End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP IIdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...pucca...
Transcript of End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP IIdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...pucca...
End Term Evaluation of LARR
Implementation in KSHIP II
FINAL REPORT
Centre for Excellence in Management of Land Acquisition,
Resettlement and Rehabilitation (CMLARR)
Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), Hyderabad
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 2
CONTENT
PART – I (STUDY REPORT) 7-54
Executive Summary 7 - 9
Chapter-I: Introduction 10-12
Objectives and Scope of the Study 10
Data Sources and Study Methodology 10
Limitations and Challenges in Survey/Study 11
Chapter-II: Implementation of LARR in KSHIP 13-29
Introduction 13
Land Acquisition for Road Projects of KSHIP/KRDCL Projects 13
Compensation Payment-Consent & General Award 13
Extent and Type of Lands Acquired 14
Time Taken for Land Acquisition (Preliminary Notification till Award) 15
Additional Land Acquisition 15
Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R) Entitlements 16
R & R Implementation in KSHIP and KRDCL 17
Compensation Rates for Land Acquired 19
Income Tax Deductions 21
Compensation and Court Deposits 22
Unskilled Employment Generated by KSHIP and KRDCL Projects 25
Community Assets Impacted and Reconstructed 25
Land Requirement and Supply of Land to Contractors 27
Land Acquisition and R & R Cost Vis-à-vis Project Cost-(KSHIP & KRDCL) 27
LARR Implementation Arrangements 28
Monitoring and Evaluation 29
Chapter-III: Socio-Economic Impact of the Project 30-46
Introduction 30
Demographic and Occupational Profile of Sample Households 30
Housing and Living Conditions 31
Ownership of Assets 32
Basic Economic Parameters of Losers of Commercial Structures 32
Indebtedness 33
Living Standards and Poverty Assessment of Displaced People 33
Utilisation of Compensation/Resettlement Assistances 35
Level of Satisfaction on Resettlement Implementation 35
Impact on women 36
Broad Findings regarding Different Categories of Impacted PAPs and
Core Issues
37
Chapter-IV: Summary and Conclusion 47-54
Summary 47
LARR Implementation Process 47
LARR Implementation Outcomes 47
Good Practices in LARR Implementation 49
Outstanding Actions by KSHIP/KRDCL 49
Recommendations for Future Projects 51
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 3
Tables
2.1 Extent-wise Acquisition of Land in KSHIP 14
2.2 Type of Private Lands Acquired in KSHIP 14
2.3 Consolidated timelines for Land Acquisition in KSHIP 15
2.4 Major and Minor Impacted Categories in KSHIP 18
3.1 Changes in Key Socio-Economic Indicators 30
3.2 MPI Pre and Post Relocation 34
3.3 Multi-Dimensional Poverty Indicators Pre and Post Relocation 35
3.4 Engendering LARR 37
Boxes
2.1 Water Supply System-WAP1 26
3.1 Hunasagi Resettlement Colony (WAP IV) 37
3.2 Timmapur Resettlement Colony-WEP-3 (Dharwad-Savdatti) 40
3.3 Savadatti Resettlement Colony (WEP 3) 42
3.4 Gourapura Layout – RC, Hanagal (WEP 2) 43
Figures
1.1 Evaluation Study: Pre Survey to Submission- Key Activities at a Glance 12
3.1 Occupational Profile of the Sample Households 31
3.2 Utilisation of Compensation/Resettlement Assistances 35
PART – II (ANNEXURES)
Table Index 55-65
A1.1 Sample Plan in KSHIP 55
A1.2 Sample Plan in KRDCL 55
A1.3 MPI – Dimensions and Indicators for Evaluation 55
A2.1 Land Details for Projects Implemented by KSHIP & KRDCL (Acres) 56
A2.2 Compensation Payment in KRDCL-Consent and General Award 56
A2.3 Compensation Payment in KSHIP-Consent and General Award 56
A2.4 R & R Implementation in KSHIP (Titleholders & Non-titleholders) 56
A2.5 Progress of R&R Implementation in KRDCL (Titleholders & Non-titleholders) 57
A2.6 Details of Resettlement Centres and Resettled Communities 57
