dhaula sidha hydro electric project (dshep) dhaula …
TRANSCRIPT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, EXTENSION EDUCATION & RURAL SOCIOLOGY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE CSK HP KRISHI VISHVAVIDYALAYA, PALAMPUR 176 062
September, 2011
SOCIO ECONOMIC SURVEY (SES) ON
DHAULA SIDHA HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT (DSHEP)
66 MW DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH
S K CHAUHAN H R SHARMA VIRENDER KUMAR
Final Report on SJVNL Funded Research Project
Dhaula Sidha Temple
Livestock farming –A reality of socio
economic fabric
Storage of maize stalk -Balehu
Research Report 54
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We, a team of Agroeconomists, wish to thank the SJVNL for funding the “Social Economic Survey
(SES)” study of Dhaula Sidha Hydro Electric Project (DSHEP) 66 MW, Hamirpur being executed by
SJVN Limited, a corporate venture. Our special thanks are due to Mr. Nand Lal, Director, SJVNL,
Shimla for his initiative, advice and valuable support during course of the completion of the study. We
are also thankful to Er. Sushil Mahajan, Head of DSHEP, Hamirpur, Er Sushil Sagar Sharma, Er. D.
Sarveshwar, Er. Avdesh Prasad and Er. Surinder Paul for their advice, support and help in the
coordination of various activities of the study.
Our sincere thanks are to the Vice-Chancellor and Director of Research of CSK Himachal Pradesh
Agricultural University, Palampur and Head Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension
Education & Rural Sociology who provided all assistance and facilities to accomplish the study.
Sample farmers, in the project area deserve our sincere thanks for their kind cooperation in providing
required data about different aspects of their livelihood. The senior and junior research fellows namely
Arvind, Kulbhushan, Dalvinder, Kusma and Sakshi, who worked in the project, deserve special
appreciations for their hard work, dedication, paying number of visits and sincere efforts. We are also
very much indebted to all the administrative and supporting staff of different offices in the University,
especially to the staff of our Department. Last but not the least, we remain thankful to all those who
helped either directly or indirectly to bring out this report in time
Palampur Research Team
September 21 , 2011 S K Chauhan
H R Sharma
Virender Kumar
ABBREVIATIONS
APL Above poverty line
BPL Below poverty line
DSHEP Dhaula Sidha hydro electric project
Ha Hectare
HTM Horticulture technology mission
hhs Households
K/k Kanal: Local unit of land measurement (1 Kanal= 384 sq mt
and 25 Kanal = 1 ha)
LBRB Left bank of river beas
NA Not Available
OBC Other backward castes
PAFs Project affected farmers
PAHHs Project affected households
PAVs Project affected villages
PRIs Panchayati raj institutions
q Quintal
RBRB Right bank of river beas
SC Scheduled caste
SES Socio economic survey
SIA Social impact assessment
SJVNL Satluj jal vidyut nigam limited
CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i-vi
0.1 Suggestive summary iv
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-5
1.1 Dhaula sidha hydroelectric project (DSHEP) 1
1.2 The baseline socio economic survey (SES) 3
1.3 Objectives of study 4
1.4 Chapter scheme 4
1.5 Practical and scientific utility of the study 5
Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY 6-16
2.1 General 6
2.2 Coverage 6
2.3 Design of the sample 6
2.4 Selection of villages 7
2.5 Selection of project affected households 7
2.6 Field staff and data collection 15
2.7 Analysis of data 15
2.8 Output 16
2.9 Limitations of the study 16
Chapter 3 SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF AFFECTED
HOUSEHOLDS
17-64
3.1 Rationale 17
3.2 Caste structure 17
3.3 Vulnerable households 18
3.4 Economic status of project affected households 19
3.5 Occupational pattern 20
3.6 Age wise composition of sample population 20
3.7 Educational status 22
3.8 Housing structure and investment 23
3.9 Household durables 23
3.10 Livestock inventory 24
3.11 Land utilization pattern 25
3.12 Cropping pattern 25
3.13 Vegetable production 26
3.14 Foodgrains, fruits & vegetable production 27
3.15 Average yields 27
3.16 Production and disposal of foodgrains 28
3.17 Source wise configuration of household income 29
3.18 Consumption pattern 30
3.19 Saving pattern 30
3.20 Purpose and source wise borrowings 30
Chapter 4 LOSS OF LAND AND LIVELIHOOD 65-85
4.1 Loss of land 65
4.2 Estimates of total land loss 66
4.3 Physical and financial estimates of output realized from the
land to be lost
67
4.4 Dependence on natural resources 67
4.5 Estimates of loss of land by alternative classification of
sample affected households
68
4.6 Compensation and rehabilitation plan 69
Chapter 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 86-92
5.1 Introduction 86
5.2 Main objectives 87
5.3 Methodology 87
5.4 Main findings 88
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
Table 0.1 Salient socio-economic characteristics of project affected households v
Table 0.2 Salient land related characteristics of project affected households vi
Table 2.1 List of project affected villages considered for socio economic survey in the
command area of DSHEP
7
Table 2.2 Sampling plan for project affected villages on LBRB 8
Table 2.3 Sampling plan for project affected villages on RBRB 9
Table 2.4 Classification of project affected sample households 9
Table 2.5 Group wise classification of project affected sample households 10
Table 2.6 Classification of sample farmers and all PAFs for deriving estimate 10
Table 2.7 Classification of project affected sample households 10
Table 2.8 List of project affected sample households on LBRB 11
Table 2.9 List of project affected sample households on RBRB 13
Table 1a Distribution of heads of households among castes on LBRB (No.) 32
Table 1b Distribution of heads of households in different castes across groups on LBRB
(No.)
32
Table 1c Distribution of heads of households among castes on RBRB (No.) 32
Table 1d Distribution of heads of households in different castes across groups on RBRB
(No.)
33
Table 2a Distribution of vulnerable heads of households among different categories of
vulnerability on LBRB (No.)
33
Table 2b Distribution of vulnerable heads of households among different categories of
vulnerability on LBRB (No.)
33
Table 2c Distribution of vulnerable heads of households among different categories of
vulnerability on RBRB (No.)
34
Table 2d Distribution of vulnerable heads of households across groups on RBRB (No.) 34
Table 3a Distribution of above poverty line and below poverty line heads of households
across castes on LBRB (No.)
35
Table 3b Distribution of above poverty line and below poverty line heads of households
across castes on RBRB (No.)
35
Table 4a Occupational profile of sample households on LBRB (No.) 36
Table 4b Occupational profile of sample households on RBRB (No.) 36
Table 5a Age wise distribution of sample population on LBRB (No.) 37
Table 5b Age wise distribution of sample population on RBRB (No.) 38
Table 6a. Educational status of sample population on LBRB (No.) 39
Table 6b Educational status of sample population on RBRB (No.) 40
Table 7a Types of buildings owned by sample households on LBRB (No.) 41
Table 7b Types of buildings of owned by sample households on RBRB (No.) 42
Table 8a Investment on buildings by sample households on LBRB (Lakh Rs./hh) 43
Table 8b Investment on buildings by sample households on RBRB (Lakh Rs. /hh) 44
Table 9a Inventory of household durables possessed by sample households on LBRB 45
Table 9b Inventory of household durables possessed by sample households on RBRB 47
Table 10a Livestock inventory of sample households on LBRB 49
Table 10b Livestock inventory of sample households on RBRB 50
Table 11a Land Utilization Pattern of sample households on LBRB (ha/hh) 51
Table 11b Land Utilization Pattern of sample households on RBRB (ha/hh) 51
Table 12a Cropping pattern on sample households of LBRB (in ha / household) 52
Table 12b Cropping pattern on sample households of RBRB (in ha / household) 52
Table 13a Area, production and income from vegetables and spice production on LBRB 53
Table 13b Area, production and income from vegetables and spice production on RBRB 54
Table 14a Production of crops on sample households of LBRB (q/hh) 55
Table 14b Production of crops on sample households of RBRB (q/hh) 55
Table 15a Average yield of crops on sample farms on LBRB (q/ha) 56
Table 15b Average yield of crops on sample farms on RBRB (q/ha) 56
Table 16a Production and disposal of foodgrains on sample households on LBRB (q /hh) 57
Table 16b Production and disposal of foodgrains on sample households on RBRB (q /hh) 57
Table 17a Source wise composition of annual household income of sample households on
LBRB (Rs./hh)
58
Table 17b Source wise composition of annual household income of sample households on
RBRB (Rs./hh)
59
Table 18a Consumption pattern of sample households on LBRB (Rs/hh/yr) 60
Table 18b Consumption pattern of sample households on RBRB (Rs/hh/yr) 61
Table19a Saving pattern of sample households on LBRB (Rs/Yr) 63
Table19b Saving pattern of sample households on RBRB (Rs/Yr) 63
Table 20a Purpose wise borrowings of sample households on LBRB 63
Table 20b Purpose wise borrowings of sample households on RBRB 63
Table 21a Source wise amount borrowed by sample households on LBRB 64
Table 21b Source wise amount borrowed by sample households on LBRB 64
Table 22a Land loss due to project by sample households on LBRB (ha/hh) 72
Table 22b Land loss due to project by sample households on RBRB (ha/hh) 72
Table 23a Existing land, land loss and land remaining with sample households on LBRB
(ha/hh)
73
Table 23b Existing land, land loss and land remaining with sample households on RBRB
(ha/hh)
74
Table 24a Estimates of total land loss by project affected households on LBRB (ha) 75
Table 24b Estimates of total land loss by project affected households on RBRB (ha) 76
Table 25a Physical and financial estimates of output realized from the land to be lost on
LBRB (qty in q and value in Rs/ hh/year)
77
Table 25b Physical and financial estimates of output realized from the land to be lost on
RBRB (qty in q and value in Rs/ hh/year)
77
Table 26a Physical and financial estimates of output realized from the land to be lost on
LBRB assuming 50% rise in production levels ((qty in q and value in Rs/
hh/year)
78
Table 26b Physical and financial estimates of output realized from the land to be lost on
RBRB assuming 50% rise in production levels ((qty in q and value in Rs/
hh/year)
78
Table 27a Dependence of the sample households on natural resources on LBRB 79
Table 27b Dependence of the sample households on natural resources on RBRB 80
Table 28a Land holding of sample households on LBRB (ha/hh) 81
Table 28b Land holding of sample households on RBRB (ha/hh) 81
Table 29a Expected land loss by sample households on LBRB (in ha/hh) 82
Table 29b Expected land loss by sample households on RBRB (in ha/hh) 82
Table 30a Land remaining with sample households on LBRB (in ha/hh) 83
Table 30b Land remaining with sample households on RBRB (in ha/hh) 83
Table 31a Estimates of total land loss by project affected households on LBRB (ha) 84
Table 31b Estimates of total land loss by project affected households on RBRB (ha) 84
Table 32a Estimates of production and other losses on LBRB ( Rs/hh) 85
Table 32b Estimates of production and other losses on RBRB ( Rs/hh) 85
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.
Title Between page
Fig 1.1 Map of the project affected villages under DSHEP, 66MW, Hamirpur 2
Fig 2.1 Group wise distribution of project affected households 10-11
Fig 2.2 Distribution of project affected households by farm size category 10-11
Fig 3.1 Caste wise distribution of project affected households 33-34
Fig 3.2 Distribution of project affected households by vulnerable category 33-34
Fig 3.3 Distribution of project affected households by economic status category 35-36
Fig 3.4 Occupational distribution of project affected households 36-37
Fig 3.5 Gender wise distribution of project affected population 38-39
Fig 3.6 Cropping pattern in project affected area 52-53
Fig 3.7 Average yield of crops in project affected area 56-57
Fig 3.8 Source wise household income of project affected households 59-60
Fig 4.1 Status of land in project affected households 74-75
Fig 4.2 Estimates of production and other losses on LBRB 85-86
Fig.4.3 Estimates of production and other losses on RBRB 85-86
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Title
Glimpses of socio economic life
Effects of project on private assets and public facilities
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Socio Economic Survey (SES) of the proposed Dhaula Sidha Hydro Electric Project
(DSHEP), 66 MW on the boundary of Hamirpur-Kangra district has been carried out to assess
the socio economic profile of the different groups of project affected households in the project
affected villages and to suggest a rehabilitation plan on the basis of estimates of loss of land
and other privileges enjoined upon by the stake holders. The proposed project will affect
households in 44 villages (41 inhabited and 3 uninhabited) in 19 panchayats (11 panchayats
on the left bank and 8 panchayats on the right bank). In terms of households while at least 713
households (440 on left bank and 273 on right bank) would be affected directly in terms of
losing their land, 2160 households (1452 on the left bank and 708 on the right bank) would be
affected indirectly in terms of losing access to various infrastructural facilities like road,
education, health, drinking and irrigation water, etc. The estimated submergence area will
spread across 15-16 km upto Bir-Bagerha in river Beas, 2 km upto Paprola in Neugal khud
and 4 kms upto Gurorhu in Pung khud tributaries of Beas.
The SES survey was carried out in all the inhabited villages to have a wide coverage of all
affected villages. A sample of 100 project affected households was chosen with a minimum of
at least one household from each project affected village to document various socio economic
characteristics among different groups based on the land that would be lost. The survey
revealed that the caste structure of project affected households is dominated by general castes
comprising Rajput and Brahmans followed by households of other backward castes on the left
bank and those of scheduled castes on the right bank. A majority of the vulnerable households
were headed by widows and disables on the left bank of which one–half were in Group I. In
comparison, on the right bank, only widows headed such households of which three-fourths
were in Group III. Further the incidence of poverty, measured by the proportion of households
below poverty line, was high on the right bank as compared to the left bank. Service, both in
private and public sectors, followed by daily paid labour were major occupations of the
sample households on both sides of the river. Agriculture, including crop and animal
husbandry, was being practiced by 16.39% of sample households on the left and 12.82% of
the households on the right bank (Table 0.1).
Some important results that emerged are: first, more than one-fifth of the total population
comprised children below 5 years of age and those above 60 years of age; second, the
proportion of school going population between 6-18 years of age comprised 20 to 21% of
ii
the total population; third, the proportion of labour force actively engaged in various
economic activities was 57 to 58 % and in total work force the proportion of females was
higher than males; fourth, the overall family size was about 7 persons per households; fifth,
the sex ratio (females per 1000 males) was 839 (Table 0.1).
The overall literacy level of population was 88% which was as high as 93 to 94% among
males as against 81 to 82% among their male counterparts. Further, while most of the
females were educated from primary to senior secondary levels, the educated males were
more evenly distributed across different levels of education, say from primary level to post
graduate and technically as well as professionally qualified levels. The underlying message is
the need for making efforts to impart higher and vocational education to women to enhance
their knowledge and skills.
The average investment on buildings was Rs. 6.32 lakh on the left bank and Rs 5.89 lakh on
the right bank with the highest proportion of investment on residential buildings. The average
value of durables per household residing on the left bank was nearly 2.3 times as compared to
an average value of durables per household on the right bank which, among other things,
could be attributed to high economic status on account of better infrastructure and
connectivity.
The average size of land holding on the right bank of river Beas was 1.55 ha with the highest
of 3.10 ha in group III and the lowest 0.52 ha in group I. And among different categories of
land, the uncultivated land accounted for 29.03% of total land. The cropping pattern was
dominated by maize in kharif season and wheat in rabi season in all the project affected
villages on both sides of the river. More importantly, however, the farmers have recently
started diversifying their cropping patterns towards fodder (chari/bajra and oats) and
vegetable crops and the farmers were growing two crops in a year thereby utilizing the
available net sown area more intensively. Further, on an average, each project affected
household was growing more than 1 qt of vegetables produce which in monetary terms
amounted to Rs 1596 on left bank and Rs 1266 on right bank.
Among fruits, indigenous and grafted mangoes were very common and almost each
household owned one or two big trees of indigenous mango which almost fulfilled their
requirements in terms of preparing pickle, mango papad, sauce, jam and amchoor. The
average yields of different crops were low as compared to district and state level average
yields. However, one of the most important factor for low yields is the damage caused to
iii
crops by monkeys and wild boars; such losses have been estimated to be Rs 6250/ha to Rs
7500/ ha. In absolute terms, the marketable and marketed surplus together was 9.30 q per
household on the left bank and 12.76 q on the right bank.
The average annual gross household income was higher (Rs. 2,89,228) on the right bank in
comparison to Rs. 2,15,442 on the left bank. Among different sources, the contribution of the
services was the highest followed by pension. The farm income accounted for 16% and 25%
on the right bank and left bank, respectively. The per capita income was substantially higher
(Rs. 41,318) on the right bank as compared to the left bank (Rs. 32,643). The annual
household expenditure was Rs. 76,375 per household on the left bank in comparison to Rs.
72,141 on the right bank (Table 0.1).
The project affected sample households belonged to small category with an average size of
land holding 1.23 ha out of which they would on an average lose 0.36 ha. This loss of land
would reduce their average size of holding to 0.87 ha pushing them to the category of
marginal households. In a similar vein, on the right bank of river Beas, group I and group II
project affected households belonged to marginal category in that they owned less than 1
hectare and after losing some land they would remain marginal farmers. In comparison,
households in group III were small households with an average of 1.98 ha; after loosing
nearly one-fourth of their land they would be left with 1.50 ha and retain the status of small
households. Taking all households together, the average size of existing land holding was
1.55 ha (small category) after losing 0.26 ha they will be left with 1.29 ha. Further, our
estimates shows that households belonging to group I, group II and group III would
respectively lose 7.84 hectares, 14.52 hectares and 45.60 hectares of different types of land
like cultivated land, grassland, etc amounting to a total of 67.96 ha. Likewise, on the right
bank the households in group I, group II and group III would loose 10.86 ha, 24.15 ha and
132.44 ha of their private land which amounted to 167.45 ha (Table 0.2).
The total loss on account of losing land would be Rs. 6228 and Rs. 4338 per household per
year on the left bank and the right bank, respectively. In terms of loss per hectare, it amounted
to Rs. 17,300 on the left bank and Rs. 16,685 on the right bank with an overall average of Rs.
16,986. The financial loss under the assumption of 50% rise in production level due to
adoption of technology like availability of irrigation, improved variety seeds of crops and
seedlings, improved grass sticks, etc and cultivation under protected environment in future
say after five years amounted to nearly Rs. 9342 and Rs. 6508 per household on the left bank
and the right bank, respectively.
iv
0.1 Suggestive summary
The project affected households in case of DSHEP project would not be rendered completely
landless & homeless and would continue to stay on their land and home in their respective
villages in the aftermath of the completion of the project. Thus the rehabilitation plan in their
case implies compensating them for the loss of their private land and loss of livelihoods on
account of losing access to common property resources like grazing land, forest land, river
bed, etc.
Therefore, to compensate the project affected households, we recommend that in
addition to paying project affected households the market price of their land, they
should be paid annually the amount equivalent to the value of crop output which they
have been currently harvesting and the monetary value of different outputs which
affected households have been deriving from public land and other sources of
livelihood that would be lost as a consequent of construction of the dam.
Further, since the productivity of land increases over the years thanks to the
availability of new technologies and infrastructural facilities like irrigation, the
amount paid in lieu of production and livelihood loss from public land and the river
should be raised annually by a certain amount which may be determined/fixed in view
of the past increases in the productivity of land, say over the past ten years.
