555<br>Private land parcles | 51.90%<br>Total Public Lane 43.88%<br>Sub Total - Non Marketable Public 17.10%<br>Railways J L76%<br>Other Water Bodies | 1.45%<br>Sabarmati River | 1.88<br>Roads 17.15%<br>Sub Total Public - ANIC, State and Central Gavi. 26.4<br>Central Government | 4.1%<br>State Goverment | 10.72%<br>Municipal Corporation | 12.11%<br>Oe 10% 20 305 a0% SO BO<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Public Lands : Land Use Types<br>Legend<br>Y | Residential<br>|| Commercial<br>ia Industrial<br>|| Institutional ee<br>Co] Garden and Open Space a —<br>[ WaterGraveyar Bo d iesand Burial Grounda > Ty ak-<br>(Utilities Va 7 i ~ ~<br>_——-—Distance from/ CBD (Kmy- J mh —<N{. > YT \<br>[| Railway Track J f\ Som \ .<br>Y TPS Boundary“ a :<br>| silway Stations & orridors ‘van * . 1s aN<br>ener enue Pern of Vek , ~ Pri =f \<br>Publie-Kand Study Limits /_ firsate 2, of WS on / Sean Se<br>AirportCantonmentBoundar: oe5 betel, vsAi | eeREM aNe Sst<br>Boundary Ga Nie “6 V4 wre2 \<br>- eK ay be we i<br>R<br>\ : paGy 1 his Z. =; (oe krik<br>| \ [a ote Ne enea<br>Ve ee ey<br>\ i eee et z /<br>N eeanlges<br>= se ~ NF5<br>TTF<br>0 2.5 5 10 15 20<br><!-- End of picture text -->
INVENTORY OF PUBLIC LANDS - AHMEDABAD 2013 CLASSIFICATION BY OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE TYPES