A2.7 Vulnerable People Assisted in KRDCL & KSHIP 57
A2.8 Benchmark Compensation in KRDCL-Average Sales & Guidance Value 57
A2.9 Comparison of Compensation Rate and Guideline Value in KRDCL 57
A2.10 Benchmark Compensation Rate in KSHIP-Average Sales & Guidance
Value
58
A2.11 Comparison of Compensation Rate and Guideline Value in KSHIP 58
A2.12 Court Cases & Quantum of Compensation Deposits in KRDCL 58
A2.13 Court Cases & Quantum of Compensation Deposits in KSHIP 58
A2.14 Details of Compensation Cheques sent for Revalidation and Progress 58
A2.15 Employment Generated for Local Population in KSHIP and KRDCL 59
A2.16 Sample PAPs benefitted from Contractual Employment 59
A2.17 Community Assets Impacted and Relocated/Pending 59
A2.18 Perception of PAPs regarding Replaced Community Assets 59
A2.19 Land Supply to Contractors and Gaps in KRDCL 60
A2.20 LARR Cost and Project Cost in KSHIP& KRDCL (Lakhs) 60
A2.21 Regular and Outsourced Staff for LARR Implementation in KRDCL 60
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 4
A2.22 Appointed Members of GRCs in KSHIP 60
A3.1 Occupational Distribution of Sample Households in KSHIP & KRDCL 61
A3.2 Housing Conditions of Project Affected People in KSHIP 61
A3.3 Impact on Self Relocated (Losing Complete Residential Structure) 62
A3.4 Level of Satisfaction among Residents about Infrastructure in RCs 62
A3.5 Ownership of Household Items in Projects-Pre and Post Relocation 63
A3.6 Commercial Structure Area & Monthly Turnover in KSHIP & KRDCL 63
A3.7 Type of Structure/Nature of Business – Commercial Structure Losers 63
A3.8 Level of Indebtedness among Sample Households in KSHIP 64
A3.9 Level of Indebtedness among Baseline & Sample Households in KRDCL 64
A3.10 Perception of Households regarding Resettlement Implementation 64
A3.11 LARR in KSHIP and KRDCL- Impact on women 65
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 5
Abbreviations
A-G Acres –Gunta
CBDT Central Board of Direct Taxes
CPR Common Property Resource
DC District Collector
EPC Engineering Procurement & Construction
FGDs Focus Group Discussion
GO Government Order
GoK Government of Karnataka
GRC Grievance Redressal Committee
GRM Grievance Redressal Mechanism
GV Guidance Value
HQ Head Quarters
IGA Income Generation Assistance
JMC Joint Measurement Committee
KHA Karnataka Highway Act
KRDCL Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd
KSHIP Karnataka State Highway Improvement Project
LA Land Acquisition
LAO Land Acquisition Officer
LARR Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
LPOCs Land Pooling Ownership Certificate
M & E Monitoring & Evaluation
MD Managing Director
MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NTH Non-Titleholders
PAF Project Affected Family
PAP Project Affected People
PN Preliminary Notification
PWD Public Works Department
R & R Resettlement and Rehabilitation
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RCs Resettlement Centre
RFCTLARR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-
habilitation and Resettlement Act.
RTC Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crop Information
SC Supreme Court
SWI Social Welfare Inspector
TDS Tax Deduction at Source
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), Hyderabad wishes to record our deepest
appreciation to KSHIP for commissioning the End Term Evaluation of LARR
Implementation in KSHIP II Project. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the
Project Director of KSHIP II, Dr. IUB Reddy, Lead Social Development Specialist, World
Bank and senior officials of KSHIP & KRDCL for their wholesome support and facilitation
in the transparent conduct of the Study.
Our gratitude to the field level officials and project affected families who spared their
valuable time to join the focus group discussions and interviews with the study team.