Further, such payments may be made on the basis of the amount of crop production
and other livelihoods lost by different categories of households. For example, all those
households who are losing land up to 0.12 ha may be paid an amount equal to the
average loss of households belonging to group-I, those losing between 0.12-0.28 ha
(group-II) may be paid an amount equal to the average loss of the households in
group-II and those losing more than 0.28 ha of land may be paid an amount equal to
average of households in group-III.
v
Table 0.1 Salient socio-economic characteristics of project affected households
Sr.
No.
Particulars Left Bank of River
Beas (n=61)
Right Bank of
River Beas (n=39)
Overall study
area (n=100)
1 Project affected villages (No.) 30 14 44
2 First village Jungle Jihan Bulli Jungle Jihan –
Bulli
3 Last village Bir Bagerha Jagrupnagar Bir Bagerha-
Jagrupnagar
4 Main tributaries in which water
will rise
Pung khud upto 4
km
Nuegal khud upto
2 km
Pung and
Neugal khuds
5 Topography of villages 13 hilly and 17
plain
5 hilly and 9 plain 18 hilly and 26
plains
6 Project affected households as
per panchayat records (No.)
440 273 713
7 Project affected population 2176 1436 3612
8 Sample villages (No.) 27 14 41
9 Sample households (No.) 61 39 100
10 Sample selected (% of PAHHs) 14.00 14.00 14.00
11 Group category of households
(No. & %)
61(100) 39 (100) 100 (100)
Group I (upto 0.12 ha) 24 (39.34) 17 (43.59) 41 (41.00)
Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha) 17 (27.87) 07 (17.95) 24 (24.00)
Group III (> 0.28 ha) 20 (32.79) 15 (38.46) 35 (35.00)
12 Categories of sample PAHHs in
PAVs (%)
100 100 100
Marginal (Upto 1 ha) 47.54 53.85 50.00
Small (1-2 ha) 34.43 35.90 35.00
Medium (2-10 ha) 18.03 7.69 14.00
Large (> 10 ha) - 2.56 1.00
13 Caste structure (%) 100 100 100
General 68.85 69.23 69.00
Scheduled caste 6.56 25.64 14.00
OBCs 24.59 05.13 17.00
14 Occupational pattern (%) 100 100 100
Agriculture 16.39 12.82 15.00
Service 39.34 30.77 36.00
Pension 18.03 20.51 19.00
Shop keeping 9.85 7.69 9.00
Daily paid labour 16.39 28.21 21.00
15 APL households (No. & %) 49 (80.33) 29 (74.36) 78 (78.00)
16 BPL households (No. & %) 12 (19.67) 10 (25.64) 22 (22.00)
17 Vulnerable hhs (No. & %) 8 (13.11) 4 (10,26) 12 (12.00)
Disabled 4 (50.00) - 4 (33,33)
Widow 4 (50.00) 4 (100.00) 8 (66,67)
18 Sample population (No.) 406 269 675
Sample male population (No.) 214 153 367
Sample female population (No.) 192 116 308
Sex ratio (F/1000M) 894 762 839
19 Average family size 6.6 7.0 6.8
vi
20 Literacy per cent 87.94 88.45 88.14
21 Investment on buildings (Lakh
Rs/hh)
6.32 5.89 6.15
22 Investment on livestock (Rs/hh) 15,211 15, 010 15,133
23 Investment on household
durables (Rs/hh)
73, 888 31, 960 57, 536
24 Annual gross household income
(Rs/hh)
215442 289228 244219
25 Consumption expenditure
(Rs/hh/yr)
76,375 72,141 74,730
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 0.2 Salient land related characteristics of project affected households
Sr.
No.
Particulars Left Bank of River
Beas (n=61)
Right Bank of
River Beas (n=39)
Overall study
area (n=100)
1 Existing average land holding
size (ha/hh)
1.23 1.55 1.35
2 Land to be lost (ha/hh) 0.36 0.26 0.32
3 Land remaining (ha/hh) 0.87 1.29 1.03
4 Estimates of total land loss (ha) 167.45 67.96 235.41
5 Value of total loss (Lakh Rs/yr) 28.97 13.02 41.99
6 Production loss (Rs/hh/yr) 6228 4338 5491
7 Other loss (Rs/hh/yr) 4919 6816 5659
8 Total loss (Rs/hh/yr) 11147 11154 11150
9 Production loss from land to be
lost (Rs/ha)
17300 16685 17159
10 Major crops grown Maize, paddy,
wheat
Maize, paddy,
wheat
Maize, paddy,
wheat
11 Cropping pattern (%)
Maize 40.56 40.43 40.51
Paddy 05.59 05.67 05.62
Wheat 46.15 46.81 46.41
Cropping intensity 198.61 198.95 198.74
12 Average yield of crops (q/ha)
Maize 12.50 16.75 14.71
Paddy 10. 25 10.75 10.44
Wheat 13.25 17.00 15.40
Source: Field survey, 2011
………..
1
……CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Dhaula Sidha hydro electric project
The 66 MW Dhaula Sidha Hydro Electric Project (DSHEP) is under construction by the
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVNL), a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of India
and Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. The proposed project will be a run of, the river project on
the river Beas, with a dam near famous temple Dhaula Sidha at Sonotu and near by villages,
namely, Jungle Jihan on the left bank and Bulli on the right bank in district Hamirpur and
Kangra, respectively. The back water of the proposed dam may go to Bir Bagehra above
Sujanpur Tihra which is nearly 15 -16 km from the actual dam site. There will be two main
khuds joining the dam area, Pung khud near Bhaleth and Neugal khud near Sujanpur Tihra.
Both these khuds are perennial in nature. The catchment of Neugal khud is more than Pung
khud. The creation of dam will shift the water in these two khuds and some villages situated
along these khuds are likely to be affected. The dam area will lie along the Hamirpur-
Palampur & Nadaun-Sujanpur national highways and partially also along the Sujanpur Tihra-
Sandhol state highway. The project is proposed to be carried out in Hamirpur and Kangra
districts of Himachal Pradesh where Dhaula Sidha Hydro Electric Project (DSHEP) is
proposed to be constructed on river Beas. As many as 44 villages will be affected due to its
construction on both sides of the river Beas and two main tributaries namely Pung khud and
Neugal khud joining the river at Sujanpur and Bhaleth, respectively (Fig 1.1)
Tihra Sujanpur founded by Raja Abhay Chand, the king of ruling Katoch dynasty of Kangra
in 1748 AD, is famous for International Holi Fair held at big circular ground. Similarly,
Nadaun, where Maharaja Sansar Chand of Kangra used to held his court during summer, was
headquarter of Nadaun Jagir in old princely days. Hamirpur derived its present name from
Katoch dynasty king named Hamir Chand who ruled from 1700 AD to 1740 AD. The DSHEP
was first proposed to be constructed during the British period and then in 1960, before the
execution of BSL and the Pong dam projects.
3
1.2 The baseline socio economic survey (SES)
The Royal Commission on Agriculture (RCA) 1928 stressed the need and desirability for socio-
economic investigations and wherever possible, for resurveys, to assess the nature and degree of
economic changes. Efforts on these directions were made very soon thereafter. Resultantly, since
the beginning of the five- year plans, baseline surveys have become, in India, a regular and
common feature. To begin with, very little is known about the socio-economic conditions and the
basic quantitative data has been estimated more on surmises (guesses), general observations and
limited enquiries. The baseline Socio Economic Survey (SES) estimates, depict the level of
economic status of the target groups/farmers and the farm economy at a point of time. In the
recent past, Himachal Pradesh has achieved considerable success in the execution of various
hydroelectric projects which have been implemented by the state sector viz; H P State Electricity
Board (HPSEB), central sector Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY), joint
venture (SJVNL) and independent power producers like M/S Jai Parkash Industries Ltd and M/S
Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, etc. The execution of these projects has been criticized in
that the displaced people have not been properly rehabilitated. Further, the execution of these
projects has also affected the area under forest and the grazing area. Keeping all these in view, it
is important to conduct a base line study to examine the real impacts of such projects.
The main objectives of the present base line study in the command area of Dhaula Sidha Hydro
Electric Project (DSHEP) are to furnish a sound informative foundation of carefully ascertained
facts which will help assessing the impact of the hydro electric project on the socio-economic
conditions of the people in the area. This impact can be examined by undertaking repeat surveys
in the same area in future which will serve as a basis for taking appropriate decisions by
administrators, the extension agencies, and the policy makers to safeguard the interests of the
varied groups, particularly the farming community. The base line socio economic survey of area
is neither an end in itself nor the objective. The ultimate goal is the evaluation of the impact of
activity or proposed plan from time to time on the livelihoods of the people. With this
background, The Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension Education & Rural
Sociology of CSK HPKV got opportunity through SJVNL,
4
Hamirpur to carry out the base line socio economic survey (SES) in the command area of the
above stated project with the following specific objectives.
1.3 Objectives of study
The objective of the study was to assess the socio economic profile of the different categories of
project affected households in the project affected villages. The study will enable the project
developer to chalk out resettlement and rehabilitation action plan for the mitigation of any
adverse impact. Moreover, specifically the objectives of the study were limited to the
following:
i. To identify the villages likely to be affected by the project activities
ii. To identify the families residing in the command area of the project and those who are
likely to be affected directly or indirectly
iii. To prepare socio economic profile of the households likely to be affected and the
affect of project activities on their socio economic status
iv. To suggest resettlement and rehabilitation action plan for the mitigation of
displacement effect.
The first two objectives have been achieved under SIA report submitted during March, 2011.
1.4 Chapter scheme
The study has been systematically planned and presented in multiple chapters. For example,
Chapter-1 describes the introduction and the project objectives. Chapter-2 present the material
and methods covering the procedure of selection of sample, the size of sample, the household
schedule, parameters of data collection and analytical framework, etc. Chapter 3 gives detail of
major findings in terms of various parameters like the caste structure, age wise family
composition, economic status, gender wise educational status and literacy level, housing
structure, investment pattern, cropping pattern, crop yields, crop production, fruits and vegetable
production, consumption pattern, household income, etc. The 4th
chapter includes the
rehabilitation plan revealing the land utilization pattern, loss of land & land remaining, physical
and financial estimates of output realized from the land to be lost both at the existing levels and
under assumptions of 50% increase in price level. Finally, Chapter 5 of the report carries
summary and conclusion.
5
The executive summary of findings along with important data on findings has been given in the
beginning to provide ready insight to readers. The survey schedules, list of sample project
affected farmers; etc are appended at the end of report
1.5 Practical and scientific utility of the study
The study will be of utmost importance to planners and future policy makers to understand the
impact of hydroelectric project on the farm economy in the later stage. The results of the report
will be extremely helpful in knowing the socio-economic status of families living in the
command area of the hydro power project. The insights gained from the study would also help
various other stakeholders. For example, the research scholars and scientists will also get
feedback on the problems and prospects which would help them prioritizing future research
agenda. The extension agencies will get necessary insights for the dissemination of information
pertaining to agriculture production technologies and marketing. The credit institutions would
come to know the credit requirements and would, therefore, help preparing plans in extending
financial help to the farmers.
6
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
2.1 General
The scientific and systematic methodology is an essential component of sound research work. It
directly influences the validity and generalisability of research findings. In the field of social
sciences, formulation of hypotheses, research design and techniques of measurement of variables
to test proposed hypotheses are integral components of a well conceived and laid out project
proposal. In the literature on methodologies in social sciences, there are five main approaches,
namely, sample surveys, rapid appraisal, participant observation, case studies and participatory
learning and action to conduct a scientific research inquiry. The adoption of a particular approach
or amalgam of different approaches, however, is contingent on a variety of factors most notably,
the objectives of the proposed research inquiry, the proposed use of the findings, the level of
required reliability of results, complexity of the research area/programme and, of course, the
availability of resources like money, men/human and time. This chapter describes the different
aspects of methodology followed and techniques employed in carrying out the present socio
economic investigation. While doing so, the methodology adopted in similar socio-economic
investigations has been taken into account.
2.2 Coverage
The present socio-economic survey (SES) is restricted to the command area of Dhaula Sidha
Hydro Electric Project (DSHEP), 66 MW Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The area consists of 44
villages (41 inhabited) in Kangra and Hamirpur districts which formed the population for the
present study.
2.3 Design of the sample
The sampling design adopted for the study is two- stage random sampling with village as the
primary sampling unit and household whose land to be lost on account of construction of a dam
area due to commissioning of DSHEP in the project affected villages as the secondary and
ultimate sampling unit. Since the command area of the
7
DSHEP is situated on both sides of river Beas in Khundian & Jaisinghpur tehsils of Kangra and
Nadaun & Sujanpur tehsils of Hamirpur districts, it is a homogenous tract as for as rainfall, soil
type, cropping pattern, etc, are concerned.
2.4 Selection of villages
The Sr. Manager (Construction), DSHEP Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh vide letter No.
SJ/SM/Const./DSHEP/10-118-20 dated 30th July, 2010 sent us the list of villages in the
command area of the project. The list contained 44 villages, 30 on the left bank and 14 on the
right bank of river Beas. As far as selection of villages is concerned, all the inhabited villages
were chosen for the study to have a wide coverage of the area. The list of the project affected
villages is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 List of project affected villages considered for socio economic survey in the command
area of DSHEP
Sr.
No.
Village Sr. No. Village Sr. No. Village
Left bank of river Beas Right bank of river Beas
1 J Jihan 16 Miana 1 Bulli
2 Bumblu 17 Miharhpur 2 Tipri
3 Amli 18 Chauki 3 Kayorh
4 Balehu 19 Darhla 4 Chauki
5 Baari 20 Kharsaal 5 Dalli
6 Mathan 21 Gaagla 6 Bhalunder
7 Laungni 22 Haar 7 Daadu
8 Dhaned 23 Matyal 8 Nicheli Bherhi
9 Bhadryana 24 Balla Girthan 9 Paprola
10 Gahliyan 25 Sujanpur 10 Alampur
11 Ropa 26 Tihra 11 Baag
12 Sarohal 27 Riyah 12 Liyunda
13 Gurorhu 28 Palahi 13 Sai
14 Kanerarh 29 Samona 14 Jagrupnager
15 Tikkar 30 Bir Bagerha
2.5 Selection of project affected households
In each of the project affected village, a complete list of project affected households (not joint land
khata holders) was prepared in consultation with the villagers, who were mostly representatives of
PRIs. A sample of 100 directly project affected households (losing land) was selected
proportionately from all the actual 37 project affected villages losing land following simple random
8
sampling procedure with a minimum of at least one household from each of the affected villages
(Table 2.2 and Table 2.3). The households were post stratified into three categories, namely,
Group I, Group II and Group III using cube- root cumulative frequency method (Table 2.4). The
households losing up to 3 kanal (0.12 ha) of land (1200 m2) were designated as Group I, those
losing 3 to 7 kanals (0.12 to 0.28 ha) land (1200 to 2800 m2) were classified as Group II and those
losing more than 7 kanal (0.28ha) were included in Group III. The per cent distribution of sample
PAFs is given in Table 2.5 and Fig 2.1. The classification of sample farmers and all PAFs for
deriving estimate is depicted in Table 2.6. The details of socio-economic profile of affected
households have been prepared in terms of these three categories of households. However, the
distribution of sample project affected households as per standard classification of marginal, small,
semi-medium, medium and large is presented in Table 2.7 and Fig 2.2. The list and brief detail of
selected households revealing their contact numbers, economic category, existing land, the land to
be lost, etc on both sides of the river is given in Table 2.8 and Table 2.9.
Table 2.2 Sampling plan for project affected villages on LBRB
Sr.
No.
Village Total
households
Project affected
households
Sample
taken
Group-
I
Group-II Group-III
1 J Jihan 18 3 1 - 1 -
2 Bumblu 46 - - - - -
3 Amli Nil - - - - -
4 Balehu 26 20 3 1 - 2
5 Baari 58 7 1 - 1 -
6 Mathan 12 11 1 - - 1
7 Longni 58 52 7 2 - 5
8 Dhaned 22 18 2 2 - -
9 Bhadryana 43 8 1 - 1 -
10 Gahliyan 14 10 1 - - 1
11 Ropa 12 5 1 - 1 -
12 Sarohal 45 12 2 - 1 1
13 Gurorhu 46 12 2 - 1 1
14 Kanerarh - - - - - -
15 Tikkar 85 11 1 1 - -
16 Miana 17 15 2 1 1 -
17 Miharhpur 73 12 2 2 - -
18 Chauki 24 10 1 1 - -
19 Darhla 75 20 3 2 - 1
20 Kharsaal 28 5 1 - - 1
21 Gaagla 47 22 3 1 1 1
22 Haar - - - - - -
23 Matyal 26 11 1 1 - -
24 B Girthan 56 56 8 2 4 2
25 Sujanpur 592 30 4 4 - -
9
26 Tihra 240 - - - - -
27 Riyah 60 - - - - -
28 Palahi 35 15 2 - 1 1
29 Samona 50 40 6 3 1 2
30 B Bagerha 84 35 5 1 3 1
Total 1892 440 61 24 17 20
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 2.3 Sampling plan for project affected villages on RBRB
Sr.
No.
Village Total
households
Project
affected
households
Sample
taken
Group-I Group-II Group-III
1 Bulli 35 27 4 2 - 2
2 Tipri 31 31 4 3 - 1
3 Kayorh 31 31 4 1 2 1
4 Chauki 36 32 4 1 - 3
5 Dalli 25 12 2 1 - 1
6 Bhalunder 150 12 2 1 - 1
7 Daadu 20 15 2 1 1 -
8 N Bherhi 50 25 4 3 1 -
9 Paprola 66 40 6 2 1 3
10 Alampur 160 10 1 - 1 1
11 Baag 71 4 1 - - 1
12 Liyunda 82 - - - - -
13 Sai 133 27 4 1 1 2
14 Jagrupnager 91 7 1 1 - -
Total 981 273 39 17 7 15
Note: Total project affected HHs = 713 (LBRB = 440, RBRB = 273) Thus sample of 61 and
39=100 from LBRB and RBRB, respectively
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 2.4 Classification of project affected sample households
Class Interval
(Land to be
lost in k)
Class interval
(Land area to
be lost in ha)
Frequency
(f)
Cube root
frequency
(3/F)
Cumulative
cube-root
frequency
Group
Upto 1 Upto 0.04 17
(10LB+07RB)
2.57 2.57 Group I
1-2 0.04 - 0.08 10 (07+03) 2.15 4.72 Group I
2-3 0.08 – 0.12 14 (07+07) 2.41 7.13 Group I
3-4 0.12 – 0.16 8 (06+02) 2 9.13 Group II
4-5 0.16 – 0.20 3 (02+01) 1.44 10.57 Group II
5-6 0.20 – 0.24 8 (05+03) 2.0 12.57 Group II
6-7 0.24 – 0.28 5 (04+01) 1.70 14.27 Group II
7-8 0.28 – 0.32 7 (03+04) 1.91 16.18 Group III
8-9 0.32 – 0.36 2 (01+01) 1.25 17.43 Group III
9-10 0.36 – 0.40 6 (03+03) 1.81 19.24 Group III
>10 > 0.40 22 (13+07) 2.80 22.04 Group III
Total 100 (61+39) - - -
10
Table 2.5 Group wise classification of project affected sample households
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I
(up to 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Left Bank 24
(39.34)
17
(27.87)
20
(32.79)
61
(100)
2 Right Bank 17
(43.59)
7
(17.95)
15
(38.46)
39
(100)
3 Total 41
(41.00)
24
(24.00)
35
(35.00)
100
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 2.6 Classification of sample farmers and all PAFs for deriving estimate
Class interval
(Land to be
lost in k)
Left Bank
(Sample)
Right Bank
(Sample)
Total
sample
Left
Bank
(All)
Right
Bank
(All)
Total
PAFs
Group
Upto 1 10 7 17 72 49 121 GroupI
1-2 7 3 10 50 21 71 GroupI
2-3 7 7 14 50 49 99 GroupI
3-4 6 2 8 43 14 57 GroupII
4-5 2 1 3 14 7 21 GroupII
5-6 5 3 8 36 21 57 GroupII
6-7 4 1 5 29 7 36 GroupII
7-8 3 4 7 22 28 50 GroupIII
8-9 1 1 2 7 7 14 GroupIII
9-10 3 3 6 22 21 43 GroupIII
>10 13 7 20 95 49 144 GroupIII
Total 61 39 100 440 273 713 GroupIII
Table 2.7 Classification of project affected sample households
Sr .
