|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
| |
| − | This article has been sourced from an authoritative, official <br/>publication. Therefore, it has been ‘locked’ and will never be <br/> thrown open to readers to edit or comment on.<br/>
| |
| | | | |
| − | After the formal launch of their online archival encyclopædia, <br/> readers who wish to update or add further details can do so on <br/> a ‘Part II’ of this article. </div>
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | [[Category:India|N]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Government|N]]
| |
| − | [[Category: Economy-Industry-Resources |N]]
| |
| − | [[Category: Development |N]]
| |
| − | [[Category: Places |N]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==The source of this article==
| |
| − | ''' Draft Revised Regional Plan 2021: National Capital Region '''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | July, 2013
| |
| − |
| |
| − | National Capital Region Planning Board,
| |
| − | Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India,
| |
| − | Core-4B, First Floor, India Habitat Centre,
| |
| − | Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [http://www.ncrpb.nic.in/ National Capital Region Planning Board]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | =National Capital Region (India): Counter-Magnet Areas =
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | = BACKGROUND=
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Section 8(f) of the NCR Planning Board Act, 1985 empowers the Board to select, in consultation with the
| |
| − | State Governments concerned, any urban area outside National Capital Region (NCR) having regard to its
| |
| − | location, population and potential for growth, which may be developed as Counter-Magnet Area (CMA)
| |
| − | in order to achieve the objectives of the Regional Plan.
| |
| − | The counter-magnet area as envisaged in Regional Plan-2001 for NCR was to play two distinctive and
| |
| − | mutually complementary roles in the context of NCR:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | a) As interceptors of migratory flows into NCR, which may escalate, as the accelerated development of
| |
| − | the NCR would provide a pull to migrants from the less developed adjoining areas;
| |
| − |
| |
| − | b) As regional growth centres in the region of their setting, which would help to achieve a balanced
| |
| − | pattern of urbanization over a period of time.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Regional Plan-2001 for NCR envisaged that any such urban area which are located sufficiently
| |
| − | away from NCR and have its known established roots and inherent potentials to function as viable
| |
| − | independent growth foci may act as counter-magnet for the Region. After a detailed study taking
| |
| − | into consideration various parameters such as nodality with respect to transportation network
| |
| − | including the quality of physical linkages in the form of transportation and communications
| |
| − | facilities, spatial, size, viability, migration, etc., five Counter-Magnets were identified namely;
| |
| − | Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh; Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh; Hisar in Haryana; Kota in Rajasthan and
| |
| − | Patiala in Punjab in the said Plan (Map 18.1 National Capital Region: Counter –Magnet Areas
| |
| − | 2001).
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Regional Plan-2001 for NCR also proposed policy guidelines for the development of the Counter-Magnet
| |
| − | Areas which were reiterated in the Regional Plan-2021 for NCR. It was proposed that the respective State
| |
| − | Governments/implementing agencies would prepare an integrated development programme for the
| |
| − | Counter-Magnet Areas for strengthening their economic base and upgradation its physical and social
| |
| − | infrastructure. The concerned State Governments were also required to take steps to strengthen the
| |
| − | organizational capacities of the local bodies/development authorities and provide adequate financial
| |
| − | resources for development. The Central Government and NCR Planning Board were to provide financial
| |
| − | assistance for strengthening of regional linkages like transport, communications, etc., for the development
| |
| − | of these areas.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Study Group on NCR Policy Zones, Demographic profile and settlement pattern constituted while
| |
| − | preparing the Regional Plan-2021 for NCR was of the view that the selection of counter-magnets in
| |
| − | areas/States, from where only less than six percent migrants come to NCT-Delhi do not appear to be
| |
| − | justified and there is a need to review the policy in detail. To be effective, counter-magnet areas need to
| |
| − | be located at a reasonable distance from NCT-Delhi and should have adequate potential for development
| |
| − | to retain the out migration.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As indicated in the Chapter 4 of the Plan, the Census data for migration were available upto 1991
| |
| − | while preparing the Regional Plan-2021 for NCR and therefore, analysis of the migration pattern
| |
| − | could not be carried out. However, there has been a perceptible change in the growth dynamics in terms
| |
| − | of labour mobility, investment patterns, economic structure, connectivity i.e., communication, rail,
| |
| − | road and air, availability of infrastructure facilities and civic amenities etc. in the intervening period.