||eTpra<br>/Plot|on[sei<br>|ecrco<br>|ment <br>|al<br>|r<br>| <br>|Gran<br>Pa<br>|dTotal<br>cts<br>|%of<br>roasa<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||<br>|<br>|<br> <br>|<br>|<br>|<br> <br>|
|a|<br>2370<br>e<br>|<br>1,579.15<br>e<br>|<br>1060<br><br>|<br> <br>1,298.77<br><br>|<br> <br>60<br><br>|<br> <br> <br>60.18<br><br>|<br> <br>3490<br><br>|<br> <br>2938<br><br>|<br><br>42.89%)<br><br>|
|||||<br>|<br><br>|||||
||pT|9.5%]|||<br>gaa]|<br><br>||0.05%]|||100%||
||<br><br>p|<br><br><br>ne||<br>|<br><br>|<br>|<br>|||
|||71.74%||21.27%||6.99%<br>||100%<br>||
|Research<br>ISRO<br>||24.10%<br><br>||22.04%<br><br>|ee<br><br>|53,86%<br><br>|e<br>|)<br>100%<br>||
|ws|EE)<br>||<br>|8<br>77.33%)<br>||<br>e<br>|2<br>x<br>||<br><br>|1)<br>et <br>|<br>|<br>||
||<br> <br>p10]<br>|<br><br>154.73|<br><br>|<br><br><br>|<br><br>an<br>|<br><br><br>|<br> <br>e<br><br>|<br><br><br>|<br>e<br><br>||
||p|<br><br>97.95%P<br>|<sup>2</sup><br>|<sup>.</sup><br>|<sup>0</sup><br>|<sup>5</sup><br>0.00%]<br>|<sup>%</sup><br><br>|<sup>]</sup><br>00%!<br>||
|||||||||||
|Forest|p<br>|<br>|9.56%]<br><br>||<br>|7.34%]<br>||<br>|9%]<br>||<br>|100%!<br>||
|<br>|pT<br>||||||||ia<br>|
|||||||||||
|||0.00%<br>|<br><br>|<br><br>0.00%<br>|<br><br>|100.00%<br>||100%||
|a<br> <br>|<br>e<br><br>|e<br>0.00%<br><br>|ee<br><br><br>|eT<br>0.00%<br><br><br>|||<br>100,00%<br><br>||100%<br><br>||
|Wholesalemarket<br>|p<br>|<br>f<br>|<br><br>o<br>|<br><br>oof<br>||oof<br>||083]<br>|0.0196<br>|
|<br>|||||<br>|||||
|<br>|<br><br>|77<br>AS<br><br><br><br>|<br>e<br><br><br>|<br>e<br>22.55%<br><br>|<br>es<br><br><br>|<br>rT7 <br>0.00%<br><br>|<br>ce<br>|et<br>100%<br><br>||
|NA,NoDefinedUse<br>||593<br>|]<br>34t.oo<br><br>|49]<br>|46.00]<br>|<br><br>3<br>|<br><br>12.22|<br>645|<br>]<br>499.22||
|<br><br>|<br><br> <br>|||||<br>|<br> <br>|||
|GRANDTOTALPUBLICLANDS|_4735[<br>|3,102|<br>|i425]<br>|2,747|<br>|so]<br>|1,002|<br>|6240]<br>|6,850|<br><br>|100%<br>|
||<br>|<br>|<br>|||<br>|<br>c|<br><br>cc|All|
<!-- Start of picture text --> Inventory of Public Lands - Ahmedabad 2013<br>Land Use Classification Within the Registered Public Lands<br>Cantonment fr 7.06%<br>Airport I s.sex<br>Commerce J] 0.60%<br>Other, Multi-Purpose i 1.12%<br>Institution [ff 1.04%<br>Service | 0.25%<br>Utility [2.31%<br>Cemetery | 0.29%<br>Wholesale market 0.01%<br>Park, Open Space+Recreational Li 7 9.48%<br>NA- No Defined Use Lo 7 7.29%<br>0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%<br>Source: GIS database “FP_Boundary"<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> yP.<br>Relevant z.e : ::. Not Relevant<br>. :<br>| .<br>alae) . ;<br>GD:oi aOESks o- orwn i 8s oei tersoi: earsbo: erso : Sei= 6 satyo ery>s<br>soac=CHo§ so8saSO<=octbo3 &8 —-§“o53.4O25oS cSEs)3«.$ joegiawosTote!Buebo emosareSeocna aaoeEt=SgHingray Yso¢cacdcoo sé>ocxaneseSB sgasOG a as= =aaoSaTe>os=<br>=oa = 28eaostege 3 &z ‘coCEa abp & o-as oO aof zec=<br>romersa6cwGe SOago @gp ttsresi : cSie= aEeSa EePaesot Tso£— sc=5 at2E£<br>Ss oa o 6 3s of ea > 3S oa<br>Se of 8 58 : 8& £8 Zs i os ee<br>5 228G58 52Cc 35 22 st23 =€ oci2 65 2s=<br>A os<br>Pa ee &s SO6 +: AZat yscs &Z Zea’ fa5<br>s a am => 8 == is = Oz =<br>AS=c Pscoa »s .®® =cSa rlint =oa el Pasi&o<br>a sf. 8 I BAF 2 ¢ £<br>S m8 : a = Gy<br>° = 8 . = a> =<br>nn5a ~_—eesf5 :..: — E)=; Bs3_G<br>a. :H: [U}= a}aG<br>: .<br>s;.<br>a.<br>.:<br>s4<br>s.<br>.'<br>.H<br>.H<br>The names / institutions mentioned above are illustrative examples fromthe study area<br><!-- End of picture text -->
become an important source of revenue. Public land that has slums is not included in the land that could be potentially marketable. The general Government of India policy regarding slums is to improve them in situ and also transfer property rights to existing slum dwellers.<sup>12</sup> Though it might be possible to realize the value of public land in selected cases by relocating slums, in practice it would not to be desirable. Indeed the slums provide an important share of welllocated low-income housing that would be very difficult to replace. Moreover, slums on public land occupy a very small portion of public land under study, only 4 percent. Yet they house close to 400,000 people or 20 percent of the total estimated population in slums and chawls in Ahmedabad.<sup>13</sup> In Ahmedabad, private land is appropriated by public agencies in three different ways. These are:

- (a) In TPS, besides the land required for roads, open spaces and social amenities, land can be appropriated for housing for ‘socially and economically weaker sections’ and ‘commercial sale’ to augment the finances of planning agency.

- (b) In the first Development Plan of Ahmedabad, there was a Green Belt in which no development was possible. In the second Development Plan, the Green Belt was brought into the development zone and detailed reservations of land for public purposes were identified and were supposed to have been compulsorily acquired. Realizing that such acquisition is not possible the Development Plan that followed deleted the reservations and opted for including such land in TPS. Until the TPS is completed, private landowners were permitted to develop their land subject to the condition that 50% of the land must be surrendered to the planning agency. Out of this, 20% is considered potentially marketable with 30% required for provision of roads and public services.

- (c) General Development Control Regulations have made a special provision for the redevelopment of land of closed textile mills. According to this provision, 20% of the plot area has to be contributed for provision of public amenities / public purpose. The regulation further asserts that land so obtained shall not be used for purposes other than for public uses and public amenities.<sup>14</sup> Under the conservative approach we have used in this study, we did not consider such land as potentially marketable for assessing revenue potential.