No
Land area interval Category Left bank Right bank Total
1 Upto 1 ha Marginal 29
(47.54)
21
(53.85)
50
(50.00)
2 1-2 ha Small 21
(34.43)
14
(35.90)
35
(35.00)
3 2 - 4 ha Semi medium 6
(9.84)
1
(2.56)
7
(7.00)
4 4 -10 ha Medium 5
(8.19)
2
(5.13)
7
(7.00)
5 Above 10 ha Large - 1
(2.56)
1
(1.00)
Total - 61
(100)
39
(100)
100
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
11
Table 2.8 List of project affected sample households on LBRB
Sr.
No
Village Name with
contact no.
Father’s /
Husband
Name
Family
size
(No.)
Category Vulnerable
category
Total
land (k)
Land to
be lost
1 Jungle
Jihan
Pyar Chand Gian
Chand
4 BPL Disable 21 4
2 Bumblu - - - - - - -
3 Amli - - - - - - -
4 Balehu Ajeet Singh
01972313164
Khabbo
Ram
12 APL - 23 2
Munshi Ram
9816969889
Ranu Ram 11 APL - 29 8
Shali Ram
01972206267
Kanehia
Lal
16 APL - 91 20
5 Baari Mehar Singh
8894436802
Jai Singh 10 APL Disable 30 6
6 Mathan Sunil Kumar
9816206519
Roop
Singh
5 APL - 43 15
7 Laungni Tarsem Singh
8894261733
Bakshi
Ram
6 APL - 18 3
Krishani Devi
8679289822
Pyar
Chand
1 BPL Widow 7 1
Hans Raj
9817326793
Rangeela
Ram
9 APL - 111 70
Ishwar Dass
9816357617
Shiv Dyal 9 APL - 42 12
Prabhu Ram
01972206070
Sukh Ram 8 APL - 50 13
Prithi Chand
9805252148
Sant Ram 9 APL - 35 32
Puran Chand
01972206060
Koka
Ram
9 APL - 20 16
8 Dhaned Rakesh Kumar
9816362551
Durga
Dass
4 APL - 25 2
Jagdih Chand
01972221232
Pinnu
Ram
6 APL - 38 2
9 Bhadryana Prahalad
Singh
9736152236
Sant Ram 4 APL - 9 4
10 Gahliyan Kamlesh
Kumari
9418667203
Kapoor
Singh
7 APL Widow 110 80
11 Ropa Dhyan Singh
01972206094
Mansa
Ram
5 APL - 15 7
12 Sarohal Kishori Lal
9418208129
Sufi Ram 8 APL - 28 6
Som Nath
9816922163
Tulsi Ram 9 APL - 38 20
13 Gurorhu Baldev Singh
9816337965
Paras
Ram
4 APL - 25 7
Rikhi Ram Paras
Ram
4 APL - 46 9
14 Kanerarh - - - - - - -
15 Tikkar Bimla Devi Janak 5 APL Widow 146 1
12
9857729744 Singh
16 Miana Ami Chand
9218945256
Gopal
Dass
7 BPL Disable 5.4 0.5
Sakuntla Devi
9817287431
Gian
Chand
8 APL - 62 5
17 Miharhpur Ran Singh
8894319076
Nain Dass 9 APL - 6 1.3
Desh Raj
9816338921
Dittu Ram 6 APL - 10 1
18 Chauki Bidhi Chand
9816795518
Gagan
Singh
14 APL - 20 1
19 Darhla Chambel
Singh
9816744608
Mana
Ram
5 APL - 16 3
Kanta Devi
01972202511
Late Sh.
Sunil
Singh
9 APL - 8 1
Karam Chand
01972206724
Mana
Ram
6 APL - 61 16
20 Kharsaal Ranjeet Singh
9816334927
Lakshman
Singh
10 APL - 27 8
21 Gaagla Ram Singh
9816517704
Sahjada
Ram
6 APL - 35 2
Roop Lal
9816517704
Bakshi
Ram
7 APL - 36 6
Kehar Singh
9806008662
Khajana
Ram
10 APL - 42.5 9.5
22 Haar - - - - - - -
23 Matyal Ratan Chand
9816437960
Bidhi
Chand
4 APL - 11 3
24 B. Girthan Raghuvir
Singh
Mallo
Ram
2 BPL - 22 2
Kamlesh
Chand
9816773110
Shankar
Dass
4 APL - 4 2.5
Kamla Devi
9816407131
Aato Ram 1 BPL Widow 10 4
Ami Chand
9625009114
Bakshi
Ram
9 APL - 29 10
Rikhi Ram
9816407431
Bansi Lal 12 APL - 13 6
Kehar Singh
9817323029
Bakshi
Ram
6 APL - 27 6
Om Prakash
9817313983
Laskari
Ram
4 APL - 40 15
Jagat Ram
9816518733
Sant Ram 8 APL - 108 10
25 Sujanpur Narayan Dass
9816892085
Fatori
Dass
7 BPL - 12 3
Tulsi Ram
9418340846
Anant
Ram
7 APL - 12 0.5
Karam Chand
9805656181
Harbans
Lal
4 APL - 1 1
Nand Lal
9816376954
Lakshami
Dass
9 BPL Disable 4 2.45
13
26 Tihra - - - - - - -
27 Riyah - - - - - - -
28 Palahi Baba Ram
9816122860
Shambhu
Ram
6 APL - 7 4
Prabhu Ram
9816765966
6 BPL - 11 11
29 Samona Ratto Kumar Bhundu
Ram
6 BPL - 7 0.5
Jai Ram
9816340195
7 APL - 9 2
Hem Raj
9418919921
4 APL - 6 3
Kamla Devi
9805351622
Ranjha
Ram
5 BPL - 13 7
Rikhi Ram
9805592108
10 APL - 20 8
Kioshori Lal 6 APL - 55 40
30 Bir
Bagerha
Mani Ram
Thakur
Munshi
Ram
3 APL - 13 1
Ravinder
Kumar
9816379999
Khajana
Ram
2 APL - 29 4
Paras Ram Ranjha
Ram
6 APL - 26 4
Jyoti Prakash
9736805732
Mangat
Ram
5 BPL - 69 5
Rakesh Kumar
9816874828
Sadhu
Ram
5 APL - 24 10
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 2.9 List of project affected sample households on RBRB Sr.
No
Village Name with
contact no.
Father’s /
Husband
Name
Family
size
(No.)
Category Vulnerable
category
Total
land (k)
Land to
be lost
1 Bulli Ratto Ram
9805300686
Bagho
Ram
6 BPL - 10 3
Rattan Chand
9816701816
Marchu
Ram
10 BPL - 11 3
Pawar Singh
9816798134
Sohan
Singh
4 BPL - 70 15
Man Chand
9816926502
Krishan
Chand
8 APL - 148 36.5
2 Tipri Prithi Chand
9817156373
Kansi Ram 2 BPL - 16.5 2
Satya Devi
8894545728
Baisakhi
Ram
12 BPL - 45 3
Karam Chand
9805128588
Khajana
Ram
3 BPL - 6 3
Kaushlya Devi
9817166234
W/O Ami
Chand
5 APL - 130 14
3 Kayorh Shali Ram
9418761339
Gulab
Singh
5 APL - 6 3
Julfi Ram
01972203092
Khalehu
Ram
10 APL - 18 10
14
Karam Chand
9816577281
Khajana
Ram
6 APL - 27 5
Gian Chand
Sant Ram 4 BPL - 24 6
4 Chauki Nirmla Devi
9625123900
Subhkaran 2 BPL Widow 13 2
Simro Devi
9816227181
Ram Singh 9 APL Widow 80 15
Om Prakash
9816555736
Sukh Ram 3 APL - 37 8
Ghungar Ram
9816335019
Ram Singh 10 APL - 40 12
5 Dalli Jagdish Chand
9816334969
Sunder Lal 11 APL - 9 1
Gian Chand
9816126072
Shingar
Singh
12 APL - 40 9.4
6 Bhalunder Hakam Chand
9816363471
Shri Ram
ji
10 APL - 3.5 0.50
Vipin Kumar
9816871590
Sadhu
Ram
5 BPL - 10.3 10.3
7 Daadu Kailasha Devi
9816480323
Bhoop
Singh
4 APL - 1.5 0.5
Sansar Chand
9816904562
Mehar
Singh
9 APL - 50 4
8 Nichali
Bherhi
Parbhat Chand
9736181363
Dyal
Chand
10 APL - 27 2.5
Madan Lal
Sharma
09625721363
Paemanand
Sharma
7 APL - 23.5 0.5
Roop Singh
9418121152
Tara
Chand
5 APL - 20 2.5
Kultar Singh Bachitar
Singh
14 APL - 351 7
9 Paprola Devi Singh
9736181363
Kapoor
Minhas
7 APL - 4 0.75
Mohinder
Singh
9805118977
Kansi Ram 6 APL - 10 1
Mansa Devi
9805207199
Mast Ran 13 BPL Widow 10 8
Kalan Devi
9805444050
Baragi
Ram
9 BPL Widow 10 8
Kalyan Chand
9817747449
Ragi Ram 7 APL - 30 10
Munsi Ram
9418562279
Khajana
Ram
10 APL - 31 6
10 Alampur Chanderkant
Walia
01894271169
Shamsher
Singh
10 APL - 25.5 4
11 Baag Kanshi Ram
9805839349
6 APL - 30.45 11.5
12 Liyunda - - - - - - -
13 Sai Bidhi Chand
9805730501
Chaudhary
Ram
7 APL - 25 6
Ajaib Singh Chuhar 4 APL - 40 8
15
01894271217
Singh
Ami Chand
9210839217
Kehar
Singh
8 APL - 50 9
Mast Ram Ganthu
Ram
6 APL - 6 1.25
14 Jagrupnagar Dhruv Dev
9805382972
Milkhi
Ram
3 APL- - 10 0.5
Source: Field survey, 2011
2.6 Field staff and data collection
For the purpose of collection of data, we recruited four graduates/postgraduates on
consolidated pay as senior research and junior research fellows. The schedule was specially
designed and canvassed among sample households for the purpose which included
information on various aspects of project affected households. The data on the following
aspects were collected through a personal interview method for the agricultural year 2010-11.
General information of project affected households
Demographic features
Land inventory, land to be lost, land remaining, inventory of farm buildings,
implements and machinery
Livestock inventory, cropping pattern, crop output and disposal of produce
Borrowings of funds and indebtedness
Investment on durable items
Consumption and savings pattern
Production losses and other losses
Dependence on natural resources, etc.
Source wise household income
2.7 Analysis of data
In order to achieve the objectives of the study, different statistical tools/techniques like tabular
analyses, averages, ratios, percentages, etc; were employed. The analysis and interpretation of
the data has been kept simple to provide inputs for preparing action plan for resettlement,
rehabilitation and development of the project affected households.
16
2.8 Output
The output is submission of Socio Economic Survey (SES) report in hard and soft copy form,
carrying tables and their description in the text, relevant figures and photographs and appendices
and executive summary.
2.9 Limitations of the study
The study is based on primary data collected through interview method by personally visiting
the sample households in the project affected villages. The households were visited only once
for the collection of data. As is usual, since no farm records were maintained by the affected
farmer households, the data collected by survey method are based on their memory and past
experience. The people during data collection exaggerated the expected loss figures and
underestimated the benefits since it was really difficult for them to provide exact quantitative
estimates. Though due care has been taken to extract accurate information, the possibility of
few memory slips here and there could not be ruled out. And finally, the findings of the
study are applicable only to the Dhaula Sidha project affected area.
17
CHAPTER 3
SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE OF PROJECT AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS
3.1 Rationale
The present chapter, using household data, seeks to understand, among other things, the socio-
economic profile of sample households in Dhaula Sidha hydro electric project affected villages.
In the context of an agrarian economy, the socio-economic features of any set of population like
age structure, family size and composition, the educational status, etc determine, inter alia,
response of agrarian population to new innovations and their attitude and ability to switch over to
more risky crops and enterprises. These features of population, therefore, broadly determine the
pre-conditions for agricultural development of any region. The extent to which new technologies,
crops and enterprises are actually adopted and practiced is, however, determined by a host of
other important factors like the structure of incentives, institutions and infrastructure. It is,
therefore, important to understand various socio-economic features of sample population. Against
this background, the present chapter discusses some important socio-economic aspects of sample
households such as caste structure, vulnerable households, economic status, sex wise average size
of family, distribution of households according to average size of family, age wise distribution of
family members, educational status, farm assets, livestock inventory, occupational pattern, source
and composition of household income, consumption pattern, and so on.
3.2 Caste structure
Table 1a shows the caste wise distribution of sample head of households on left bank of river Beas. Of the
total sample households, more than two-thirds (68.85%) of the households belonged to general castes
followed by other backward classes (OBCs) with 24.59% and scheduled castes (6.56%). In a similar vein,
the distribution of sample households in terms of amount of land lost, Table 1b shows that 39.34%
households belonged to Group I category followed by Group III (32.79%) and Group II (27.87%).
Table 1c gives caste wise distribution of affected sample households on right bank of river Beas. As may
be seen from the table, in all the categories of households i.e. group I, group II and group III; a
preponderant majority of households belonged to general category followed by scheduled caste and other
backwards castes. At the overall level, 69.23% households belonged to general castes, 25.64% to
scheduled castes and 5.13% to other backward castes (Fig 3.1). Further, the distribution of households of
different castes across different groups (Table 1d) shows that among households of general category
18
44.44% were in group I followed by 37.03% in group III and 18.53% in group II. Among scheduled caste
affected households, 50% belonged to group I, 40% to group III and 10% to group II. As far as households
of other backward castes are concerned, while one-half (50%) of these belonged to group III, the
remaining one-half were in group II. In sum, caste wise distribution of project affected households shows
that on both sides of river Beas, more than two-thirds of the households (nearly 69%) belonged to general
castes comprising Rajput and Brahmans followed by households of other backward castes on the left bank
and those of scheduled castes on the right bank. The distribution of households across three groups shows
that while on the left bank nearly two-fifths (39.34%) of the households were in group I, nearly one-third
(32.79%) were in group III in terms of losing land. Likewise, on the right bank, nearly 44 % of the
households belonged to group I followed by 38.47% in group-III and around18% in group-II.
3.3 Vulnerable households
Table 2a presents the distribution of heads of vulnerable households into different categories belonging to
different groups and all households together on left bank of river Beas. The table reveals that of the total
sample of 61 heads of project affected households, 8 (13.11%) belonged to vulnerable category. The
proportion of disables households headed by disables and those headed by widows was the same i.e., of
50.00%. None of the household was headed by unmarried girls and orphans. The distribution of
vulnerable households according to the severity of the effect, given in Table 2b, shows that 50.00% of the
households belonged to group I followed by 337.50% who belonged to group II. There was only one
vulnerable household (12,50) who belonged to group III.
As far as households on the right bank of the river Beas are concerned, Table 2c shows that there were
10.26% (4) vulnerable households in the project affected villages; out of these households, cent per cent
households were headed by widows. And among these vulnerable households, 25.00% belonged to group
I and 75.00 to group III (Table 2d). In brief, all the vulnerable households were headed by widows and
disables on the left bank of which one–half were in group I. In comparison, on the right bank, only
widows headed such households of which three-fourth were in group III. The distribution of project
affected household by vulnerable category is also depicted through Fig 3.2.
3.4 Economic status of project affected households
Table 3a and 3b portray economic status of the project affected sample households. As may be noted from
Table 3a, of the total sample of 61 project affected households on left bank of river Beas, four-fifths were
above poverty line (APL) while remaining one-fifth (19.67%) were below poverty line (BPL). The table
further shows that as high as 79.59% of the households above poverty line came from general castes.
Likewise, one-half of the BPL households belonged to other backward casts and one-fourth each to
general category and scheduled caste category. In terms of the amount of land that would be lost, group I
19
and group III each accounted for 36.73 per cent of the APL households. Among BPL households, one-
half belonged to group I and nearly one-third to Group II. On the right bank of the river Beas, nearly
three-fourths of the sample households were above poverty line (APL) and remaining one-fourth were
below poverty line (BPL) households. Further, more than three-fifths of the households above poverty line
belonged to general castes, nearly one-tenth were scheduled castes and remaining 6.90% came from other
backward castes (OBCs). In the BPL category, 70% belonged to scheduled castes and 30% to general
category. None of the BPL category household belonged to OBCs. And, on the right bank of river Beas,
among general category APL households, more than 41.67% were in group I, 37.50% were in group III
whereas 20.83% came from group II. Thus it can be concluded that the incidence of poverty, measured by
the proportion of households below poverty line, was high (25.64%) on the right bank as compared to left
bank (19.67%). The distribution of project affected households by economic status category is also shown
in Fig 3.3.
3.5 Occupational pattern
Table 4a and 4b show the occupational pattern of project affected sample households. These tables reveal
that service both in public and private sectors was the major occupation of the households on both sides of
river Beas. For example, 30.77% of the households on right bank and 39.34% on left bank reported
service as their major occupation. Daily paid labour was another important occupation of the sample
households on the right bank which was being practiced by 28.21% of the total households. In comparison,
on the left bank, 16% of the households reported daily paid labour as their main occupation. Agriculture
which encompasses crops and animal husbandry including dairying was the major occupation of 16.39%
households on the left bank and 12.82% on the right bank. The sample households who reported pension
as their main source of income accounted for 18.03% on the left bank and 20.51% on the right bank. A
more or less similar occupational pattern was in evidence insofar as households falling under different
groups were concerned. On the whole, service both in private and public sectors followed by daily paid
labour were major occupations of sample households on both sides of the river. Agriculture, including
crop and animal husbandry, was being practiced by 16.39% of sample households in left and 12.82% of
the households in right bank of river Beas (Fig 3.4).