| |
| − | Subsequently, on the release of current migration data by the census of India for the year 2001, Board
| |
| − | commissioned a Study on Counter-Magnet Areas to Delhi and National Capital Region through a
| |
| − | Consultant. The Study was to review the counter-magnet areas development strategy including selection
| |
| − | of counter-magnet areas as adopted by the Board and to suggest appropriate changes in the strategy, if any
| |
| − | and evolve an alternative strategy for the development of counter-magnet areas for making them to play
| |
| − | an effective role in achieving the objectives of the Regional Plan-2021 for NCR.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.2 REVIEW OF EXISTING CMAS DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Comparative performance of existing CMA’s was analyzed and status of the outcome is given in the
| |
| − | Table 18.1.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter1.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In order to review the status of developmental activities covering location and connectivity, regional
| |
| − | importance, population, migration and economic base, master plan, and status report of NCRPB funded
| |
| − | projects for each town a reconnaissance survey was taken up during the Study for all the five existing
| |
| − | counter-magnet areas of Hisar, Patiala, Gwalior, Bareilly and Kota. As per Census 2001, in all the
| |
| − | CMA’s, the net-migration is positive i.e., in-migration is higher than out-migration except in case of
| |
| − | Bareilly. Similarly workers participation rate in all the CMAs has increased and regional connectivity has
| |
| − | improved. Decadal growth rate in case of Bareilly, Gwalior and Kota has reduced whereas in other two
| |
| − | areas it has increased. Individually Hisar has improved water supply and sewerage system, Patiala besides
| |
| − | water supply and sewerage has got an integrated township in process, Bareilly has got two residential
| |
| − | development schemes besides Transport Nagar, Kota developed integrated township and Gwalior
| |
| − | developed a new town development scheme.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.3 MIGRATION TO NCT-DELHI AND NCR BASED ON THE STUDY
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.3.1 Trend of Migration to Delhi
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Study revealed that the population of NCT-Delhi has increased from 40.66 lakhs in 1971 to 138.5
| |
| − | lakhs in 2001 (refer Table 4.6 of Chapter 4). Population of NCT-Delhi increased to 167.5 lakh in
| |
| − | 2011(Census 2011). Since migration data for 2001-2011 is not available, migration data could not be
| |
| − |
| |
| − | analyzed. As indicated in Table 18.2, the in-migration during same period has increased from 8.76 lakh in
| |
| − | 1971 to 22.22 lakh in 2001. However, the share of out-migration from NCT-Delhi has slightly increased
| |
| − | from 2.42 lakh in 1961-1971 to 2.82 lakh during 1981-1991 and further to 4.58 lakh in 1991-2001. The
| |
| − | percentage of net migrants (In-migrants – Out-migrants) to NCT-Delhi has decreased from 45.06% during
| |
| − | 1961-1971 to 39.82% during 1991-2001. However, it has increased to 17.64 lakh during 1991-2001 in
| |
| − | absolute numbers.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter2.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The profile of the migrants highlights that the total migration to NCT-Delhi in the decade 1991-2001
| |
| − | including migration within the State of enumeration is 23.54 lakh i.e., 21.73 lakhs migrants from rest of
| |
| − | the country to NCT-Delhi, 0.49 lakhs migrants from outside India to NCT-Delhi and 1.32 lakh migration
| |
| − | within the State of enumeration. The composition of migrants in terms of literacy is 70.18% literates and
| |
| − | 29.82% are illiterates, which is comparatively higher than the average literacy rate of the country i.e.,
| |
| − | 65.37%. The sex ratio of migrant population is 785 females per 1000 male which is lower than sex ratio
| |
| − | of NCT-Delhi i.e., 821. Out of the total migrants coming to NCT-Delhi, 56% are the male migrants and
| |
| − | 44% are the female migrants. The percentage of male illiterates i.e., 23.85% is lesser than female
| |
| − | illiterates, which is 37.43%. The work participation rate of people migrating to NCT-Delhi is 43.21%