> 12 Policies under the Rajiv Awas Yojana of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India

> 13 Annez et alia (2012) estimate density in slums at 1230 persons per hectare and the total population in slums and chawls as 1,880,300 persons. Accordingly the 315 hectares of identified public slum lands can be estimated to account for roughly 20 percent of the total slum population in greater Ahmedabad.

> 14 Regulation 10.10.1 of the General Development Control Regulations 2002, as amended till 2004, AUDA

18
**2.6 Extent of Potentially Marketable Public Land**

The Airport and Cantonment represent a large amount of Central Government land. The total area of the Airport is 403 hectares. Considerable area is used for runways, taxiways, aprons, terminals and other aviation infrastructure. Nevertheless 35 hectares of land in five pockets could be identified as possibly available for monetizing. The Cantonment has a total area of 484 hectares. Out of this 36 Ha are under roads including roads leading to Airport. Of the remaining area, 81 Ha is developed as parks, 93 Ha is vacant and 273 Ha is developed with scattered buildings of ground floor or two story buildings. The total footprint area of the buildings in this area is around 40 Ha. In the absence of information of the activities supported by these buildings and safety requirements if any<sup>15,</sup> it is assumed that if reorganized, these existing buildings could be accommodated on 50% of 273 Ha. Thus the total potentially marketable land in the Cantonment is estimated as about 230 Ha. (93+273/2). In addition to this Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is also located on 36 Ha of Central Government Land. Given the specialized nature of its activities it is assumed that, for the purpose of this initial pilot study, ISRO has no surplus land that could be monetized. That assumption could be revisited based on an analysis of the ISRO functions and needs. Since this area is well-located, such an analysis could be worthwhile.

In the case of other land, all vacant public land irrespective of the area of individual plots is considered as potentially marketable. Plots with existing buildings having an area of less than 1 hectare are not considered as marketable. The extent of potentially marketable area in case of large plots, more than 1 hectare in area, having existing buildings was assessed by two alternative methods described below.

It should be noted that of all public land (6,850 ha), close to 52% is not marketable, 21% is vacant land and 31% is developed with construction at different levels of consumed FSI. Vacant land including TPS appropriations represents 20.73% of the total public land and 43% of the total Potentially Marketable Land. Table 4, Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the extent of potentially marketable and non-marketable areas according to ownership and land categories.

> 15 Our method in the study area outside the cantonment involved site visits to validate actual built FSI. As access to the cantonment was not open to the general public, we had to use a rougher method. This estimate could easily be refined with access to the cantonment area.