3.6 Age wise composition of sample population
Age wise composition of sample population in the study area is depicted in Table 5a and Table 5b. A
close perusal of the table 5a shows that out of the total population of 406, the male and female population
respectively accounted for 52.71 % and 47.29 %. The gender wise distribution of project affected
population given in Fig 3.5 shows that males were 54.37% against 45.53% of females. As far as age
composition is concerned, 38.42% of total persons were in the age group of 18-40 years followed by
20
21.18% who were in the age group of 6-18 years and 18% in the age group of 18-40 years. The children
below 5 years accounted for 9.36% of the total population whereas the share of those above 60 years was
12.81%. In case of female population, while their proportion in children and old age category was less
than their male counter parts, the proportion of females in the age group of 18-60 years was higher than
males. And it is this age group of population which contributes more towards households’ economy in
terms of providing active labour force services. The distribution of population into different groups which
indicate the amount of land that would be lost, Table 5a shows that there were 148, 102 and 156 persons
in group I, group II and group III, respectively and that in all categories, the proportion of males was
marginally higher than females. The average family size of project affected households in group I, group
II and group III respectively was 6.0, 6.0 and 7.8 persons with an overall average figure of 6.6 persons. An
important feature which emerges from the table is the higher average family size of households in group
III who would most severely be affected in terms of the amount of land that they would lose.
Table 5b shows the age composition of population of sample households who reside on the right bank of
the river Beas. The total population comprised of 269 persons with 153 (56.88%) males and 116 (43.12%)
females. More than one-third of the population was in the age group of 18-40 years, and the proportion of
female in this age group was higher (39.66%) than males (32.68%). The pattern of age composition
among different groups of project affected households was broadly similar. As regards average family size,
it was 6.5 persons in group I, 7.3 in group II and 7.5 in group III. The overall average family size of
households on right bank of river Beas was 7 persons per household comprising 4 males and 3 females. In
broad terms, two important results need reiteration: first, more than one-fifth of the total population
comprised children below 5 years of age and those above 60 years of age; second, the proportion of school
going population between 6-18 years of age comprised 20 to 21% of the total population; third, the
proportion of labour force actively engaged in various economic activities was 57 to 58 % and in total
workforce, the proportion of females was higher than males; fourth, the overall family size was 7 persons
per households; fifth, the sex ratio (females per 1000 males) was 894 and 762 on left bank and right bank,
respectively, while for all households taken together the sex ratio was 839.
3.7 Educational status
Table 6a and Table 6b present educational status of project affected sample population on both sides of the
river Beas. As may be seen from two tables, 7% to 8% of the population was non-school going. The
overall literacy rate was nearly 88%. And among males the literacy level was 93-94% males as compared
to 81-82% among females. Among households categorized according to the amount of land that would be
lost, the literate percentage of population on RBRB varied from 87.23% in group I to 89.72% in group III
households with an overall literacy level of 88.45%. In terms of levels of education, education up to
21
primary level was more among females than males. Further, as much as 19% of people had education up
to matriculation level followed by those educated up to senior secondary and middle standard who each
accounted for 17%. One-tenth of the total population was educated up to graduate. And the proportion of
those who had done post-graduation and those who were technically qualified were negligible. More
importantly, however, in almost all educational levels, females lagged much behind their male
counterparts implying gender discrimination. Across different category of project affected households on
left bank of the river Beas, the literacy level of population varied from 85.26% among households of
group II to as high as 90.98% among those in group I. In all the categories, the level of male literacy was
above 90% in comparison to female literacy which varied between 77% and 86%. In case of different
levels of education, at the overall level, the distribution of male population according to different levels
was more even as compared to distribution of female who were mostly concentrated in primary to senior
secondary levels.
To conclude, the overall literacy level of population was 88% which was as high as 93 to 94% among
males as against 81 to 82% among their male counterparts. Further while most of the females were
educated from primary to senior secondary levels, the educated males were more evenly distributed across
different levels of education, say from primary level to post graduate and technically as well as
professionally qualified levels. The underlying message is the need for making efforts to impart higher
education and vocational education to women to enhance their knowledge and skills.
3.8 Housing structure and investment
The details of various buildings like house, stable, cattle shed, store, business shop and agro industry (atta
chakki & gharat) have been brought in Tables 7a and 7b. The tables bring out a number of interesting
patterns. For example, out of 61 sample households situated on the left bank, 33 households (54.10%)
owned kachcha houses whereas 28 (45.90%) possessed pucca houses. More than half of the households
(55 %) in group I owned pucca houses while 64.71 % of households in group II had kachcha houses. On
the right bank of the river, a reverse trend was noted, for example, the proportion of households
possessing pucca houses was higher (51.28%) compared those owing kachcha houses (48.72 %). In case
of cattle sheds, on both sides of the river, more than 94% were kachcha structures. Among others, the
structures like stable for horses/ponies, store for preserving foodgrains & agricultural implements were
possessed by a very few households. In addition, one atta chakki and one gharat were also found among
sample households. Similarly, buildings meant for running business like shop keeping numbered 3 on the
right bank and 1 on the left bank. Further, the investment on all types of buildings mentioned above
amounted to Rs. 5.89 lakh on the right side and Rs. 6.32 lakh on the left side (Table 8a and Table 8b).
Again residential houses accounted for the highest proportion of total investment which varied from 82%
on the right bank to 85% on the left bank. Among different groups of households, the investment on
22
buildings was the highest in group II on the right side and group III on the left side which respectively
amounted to Rs 9.90 lakh and Rs 8.70 lakh per household, respectively. The average investment on
buildings was Rs. 5.89 lakh on the right bank and Rs 6.32 lakh on the left bank with the highest proportion
of investment on residential buildings.
3.9 Household durables
The household durables possessed by the sample households along with their monetary value have been
presented in Table 9a and Table 9b. Table 9a reveals that on the left bank of the river Beas the total
present value of household items such as communication means (telephones/cell phones) kitchen
appliances (cooking gas, gas cylinder, refrigerator, pressure cooker, dining set, etc.), entertainment sources
like radio, tap recorder & television and the means of conveyance & goods carrier like bicycle, scooter,
car, jeep/utility van, etc. increased from Rs. 37,996 in respect of households in group I to Rs. 1,53,953 in
case of households in group III. At the overall level, the present value of all durables was assessed at Rs.
73,888. In comparison, however, there was no clear cut pattern in the value of the household durables
possessed by the households belonging to different groups on the right bank of the river (Table 9b). For
example, across different groups, the value of all household durables was Rs. 34,594, Rs 33,407 and Rs
29,853 in group I, group II and group III households. At the overall level, the average value of all durables
per household was Rs. 31,960 which was around one-third in comparison to the value of household
durables possessed by households residing on the left bank of river Beas. Among different items (Table
9a), conveyance means accounted for the largest share in the value of all durables. Cots and television
each accounted for 6.44 and 7.49% of the total investment. On the right bank, however, cots and
refrigerator each accounted for nearly 15% whereas television’s share in total value was as high as 15.66%.
In conclusion, means of conveyance followed by drawing room & bed room items and recreation items
were the major items of household durables. The average value of durables per household residing in the
left bank was nearly 2.3 times as compared to an average value of durables per household in the right bank
which, among other things, could be attributed to high economic status on account of better infrastructure
and connectivity.
3.10 Livestock inventory
Livestock rearing is the most important economic activity and provides a regular and relatively more
secure source of household income and employment. Table 10a and Table 10b present details on livestock
inventory including investment pattern on the project affected households. It can be seen from the tables
that, on an average, each sample household reared 2 to 3 animals. In monetary terms, the investment made
on these animals amounted to Rs. 15,211 per household on the left bank and Rs. 15,010 per household on
the right bank. One of the interesting patterns emerging from these tables is that the number of animals
reared per household and the amount of investment made on them increased from group I to group III on
23
both sides of the river. Among animals, buffaloes were the most important animals accounting for nearly
one-third of the total investment on livestock on the right bank and more than 70% on the left bank.
Equines (horses & ponies) were maintained in large number on the right bank primarily on account of
poor means of transport facilities. There were 12 horses/ponies on all the 39 sample households which in
monetary terms amounted to Rs. 1, 68,000 accounting for 28.70% of the total investment. In brief, the
average number of animals reared by the sample households was 2.70 on the left bank and 2.23 on the
right bank whose monetary valued stood at Rs. 15,211 and Rs. 15,010, respectively. And among different
animals, buffaloes particularly of murrah breed were the most important.
3.11 Land utilization pattern
As is well known, the land is the most important asset whose distribution determines, to a large extent,
the economic status of households. In an agrarian economy, land not only determines the social &
economic status of a household but access to different institutions as well. Table 11a shows land
utilization pattern of the affected households on the left bank. As may be seen from the table average size
of land holding varied from 0.74 ha per household in group I to as high as 1.95 ha per household in group
III; at the overall level, the average size of land holding was 1.23 ha per household. It can further be seen
from the table that more than one-half of the land holding was under cultivation and in group III (most
affected category) the percentage of cultivated land was 60.20 while the per cent of cultivated land was
58.11 in group I and 54.63 in group II with an overall average of 58.06 per cent. Area under grassland
ranged from about one-fourth in group II households to approximately one-third in group III with an
overall average of 29.04% of total holding. Table 11b depicts land utilization pattern on various groups of
project affected sample households on the right bank of river Beas. The table shows that the average size
of land holding on the right bank of river Beas was 1.55 ha with the highest of 3.10 ha in group III and the
lowest 0.52 ha in group I. And among different categories of land, the uncultivated land accounted for
29.03% of total land.
3.12 Cropping pattern
Table 12a and 12b gives details of crops grown by the sample project affected households on both sides of
the river Beas. As may be seen from the tables, maize is the most important crop grown during the kharif
season on both sides of the river; it was evident from the fact that maize occupied around two-fifths of the
total cropped area on both sides of river Beas (Fig 3.6). Among households belonging to different groups,
no neat was discernible. However, in absolute terms, the area allocated to maize crops increased from
group I to group III category households. Wheat was the most important crop raised in rabi season which
accounted for 46.15% of the cropped area on the left bank and 46.81% on right bank. Again the amount of
area devoted to wheat increased from group I to group III on both sides of river Beas. Paddy was not very
important crop which is evident from fact that it accounted for 5.59% of the cultivated area in the left bank
24
of the river and 5.67% on the right bank. Fodder crops comprising chari /bajra in kharif and oats &
barseem in rabi occupied nearly 5 to 6% of the cropped area on both sides. The area under pulses was
negligible. Vegetable cultivation was gaining popularity wherever irrigation facility is available; currently
1.41 and 1.42 % of the cropped area was devoted for the production of vegetables on left bank and right
bank, respectively. The cropping intensity was nearly 200 suggesting that the farmers took two crops
during a year and the cultivated land was almost equally allocated under kharif and rabi crops. On the
whole, the cropping pattern was dominated by maize in kharif season and wheat in rabi season in all the
project affected villages on both sides of the river. More importantly, however, the farmers have recently
started diversifying their cropping patterns towards fodder (chari/bajra and oats) and vegetable crops. And
the farmers were growing two crops in a year thereby fully utilizing the available net sown area.
3.13 Vegetable production
It is customary in the project affected villages to grow vegetables; some farmers grow on a very small area
while others cultivate it on a significant proportion of cultivated area for meeting their own requirements.
With the increase in irrigation infrastructure facilities and the introduction of protected cultivation, the
farmers have started growing vegetable for market and are increasingly allocating more and more area to
these crops. The data on the area under different vegetable crops have been presented in Table 13a and
Table 13b. As may be seen from the tables, potato, carrot, radish, cauliflower, cabbage, lady finger,
colocasia, cucumber, pumpkin, turmeric, garlic, coriander, ginger and onion were the important vegetables
raised by project affected households on both sides of the river Beas. Among these crops, potato followed
by turmeric, lady finger and cauliflower were the important vegetable crops on LBRB while radish
followed by lady finger, cauliflower and potato were the important crops grown on the right bank of river
Beas. Further, on an average, each project affected household was growing more than 1 q of vegetables
produce which in monetary terms amounted to Rs 1596 on left bank of river Beas and Rs 1266 on right
bank of river Beas.
3.14 Foodgrains, fruits & vegetable production
The details on foodgrains (cereals and pulses), fruits and vegetable production have been presented in
Table 14a and Table 14b. It can be seen from the tables that while the foodgrain production per
households was higher (25.32 q) on right side than 17.27 q on the left bank. Among cereals, wheat crop
was the major contributor towards foodgrain production followed by maize on both sides of river Beas.
On the left bank of river Beas, the contribution of wheat was more than one-half whereas on the right bank
of river Beas it was nearly 45%. Similarly, maize accounted for 42.04% and 38.15 % of foodgrain
production on the left bank and the right bank of the river, respectively. Among fruit, indigenous and
25
grafted mangoes were very common and almost each household owned one or two big trees of indigenous
mango which almost fulfilled their requirements in terms of preparing pickle, mango papad, sauce, jam
and amchoor. Vegetable production was nearly 1 quintal per household.
3.15 Average yields
Table 15a and Table 15b show the average yield of crops (cereals & pulses and fruits & vegetables) on
sample project affected households. It can be observed from the tables that average yield of maize varied
from 12.50 q/ha on left bank to 16.75 q/ha on right bank. These are the average yields that have been
realized by the farmers, though actual yields were high around 25 q/ha but due to damage caused by wild
animals mostly the monkeys and wild boars, 6.25-7.50 q/ha loss suffered by the farmers which in value
terms amounted to Rs. 6250 to Rs. 7500 /ha. Wheat, the most important rabi crop, gave an average yield
of 13.25 q to 17 q/ha. Paddy was not an important crop of the area and its average yield was 10.25 to
10.75 q/ha. The average yields of maize, paddy and wheat are also depicted in Fig 3.7. Average yield of
pulses was low ranging varying 3.75 q/ha on the left bank to 7.50 q/ha on the right bank. The vegetable
growing was becoming an important activity in areas where irrigation facility is available; these crops
gave average yield in the range of 55.25 q to 64.50 q/ha. The yield of barley though not grown on a
significant area was 10.75 q/ha on the right bank to 17.25 q/ha on the left bank. As far as individual
groups are concerned, there was no specific pattern. To sum up, the average yields of different crops were
low as compared to district and state level average yields However, one of the most important factor for
low yields is the damage caused to crops by monkeys and wild boars; such losses have estimated to be Rs
6250/ha to Rs 7500/ ha
3.16 Production and disposal of food grains
The details of production and disposal of foodgrains which include cereals and pulses on different types
of project affected households on both sides of river Beas have been given in Table 16a and Table 16b.
The tables show that the average production as well as marketable surplus of food grains increased from
group I to group III. The estimates of production of food grains reveal that a household produced 17.26 q
on the left side and 22.01 q on the right side. The production of food grains across groups on the left side
of the river Beas varied widely from 10.59 q in group I to 28.81 q in group III on the left hand side of river
Beas. The corresponding figures on right side were 6.80 and 38.01 q, respectively. The amount of
marketable surplus was 2.23 q per household on the right bank and 1.63 q per household on the left side.
In per cent terms, the marketable surplus ranged from 4% to 13% on the left bank and 2% to 13 % on the
right bank. The marketed surplus was 44% on the left bank and 48% on the right bank. The marketed
surplus i.e. quantity actually sold as a proportion of marketable surplus was 54% on the left bank and 58%
26
on the right bank. Similarly, the quantity of food grains consumed at home accounted for 27% on the right
bank and 33% on the left bank. The per cent share of food grains consumed at home was the highest in
group I might be due to low level of production. In sum, the average production of food grains varied from
17 to 22 q per household; out of the total production per household 27 to 33% was consumed at home and
54 to 58% was marketable/marketed surplus. In absolute terms, the marketable and marketed surplus
together was 9.30 q per household on the left bank and 12.76 q on the right bank.
3.17 Source wise configuration of household income
Tables 17a and 17b show the source wise composition of annual household income of project affected
households on both sides of the river Beas. A perusal of the table reveals that off farm income sources like
service, pension, shop keeping and daily paid labour were the important sources of households income;
these sources taken together contributed as high as three-fourths of total household income on the left
bank and more than four-fifths on the right bank. The gross household income from farm sources was
assessed at Rs. 45,339 on right bank and Rs 53,550 on left bank which respectively accounted for 16%
and 25% of the gross household income. Among farm income sources, while crops and animal husbandry
including dairying were relatively more important, fruits and vegetables contributed negligible amount.
Among off-farm sources, services in public and private sectors accounted for the highest share (41.66% on
right bank and 45.23% on left bank). Among households belonging to different groups according to the
amount of land to be lost, the table shows that gross annual household income was highest in group II
(Rs.4,68,032) on the right bank and group III (Rs.2,20,136) on the left bank. However, per capita income
was the highest of Rs. 64,114 in group II category on the right bank and Rs. 35,798 in group I on the left
bank. The average per capita income for overall situation including households of both the left and right
bank was Rs. 32,643 and Rs. 41,318 which was significantly lower than the average per capita income of
Rs. 58,000 for the state as a whole. In sum, the average annual gross household income was higher (Rs.
2,89,228) on the right bank in comparison to Rs. 2,15,442 on the left bank. Among different sources, the
contribution of the services was the highest followed by pension. The farm income accounted for 16% on
the right bank and 25% on the left bank with overall average of about 21% (Fig 3.8). The per capita
income was substantially higher (Rs. 41,318) on the right bank as compared to the left bank (Rs. 32,643).
3.18 Consumption pattern
Consumption pattern of the sample households is shown in Tables 18a and 18b. The table shows that the
household consumption expenditure on various items was Rs. 76,375 per annum in the left bank in
comparison to Rs. 72,141 on the right bank. Likewise, the per capita consumption expenditure was Rs.
11,572 on the left bank and Rs. 10,305 on the right bank. Further, the per capita consumption expenditure
27
on left bank was found increasing from group I to group III while no specific pattern between per capita
expenditure and households in different groups was in evidence on the right bank. Among different items
of expenditure, milk was the most important item which accounted for 20.10% of total expenditure on the
right bank and 24.29% on the left bank. Clothing was next important item accounting for 6.93% of the
household expenditure on the left bank and 7.87 % on the right bank. Cereals like rice and wheat and
vegetables were other important items of expenditure. In brief, the annual household expenditure was Rs.
76,375 per household on the left bank in comparison to Rs. 72,141 on the right bank. The per capita
expenditure was higher (Rs. 11,572) on the left bank than Rs. 10,305 on the right bank.
3.19 Saving pattern
Savings have been estimated by deducting the gross household consumption expenditure and gross
household income. The estimates have been shown in Table 19a and Table 19b. As may be seen from the
tables, that while nearly two-thirds of the gross household income was being saved by households on the
left bank, three-fourths of gross household income was being saved by those on the right bank. Among
households belonging to different group categories, those on the right bank did save as high as four-fifths
of their household income on the right bank which could be attributed to higher household income in case
of the latter as compared to the former.
3.20 Purpose and source wise borrowings
Table 20a and Table 20b present purpose wise borrowings of sample households on the left side and the
right side of the river, respectively. It can be seen from Table 20a that on the left bank, 8 (13.12%) out of
61 households borrowed money for purposes like agriculture, dairy farming, agricultural machinery,
construction of house, running business, personal vehicle and social ceremonies like marriage, education
of children, etc. The amount of money borrowed for the purpose of agriculture like polyhouse per
household was Rs 1, 09,500. The maximum amount of Rs 2, 50,000 was borrowed by one household for
the purchase of tractor trolley and thrasher. Similarly, the amount borrowed for running commercial dairy
was Rs 50,000 per household. In a similar vein, on the right side, there was only one household who
borrowed Rs 20,000 for the construction of a house (Table 20b).