| |
| − | which is higher than the WPR of NCT-Delhi i.e., 38.82%.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.3.2 State-wise in-migration to NCT-Delhi
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As per 2001 census, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar had sent maximum migration to NCT-Delhi and together
| |
| − | contribute 64.25% of the total migration. Uttar Pradesh including Uttarakhand sent maximum migration
| |
| − | of 45.16% followed by Bihar i.e., 19.09%. The percentage share of migration from Bihar has increased
| |
| − | from 5.77% in 1971-1981 to 19.09% in 1991-2001. On the other hand, migration from Uttar Pradesh
| |
| − | including Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana has marginally decreased (refer Table 18.3). It
| |
| − | has reduced from 50.09%, 12.93%, 7.63% and 6.40% in 1971-1981 to 45.16% including Uttarakhand,
| |
| − | 7.87%, 4.06% and 2.33% in 1991-2001 from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Punjab, respectively.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter3.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.3.3 In-Migration to NCT Delhi and Rest of NCR including inter-district migration within Rest
| |
| − | of NCR
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Table 18.4 reveals that during 1991-2001, in-migration to NCTD is 21,02,909 persons which include the
| |
| − | migrants whose place of last residence is unclassifiable as 'Rural' or 'Urban' however, in-migration from
| |
| − | rural and urban is 14,92,802 persons and 6,10,107 persons, respectively. Migration to Rest of NCR
| |
| − | including inter-district migration within Rest of NCR is 24,55,154 persons where 6,49,606 persons is
| |
| − | from urban areas and 18,05,548 persons is from rural areas.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter4.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.3.4 In-migration to Rest of NCR excluding Inter-District Migration
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The total in-migration to Rest of NCR excluding inter-district migration within Rest of NCR is 10,94,288
| |
| − | persons where 2,71,121 persons is from urban areas and 7,86,788 is from rural areas (Table 18.5).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter5.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.3.5 Reasons of Migration to NCT-Delhi
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The main reasons for migration to NCT-Delhi as per Census 2001 in descending order are employment,
| |
| − | family movement (moved with household), marriage, education and business, which account for 37.56%,
| |
| − | 36.78%, 13.80%, 2.68% and 0.54% of migrants, respectively during 1991-2001. Thus, work/employment
| |
| − | and persons moved with household dominate as the reason for migration which together accounts for
| |
| − | around 75 % of the migration to NCT-Delhi. The share of migration due to employment is 36.42 % for all
| |
| − | duration of residence while it was 37.56 % during the last decade i.e., 1991-2001. The share of migrants
| |
| − | due to education is 2.68% during 1991-2001 compared to 1.48% for all duration of stay. If the migration
| |
| − | pattern for all duration of residence and migration during 1991-2001 is compared, it is observed that share
| |
| − | of migrants for education and persons moved with household has increased from 1.48% and 33.73% to
| |
| − | 2.68% and 36.78%, respectively. While percentage of migrants due to marriage has decreased from
| |
| − | 16.12% to 13.80% for the same time period. It can be observed from the table below that the trend of
| |
| − |
| |
| − | migration to NCT-Delhi for the employment purpose has increased from 31.29% to 37.60% from the
| |
| − | decade 1981-1991 to decade 1991-2001 (Table 18.6).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter6.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It indicates that the Core of the Region should adopt such economic policies and activities which attract
| |
| − | less large scale job creation and restrain the flow of migrants coming to the Core of the Region. This also
| |
| − | means strict follow up and review of the economic policies of the Core on a regular interval to monitor
| |
| − | the flow of migrants and restructure the economic policies from time to time.