19
|INVEN<br>CLASSIFIC<br>Marketability|TORY OF PUB<br>ATION BY OW|LIC LANDS<br>- <br>NERSHIP AN|AHMEDABAD<br>D MARKETABILIT|Y<br>T|ot|al|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Marketable lands|||||||
|Vacant PublicLand|||||||
|Public land incl. TPS Appropria|1183|234|3|1420||20.73%|
||83%<br>|16%<br>|0%<br>|100%<br>|||
|20% ofGreen Belt lands|62|0|fe)|62||0.91%|
||100%|0%|0%|100%|||
|Developed publicland|||||||
|Obsolete use|15|0|fe)|15||0.22%|
||100%|0%|0%|100%|||
|Consumed FSI <45%|303<br>|569<br>|44<br>|916<br>||13.37%|
||33%|62%|59%|100%|||
|45%<Consumed FSI <85%|99|324|6|428||6.26%|
||23%<br>|76%<br>|1%<br>|100%<br>|||
|Consumed FSI >85%|36|141|4|181||2.65%|
||20%|78%|2%|100%|||
|Airport - Marketable|fe)<br>|fe)<br>|35<br>|35<br>||0.51%|
||0%|0%|100%|100%|||
|Cantonment -<br>Marketable|0<br>|0<br>|230<br>|230<br>||3.35%|
||0%|0%|100%|100%|||
||529%|39%|10%|100%|||
|Non<br>Marketable<br>Lands|||||||
|Cemeteries|14|6|0|19||0.28%|
||71%|29%|0%|100%|||
|Garden/Open Spaces|553|19|0|572||8.34%|
||97%|3%|0%|100%|||
|Heritage Building|0|4|5|10||0.14%|
||0%|47%|53%|100%|||
|Slums|217|37|2|315||4.60%|
||69%|31%|1%|100%|||
|Utilities and Industrail Estates|155|1141|0|1295||18.91%|
||12%|88%|0%|100%|||
|Small non-vacant plots <1 ha|404<br>|213<br>|15<br>|631<br>||9.22%|
||64%|34%|2%|100%|||
|20% ofTextile Mills’ land|61|0|)|61||0.89%|
||100%|0%|0%|100%|||
|Airport - Operational|)<br>|)<br>|368<br>|368<br>||5.37%|
||0%|0%|100%|100%|||
|Cantonment - Operational|0|0|254|254||3.71%|
||0%|0%|100%|100%|||
|Indian Space Reasearch Orga|fe)|fe)|36|36||0.53%|
||0%|0%|100%|100%|||
||64%|34%|2%|100%|||
||64%|34%|2%|100%|||
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Public Lands - Marketable Parcels<br>Legend<br>|| 6.1.a Vacant Land including TPS Appropriations<br>|| 6.1.c Vacant Green Belt<br>|| 6.2.a Obsolete Use<br>[| 6.2.b FSi < 45% oo<br>GM 6.2.0 Fsi< 85% a oN<br>MMMM c2arsi> 35% oo 14K<br>[7] 6.2.e Special Use-~ a oo ~<br>| Distance from 4CBD = \ ; S12KmNN NN\<br>+ Railway Track 1) Sc - \<br>[|__| TPS Boundary _/ NN \ \<br>| | Railway f Stations Jf & Cortido N\ \\ \x<br>[_] Sabarmati/ Rivef A+.et fin fo :NN \\ ag £>A of \\<br>Public Land Study oe. "AC ee Oe rods & \<br>Airpoit fi flirty « f¥ pak © Ad, rae, RY aig: GIDC, \<br>CO CantpnmeBoundaBe aePacokg = ootht.7 ea Qos4 y Hen”ooNB glJak \ \<br>- ReneOU ey Ee |<br>Pee. L eX ed eS ELS s gest i te rete<br>3 32 (4 oP University Ute he aac? Mae bo ct ch<br>| ele Fee meggede Ro aS) OD ca, tg ay<br>\ ( itor ey ere, al , 1B) aca vate Pee |<br>\ \ \ ol aa eC 5 na Nie Bal 7 ad ee ; 2%<br>\ \ ae ES pra QL. p WZ : Pe ite,<br>\\ \ ry. opie 2ee fi Geek ankle?ASR. HIN“? ee wees /<br>\ \ aaa —~—f-EA[atoAGE SeNS ee “)aeShae ey ca, - fA/<br>\ : ate ee Breas Py SO pike /<br>NI base Sete a) EH,<br>—_ eehell a ~NGxx N<br>TY ——ST FE<br>0 2.5 5 10 15 20<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Inventory of Public Lands - Anmedabad 2013<br>Classification by Marketable and Non-Marketable Lands<br>Total Non-Marketable 57.16%<br>Indian Space Reasearch OAPs<br>Cantonment - Operational 3.31%<br>Airport - Operational 79S<br>20% of Textile Mills" land 0.60%<br>Small non-vacant plots <1 ha Bal<br>Utilities and Industrail Estates 16.87%<br>Slums 411%<br>Heritage Building | 0.12%<br>Garden/ Open Spaces TAGS<br>Cemeteries | 0.25%<br>Water Bodies 10.77%<br>Total Marketable 42.82%<br>Consumed FSI >85% 2.36%<br>45%<Consumed FSI <B5% 5.5895<br>Consumed FSI <45%5 11.93%<br>‘Obsolete use | 0.20%<br>Cantonment- Marketable 2.99%<br>Airport - Marketable O.45%<br>20% of Green Belt lands 0.81%<br>Public land incl. TRS 18.50%<br>0% 10% 20% 30% 40% so% 60%<br><!-- End of picture text -->
## **Figure 11: Marketability of Public Land**

- **2.7 Alternative Methods for Estimating Potentially Marketable Land in Partially Developed Land**

# **<u>Alternative I - Based on unused FSI:</u>**

Steps followed in this Alternative are described below:

- (a) First the footprints of existing buildings were identified from the satellite imageries and then digitized in CAD.

- (b) The number of floors for every building was noted from field surveys.

- (c) The footprint multiplied by number of floors gave the floor area of every building and then the total floor area of buildings on the plot. (FA)

- (d) This in turn gave the existing FSI in the form of ratio of floor area divided to the plot area (PA). (Existing FSI=FA/PA). However this is not directly comparable to the FSI prescribed in the regulations as certain areas like staircases, lifts, balconies etc. are exempted for FSI computation. For comparison therefore the regulatory FSIs were enhanced by 22% to account for areas otherwise not computed for FSI.  (e.g. FSI 1.8 prescribed in regulation was  considered equivalent to  2.2 for present study). The plots were then classified according to utilization of FSI. “Low consumption of FSI i.e. less than 45% of   FSI”, “medium consumption of FSI between 45% and 85% of FSI” and “high consumption over 85% of FSI”. Land related to unconsumed FSI was considered as marketable land.