As far as sources of borrowing is concerned, Table 21a and Table 21b reveals that commercial banks
followed by state horticulture Department (under HTM scheme) were the two major sources of finance on
the left bank of river Beas whereas on the right bank of river there was only one borrower who had
borrowed from village cooperative society for this purpose.
28
Table 1a Distribution of heads of households among castes on LBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Caste Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 General
16
(66.66)
11
(64.71)
15
(75.00)
42
(68.85)
2 Scheduled caste 2
(8.34)
1
(5.88)
1
(5.00)
4
(6.56)
3 Other backward
classes
6
(25.00)
5
(29.41)
4
(20.00)
15
(24.59)
Total 24
(100)
17
(100)
20
(100)
61
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of column total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 1b Distribution of heads of households in different castes across groups on LBRB (No.)
Sr. No. Caste Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 General
16
(38.09 )
11
(25.19 )
15
( 35.72 )
42
(100)
2 Scheduled caste 2
(50.00)
1
(25.00)
1
(25.00)
4
(100)
3 Other backward
classes
6
(40.00 )
5
(33.33 )
4
(26.67)
15
(100)
Total 24
(39.34)
17
(27.87)
20
(32.79)
61
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of row total.
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 1c Distribution of heads of households among castes on RBRB (No.)
Sr. No. Caste Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 General
12
(70.59)
5
(71.43)
10
(66.67)
27
(69.23)
2 Scheduled caste 5
(29.41)
1
(14.29)
4
(26.67)
10
(25.64)
3 Other backward
classes
- 1
(14.28)
1
(6.66)
2
(5.13)
Total 17
(100)
7
(100)
15
(100)
39
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of column total.
Source: Field survey, 2011
29
Table 1d Distribution of heads of households in different castes across groups on RBRB (No.)
Sr. No. Caste Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 General
12
(44.44)
5
(18.53)
10
(37.03)
27
(100)
2 Scheduled caste 5
(50.00)
1
(10.00)
4
(40.00)
10
(100)
3 Other backward
classes
- 1
(50.00)
1
(50.00)
2
(100)
4 Total 17
(43.59)
7
(17.94)
15
(38.47)
39
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of row total
Table 2a Distribution of vulnerable heads of households among different categories of vulnerability on
LBRB (No.)
Sr. No. Category Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Disable 2
(50.00)
2
(66.67)
- 4
(50.00)
2 Widow 2
(50.00)
1
(33.33)
1
(100.00)
4
(50.00)
3 Total 4
(100)
3
(100)
1
(100)
8
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of column total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 2b Distribution of vulnerable heads of households among different categories of vulnerability on
LBRB (No.)
Sr. No. Category Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Disable 2
(50.00)
2
(50.00)
-
4
(100)
2 Widow 2
(50.00)
1
(25.00)
1
(25.00)
4
(100)
3 Total 4
(50.00)
3
(37.50)
1
(12.50)
8
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of row total
Source: Field survey, 2011
30
Table 2c Distribution of vulnerable heads of households among different categories of vulnerability on
RBRB (No.)
Sr No. Category Group I (upto 0.12 ha)
Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III (> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Disable -
-
-
-
2 Widow 1
(100.00)
-
3
(100.00)
4
(100.00)
3 Total 1
(100)
-
3
(100)
4
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of column total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 2d Distribution of vulnerable heads of households across groups on RBRB (No.)
Sr No. Category Group I (upto 0.12 ha)
Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III (> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Disable -
-
-
-
2 Widow 1
(25.00)
-
3
(75.00)
4
(100)
3 Total 1
(25.00)
-
3
(75.00)
4
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of horizontal total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 3a Distribution of above poverty line and below poverty line heads of households across castes on
LBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Economic category Group I (upto 0.12 ha)
Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III (> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Above Poverty Line
(APL)
18
(100)
13
(100)
18
(100)
49
(100)
General
15
(83.33)
9
(69.22)
15
(83.33)
39
(79.59)
Scheduled caste -
1
(11.11)
-
1
(2.04)
Other backward
classes
3
(16.67)
3
(23.07)
3
(16.67)
9
(18.37)
2 Below Poverty Line
(BPL)
6
(100)
4
(100)
2
(100)
12
(100)
General
1
(16.67)
2
(50.00)
-
3
(25.00)
Scheduled caste 2
(33.33)
- 1
(50.00)
3
(25.00)
Other backward
classes
3
(50.00)
2
(50.00)
1
(50.00)
6
(50.00)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total under respective economic class
Source: Field survey, 2011
31
Table 3b Distribution of above poverty line and below poverty line heads of households across castes on
RBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Economic category Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Above Poverty Line
(APL)
12
(100)
6
(100)
11
(100)
29
(100)
General
10
(83.33)
5
(83.33)
9
(81.82)
24
(82.76)
Scheduled caste 2
(16.67)
-
1
(9.09)
3
(10.34)
Other backward
classes
-
(0.00)
1
(16.67)
1
(9.09)
2
(6.90)
2 Below Poverty Line
(BPL)
5
(100)
1
(100)
4
(100)
10
(100)
General
2
(40.00)
-
1
(25.00)
3
(30.00)
Scheduled caste 3
(60.00)
1
(100.00)
3
(75.00)
7
(70.00)
Other Backward
Classes
-
-
-
-
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total under respective economic class
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 4a Occupational profile of sample households on LBRB (No.)
Sr. Occupation Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Agriculture 1.00
(4.17)
7.00
(41.18)
2.00
(10.00)
10.00
(16.39)
2 Government service 5.00
(20.83)
3.00
(17.65)
3.00
(15.00)
11.00
(18.03)
3 Private service 6.00
(25.00)
3.00
(17.64)
4.00
(20.00)
13.00
(21.31)
4 Pension 4.00
(16.67)
3.00
(17.65)
4.00
(20.00)
11.00
(18.03)
5 Shop keeping 3.00
(12.50)
- 3.00
(15.00)
6.00
(9.85)
6 Daily paid labour 5.00
(20.83)
1.00
(5.88)
4.00
(20.00)
10.00
(16.39)
Total 24.00
(100)
17.00
(100)
20.00
(100)
61.00
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
32
Table 4b Occupational profile of sample households on RBRB (No.)
Sr. No. Occupation Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Agriculture 2.00
(11.76)
1.00
(14.29)
2.00
(13.33)
5.00
(12.82)
2 Pension 5.00
(29.41)
1.00
(14.29)
2.00
(13.33)
8.00
(20.51)
3 Government service 3.00
(17.66)
1.00
(14.29)
3.00
(20.00)
7.00
(17.95)
4 Private service 2.00
(11.76)
1.00
(14.29)
2.00
(13.33)
5.00
(12.82)
5 Shop keeping 1.00
(5.88)
2.00
(28.55)
- 3.00
(7.69)
6 Daily paid labour 4.00
(23.53)
1.00
(14.29)
6.00
(40.01)
11.00
(28.21)
Total 17.00
(100)
7.00
(100)
15.00
(100)
39.00
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
33
Table 5a Age wise distribution of sample population on LBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Age
interval
(Years)
Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Upto 5 10
(12.05)
9
(13.85)
19
(12.84)
4
(7.85)
3
(5.88)
7
(6.86)
7
(8.75)
5
(6.58)
12
(7.69)
21
(9.81)
17
(8.85)
38
(9.36)
2 6-18 17
(20.48)
6
(9.23)
23
(15.54)
13
(25.49)
11
(21.57)
24
(23.53)
18
(22.50)
21
(27.63)
39
(25.00)
48
(22.43)
38
(19.79)
86
(21.18)
3 18-40 33
(39.76)
28
(43.08)
61
(41.22)
19
(37.25)
20
(39.22)
39
(38.24)
28
(35.00)
28
(36.84)
56
(35.90)
80
(37.38)
76
(39.59)
156
(38.42)
4 40-60 12
(14.46)
16
(24.61)
28
(18.92)
9
(17.65)
12
(23.53)
21
(20.59)
13
(16.25)
12
(15.79)
25
(16.03)
34
(15.89)
40
(20.83)
74
(18.23)
5 >60 11
(13.25)
6
(9.23)
17
(11.48)
6
(11.76)
5
(9.80)
11
(10.78)
14
(17.50)
10
(13.16)
24
(15.38)
31
(14.49)
21
(10.94)
52
(12.81)
6 Total 83
(100)
65
(100)
148
(100)
51
(100)
51
(100)
102
(100)
80
(100)
76
(100)
156
(100)
214
(100)
192
(100)
406
(100)
7 Average
family size
3.4 2.6 6.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 3.8 7.8 3.5 3.1 6.6
8 Sex ratio
(F/1000M)
- - 776 - - 1000 - - 950 - - 894
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.
Source: Field survey, 2011
34
Table 5b Age wise distribution of sample population on RBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Age
interval
(Years)
Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Upto 5 11
(18.65)
4
(8.51)
15
(14.42)
-
1
(5.26)
1
(1.96)
6
(9.68)
1
(2.00)
7
(6.25)
17
(11.11)
6
(5.16)
23
(8.55)
2 6-18 8
(13.56)
8
(17.03)
16
(15.38)
14
(43.75)
-
14
(27.45)
14
(22.58)
9
(18.00)
23
(20.54)
36
(23.53)
17
(14.66)
53
(19.70)
3 18-40 21
(35.59)
15
(31.91)
36
(34.62)
6
(18.75)
10
(52.64)
16
(31.37)
23
(37.10)
21
(42.00)
44
(39.29)
50
(32.68)
46
(39.66)
96
(35.69)
4 40-60 9
(15.25)
17
(36.17)
24
(23.08)
7
(21.87)
4
(21.05)
11
(21.57)
13
(20.97)
12
(24.00)
25
(22.31)
29
(18.95)
33
(28.45)
62
(23.05)
5 >60 10
(16.95)
3
(6.38)
13
(12.50)
5
(15.63)
4
(21.05)
9
(17.65)
6
(9.67)
7
(14.00)
13
(11.61)
21
(13.73)
14
(12.07)
35
(13.01)
6 Total 59
(100)
47
(100)
104
(100)
32
(100)
19
(100)
51
(100)
62
(100)
50
(100)
112
(100)
153
(100)
116
(100)
269
(100)
7 Average
family
size
3.6 2.9 6.5 4.6 2.7 7.3 4.1 3.4 7.5 4.0 3.0 7.0
8 Sex ratio
(F/1000M)
- - 807 - - 594 - - 806 - - 762
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.
Source: Field survey, 2011
35
Table 6a. Educational status of sample population on LBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Education Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Illiterate 4
(4.82)
8
(12.31)
12
(8.05)
3
(5.88)
11
(21.57)
14
(13.73)
6
(7.50)
13
(17.11)
19
(12.18)
13
(6.07)
32
(16.67)
45
(11.08)
2 Primary 12
(14.46)
10
(15.38)
22
(14.76)
5
(9.80)
13
(25.49)
18
(17.65)
7
(8.75)
13
(17.11)
20
(12.82)
24
(11.21)
36
(18.75)
60
(14.78)
3 Middle 10
(12.06)
9
(13.84)
19
(12.75)
9
(17.65)
5
(9.80)
14
(13.73)
15
(18.75)
18
(23.67)
33
(21.15)
34
(15.88)
32
(16.67)
66
(16.26)
4 Matriculation 21
(25.30)
10
(15.38)
31
(20.80)
19
(37.25)
14
(27.46)
33
(32.35)
26
(32.50)
15
(19.74)
41
(26.28)
66
(30.84)
39
(20.31)
105
(25.86)
5 Sr. Secondary 20
(24.08)
15
(23.08)
35
(23.49)
7
(13.74)
5
(9.80)
12
(11.76)
9
(11.25)
8
(10.53)
17
(10.90)
36
(16.82)
28
(14.58)
64
(15.76)
6 Graduate 6
(7.23)
5
(7.69)
12
(8.06)
3
(5.88)
- 3
(2.94)
6
(7.50)
3
(3.94)
9
(5.78)
15
(7.01)
8
(4.17)
23
(5.67)
7 Post graduate 2
(2.41)
- 2
(1.34)
-
- - 2
(2.50)
1
(1.32)
3
(1.92)
4
(1.88)
1
(0.52)
5
(1.23)
8 Technical
qualification
- - -
1
(1.96)
- 1
(0.98)
3
(3.75)
1
(1.32)
4
(2.56)
4
(1.88)
1
(0.52)
5
(1.23)
9 Non school
going
8
(9.64)
8
(12.32)
16
(10.75)
4
(7.84)
3
(5.88)
7
(6.86)
6
(7.50)
4
(5.26)
10
(6.41)
18
(8.41)
15
(7.81)
33
(8.13)
10 Total 83
(100)
65
(100)
149
(100)
51
(100)
51
(100)
102
(100)
80
(100)
76
(100)
156
(100)
214
(100)
192
(100)
406
(100)
11 Literacy (%) 94.66 85.96 90.98 93.62 77.08 85.26 91.89 81.94 86.99 93.37 81.92 87.94
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
36
Table 6b Educational status of sample population on RBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Education Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Illiterate 4
(6.77)
8
(17.02)
12
(11.32)
2
(6.25)
4
(21.05)
6
(11.76)
2
(3.23)
9
(18.00)
11
(9.82)
8
(5.23)
21
(18.10)
29
(10.78)
2 Primary 7
(11.86)
13
(27.66)
20
(18.86)
4
(12.50)
1
(5.26)
5
(9.80)
8
(12.90)
11
(22.00)
19
(16.96)
19
(12.42)
25
(21.55)
44
(16.36)
3 Middle 4
(6.78)
4
(8.51)
8
(7.55)
7
(21.88)
4
(21.05)
11
(21.57)
11
(17.74)
15
(30.00)
26
(23.21)
22
(14.38)
23
(19.83)
45
(16.73)
4 Matriculation 14
(23.73)
6
(12.76)
20
(18.88)
6
(18.74)
3
(15.79)
9
(17.65)
13
(20.98)
10
(20.00)
23
(20.54)
33
(21.57)
19
(16.40)
52
(19.33)
5 Sr. Secondary 12
(20.33)
7
(14.89)
19
(17.93)
6
(18.75)
4
(21.05)
10
(19.62)
15
(24.19)
1
(2.00)
16
(14.29)
33
(21.57)
12
(10.33)
45
(16.73)
6 Graduate 7
(11.88)
6
(12.78)
13
(12.26)
3
(9.38)
2
(10.54)
5
(9.80)
7
(11.29)
2
(4.00)
9
(8.04)
17
(11.11)
10
(8.62)
27
(10.04)
7 Post graduate - - - 1
(3.13)
- 1
(1.96)
- 2
(4.00)
2
(1.79)
1
(0.65)
2
(1.72)
3
(1.12)
8 Technical
qualification
2
(3.39)
- 2
(1.88)
3
(9.37)
- 3
(5.88)
1
(1.61)
- 1
(0.89)
6
(3.92)
- 6
(2.22)
9 Non school
going
9
(15.26)
3
(6.38)
12
(11.32)
- 1
(5.26)
1
(1.96)
5
(8.06)
- 5
(4.46)
14
(9.15)
4
(3.45)
18
(6.69)
10 Total 59
(100)
47
(100)
106
(100)
32
(100)
19
(100)
51
(100)
62
(100)
50
(100)
112
(100)
153
(100)
116
(100)
269
100)
11 Literacy (%) 92.00 81.82 87.23 93.75 77.78 88.00 96.49 82.00 89.72 94.25 81.25 88.45
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.
Source: Field survey, 2011
37
Table 7a Types of buildings owned by sample households on LBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 House Kachcha 13
(54.17)
11
(64.71)
9
(45.00)
33
(54.10)
Pucca 11
(45.83)
6
(35.29)
11
(55.00)
28
(45.90)
Sub-total 24
(100)
17
(100)
20
(100)
61
(100)
2 Stable Kachcha 1
(100)
- - 1
(100)
Pucca - - - -
Sub-total 1
(100)
- - 1
(100)
3 Cattle shed Kachcha 18
(100)
13
(92.86)
18
(90.00)
49
(94.23)
Pucca - 1
(7.14)
2
(10.00)
3
(5.77)
Sub-total 18
(100)
14
(100)
20
(100)
52
(100)
4 Store Kachcha 1
(100)
- - 1
(100)
Pucca - - - -
Sub-total 1
(100)
- - 1
(100)
5 Business
shop
Rented out 1
(100)
- 2
(100)
3
(75.00)
Own
running
- 1
(100)
- 1
(25.00)
Sub-total 1
(100)
1
(100)
2
(100)
4
(100)
6 Agro
industry
Atta chakki - - - -
Gharat 1
(100)
- - 1
(100)
Sub-total 1
(100)
- - 1
(100)
Total 46
(100)
32
(100)
42
(100)
120
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total in each category.
Source: Field survey, 2011
38
Table 7b Types of buildings owned by sample households on RBRB (No.)
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 House Kachcha 8
(47.06)
2
(28.57)
9
(60.00)
19
(48.72)
Pucca 9
(52.94)
5
(71.43)
6
(40.00)
20
(51.28)
Sub-total 17.
(100)
7
(100)
15
(100)
39
(100)
2 Cattle shed Kachcha 14
(100)
6
(100)
13
(92.86)
33
(97.06)
Pucca - - 1
(7.14)
1
(2.94)
Sub-total 14
(100)
6.
(100)
14
(100)
34
(100)
3 Store Kachcha - 1
(100)
1
(100)
2
(100)
Pucca - - - -
Sub-total
-
1
(100)
1
(100)
2
(100)
4 Business shop Rented out - 1
(33.33)
- 1
(33.33)
Own
running
- 2
(66.67)
- 2
(66.67)
Sub-total
-
3
(100) -
3
(100)
5 Agro industry Atta
chakki
- - 1
(100)
1
(100)
Sub-total
- -
1.00
(100)
1.00
(100)
Total
31
(100)
17
(100)
31
(100)
79
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total in each category.
Source: Field survey, 2011
39
Table 8a Investment on buildings by sample households on LBRB (Lakh Rs./hh)
Sr.
No.
Particulars
Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 House Kachcha 1.60
(29.86)
1.68
(34.40)
1.56
(17.93)
1.61
(25.45)
Pucca 3.13
(58.25)
2.19
(44.90)
5.86
(67.36)
3.76
(59.49)
2 Stable Kachcha 0.02
(0.39)
- - 0.01
(0.13)
Pucca - - - -
3 Cattle
shed
Kachcha 0.60
(11.18)
0.54
(11.04)
0.93
(10.69)
0.69
(10.93)
Pucca -
0.12
(2.41)
0.15
(1.72)
0.08
(1.30)
4 Store Kachcha 0.02
(0.31)
-
-
0.01
(0.10)
Pucca -
-
-
-
5 Business
shop
Rented out -
-
0.20
(2.30)
0.07
(1.04)
Own
running
- 0.35
(7.24)
- 0.10
(1.56)
6 Agro
industry
Atta chakki
- - - -
Total 5.36
(100)
4.87
(100)
8.70
(100)
6.32
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total in each category.