| |
| − | Major observations of the past trend in National Capital Region as the Study depict the following:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | i) NCT-Delhi dominates the population trend in the NCR. In a span of five decades 1961-2001, the
| |
| − |
| |
| − | population has increased 5 fold. The decadal growth rate has been consistently above 50% from
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1961-1991, except for the period of 1991-2001 which is 46.81%. The increase in net migration has
| |
| − |
| |
| − | been about 3 folds from 1961-2001 i.e., 6.34 lakhs in 1961-1971 to 17.64 lakhs in 1991-2001(refer
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Table 18.2).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ii) Population in Haryana sub-region has increased by three times in five decades i.e., 28.93 lakh in
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1961 to 86.87 lakh in 2001. The decadal growth of 34.55 % was highest in the span of 1981-1991.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The sub-region registered highest increase of 20.43 lakh population from 1991-2001.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | iii) Uttar Pradesh sub-region has witnessed increase of 2.5 times in the period of five decades (1961-
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2001). The decadal growth rate has been quite consistent from 1981-2001. The absolute increase in
| |
| − |
| |
| − | population is highest in comparison to other NCR sub-regions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | iv) The least influence to the NCR is from Rajasthan sub-region. Though the change in population is
| |
| − |
| |
| − | increasing steadily, the total contribution of the sub-region is lowest.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | v) Analysis of migration data from Census 2001 reveals that out of 593 districts in India, 100 districts
| |
| − |
| |
| − | contribute migration towards NCT-Delhi which is 74% of total migrants. Out of these 100 districts,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | the top 20 districts accommodate 31.76 % of the total migrants to NCT-Delhi. These 20 districts are
| |
| − |
| |
| − | located in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Kolkata (refer Table 18.7).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Migration data for 2001-2011 not available.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | vi) As indicated in following table, among these top 20 districts, 10 districts are from Uttar Pradesh
| |
| − |
| |
| − | namely, Bulandshahr, Aligarh, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Etah, Azamgarh, Gorakhpur, Agra, Budaun and
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Muzaffarnagar which contribute maximum migrants to NCT-Delhi which is about 17.32 % of the
| |
| − |
| |
| − | total migrants. Five districts of Bihar, which include Madhubani, Darbhanga, Patna, Samastipur and
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Muzaffarpur are among the top 20 districts consisting of 7.71% of total migrants to NCT-Delhi. The
| |
| − |
| |
| − | migration from two districts of Haryana i.e., Sonepat and Rohtak is 2.48% of total migrants. The
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | migration from remaining three districts is 1.45%, 1.48% and 1.35% from Garhwal in Uttranchal
| |
| − |
| |
| − | (now Uttarakhand), Chatra in Jharkand and Kolkata in West Bengal, respectively.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | vii) Out of these top 20 districts, 11 districts contribute maximum migrations which are within 300
| |
| − |
| |
| − | kilometre distance from NCT -Delhi. NCT-Delhi is mostly receiving maximum migration from
| |
| − |
| |
| − | nearby districts located within NCR area i.e., Ghaziabad, Bulandshahr and Meerut of Uttar Pradesh
| |
| − |
| |
| − | sub-region and Rohtak and Sonepat of Haryana sub-region. Bulandshahr sent highest migrants to
| |
| − |
| |
| − | NCT-Delhi i.e., 2.96% of the total migrants. This also emphasizes the need of providing efficient,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | affordable and reliable public mass transport system in the form of sub-urban rail system (RRTS) in
| |
| − |
| |
| − | the Region especially connecting these towns/districts. In order to further check the migration from
| |
| − |
| |
| − | these towns/districts the opportunities need to be maximized to enable them to compete effectively
| |
| − |
| |
| − | with NCT-Delhi offering jobs, economic activities, comprehensive transport system, housing, social
| |
| − |
| |
| − | infrastructure and quality of environment, if not better at least at par with NCT-Delhi.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | viii) Analysis of migration data from Census 2001 reveals that out of 593 districts in India, 100 districts
| |
| − |
| |
| − | are sending maximum migration to Rest of NCR which is 81.29% of total migrants. It is also
| |
| − |
| |
| − | observed that 81 districts out of the top 100 districts sending migrants to NCT-Delhi and the Rest of
| |
| − |
| |
| − | NCR are common. These 81 common districts contribute 72.78% of total migrants to Rest of NCR
| |
| − |
| |
| − | districts including NCT-Delhi which is 34,36,058 persons (Table 18.8).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter8.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Accordingly, in total 119 districts are sending maximum migrants to NCT-Delhi and Rest of NCR.