- (e) However the value of such land cannot be realized unless the existing buildings are reorganized and reconstructed. The net value of land was therefore arrived at by deducting the cost of reorganizing and reconstructing the existing structures from the value of land related to unconsumed FSI. In cases of high consumption of FSI the net value came to be negative and was treated as zero (or non-marketable)<sup>16</sup> .

# **<u>Alternative 2 - Based on residual plot area</u>**

In this case the residual plot area is calculated by deducting the building footprint area(s) from the plot area. If the residual plot is more than 50% of the total plot area the residual is considered as potentially marketable land. This scenario is meant to represent the potential for releasing excess land were there is scope for relaxing what may be excessive plot coverage and setback regulations for certain neighborhoods and land uses. A recent study of Ahmedabad’s real estate market has shown that these regulations applying unrealistically and unnecessarily high standards uniformly throughout the city can drive excessive land consumption without necessarily achieving their goals

> 16 Demolition costs were assumed to be zero since demolition contractors in Ahmedabad can sell the materials recovered from demolition and therefore do the work for no charge. Reconstruction costs were estimated at Rs. 25,000 per square meter.

23
of lowering densities<sup>17</sup> . While it may not be possible or desirable to reconfigure all such plots so identified, the scenario of valuing the excess land in plots over 1 hectare in size with only 50 percent of plot coverage offers some indication of the potential additional land value that could be realized with selective relaxation of what can be excessive regulation.

# **2.8 Valuation of Potentially Marketable Public Land**

The basic source of data for land values are the Jantri rates. These are the values assessed and published by the Government authorities for the purposes of Stamp Duty levied at the time of transaction in land or property. Jantri includes assessed values of (i) vacant land; (ii) built property used for residential use and (iii) built property used for commercial purpose. Out of these, the values for vacant land have been used, as they appear to be the most consistent across different parcels and do not bring in the uncertainty introduced from assessing the value brought about by different types of use. This method leaves out variation that may come about due to differences that may be introduced due to the specific land use and is consistent with our approach of identifying and valuing only public land that is currently not in use or whose use would change.

However, the Jantri rates are known to be lower than the real market values. In order to get an estimate based on the real market values, valuation of three plots in each TPS was obtained from approved assessors. Based on their reports, the difference between the Jantri rate and real market values were calculated as a deviation factor. The estimated market rate is then the Jantri rate multiplied by the deviation factor applied to all plots in a TPS.

The Jantri rates, estimated market values and estimated deviation factors for a sample of five of the TPS covered in the study are presented in Table 5 below.

|**No.**|**TPS No. and Name**|**FP**<br>**No.**|**Jantri**<br>**Rate**|**Market**<br>**Rate**|**Deviation**<br>**Factor**|**Multiplier**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|1|TPS No. 56 - Sola Gota Oganaj|229|10,000|15,000|1.50||
|2|TPS No. 56 - Sola Gota Oganaj|239|10,000|15,000|1.50|1.51|
|3|TPS No. 56 - Sola Gota Oganaj|281|16,500|25,000|1.52||
|4|TPS No. 43 - Sola|40|14,000|65,000|4.64||
|5|TPS No. 43 - Sola|221/1|9,500|10,000|1.05|2.84|
|6|TPS No. 43 - Sola|209|16,000|45,000|2.81||
|7|TPS No. 28 - Ghatlodia|81|12,500|20,000|1.60||
|8|TPS No. 28 - Ghatlodia|68|12,500|20,000|1.60|2.40|
|9|TPSNo. 28-Ghatlodia|106|12,500|50,000|4.00||
|10|TPS No. 29 - Chandlodia Sola|62|14,250|60,000|4.21||
|11|TPS No. 29 - Chandlodia Sola|82|12,750|20,000|1.57|2.45|
|12|TPS No. 29 - Chandlodia Sola|73|12,750|20,000|1.57||
|13|TPS No. 30 - Gota|119|15,000|20,000|1.33||
|14|TPS No. 30 - Gota|120|15,000|20,000|1.33|1.38|

> 17 Annez et alia 2012 op cit.