Source: Field survey, 2011
40
Table 8b Investment on buildings by sample households on RBRB (Lakh Rs. /hh)
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II (0.12
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 House Kachcha 0.57
(12.71)
0.64
(6.49)
1.18
(21.08)
0.82
(13.90)
Pucca 3.35
(74.71)
6.71
(67.82)
3.49
(62.42)
4.01
(68.13)
2 Cattle
shed
Kachcha 0.56
(12.58)
0.60
(6.06)
0.64
(11.49)
0.60
(10.22)
Pucca -
-
0.03
(0.60)
0.01
(0.22)
3 Store Kachcha - 0.09
(0.87)
0.01
(0.24)
0.02
(0.35)
Pucca -
-
-
-
4 Business
shop
Rented -
0.29
(2.89)
-
0.05
(0.87)
Own running - 1.57
(15.87)
- 0.28
(4.79)
5 Agro
industry
Atta chakki -
-
0.23
(4.17)
0.09
(1.52)
Gharat -
-
-
-
Total 4.49
(100)
9.90
(100)
5.60
(100)
5.89
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total in each category.
Source: Field survey, 2011
41
Table 9a Inventory of household durables possessed by sample households on LBRB
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I (upto 0.12 ha) Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha) Group III (> 0.28 ha) Total
No. Purchased
price
(Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
No. Purchased
price
(Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
No. Purchased
price
(Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
No. Purchased
price
(Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
1 Telephone 3
(0.63)
3000
(0.24)
3000
(0.33)
3
(0.74)
2100
(0.16)
2100
(0.22)
7
(1.32)
20500
(0.55)
9500
(0.36)
13
(0.91)
25600
(0.41)
14600
(0.32)
2 Mobile 51
(10.72)
121500
(9.80)
61700
(6.77)
27
(6.63)
68400
(5.35)
52700
(5.52)
44
(8.27)
115400
(3.09)
79200
(3.03)
124
(8.66)
307800
(4.89)
195100
(4.33)
3 Table 39
(8.19)
33300
(2.69)
18100
(1.98)
33
(8.11)
23638
(1.85)
18300
(1.92)
40
(7.52)
35500
(0.95)
21000
(0.80)
113
(7.89)
92938
(1.48)
57700
(1.28)
4 Chairs 93
(19.54)
29500
(2.38)
19900
(2.18)
107
(26.29)
31300
(2.45)
24650
(2.58)
154
(28.95)
70800
(1.89)
31300
(1.20)
358
(25.00)
133600
(2.12)
77050
(1.71)
5 Cots 59
(12.39)
178100
(14.37)
99800
(10.94)
61
(14.99)
101200
(7.91)
76800
(8.04)
49
(9.21)
137800
(3.69)
112800
(4.32)
171
(11.94)
420100
(6.68)
290400
(6.44)
6 Radio &
tape
recorder
6
(1.26)
11500
(0.93)
7200
(0.79)
4
(0.98)
4500
(0.35)
3600
(0.38)
9
(1.68)
9600
(0.26)
7600
(0.29)
19
(1.33)
25600
(0.41)
18400
(0.41)
7 Television 22
(4.62)
183200
(14.78)
110500
(12.12)
19
(4.67)
128000
(10.01)
96600
(10.12)
25
(4.70)
173700
(4.65)
124500
(4.76)
67
(4.68)
493900
(7.85)
337600
(7.49)
8 Bicycle - - - 1
(0.25)
2000
(0.16)
1800
0.19)
6
(1.13)
9000
(0.24)
6700
0.26)
7
(0.49)
11000
(0.17)
8500
(0.19)
9 Scooter 4
(0.84)
149000
(12.02)
103000
11.30)
3
(0.74)
153000
(11.96)
105000
(11.00)
4
(0.75)
160000
(4.28)
98000
3.74)
11
(0.77)
462000
(7.34)
306000
(6.79)
10 Car - - - 2
(0.49)
485000
(37.93)
380000
(39.80)
2
(0.38)
650000
(17.39)
450000
(17.19)
4
(0.28)
1135000
(18.04)
830000
(18.42)
12 Jeep/Utility
van
- - - - - - 4
(0.75)
1900000
(50.84)
1350000
(51.58)
4
(0.28)
1900000
(30.21)
1350000
(29.95)
13 Sewing
machine
21
(4.41)
26900
(2.17)
162000
(17.77)
16
(3.93)
22400
(1.75)
17800
(1.86)
15
(2.82)
19100
(0.51)
16600
(0.63)
52
(3.62)
68400
(1.09)
196400
(4.36)
14 Washing 5 47000 30000 1 12000 6000 6 45000 37000 12 104000 73000
42
machine (1.05) (3.79) (3.29) (0.25) (0.94) (0.63) (1.13) (1.20) (1.42) (0.84) (1.65) (1.62)
15 Cooking gas 22
(4.62)
58500
(4.72)
43500
(4.77)
13
(3.19)
19900
(1.56)
14800
(1.55)
16
(3.01)
24600
(0.66)
17800
(0.68)
52
(3.63)
104500
(1.66)
77300
(1.72)
16 Gas cylinder 10
(2.10)
21000
(1.69)
20600
(2.26)
15
(3.69)
19400
(1.52)
15900
(1.67)
19
(3.57)
29200
(0.78)
25700
(0.98)
45
(3.14)
71200
(1.13)
63700
(1.41)
17 Refrigerator 20
(4.20)
173000
(13.95)
118000
(12.94)
10
(2.46)
71000
(5.56)
61000
(6.39)
19
(3.57)
180500
(4.83)
109500
(4.18)
50
(3.49)
436500
(6.94)
297500
(6.60)
18 Fan 70
(14.71)
78000
(6.29)
49300
(5.41)
53
(13.01)
55000
(4.30)
45900
(4.80)
65
(12.22)
74500
(1.99)
57700
(2.20)
189
(13.20)
208700
(3.32)
153700
(3.41)
19 Dining
table/ sofa
set
7
(1.48)
80000
(6.45)
51500
(5.65)
4
(0.98)
58500
(4.57)
15000
(1.57)
7
(1.32)
58000
(1.55)
45500
(1.74)
8
(1.26)
196500
(3.12)
112000
(2.48)
20 Pressure
cooker
44
(9.24)
46300
(3.73)
13800
(1.50)
35
(8.60)
21400
(1.67)
16800
(1.76)
41
(7.71)
24300
(0.65)
16800
(0.64)
123
(8.59)
93500
(1.49)
48200
(1.07)
21 Total 476
(100)
1239800
(100)
911900
(100)
407
(100)
1278738
(100)
954750
(100)
532
(100)
3737500
(100)
2617200
(100)
1432
(100)
6290838
(100)
4507150
(100)
22 Per
household
- 51658 37996 - 75220 56162 - 219853 153953 103128 73888
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Field survey, 2011
43
Table 9b Inventory of household durables possessed by the sample household on RBRB
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I (upto 0.12 ha) Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha) Group III (> 0.28 ha) Total
No. Purchased
price (Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
No. Purchased
price
(Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
No. Purchased
price (Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
No. Purchased
price
(Rs)
Present
value
(Rs)
1 Telephone 4
(1.24)
4000
(0.35)
3200
(0.54)
4
(2.56)
2000
(0.54)
1500
(0.64)
3
(0.95)
3000
(0.44)
3000
(0.67)
11
(1.44)
9000
(0.44)
7700
(0.62)
2 Mobile 36
(11.15)
89500
(7.90)
53400
(9.08)
17
(10.90)
45500
(12.32)
26000
(11.12)
23
(7.30)
52700
(7.70)
46000
(10.27)
64
(8.36)
118000
(5.71)
123900
(9.94)
3 Tables 27
(8.36)
20300
(1.79)
7500
(1.28)
13
(8.33)
10212
(2.76)
7800
(3.34)
20
(6.35)
13400
(1.96)
10200
(2.28)
59
(7.70)
46112
(2.23)
25200
(2.02)
4 Chairs 77
(23.84)
24500
(2.16)
15800
(2.69)
39
(25.00)
11850
(3.21)
8000
(3.42)
84
(26.67)
23650
(3.45)
16000
(3.57)
196
(25.59)
135000
(6.53)
38600
(3.10)
5 Cots 33
(10.22)
102500
(9.04)
61900
(10.53)
21
(13.46)
81000
(21.92)
50000
(21.38)
42
(13.33)
92200
(13.47)
73000
(16.30)
94
(12.27)
279400
(13.51)
183900
(14.75)
6 Radio &
tape recorder
- - - - - - 5
(1.59)
6250
(0.91)
4600
(1.03)
5
(0.65)
6250
(0.30)
4600
(0.37)
7 Television 15
(4.64)
115200
(10.16)
71200
(12.11)
8
(5.13)
64000
(17.32)
41500
(17.75)
17
(5.40)
120000
(17.53)
88500
(19.76)
39
(5.09)
186500
(9.02)
195200
(15.66)
8 Bicycle 1
(0.31)
165000
(14.56)
2000
(0.34)
3
(1.92)
5100
(1.38)
3000
(1.28)
1
(0.32)
2300
(0.34)
2000
(0.45)
5
(0.65)
172400
(8.34)
7000
(0.56)
9 Scooter 4
(1.24)
150000
(13.23)
9000
1.53
- - - - - - 4
(0.52)
150000
(7.25)
9000
(0.72)
10 Car 1
(0.31)
150000
(13.23)
100000
(17.00
- - - - - - 1
(0.13)
150000
(7.25)
100000
(8.02)
11 Sewing
machine
7
(2.17)
7400
(0.65)
45000
(7.65)
8
(5.13)
9700
(2.63)
5700
(2.44)
12
(3.81)
146000
(21.32)
19300
(4.31)
27
(3.52)
163100
(7.89)
70000
(5.62)
12 Washing
machine
3
(0.93)
27000
(2.38)
20000
(3.40)
1
(0.64)
10000
(2.71)
8000
(3.41)
2
(0.63)
19000
(2.77)
15000
(3.35)
6
(0.78)
56000
(2.71)
43000
(3.45)
13 Cooking gas 15 39300 29000 7 12900 8800 13 29100 21500 34 79800 58100
44
(4.64) (3.48) (4.93) (4.49) (3.49) (3.76) (4.13) (4.25) (4.80) (4.44) (3.86) (4.66)
14 Gas cylinder 4
(1.24)
6200
(0.55)
5500
(0.94)
8
(5.13)
10900
(2.95)
7800
(3.34)
12
(3.81)
20300
(2.96)
32300
(7.21)
23
(3.00)
35800
(1.73)
44100
(3.54)
15 Refrigerator 13
(4.01)
121000
(10.68)
84000
(14.28)
6
(3.85)
67000
(18.13)
41500
(17.75)
11
(3.49)
86000
(12.56)
65500
(14.63)
28
(3.66)
262000
(12.67)
182000
(14.60)
16 Fan 47
(14.55)
48100
(4.24)
39600
(6.73)
- - (0.00) 43
(13.65)
43900
(6.41)
32900
(7.35)
89
(11.62)
90800
(4.37)
71700
(5.76)
17 Sofa set/
dining table
5
(1.55)
46500
(4.11)
30500
(5.19)
3
(1.92)
30000
(8.12)
19000
(8.12)
3
(0.95)
14500
(2.12)
10500
(2.34)
11
(1.44)
91000
(4.40)
60000
(4.81)
18 Pressure
cooker
31
(9.60)
16900
(1.49)
10500
(1.78)
18
(11.54)
9300
(2.52)
5250
(2.25)
24
(7.62)
12400
(1.81)
7500
(1.68)
70
(9.14)
37100
(1.79)
22450
(1.80)
19 Total 323
(100)
1133400
(100)
588100
(100)
156
(100)
369462
(100)
233850
(100)
315
(100)
684700
(100)
447800
(100)
766
(100)
2068262
(100)
1246450
(100)
20 Per
household
- 66671 34594 - 52780 33407 - 45647 29853 - 53032 31960
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 10a Livestock inventory of sample households on LBRB
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I (upto 0.12 ha) Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha) Group III (> 0.28 ha) Total
No. Value (Rs.) No. Value (Rs.) No. Value (Rs.) No. Value (Rs.)
1 Cow in milk 1
(1.96)
8000.00
(2.48)
-
(0.00)
-
(0.00)
1
(1.56)
16000.00
(4.32)
2
(1.21)
24000
(2.59)
Cow dry -
-
- - - - - -
2 Buffalo in milk 18
(35.29)
180000
(55.74)
9
(18.00)
90000
(38.30)
19
(29.69)
190000
(51.35)
46
(27.88)
460000
(49.57)
Buffalo dry 6
(11.76)
48000
(14.87)
8
(16.00)
64000
(27.23)
11
(17.19)
88000
(23.78)
25
(15.15)
200000
(21.55)
45
3 Young stock 5
(9.80)
7500
(2.32)
9
(18.00)
13500
(5.75)
12
(18.75)
18000
(4.86)
26
(15.76)
39000
(4.20)
4 Bullock 6
(11.76)
18000
(5.57)
13
(26.00)
39000
(16.60)
11
(17.19)
33000
(8.93)
30
(18.18)
90000
(9.70)
5 Sheep 4
(7.84)
10000
(3.10)
1
(2.00)
2500
(1.06)
10
(15.62)
25000
(6.76)
15
(9.09)
37500
(4.04)
6 Goat 9
(17.65)
23400
(7.25)
10
(20.00)
26000
(11.06)
- - 19
(11.52)
49400
(5.32)
7 Horses/ ponies 2
(3.93)
28000
(8.67)
- - - - 2
(1.21)
28000
(3.02)
8 Total 51
(100)
322900
(100)
50
(100)
235000
(100)
64
(100)
370000
(100)
165
(100)
927900
(100)
9 Per household 2.13 13454 2.94 13823 3.2 18500 2.70 15211
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
46
Table 10b Livestock inventory of sample households on RBRB
Sr.
No.
Particulars Group I (upto 0.12 ha) Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha) Group III (> 0.28 ha) Total
No. Value (Rs.) No. Value (Rs.) No. Value (Rs.) No. Value
(Rs.)
1 Cow in milk 3
(12.00)
24000
(20.48)
3
(20.00)
24000
(18.36)
8
(17.02)
64000
(18.96)
14
(16.09)
112000
(19.13)
Cow dry 1
(4.00)
6000
(5.12)
1
(6.67)
6000
(4.59)
5
(10.64)
30000
(8.88)
7
(8.05)
42000
(7.17)
2 Buffalo in milk 2
(8.00)
20000
(17.06)
3
(20.00)
30000
(22.95)
6
(12.77)
60000
(17.78)
11
(12.64)
110000
(18.79)
Buffalo dry 4
(16.00)
32000
(27.30)
1
(6.67)
8000
(6.12)
5
(10.64)
40000
(11.85)
10
(11.49)
80000
(13.67)
3 Young stock 6
(24.00)
9000
(7.68)
1
(6.67)
1500
(1.15)
8
(17.02)
12000
(3.56)
15
(17.24)
22500
(3.84)
4 Bullock 7
(28.00)
21000
(17.92)
2
(13.32)
5200
(3.98)
4
(8.51)
12000
(3.56)
13
(14.94)
38200
(6.53)
5 Sheep -
-
-
-
3
(6.38)
7500
(2.22)
3
(3.46)
7500
(1.28)
6 Goat 2
(8.00)
5200
(4.44)
-
-
-
-
2
(2.30)
5200
(0.89)
7 Horses/ ponies -
-
4
(26.67)
56000
(42.85)
8
(17.02)
112000
(33.19)
12
(13.79)
168000
(28.70)
8 Total 25
(100)
117200
(100)
15
(100)
130700
(100)
47
(100)
337500
(100)
87
(100)
585400
(100)
9 Per household 1.47 6894 2.14 18671 3.13 22500 2.23 15010
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
47
Table 11a Land Utilization Pattern of sample households on LBRB (ha/hh)
Sr. No. Particulars Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Cultivated 0.43
(58.11)
0.59
(54.63)
1.18
(60.20)
0.72
(58.06)
Irrigated 0.15
(20.27)
0.21
(19.44)
0.55
(28.57)
0.3
(24.19)
Unirrigated 0.28
(37.84)
0.38
(35.19)
0.63
(32.14)
0.42
(33.87)
2 Uncultivated including
fruit trees
0.07
(9.46)
0.22
(20.37)
0.05
(2.55)
0.11
(8.87)
Irrigated 0.01
(1.35)
0.02
(1.85)
0
(0.00)
0.01
(0.81)
Unirrigated 0.06
(8.11)
0.20
(18.52)
0.05
(2.55)
0.1
(8.06)
3 Grassland 0.23
(31.08)
0.26
(24.08)
0.6
(30.62)
0.36
(29.04)
4 Wasteland (forestry trees) 0.01
(1.35)
- 0.12
(6.12)
0.04
(3.23)
5 Total 0.74
(100)
1.07
(100)
1.95
(100)
1.23
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 11b Land utilization pattern of sample households on RBRB (ha/hh)
Sr. No. Particulars Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Cultivated 0.32
(61.54)
0.79
(25.48)
1.10
(55.56)
0.71
(45.81)
Irrigated 0.15
(28.85)
0.14
(4.52)
0.23
(11.62)
0.18
(11.61)
Unirrigated 0.17
(32.69)
0.65
(20.97)
0.87
(43.94)
0.53
(34.19)
2 Uncultivated including
fruit trees
0.05
(9.62)
0.78
(21.61)
0.83
(40.91)
0.48
(29.03)
Irrigated 0.04
(7.69)
0.21
(6.77)
- 0.05
(3.23)
Unirrigated 0.01
(1.92)
0.57
(18.39)
0.83
(41.92)
0.43
(27.75)
3 Grassland 0.15
(28.84)
0.22
(7.10)
0.05
(2.52)
0.12
(7.74)
4 Wasteland (forestry trees) - 1.31
(42.26)
- 0.24
(15.48)
48
5 Total 0.52
(100)
3.10
(100)
1.98
(100)
1.55
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 12a Cropping pattern on sample households of LBRB (in ha / hh)
Sr. No. Crops Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Maize 0.39
(43.82)
0.47
(40.45)
0.9
(38.14)
0.58
(40.56)
2 Paddy 0.02
(2.25)
0.05
(4.30)
0.18
(7.63)
0.08
(5.59)
3 Pulses - - - -
4 Oilseed - 0.01
(1.40)
- -
5 Fodder 0.04
(4.49)
0.07
(6.01)
0.15
(6.36)
0.08
(5.59)
6 Vegetables 0.02
(2.25)
0.01
(0.84)
0.03
(1.27)
0.02
(1.41)
7 Wheat 0.41
(46.07)
0.55
(47.00)
1.07
(45.34)
0.66
(46.15)
8 Barley 0.01
(1.12)
- 0.03
(1.26)
0.01
(0.70)
9 Total 0.89
(100)
1.16
(100)
2.36
(100)
1.43
(100)
10 Cropping intensity
(%)
206.98 196.61 200.00 198.61
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 12b Cropping pattern on sample households of RBRB (in ha / hh)
Sr. No. Crops Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1
Maize
0.28
(43.75)
0.71
(45.15)
0.84
(38.36)
0.57
(40.43)
2
Paddy
- - 0.21
(9.59)
0.08
(5.67)
3
Pulses
- - - -
4
Oilseed
- - 0.01
(0.46)
-
5
Fodder
0.10
(15.63)
0.06
(3.50)
0.03
(1.37)
0.07
(4.96)
49
6 Vegetables
0.01
(1.56)
0.03
(1.80)
0.02
(0.91)
0.02
(1.42)
7 Wheat
0.25
(39.06)
0.77
(49.04)
1.07
(48.85)
0.66
(46.81)
8 Barley
- 0.01
(0.51)
0.01
(0.46)
0.01
(0.71)
9
Total
0.64
(100)
1.57
(100)
2.19
(100)
1.41
(100)
10 Cropping intensity
(%)
200.00 198.73 199.09 198.59
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
50
Table 13a Area, production and income from vegetables and spice production on LBRB
Sr.