| |
| − | The demographical trends clearly show that there is an impact of implementation of the policies
| |
| − | envisaged in the Regional Plans and financing of infrastructure projects in the NCR by the Board on the
| |
| − | net-migration to the NCT-Delhi, which are as follows:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | i) The growth of population in NCT-Delhi has declined to 47.02% in the decade 1991-2001, as
| |
| − | compared to the growth of population since 1951 recording decennial growth rates of 52.44%,
| |
| − | 52.93%, 53% and 51.45% for the decades in 1951-1961, 1961-1971, 1971-1981 and 1981-1991
| |
| − | respectively (refer Table 18.2).
| |
| − | ii) There is also a decline in the percentage share of net-migrants in the decadal growth of population in
| |
| − | NCT-Delhi from 45.06% in 1961-1971 to 39.82% in 1991-2001 (refer Table 18.2). There is a
| |
| − | gradual rise in the decadal component of natural increase of population from 7.73 lakh in 1961-1971
| |
| − | to 12.02 lakh in 1971-1981 to 18.95 lakh in 1981-1991 and 26.66 lakh in the year 1991-2001.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter7.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | iii) The percentage share of migration from NCR States viz., Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to
| |
| − | NCT-Delhi consistently declined in the last three decades. Taken together, the share of migrants
| |
| − | from the three States declined from 65.76% in 1981-1991 to 57.09% in 1991-2001 including 5.11%
| |
| − | from Uttarakhand.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | iv) The number of out-migrants from NCT-Delhi which ranged from 2.42 lakh to 2.82 lakh in the three
| |
| − | decades preceding 1991-2001 increased to 4.58 lakh in the decade 1991-2001 (Table 18.2).
| |
| − | It would be worthwhile to note from the above facts that the net-migration from the constituent States of
| |
| − | NCR has declined significantly. A linked conclusion based on the foregoing population indicators seems to
| |
| − | suggest that urban areas of NCR are growing significantly to start a trend of out-migration from the NCTDelhi
| |
| − | and also to act as counter-magnet to the NCT-Delhi to attract migrants from the States outside NCR.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 18.4 SELECTION OF COUNTER – MAGNET AREAS
| |
| − | In order to select CMAs top 100 districts were short listed based on migration data analysis as the
| |
| − | contenders since these were contributing about 3/4th of the total migration to the Region i.e., NCT-Delhi
| |
| − | and Rest of NCR districts. The identification criteria like distance, population at stage-I, special
| |
| − | consideration for lateral addition and deletion at stage-II and final criteria for selection i.e. migration from
| |
| − | influence zone, development index like infrastructure development index and district development index
| |
| − | were used for selecting the Counter Magnet Areas. Based on these identification criteria, the top 100
| |
| − | districts were subjected to consideration such as distance and subsequently the cities/towns in these
| |
| − | districts were considered for population and locational attributes. Considering these aspects, the Study
| |
| − | report recommended thirteen cities/towns contender for proposed counter-magnet areas (refer Table
| |
| − | 18.9). Adding in the five existing counter-magnet areas and two recommended by the State Governments,
| |
| − | the twenty cities/towns were subject to further study i.e., existing conditions of development and strategy
| |
| − | for further development.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter9.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter10.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Since, some of the cities/towns are located in proximity i.e., within 100 km distance were deleted and
| |
| − | cities/towns with better potential for industrial and other development or for other significant reasons
| |
| − | were retained. The remaining fifteen cities/towns were further examined from the point of view of