24
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Public Lands Value at Jantri Rate<br>Legend<br>-— Distance from CBD (Km)<br>—— Railway Track<br>== BRTS Oe<br>=====: Metro Phase<br>1 ~ :ao oN aoN<br>—=====« MetroMajorRoadsPhase 2 a -a— a— oe 714Kkm_<br>Sabarmati River 5 —_ i — XY<br>iz / Z A ene 12Km \<br>Co] Railway Stations & Corritys . os NS \<br>| Publig Land Study Limits . a LN \<br> Airport Boundary | J : ~~ \ (<br>Publi¢ Land Jantri Rate rd Ce . > mS wie \<br>JantriRate /—— fies 35 ES S| RS Bins 09" <3 Reon. a \<br>Ea 1.650- 4.025 sy om = Gan J ane lh ty _\<br>[_] 4.078 - 6.626 ax 7] CAel |<br>/6626-10.50 ae. ae: Bb Needed<br>10501 -16 “ai 4 a Lat sites<br>26.501 - 54:4 Se ry te A iE aes | |<br>wn| SO TRARRERNcEe pee bis Pedp (aPE<br>\ \ 4 - She RY cae. 4 a /<br>i PSS ee.<br>\ V\ ae SSS epee Te ( |<br>\ OES Aik yy TS | P|<br>\\ pareQ oe Waa,Waaldt ahe® kogf®CeWi,<br>aeTa a a a<br>0 25 5 10 15 20<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Ahmedabad 2013<br>Public Land values at Market Rate<br>Legend<br>-F Distance from CBD (Km)<br>—+—+ Railway Track<br>=== BRTS<br>===m==: Metro Phase 1 _a -<br>===== Metro Phase2 - a oN<br>— Major Roads ; a a ae NN<br>Sabarmati River ~~ (> o< — — —— - -<br>= Railway Stations& Corridors” y eee 12km \<br> ninon oly y <<br>4<br>= caneinent Boungiry A - SI 12mST \\<br>upc Land NeemendiP|2 > £> aR ~ T>\ \<br>i 279. p Jeger Q pe NN x cian, eee pas =e“e ¥° \<br>—— a ole ae ae Gen mat > cA \<br>WN 26.236-487 Reg<br>= 14.081 - 2628 UK pe Lae: sy \<br>ae \ \ 3 . | By 4 \<br>Ff cae ate Aa ig ey |<br>a Yee Oame Ey, ”opedwy 4 y |<br>OTRAS Fae<br>ee ee. 32EA) ae)Va een |<br>LA PPESER Te. baat » /<br>Oe<br>\ PA ENG<br>\ pe Vs Lad = MG /<br>TTF<br>0 25 5 10 15 20<br><!-- End of picture text -->
meter.

The market value of land parcels within the University Campus is close to Rupees 50,000 per square meter For the Cantonment (484 ha) and the Airport (403 ha) the land market value was estimated at Rupees 40,000 per square meter. These two valuable land areas are preventing the extension of the city core in the Northern part of the city. The Cantonment estate, located between kilometer 4 and 6 particularly, is underutilized and may at one point be considered for redevelopment. (See in Annex I a Google Earth image of the area).

Most of the not-so-valuable land is in the Eastern and Southern parts of Ahmedabad. The market prices for these parcels vary between Rupees 3,000 to 15,000 per square meter. It should also be noted that in the very South the parcels are smaller in sizes (0.5 to maximum 2.5 hectares). The parcels derive mostly from the TPS land appropriations regulations.

Along the BRTS corridor in the South and Eastern part of Ahmedabad the land values are still in the low range, Rs. 2,800 to 9,000 per m2.

The Metro Lines (Phases 1 and 2), not immediately planned, in the Western part of Ahmedabad, may have some impact on land values in the future. The areas more affected will be the former Greenbelt area localized next the Phase 2 Metro corridor.

The four estimations, Alternative I (a) and (b) and Alternative II (a) and (b), for the valuations of potentially marketable public land at Jantri and Market Rates are presented below in Table 6 and Table 7.