No
Particulars Group I (upto 0.12 ha) Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha) Group III (> 0.28 ha) Total
Area
(k)
Prod.
(q)
Income
(Rs.)
Area
(k)
Prod. (q) Income
(Rs)
Area
(k)
Prod.
(q)
Income
(Rs)
Area
(k)
Prod.
(q)
Income
(Rs)
1 Potato 2.40
(24.49)
7.35
(33.64)
5145
(19.63)
0.50
(20.00)
2.30
(28.75)
2240
(18.04)
2.20
(16.24)
2.40
(6.50)
2190
(3.73)
5.10
(19.73)
12.05
(18.05)
9575
(9.83)
2 Carrot - - - - - - 0.50
(3.69)
0.50
(1.36)
750
(1.28)
0.50
(1.93)
0.50
(0.75)
750
(0.77)
3 Radish 0.85
(8.67)
2.60
(11.90)
1820
(6.94)
0.25
(10.00)
1.10
(13.75)
1280
(10.31)
0.25
(1.85)
5.00
(13.55)
6890
(11.73)
1.35
(5.22)
8.70
(13.03)
9990
(10.26)
4 Cauliflower 1.45
(14.80)
1.35
(6.18)
1350
(5.15)
0.10
(4.00)
0.05
(0.63)
40
(0.32)
0.80
(5.90)
6.80
(18.43)
6050
(10.30)
2.35
(9.09)
8.20
(12.28)
7440
(7.64)
5 Cabbage 0.15
(1.53)
2.00
(9.15)
1600.
(6.10)
- - - 0.25
(1.85)
3.00
(8.13)
2400
(4.09)
0.40
(1.55)
5.00
(7.49)
4000
(4.11)
6 Lady
Finger
1.05
(10.71)
2.20
(10.07)
2850
(10.87)
0.35
(14.00)
0.20
(2.50)
300
(2.42)
1.60
(11.81)
2.30
(6.23)
3450
(5.87)
3.00
(11.61)
4.70
(7.04)
6600
(6.78)
7 Colocasia 0.30
(3.06)
0.45
(2.06)
750
(2.86)
0.20
(8.00)
0.70
(8.75)
2100
(16.91)
1.25
(9.23)
6.10
(16.53)
3050
(5.19)
1.75
(6.77)
7.25
(10.86)
5900
(6.06)
8 Cucumber
- - - 0.05
(2.00)
1.00
(12.50)
1000
(8.05)
0.20
(1.48)
0.50
(1.36)
500
(0.85)
0.25
(0.97)
1.50
(2.25)
1500
(1.54)
9 Pumpkin 0.05
(0.51)
0.20
(0.92)
200
(0.76)
0.10
(4.00)
1.50
(18.75)
1800
(14.49)
0.50
(3.69)
3.00
(8.13)
300
(0.51)
0.65
(2.51)
4.70
(7.04)
2300
(2.36)
10 Turmeric 0.35
(3.57)
0.40
(1.83)
1700
(6.48)
0.25
(10.00)
0.60
(7.50)
2400
(19.32)
3.10
(22.88)
4.70
(12.74)
18800
(32.01)
3.70
(14.31)
5.70
(8.54)
22900
(23.52)
11 Garlic 0.60
(6.13)
1.10
(5.03)
4700
(17.93)
0.30
(12.00)
0.04
(0.50)
160
(1.29)
0.90
(6.64)
1.20
(3.25)
5400
(9.19)
1.80
(6.96)
2.34
(3.51)
10260
(10.54)
12 Coriander 1.00
(10.20)
0.50
(2.29)
500
(1.91)
0.05
(2.00)
0.01
(0.13)
100
(0.81)
0.20
(1.48)
0.10
(0.27)
250.00
(0.43)
1.25
(4.84)
0.61
(0.91)
850
(0.87)
13 Ginger 0.55
(5.61)
0.65
(2.97)
1700
(6.48)
- - - 0.30
(2.21)
0.5
(1.36)
2500
(4.26)
0.85
(3.29)
1.15
(1.72)
4200
(4.31)
14 Onion 1.05
(10.72)
3.05
(13.96)
3900
(14.88)
0.35
(14.00)
0.50
(6.25)
1000
(8.05)
1.5
(11.07)
0.80
(2.17)
6200.00
(10.56)
2.90
(11.22)
4.35
(6.52)
11100
(11.40)
15 Total 9.80 21.85 26215 2.50 8.00 12420 13.55 36.90 58730.00 25.85 66.75 97365
51
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
16 Per hh 0.41
(0.02 ha)
0.91 1092 0.15
(0.01 ha)
0.47 731 0.68
(0.03 ha)
1.84 2937 0.42
(0.02 ha)
1.09 1596
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 13b Area, production and income from vegetables and spice production on RBRB
Sr.
No
Particulars Group I (upto 0.12 ha) Group II (0.12 – 0.28 ha) Group III (> 0.28 ha) Total
Area
(k)
Produ
ction
(q)
Income
(Rs.)
Area
(k)
Produ
ction (q)
Income
(Rs)
Area (k) Produ
ction (q)
Income
(Rs)
Area
(k)
Produ
ction (q)
Income
(Rs)
1 Potato 0.35
(6.27)
2.90
(21.84)
2300
(15.18)
1.00
(20.00)
2.00
(24.39)
1400
(18.30)
0.50
(6.44)
0.45
(2.34)
315
(1.18)
1.85
(10.08)
5.35
(13.14)
4015
(8.13)
2 Carrot - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 Radish 0.60
(10.75)
2.20
(16.57)
1550
(10.23)
1.00
(20.00)
1.00
(12.20)
700
(9.15)
2.70
(34.75)
10.60
(55.06)
7420
(27.91)
4.30
(23.43)
13.80
(33.88)
9670
(19.58)
4 Cauliflower 0.30
(5.38)
0.80
(6.02)
800
(5.28)
1.00
(20.00)
1.20
(14.63)
1550
(20.26)
2.30
(29.60)
0.65
(3.38)
455
(1.71)
3.60
(19.62)
2.65
(6.51)
2805
(5.68)
5 Lady
finger
1.60
(28.67)
3.30
(24.85)
3300
(21.78)
2.00
(40.00)
4.00
(48.78)
4000
(52.29)
0.60
(7.72)
1.50
(7.79)
1800
(6.77)
4.20
(22.89)
8.80
(21.61)
9100
(18.42)
6 Colocasia -
-
-
- - - 0.08
(1.03)
2.25
(11.69)
5300
(19.93)
0.08
(0.44)
2.25
(5.52)
5300
(10.73)
7 Cucumber 0.50
(8.96)
0.45
(3.39)
450.00
(2.97)
- - - 0.03
(0.39)
0.80
(4.16)
800
(3.01)
0.53
(2.89)
1.25
(3.07)
1250
(2.53)
8 Pumpkin 0.28
(5.02)
0.50
(3.77)
500
(3.30)
- - - - - - 0.28
(1.53)
0.50
(1.23)
500
(1.01)
9 Turmeric 0.05
(0.90)
0.20
(1.51)
800.00
(5.28)
- - - 0.02
(0.26)
0.70
(3.64)
2800
(10.53)
0.07
(0.38)
0.90
(2.21)
3600
(7.29)
10 Garlic 0.85
(15.24)
0.53
(3.99)
2650
(17.49)
- - - 0.04
(0.51)
0.60
(3.12)
3200
(12.03)
0.89
(4.85)
1.13
(2.77)
5850
(11.84)
11 Coriander 0.10
(1.79)
0.10
(0.75)
300
(1.98)
- - - 0.10
(1.29)
0.20
(1.04)
1000
(3.76)
0.20
(1.09)
0.30
(0.74)
1300
(2.63)
12 Ginger 0.25
(4.48)
0.10
(0.75)
300
(1.98)
- - - 1.20
(15.44)
0.50
(2.60)
2500
(9.40)
1.45
(7.90)
0.60
(1.47)
2800
(5.67)
52
13 Onion 0.70
(12.54)
2.20
(16.57)
2200
(14.52)
- - 0.20
(2.57)
1.00
(5.19)
1000
(3.76)
0.90
(4.90)
3.20
(7.86)
3200
(6.48)
14 Total 5.58
(100)
13.28
(100)
15150
(100)
5.00
(100)
8.20
(100)
7650.00
(100)
7.77
(100)
19.25
(100)
26590
(100)
18.35
(100)
40.73
(100)
49390
(100)
15 Per hh 0.33
(0.01ha)
0.78 891 0.71
(0.03ha)
1.17 1093 0.52
(0.02ha)
1.28 1773 0.47
(0.02ha)
1.04 1266
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
53
Table14a Production of crops on sample households of LBRB (q/hh)
Sr. No. Crop Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
I Foodgrain
1 Maize 5.13 6.09 10.82 7.26
2 Paddy 0.19 0.59 1.70 0.80
3 Pulses 0.01 - -
4 Oilseed 0.10 - 0.04
5 Wheat 5.14 6.34 15.80 8.95
6 Barley 0.13 0.06 0.49 0.22
7 Sub-total 10.59 13.19 28.81 17.27
II Fruit & Vegetable
1 Fruit 0.01 - - 0.02
2 Vegetable 0.91 0.47 1.84 1.09
3 Sub-total 0.92 0.47 1.84 1.11
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table14b Production of crops on sample households of RBRB (q/hh)
Sr.
No.
Crop Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
I Foodgrain
1 Maize 3.77 13.64 14.49 9.66
2 Paddy - 2.26 0.87
3 Pulses - 0.02 0.01
4 Oilseed - 0.09 3.33
5 Wheat 3.03 10.91 21.06 11.38
6 Barley - 0.11 0.14 0.07
7 Sub-total 6.80 24.66 38.06 25.32
II Fruit & Vegetable
1 Fruit - - - -
2 Vegetable 0.78 1.17 1.28 1.04
3 Sub-total 0.78 1.17 1.28 1.04
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 15a Average yield of crops on sample farms on LBRB (q/ha)
Sr. No. Crops Group I Group II Group III Overall
54
(upto 0.12 ha) (0.12 – 0.28 ha) (> 0.28 ha)
1 Maize 13.25 13.00 12.00 12.50
2 Paddy 12.50 12.50 9.50 10.25
3 Pulses - 4.25 - 3.75
4 Oilseed - 9.00 - 9.00
5 Fruits 16.25 - - 16.25
6 Vegetable 55.75 80.00 68.00 64.50
7 Wheat 12.50 11.00 14.75 13.25
8 Barley 19.25 18.75 17.50 17.25
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 15b Average yield of crops on sample households of RBRB (q/ha)
Sr. No. Crops Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Maize 13.25 19.25 17.25 16.75
2 Paddy - - 10.75 10.75
3 Pulses - - 7.50 7.50
4 Oilseed - - 10.75 10.75
5 Fruits - - - -
6 Vegetable 59.50 41.00 22.00 55.25
7 Wheat 12.25 14.25 19.25 17.00
8 Barley - 13.25 10.00 10.75
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 16a Production and disposal of foodgrains on sample households on LBRB (q /hh)
Sr. No. Particulars Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Production 10.59
(100)
13.09
(100)
28.81
(100)
17.26
(100)
2 Home consumption 5.07
(47.88)
5.37
(41.04)
6.47
(22.45)
5.61
(32.52)
3 Kept for seed 1.24
(11.74)
1.01
(7.69)
3.51
(12.20)
1.92
(11.14)
4 Kind payment 0.14
(1.29)
0.55
(4.18)
0.67
(2.33)
0.43
(2.47)
5 Sold (marketed plus) 3.71
(35.00)
5.48
(41.86)
14.28
(49.57)
7.67
(44.43)
6 Marketable surplus 0.43
(4.09)
0.69
(5.24)
3.87
(13.44)
1.63
(9.45)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 16b Production and disposal of foodgrains on sample households on RBRB (q /hh)
Sr. No. Particulars Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
55
1 Production 6.80
(100)
24.66
(100)
38.01
(100)
22.01
(100)
2 Home consumption 4.82
(70.80)
7.46
(30.24)
6.63
(17.46)
5.99
(27.22)
3 Kept for seed 0.59
(8.70)
1.37
(5.54)
6.15
(16.19)
2.87
(13.04)
4 Kind payment 0.14
(2.07)
0.50
(2.03)
0.62
(1.63)
0.39
(1.77)
5 Sold (marketed plus) 1.15
(16.90)
13.37
(54.22)
19.83
(52.18)
10.53
(47.84)
6 Marketable surplus 0.10
(1.53)
1.96
(7.97)
4.77
(12.54)
2.23
(10.14)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 17a Source wise composition of annual household income of sample households on LBRB
(Rs./hh)
Sr. No Source Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
I Farm income
1 Agriculture 16513
(7.69)
48211
(22.87)
49162
(22.33)
36051
(16.73)
2 Animal Husbandry 16063
(7.48)
7971
(3.78)
21555
(9.79)
15608
(7.24)
3 Fruits 250
(0.12)
706
(0.33)
- 295
(0.14)
4 Vegetable 1092
(0.50)
731
(0.35)
2937
(1.34)
1596
(0.75)
5 Sub-Total 33918
(15.79)
57619
(27.33)
73654
(33.46)
53550
(24.86)
II Off farm income
1 Govt. / private service 107983
(50.27)
97694
(46.33)
84600
(38.43)
97449
(45.23)
2 Pension 32236
(15.01)
45373
(21.52)
34512
(15.68)
36643
(17.01)
3 Shop keeping 17750
(8.27)
- 10200
(4.63)
10328
(4.79)
4 Daily paid labour 22900
(10.66)
10165
(4.82)
17170
(7.80)
17472
(8.11)
5 Others (contractor,
commission agent, black smith,
etc)
-
-
-
-
6 Sub-total 180869
(84.21)
153232
(72.67)
146482
(66.54)
161892
(75.14)
III Grand-total 214787
(100)
210851
(100)
220136
(100)
215442
(100)
56
IV Per capita income 35798 35142 28223 32643
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 17b Source wise composition of annual household income of sample households on RBRB
(Rs./hh)
Sr. No Source Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
I Farm income
1 Agriculture 13494
(5.10)
41227
(8.81)
31378
(13.42)
25350
(8.76)
2 Animal Husbandry 8259
(3.12)
27626
(5.90)
20293
(8.68)
16364
(5.66)
3 Fruits - 7143
(1.53)
2800
(1.20)
2359
(0.82)
4 Vegetable 891
(0.34)
1093
(0.23)
1773
(0.75)
1266
(0.44)
5 Sub-total 22643
(8.56)
77089
(16.47)
56245
(24.05)
45339
(15.68)
II Off farm income
1 Govt. / private service 120118
(45.42)
205714
(43.95)
81200
(34.72)
120513
(41.66)
2 Pension 66212
(25.04)
99429
(21.24)
12800
(5.47)
51631
(17.85)
3 Shop keeping 40235
(15.21)
32571
(6.96)
3200
(1.38)
24615
(8.51)
4 Daily paid labour 15247
(5.77)
27086
(5.79)
47087
(20.13)
29618
(10.24)
5 Others (contractor,
commission agent,
black smith, etc)
-
(0.00)
26143
(5.59)
33333
(14.25)
17513
(6.06)
6 Sub-total 241812
(91.44)
390943
(83.53)
177620
(75.95)
243890
(84.32)
III Grand total 264455
(100)
468032
(100)
233865
(100)
289228
(100)
IV Per capita income 40686 64114 31182 41318
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 18a Consumption pattern of sample households on LBRB (Rs/hh/yr)
Sr. No. Items Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Rice 4613
(6.29)
4765
(6.21)
5418
(6.79)
4919
(6.44)
57
2 Wheat 4470
(6.10)
4938
(6.44)
5155
(6.46)
4825
(6.32)
3 Maize 1125
(1.53)
2358
(3.07)
1872
(2.35)
1713
(2.24)
4 Pulses 3225
(4.40)
2153
(2.81)
2970
(3.72)
2843
(3.72)
5 Eggs 480
(0.65)
621
(0.81)
864
(1.08)
645
(0.84)
6 Meat 2940
(4.01)
2569
(3.35)
1608
(2.02)
2400
(3.14)
7 Fish 1203
(1.64)
508
(0.66)
1728
(2.17)
1182
(1.55)
8 Fruits & vegetables 4920
(6.71)
4288
(5.59)
5193
(6.51)
4833
(6.33)
9 Mustard oil 620
(0.85)
3162
(4.12)
3360
(4.21)
2227
(2.92)
10 Ghee/refined 1400
(1.91)
1242
(1.62)
2016
(2.53)
1558
(2.04)
11 Milk 18000
(24.55)
17224
(22.46)
20340
(25.49)
18551
(24.29)
12 Butter 2150
(2.93)
565
(0.74)
1020
(1.28)
1338
(1.75)
13 Curd 1360
(1.86)
4856
(6.33)
3456
(4.33)
3022
(3.96)
14 Education 700
(0.95)
1941
(2.53)
2115
(2.65)
1510
(1.98)
15 Expenditure on vehicle 3100
(4.23)
5647
(7.36)
1360
(1.70)
3239
(4.24)
16 Tap bill 160
(0.22)
184
(0.24)
246
(0.31)
195
(0.25)
17 Electricity bill 2633
(3.59)
2541
(3.31)
3552
(4.45)
2909
(3.81)
18 Gas cylinder 3058
(4.17)
3565
(4.65)
2760
(3.46)
3102
(4.06)
19 Phone bill 3488
(4.76)
4941
(6.44)
4098
(5.14)
4093
(5.36)
20 Kerosene oil 695
(0.95)
706
(0.92)
693
(0.87)
697
(0.91)
21 Clothing 6016
(8.21)
4460
(5.81)
5130
(6.43)
5292
(6.93)
22 Medicine 4698
(6.41)
2082
(2.71)
3360
(4.21)
3530
(4.62)
23 Animal health 1375
(1.88)
812
(1.06)
720
(0.90)
1003
(1.31)
24 Marriage ceremony 404
(0.55)
174
(0.23)
235
(0.29)
284
(0.37)
58
25 Birthday party 130
(0.18)
141
(0.18)
153
(0.19)
140
(0.18)
26 Religious function 98
(0.13)
124
(0.16)
120
(0.15)
112
(0.15)
27 Fairs & festivals 244
(0.33)
132
(0.17)
243
(0.30)
212
(0.28)
28 Total 73305
(100)
76699
(100)
79784
(100)
76375
(100)
29 Per capita expenditure 12217 12783 10929 11572
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: field survey, 2011
Table 18b Consumption pattern of households on RBRB (Rs/hh/yr)
Sr. No. Items Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Overall
1 Rice 4606
(7.50)
4886
(5.25)
4860
(6.53)
4754
(6.59)
2 Wheat 4362
(7.10)
3394
(3.64)
4464
(5.99)
4228
(5.86)
3 Maize 1976
(3.22)
1543
(1.66)
1960
(2.63)
1892
(2.62)
4 Pulses 2859
(4.65)
3086
(3.31)
3360
(4.51)
3092
(4.29)
5 Egg 508
(0.83)
11314
(12.15)
864
(1.16)
2585
(3.58)
6 Meat 1976
(3.22)
5040
(5.41)
4256
(5.72)
3403
(4.72)
7 Fish 254
(0.41)
2057
(2.21)
2208
(2.97)
1329
(1.84)
8 Fruits & vegetables 5294
(8.62)
4886
(5.25)
5604
(7.53)
5340
(7.40)
9 Mustard oil 3049
(4.96)
3429
(3.68)
3200
(4.30)
3175
(4.40)
10 Ghee/refined 1525
(2.48)
1234
(1.00)
1600
(2.15)
1502
(2.08)
11 Milk 12212
(19.88)
16800
(18.04)
16016
(21.51)
14498
(20.10)
12 Butter 720
(1.17)
1200
(1.29)
720
(0.97)
806
(1.12)
13 Curd 2174
(3.54)
3429
(3.68)
3648
(4.90)
2966
(4.11)
14 Education 1606
(2.61)
1571
(1.69)
1370
(1.84)
1509
(2.09)
15 Expenditure on
vehicle
2668
(4.34)
6857
(7.36)
- 2394
(3.32)
16 Tap bill 155 206 224 191
59
(0.25) (0.22) (0.30) (0.26)
17 Electricity bill 2384
(3.88)
2571
(2.76)
1948
(2.62)
2250
(3.12)
18 Gas cylinder 2341
(3.81)
3814
(4.09)
2480
(3.33)
2659
(3.69)
19 Phone bill 2753
(4.48)
3857
(4.14)
3600
(4.83)
3277
(4.54)
20 Kerosene oil 472
(0.77)
394
(0.42)
500
(0.67)
469
(0.65)
21 Clothing 5506
(8.96)
5829
(6.26)
5800
(7.79)
5677
(7.87)
22 Medicine 629
(1.02)
4457
(4.79)
4267
(5.73)
2715
(3.76)
23 Animal health 424
(0.69)
771
(0.83)
600
(0.81)
554
(0.77)
24 Marriage ceremony 115
(0.19)
273
(0.29)
247
(0.33)
194
(0.27)
25 Birthday party 212
(0.34)
69
(0.07)
93
(0.13)
141
(0.19)
26 Religious function 297
(0.48)
97
(0.10)
217
(0.29)
230
(0.32)
27 Fairs & festivals 362
(0.59)
83
(0.09)
360
(0.48)
311
(0.43)
28 Total 61441
(100)
93147
(100)
74465
(100)
72141
(100)
29 Per capita expenditure 9452 12760 9929 10305
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 19a Saving pattern of sample households on LBRB (Rs/Yr)
Sr. Particular Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Gross household
income
214787
(100)
210851
(100)
220136
(100)
215442
(100)
2 Gross household
consumption
expenditure
73305
(34.13)
76699
(36.38)
79784
(36.24)
76375
(35.45)
3 Gross household
saving (1-2)
141482
(65.87)
134152
(63.62)
140352
(63.76)
139067
(64.55)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of total
60
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 19b Saving pattern of sample households on RBRB (Rs/Yr)
Sr. Particular Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
1 Gross household
income
264455
(100)
468032
(100)
233865
(100)
289228
(100)
2 Gross household
consumption
expenditure
61441
(23.23)
93147
(19.90)
74465
(31.84)
72141
(24.94)
3 Gross household
saving (1-2)
203014
(76.77)
374885
(80.10)
159400
(68.16)
217087
(75.06)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of total
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 20a Purpose wise borrowings of sample households on LBRB
Sr. No Purpose Borrowers (No.) Total amount (Rs) Amount (Rs/hh)
1 Agriculture 2 219000 109500
2 Dairy 1 50000 50000
3 Agril machinery 1 250000 250000
4 Business 1 230000 230000
5 Vehicle 1 800000 800000
6 Social ceremony 1 35000 35000
7 House loan 1 80000 80000
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 20b Purpose wise borrowings of sample households on RBRB
Sr. No Purpose Borrowers (No.) Total amount (Rs) Amount (Rs/hh)
1 Agriculture - - -
2 Dairy - - -
3 Agril machinery - - -
4 Business - - -
5 Vehicle - - -
6 Social ceremony - - -
7 House loan 1 20000 20000
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 21a Source wise amount borrowed by sample households on LBRB
Sr.