| |
| − | influence zone and sending migration less than one lakh to focus on areas/zone sending maximum
| |
| − | migration. Nine cities/towns selected in the previous stage and finally to select the proposed CMA’s on
| |
| − | the basis of their economic potential, in addition to the composite infrastructure index compiled by CMIE,
| |
| − | the Study report also applied District Development Index published by Ministry of Finance. Considering
| |
| − | the various aspects, Study report recommended six cities/towns as Counter-Magnet Areas for NCR
| |
| − | requiring immediate developments which are located in all directions of high migration with respect to
| |
| − | NCR/NCT-Delhi. These recommendations of the Consultant were presented and discussed with NCR
| |
| − | participating States and all the other stakeholders Workshop held on 22.11.2007 and finally five
| |
| − | cities/towns emerged as the final selection as the counter-magnet areas for NCR. The five proposed
| |
| − | CMA’s covers 24 districts within their influence zone and have the potential to tackle around 8 lakh
| |
| − | people migrating to NCR including NCT-Delhi. These recommendations of the Study on Counter-Magnet
| |
| − | Areas to the National Capital Region were discussed in the 56th meeting of the statutory Planning
| |
| − | Committee of the Board held on 19.01.2008 and following cities/towns were identified as Counter-
| |
| − | Magnet Areas for NCR (Map 18.2 National Capital Region: Counter-Magnet Areas 2021).
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | i) Ambala in Haryana
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ii) Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh
| |
| − |
| |
| − | iii) Dehradun in Uttarakhand
| |
| − |
| |
| − | iv) Hisar in Haryana
| |
| − |
| |
| − | v) Kanpur Nagar in Uttar Pradesh
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It was also decided that these counter-magnet areas shall be an area of about 120 kms radius around
| |
| − | the above identified towns as zone of influence for migration. Concerned State Governments shall
| |
| − | notify their respective Counter-Magnet Areas proposed to be developed in and around these towns
| |
| − | and prepare Development Plan and Plan of Action for its implementation. While preparing the Plan,
| |
| − | the concerned State Governments will consider the strategies proposed for their development in the
| |
| − | said Study.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Committee regarding the three existing CMAs, namely, Gwalior in MP, Kota in Rajasthan and
| |
| − | Patiala in Punjab decided that these may continue as Counter-Magnet Areas. However, financing to the
| |
| − | projects of these Counter-Magnet Areas would be given low priority. Further, the committee
| |
| − | recommended that the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India and Planning Commission
| |
| − | may be requested to consider a Special Package for Allahabad, Gorakhpur and Muzzafarpur and area
| |
| − | around these cities/towns to improve the infrastructure facilities and employment opportunities in these
| |
| − | areas as in the Study these three places had a very low infrastructure development index in comparison to
| |
| − | other identified places. NCR Planning Board would not associate in any kind of intervention with these
| |
| − | areas.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File: counter11.PNG||frame|500px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The recommendations of the Planning Committee were approved by the Board in its 31st meeting held on
| |
| − | 11.11.2009. Board also decided that the Counter-Magnet Areas should not limit to urban area only and
| |
| − | development could be proposed in the form of corridors also. Respective State Governments shall notify
| |
| − | their respective Counter-Magnet Areas and prepare Development Plan/Master Plan and Plan of Action for
| |
| − | its implementation.
| |
_subsidies_on_petroleum.jpg&oldid=107203){kind=link}
_subsidies_on_petroleum.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}