27
# INVENTORY OF PUBLIC LANDS - AHMEDABAD

|VALUTIO<br>Alternative I (a): Unused FSI a<br><br>|N OF MARKET<br>t Jantri Rates<br><br>|ABLE LANDS <br><br><br>|-ALTERNATI<br><br>|VE<br>I<br><br>|<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Category<br>|Municipal<br>|State<br>|Central<br>|Total<br>|%of<br>|
|||||||
|Public land incl. TPS Appropriations|8,082|<br>1,961|<br>34|<br>10,078|49.21%|
|20% ofGreen Belt lands<br>|1,378<br>|0<br>|(a)<br>|1,378<br>|6.73%<br>|
|Obsolete use|415|0|(e)|415|2.03%|
|Consumed FSI <45%|1,023|2,070|231|3,324|16.23%|
|45%<Consumed FSI<85%|0|0|0|(0)|0.00%|
|Consumed FSI >85%|fe)|(¢)|(e)|(e)|0.00%|
|Airport|0|ie)|694|694|694|
|Cantonment<br><br>|0<br><br>|0<br><br>|4,590<br><br>|4,590<br>|4,590<br>|
|Total<br>|10,898<br>|4,031<br>|5,549<br>|20,478|100.00%|
|Le|=||=|||
|Alternative I (b): Unused FSI a<br><br><br>|t Market Rate<br><br>|s<br><br><br>|||<br><br>|
|Category<br><br>|Municipal<br>|State<br><br>|Central<br><br>|Total<br><br>|%of<br><br>|
|||||||
|land incl. TPS Appropriations|16,110|3,798|<br>66|<br>19,974|<br>45.78%|
|20% ofGreen Belt lands|2,142|0|(a)|2,142|4.91%|
|Obsolete use|830|0|0|830|1.90%|
|Consumed FSI <45%|3,372|5,974|755|10,101|23.15%|
|45%<Consumed FSI <85%|15|1|0|16|0.04%|
|Consumed FSI >85%|0|0|0|0|0.00%|
|Aiport|0|0|1,387|1,387|1,387|
|Cantonment<br>|0<br>|0<br>|9,180<br><br>|9,180<br>|9,180<br>|
|Total<br>|22,469<br>|9,773<br>|11,388<br><br>|43,630<br>|100.00%<br>|
|feet||eme|]<br>ae|to|e]|

|INVEN<br>VALUTION OF PO<br>Alternative II (a): Available La|TORY OF PUBL<br>TENTIALLY M<br>nd at Jantri Ra<br>|IC LANDS - <br>ARKETABLE <br>tes|AHMEDABA<br>LANDS ALTE<br>|D<br>RNATIVE II<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Municipal||Central|Total|%of|
||Corporation||Government||Government||Rs. in Crores ||Total|
|Public land incl.TPS Appropriations|8,082|1,961|34|10,078|36.08%|
|20% ofGreen Belt lands|1,378|0|0|1,378|4.93%|
|Obsolete use|297|0|0|297|1.06%|
|Consumed FSI <45%|2,593|5,436|598|8,626|30.89%|
|45%<Consumed FS!<85%|544|889|20|1,454|5.20%|
|Consumed FSI >85%|225|586|4|814|2.91%|
|Airport|0|0|694|694|2.48%|
|Cantonment|0|0|4,590|4,590|16.43%|
|Total|13,118|8,872|5,940|27,930|100.00%|
|% ofTotal|47%|32%|21%|100%||
|Alternative II (b): Available La|nd at Market|Rates||||
|Category|Municipal|State|Central|Total|%of|
||Corporation||Government||Government||Rs. in Crores||Total|
|Public land incl.TPS Appropriations|16,110|3,798|66|19,974|36.62%|
|20% ofGreen Belt lands|2,142|0|0|2,142|3.93%|
|Obsoleteuse|593|oO|0|593|1.09%|
|Consumed FSI <45%|5,327|10,421|1,168|16,916|31.02%|
|45%<Consumed FS!<85%|1,098|1,644|43|2,785|5.11%|
|Consumed FSI >85%|371|1,185|6|1,562|2.86%|
|Aiport|0|0|1,387|1,387|2.54%|
|Cantonment|0|0|9,180|9,180|9,180|
|%ofTotal|47%|31%|22%|100%||
## **Table 7: Alternative II – Valuation of Public Land**

## ***Please note that one crore rupees is equal to 10 million rupees, or about USD 180,000 at the rate of INR 55 per USD**

According to Alternative I (a) valuation of public land is Rs. 20,478 Crores at Jantri rates. At Market Rates – Alternative I (b) the valuation is Rs. 43,630 Crores. According to Alternative II (a) valuation of public land is Rs. 27,930 Crores at Jantri rates. At Market Rates – Alternative II (b) the valuation is Rs. 54,539 Crores.

# **3 Conclusions: Significance of Revenue Potential**

The financial resources that could be generated by monetizing public land range between Rs. 20,000 Crores and Rs. 54000 Crores (about 3.6 billion and 9.8 billion USD, respectively).<sup>18</sup> The population of AMC (the expanded jurisdiction as of 2006) is 5,570,585. This implies per capita availability of fiscal resources amounting to Rs. 36000 to Rs. 97000 (about USD 700 and 1800, respectively)<sup>19</sup> . The amounts involved may be compared to investment requirements for urban infrastructure—a well-recognized government investment priority. HPEC at 2009-10 prices had estimated the per capita investment cost of Rs. 43386 for the entire range of physical urban infrastructure for the next twenty years.<sup>20</sup> The significance of the value of potentially marketable public land, at 82 percent of this requirement in the low case, and more than double this requirement in the high case can readily be appreciated in this context.