No Source Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
No Amount
(Rs/hh)
No Amount
(Rs/hh) No Amount
(Rs/hh) No Amount
(Rs/hh)
1 Total sample 24 17 20 61
2 Horticulture
department
1
(4.17)
80000 - - - - 1
(1.64)
80000
61
3 Co-op
society
- - - - - - -
4 Commercial
bank
2
(8.33)
142500 2
(11.70)
124500 3
(15.00)
350000 7
(11.48)
88143
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total sample households
Source: Field survey, 2011
Table 21b Source wise amount borrowed by sample households on RBRB
Sr.
No Source Group I
(upto 0.12 ha)
Group II
(0.12 – 0.28 ha)
Group III
(> 0.28 ha)
Total
No Amount
(Rs/hh)
No Amount
(Rs/hh) No Amount
(Rs/hh) No Amount
(Rs/hh)
1 Total sample 17.00 7.00 15.00 39.00
2 Horticulture
department
- - - - - - - -
3 Co-op society - - - - 1
(6.67)
20000 1
(2.56)
20000
4 Commercial
bank
- - - - - - - -
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total sample
Source: Field survey, 2011
62
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
The 66 MW Dhaula Sidha Hydro Electric Project (DSHEP) is under construction by the
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVNL), a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of India
and Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. The proposed project will be a run of the river project on
the river Beas, with a 61 meter height dam near famous temple Dhaula Sidha in village
Sanotu of Nadaun constituency and nearby villages, namely, Jungle Jihan on the left bank
and Bulli on the right bank in district Hamirpur and Kangra, respectively. The estimated
cost of the project would be around Rs 500 crores. It is planned to be constructed on the
basis of live storage system and will have two turbines each with a capacity of 33 MW. The
back water of the proposed dam may reach Bir Bagehra above Sujanpur Tihra which is
nearly 15 -16 km from the actual dam site. There will be two main khuds joining the dam
area, Pung khud near Bhaleth and Neugal khud near Sujanpur Tihra. Both these khuds are
perennial in nature. The catchment area of Neugal khud is more than that of Pung khud. The
creation of dam will shift the water in these two khuds and some villages situated along
these khuds are likely to be affected. The dam area lies along the Hamirpur-Palampur &
Nadaun-Sujanpur national highways and partially also along the Sujanpur Tihra- Sandhol
state highway. As many as 44 villages are expected to be affected due to its construction on
63
both sides of the river Beas and two main tributaries, namely, Pung khud and Neugal khud
joining the river at Sujanpur and Bhaleth, respectively.
The importance of social surveys and resurveys in planning and impact assessment was
emphasized by the Royal Commission on Agriculture (RCA) in 1928. The base line socio-
economic surveys have become a regular and common feature, especially since the beginning
of the five- year plans. In the absence of base line socio-economic surveys, socio-economic
conditions and the basic quantitative data is estimated more on surmises, general observations
and limited enquiries which many times leads to poor planning and implementation. The
baseline Socio Economic Survey (SES) estimates, depict the level of socio-economic status
of the target groups/farmers and the farm economy at a point of time. Given huge potential
for hydro-electricity, the state of Himachal Pradesh has achieved considerable success in the
execution of various hydro electric projects. These projects have been implemented by the
state sector H P State Electricity Board (HPSEB), central sector Rajiv Gandhi Gramin
Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY), joint venture (SJVNL) and independent power producers
like M/S Jai Parkash Industries Ltd and M/S Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, etc. The
execution of these projects has, however, been criticized in that the displaced people have not
been properly compensated for the loss of their livelihood and rehabilitated.
As mentioned above, the base line surveys and resurveys help assessing the impact of
developmental projects and programmes. It is against this background that the present socio-
economic survey has been planned to understand the socio-economic status of the households
who would be affected by the construction of Dhaula Sidha Hydro Electric Project (DSHEP).
The main objective of the present base line survey is to generate a sound data base which can
be compared with results of re-surveys in the aftermath of the completion of the project at some
future date to assess the impact of project on the socio-economic conditions of the people in the
area. The results will help taking appropriate decisions by administrators, the extension
agencies, and the policy makers to safeguard the interests of the farming community. It is
against this background, that the study was entrusted to the Department of Agricultural
Economics, Extension Education & Rural Sociology, CSK HP Agricultural University,
Palampur by SJVNL to conduct the base line socio economic survey (SES) in the command
area of the (DSHEP) with following specific objectives.
5.2 Main objectives
v. To prepare socio economic profile of the households to be affected and the affect
of project activities on their socio economics status
64
vi. To suggest resettlement and rehabilitation action plan for the mitigation of
displacement effect.
5.3 Methodology
The present socio-economic survey (SES) is restricted to the command area of Dhaula Sidha
Hydro Electric Project (DSHEP), 66 MW Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh). There are 44
villages in the command area of the project in Kangra and Hamirpur districts. These villages
formed the population for the present study. A two-stage random sampling design with
village as the primary sampling unit and households whose land would be lost on account of
construction of the project as the secondary and ultimate sampling units was followed to
select the sample for the study. At the first stage, all the 37 inhabited villages were chosen for
the study to have a wide coverage of the area.
A sample of 100 households out of those who would be losing land was selected
proportionately from all the project affected villages following simple random sampling
procedure with a minimum of at least one household from each of the affected villages. The
selected households were post stratified into three categories, namely, group I, group II and
group III using cube-root cumulative frequency method. The households losing up to 0.12 ha
(3 kanals/1200 m2) of land were designated as group I, those losing between 0.12 to 0.28 ha (3
to 7 kanals/1200 to 2800 m2) of land were classified as group II and those losing more than
0.28 ha (more than 7 kanals) were included in group III. The socio-economic profile of
affected households covered aspects like demographic features, land inventory, land to be lost
and consequent loss of output, inventory of farm buildings, implements and machinery,
livestock inventory, cropping pattern, crop output and disposal of produce, borrowings of funds
and indebtedness, investment on durable items, consumption pattern, dependence on natural
resources, source wise household income, etc. The data on these aspects were collected through
a personal interview method using a pre-tested schedule/questionnaire for the agricultural year
2010-11. A number of appropriate statistical tools/techniques like tabular analyses, averages,
ratios, percentages, etc; were employed to accomplish the objectives and suggesting an action
plan for the resettlement, rehabilitation and development of the project affected households.
5.4 Main findings
The caste wise distribution of project affected households shows that on both sides of
river Beas, more than two-thirds of the households (nearly 69%) belonged to general
castes comprising Rajput and Brahmans followed by households of other backward
castes on the left bank and those of scheduled castes on the right bank. The
65
distribution of households across three groups shows that while on the left bank
nearly two-fifths (39.34%) of the households were in group I, nearly one-third
(32.79%) were in group III in terms of losing land. Likewise, on the right bank, nearly
44 % of the households belonged to Group I followed by 38.47% in group-III and
around18% in group-II.
The vulnerable households were headed by widows and disables on the left bank of
which one–half were in group I. In comparison, on the right bank, only widows
headed such households of which three-fourth were in group III. Further the incidence
of poverty, measured by the proportion of households below poverty line, was high
(25.64%) on the right bank as compared to left bank (19.67%).
The service both in private and public sectors followed by daily paid labour were
major occupations of sample households on both sides of the river. Agriculture,
including crop and animal husbandry, was being practiced by 16.39% of sample
households in left and 12.82% of the households in right bank of river Beas.
The overall average family size of households on the right bank of the river was 7
persons per households comprising 4 males and 3 females. More importantly, first,
more than one-fifth of the total population comprised children below 5 years of age
and those above 60 years of age, secondly, the proportion of school going population
between 6-18 years of age comprised 20 to 21% of the total population; third, the
proportion of labour force actively engaged in various economic activities was 57 to
58 % and in total workforce, the proportion of females was higher than males; fourth,
the overall family size was 7 persons per households; fifth, the sex ratio (females per
1000 males) was 894 and 762 on the left bank and the right bank respectively, while
for all households taken together the sex ratio was 839.
The overall literacy level of population was 88% which was as high as 93 to 94%
among males as against 81 to 82% among their male counterparts. Further, while
most of the females were educated from primary to senior secondary levels, the
educated males were more evenly distributed across different levels of education, say
from primary level to post graduate and technically as well as professionally qualified
levels. The underlying message is the need for making efforts to impart higher and
vocational education to women to enhance their knowledge and skills.
The average investment on buildings was Rs. 5.89 lakh on the right bank and Rs 6.32
lakh on the left bank with the highest proportion of investment on residential
buildings. The average value of durables per household residing on the left bank was
66
nearly 2.3 times as compared to an average value of durables per household on the
right bank which, among other things, could be attributed to high economic status on
account of better infrastructure and connectivity.
The average number of animals reared by the sample households was 2.70 on the left
bank and 2.23 on the right bank whose monetary valued stood at Rs. 15,211 and Rs.
15,010, respectively. And among different animals, buffaloes particularly of murrah
breed were the most important. Regarding land, the average size of land holding on
the right bank of river Beas was 1.55 ha with the highest of 3.10 ha in group III and
the lowest 0.52 ha in group I. And among different categories of land, the
uncultivated land accounted for 29.03% of total land. The cropping pattern was
dominated by maize in kharif season and wheat in rabi season in all the project
affected villages on both sides of the river. More importantly, however, the farmers
have recently started diversifying their cropping patterns towards fodder (chari/bajra
and oats) and vegetable crops. And the farmers were growing two crops in a year
thereby utilizing the available net sown area more intensively. Further, on an average,
each project affected household was growing more than 1 q of vegetable produce
which in monetary terms amounted to Rs 1596 on the left bank of river Beas and Rs
1266 on the right bank of river Beas.
Among fruits, indigenous and grafted mangoes were very common and almost each
household owned one or two big trees of indigenous mango which almost fulfilled
their requirements in terms of preparing pickle, mango papad, sauce, jam and
amchoor. The average yields of different crops were low as compared to district and
state level average yields. However, one of the most important factors for low yields
is the damage caused to crops by monkeys and wild boars; such losses have estimated
to be Rs 6250/ha to Rs 7500/ ha. In absolute terms, the marketable and marketed
surplus together was 9.30 q per household on the left side and 12.76 q on the right
hand side.
The average annual gross household income was higher (Rs. 2,89,228) on the right
bank in comparison to Rs. 2,15,442 on the left bank. Among different sources, the
contribution of the services was the highest followed by pension. The farm income
accounted for 16% on the right bank and 25% on the left bank. The per capita income
was substantially higher (Rs. 41,318) on the right bank as compared to the left bank
(Rs. 32,643). The annual household expenditure was Rs. 76,375 per household on the
left bank in comparison to Rs. 72,141 on the right bank. The per capita expenditure
67
was higher (Rs. 11,572) on the left bank than Rs. 10,305 on the right bank. Among
households belonging to different group categories, those on the right bank did save
as high as four-fifths of their household income which could be attributed to higher
household income in case of the latter as compared to the former.
At overall situation, the project affected sample households belonged to small
category with an average size of land holding 1.23 ha out of which they would, on an
average lose 0.36 ha. This loss of land would reduce their average size of holding to
0.87 ha pushing them to the category of marginal households. In a similar vein, on the
right bank of river Beas, group I and group II project affected households belonged to
marginal category in that they owned less than 1 hectare and after losing some they
would remain marginal farmers. In comparison, households in group III were small
households with an average of 1.98 ha; after losing nearly one-fourth of their land
they will be left with 1.50 ha and would retain the status of small households. On the
whole, the average size of existing land holding was 1.55 ha (small category) after
losing 0.26 ha they will be left with 1.29 ha. Further, these estimates show that
households belonging to group I, group II and group III would respectively lose 10.86
hectares, 24.15 hectares and 132.44 hectares of different types of land like cultivated
land, grassland, etc amounting to a total of 167.45 ha. Likewise, on the right bank the
households in group I, group II and group III would lose 7.84 ha, 14.52 ha and 45.60
ha of their private land which amounted to 67.96 ha.
The total loss on account of losing land would be Rs. 6228 and Rs. 4338 per
household per year on the left bank and the right bank, respectively. In terms of loss
per hectare, it amounted to Rs. 17,300 on the left bank and Rs. 16,685 on the right
bank with an overall average of Rs. 17,159. The financial loss under the assumption
of 50% rise in production level due to adoption of technology like availability of
irrigation, improved variety seeds of crops and seedlings, improved grass sticks, etc
and cultivation under protected environment in future say after five years amounted to
nearly Rs. 9342 and Rs. 6508 per household on the left bank and the right bank,
respectively.
Given the existing land acquisition act and the current policy to compensate the
project affected households, each project affected household would be paid the market
price of the different types of land that would be affected by the construction of the
project. This policy for land compensation is being followed by different agencies
acquiring land for different purposes, notwithstanding ongoing disputes on current
68
prevailing market price that are paid to farmers. The SJVNL is, therefore, expected to
pay the current market price of the land that would be acquired from the project
affected households. We, however, feel very strongly that since land is a major source
of livelihood, one-time payment even on the market prices to the project affected
households may not be enough to compensate and protect their livelihoods. As is well
known, the farmers lack awareness and are not able to invest the compensation
amount in assets yielding long term gains. Not only that land is a perennial source of
livelihood and one-time payment, howsoever generous that may be, is not enough.
Further, since the project affected households would not be rendered completely
landless, they would continue to stay on their land in their respective villages in the
aftermath of the completion of the project. Thus the rehabilitation plan in their case
implies compensating them for the loss of their private land and loss of livelihoods on
account of losing access to common property resources like grazing land, forest land,
river bed, etc.
In view of this, we recommend that in addition to paying project affected households
the market price of their land, they should be paid annually the amount equivalent to
the value of crop output which they have been currently harvesting and the monetary
value of different output which affected households have been deriving from public
land and other sources of livelihood that would be lost as a consequent of construction
of the dam. Further, since the productivity of land increases over the years thanks to
the availability of new technologies and infrastructural facilities like irrigation, the
amount paid in lieu of production and livelihood loss from public land and the river
should be raised annually by a certain amount which may be determined/fixed in view
of the past increases in the productivity of land, say over the past ten years. Further,
such payments may be made on the basis of the amount of crop production and other
livelihoods lost by different categories of households. For example, all those
households who are losing land up to 0.12 ha may be paid an amount equal to the
average loss of households belonging to group-I, those losing between 0.12-0.28 ha
(group-II) may be paid an amount equal to the average loss of the households in
group-II and those losing more than 0.28 ha of land may be paid an amount equal to
average of households in group-III.