AMC in 2005 had prepared a City Development Plan under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM). The capital investment needs projected in the plan for a seven-year period were about Rs.9000 crores. The minimum value of public land is over twice this estimate. Thus study thus clearly demonstrates that monetizing public land could significantly contribute to investments in infrastructure and other high priority government goals.

# **4 Conclusions: Further Applications**

Unlocking the value of public land has been recognized as a potentially highly significant source of finance for urban infrastructure. The present study is the

> 18 Since potentially marketable public lands amount to about 15 percent of total developable land, releasing all these lands on the market at the same time could depress equilibrium prices and thus lower these estimates. However such a rapid release of lands both unlikely to be feasible and is perfectly avoidable with proper management of these valuable investments.

> 19 The per capita measure of availability is conservative in that the population of the expanded AMC is considerably larger than the old AMC which is our study area. Due to the jurisdictional expansion prior to the most recent census in 2011, we do not have recent population data for the old AMC. The numbers are nonetheless very substantial when compared to GDP per capita at factor cost of about USD1200 in 2011-2012 using a USD exchange rate of 55.

> 20 HPEC Table 3.2 _op.cit._

29
first of its kind— systematically inventorying public land and estimating its value using GIS and land records. The methodology developed in the study could be used in conjunction with planning for land use, transport and financing of infrastructure. The information here on market values, location and ownership types and the significance of public land on total availability of buildable land could add considerably to the usefulness of current records of land holdings in the hands of various government agencies such as the AMC, the Revenue Department and Central Agencies owning land in the city.

The task required gathering of information, consulting the agencies in charge to obtain existing maps and documents related to Town Planning Schemes and Cadastral Records. Attributes from these documents constituted the database needed for the GIS application. This substantial task was conducted over a period of eight months and involved professionals in the fields of urban planning, GIS technicians, cartographers and land assessors. It is important to note that the GIS database was not the end in itself but it helped to analyze and build scenarios to aid the decision makers in framing their policies for public land asset management and future development.

In the present exercise, land use zoning and FSI as prescribed in the Development Plan 2002 were taken as given. It could be promising to revisit these aspects with alternative land use scenarios. AUDA has published the Draft Development Plan 2012 for public consultation. Since this happened after most of the technical work was completed, the proposals of the Draft Development Plan could not be taken into account. Once the plan is approved, new valuations could be developed. Furthermore, revising land use and FSI regulations in the context of raising resources for infrastructure investments through monetizing public land after due public consultation and consideration of environmental and social issues could be a sound policy. Oftentimes public land is identified as surplus precisely because the current use is out of date. The first and best use of the land freed up can be quite different. Especially when a large well located urban parcel is freed up, a multiplicity of objectives, fiscal, environmental and social can be served. Other countries do follow such an approach and McIvor (forthcoming) offers examples of how this has been done in Canadian cities<sup>21</sup> .

Although Central Government, State Government and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation are identified as the three land-owning public agencies, within each of these there are many authorities that are in possession of land and decide use of land. Within Central Government, the Ministry of Defense is involved in case of Cantonment; the Ministry of Civil Aviation is involved in Airport etc. In case of State Government too there are various departments such as Food and Civil Supplies Department in case of warehouses for food grains, the Home

> 21 Gordon McIvor Urban Land Development And The Monetization Of Land Assets In Cities Canada Lands Company: A Canadian Success Story forthcoming World Bank

30
Department for police stations and police housing, jails and narcotics stores etc. Each of these authorities possesses this land without any compulsion or obligation for optimal utilization of the land. Consequently data are not readily available to develop well informed policies and programs for monetizing excess land and adapting public use to current needs.

Similar studies should be replicated in other cities. Where cities do not have TPS, the maps and databases could be developed from other sources, such as the basic cadasters. (e.g., village maps, city survey maps and relevant extracts of record of rights). This will have to be followed by creating a mosaic of digitized vector maps corrected with reference to geocoded satellite images and then attribute data can be developed in GIS. To accomplish this, a team that is competent in interpreting cadasters and using analytical capabilities of GIS would be necessary. However such a study can be replicated whenever access to ownership records is available on a consistent basis. Such a requirement should be possible to meet in other cities.

This study fairly conclusively demonstrated that unlocking the value of public land could be a significant fiscal contribution to investment in urban infrastructure. Not only is excess public land highly valuable, but this study also shows that aggregate public land holdings have a substantial footprint— amounting to 32 percent of total buildable space even in a city such as Ahmedabad, which is known more for its vibrant private sector than its large government presence.

31