ASCI Study Team
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Second Karnataka State Highway Improvement Project (KSHIP) involves widening
and improvement of the road transportation network in eighteen districts of Karnataka
State. The project, implemented by two agencies, the Program Implementation Unit of
KSHIP and Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd (KRDCL) involved acquisition
of about 600 acres of private land. The End Term Impact Evaluation Study aims at
evaluating the outcome of Land Acquisition, Resettlement & Rehabilitation
implementation in road projects implemented by KSHIP and KRDCL. The Study included
an in-depth assessment of the land acquisition process, compensation and
resettlement data. The Study followed a two pronged approach for data/information
collection; first a socio-economic survey of 717 major impacted households from KSHIP
and KRDCL; second, interviews/discussions with several households from selected
categories. To assess the socio-economic impact on the affected population, selected
indicators were compared with baseline/control population. Recognising the difficulty
of capturing the income accurately as well as inadequacy of the income indicator to
capture the living standards, the Study made use of Multidimensional Poverty Index
(MPI) to capture the well-being of the relocated people.
Land acquisition in KSHIP II largely caused minor impacts; losses of one acre and above
formed less than one percent of total. About 83 percent of the land extent acquired in
were less than 506 sq.ms. Dry land constituted about 83 percent of lands acquired
(79/94 percent in KSHIP/KRDCL). All landowners in KRDCL and 80 percent of the land
owners in KSHIP received compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act
(2013 Act henceforth). In KSHIP, about half of all the awards were passed under the
consent mode while this was significantly higher at 80 percent in KRDCL, a major reason
being the higher court deposits in KSHIP (47 percent of compensation initially deposited
in the Court). The average time taken for land acquisition in KSHIP II was 1.96 years.
While KSHIP had double the cases of early awards (i.e. less than one year) than KRDCL
(46 percent of the 78 awards as against 18 percent of 22 awards), the land extent
involved in delayed awards (more than three years) were significantly higher in KSHIP
than KRDCL (52 percent against 40 percent). Change in the alignment and/or
geometrical correction resulted in deviations from the LA design both in KSHIP and
KRDCL, the process of land acquisition presently under progress in about 20/2 acres of
land in KSHIP/KRDCL.
There is significant improvement in the housing and living conditions of the relocated
households in KSHIP, both in the RCs and among the self-relocated. The Study mirrors
the post resettlement living conditions of the PAPs through multiple socio-economic
indicators- standard of housing, possession of consumer durable assets, economic
parameters of the commercial structure losers, poverty assessment of relocated people
through multi-dimensional approach and reflects the success of the LARR
implementation in the upliftment of living standards of the PAPs. The proportion of
pucca houses increased from 25 to 75 percent, houses with separate kitchen from 70 to
98 percent and separate bath from 70 to 76 percent. Poverty assessment of the
displaced families in the resettlement colonies showed marked reduction. The MPI has
declined both in terms of head count and intensity in all the RCs, the MPI value
declining from 0.14 to 0.06. The possession of consumer durables has seen a vast
improvement with the baseline and control population in KSHIP II, in both KSHIP and
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 8
KRDCL. For the project as a whole, the proportion of impacted people possessing
television increased from 39 to 88 percent; fridge from 2 to 12 percent; telephone from
11 to 97 percent, two-wheeler from 32 to 45 percent and four-wheeler from 3 to 17
percent). The quality of structure and price indexed monthly turnover of commercial
structure losers showed notable improvement. While 46 percent of all baseline
commercial structures were kutcha, this has decreased to 7 percent among the
sample. On the other hand, the proportion of pucca and semi pucca houses increased
from 38 to 59 percent 15 to 33 percent respectively. About 41 percent of commercial
resettlers in KRDCL are employing people in their business, from 12 percent in the
baseline. The monthly turnover of the affected households has increased, in the range
of 4 to 88 percent in different road projects. The size of commercial structure increased
from 8 sqm in the baseline to 31 Sqm. The residents in the RCs shared high level of
satisfaction with the location of the site, drainage, street lights and social/community
life. About 65/73 percent of self-relocated households in KSHIP/KRDCL have shifted
within 2 kms of their original habitation. About 98 percent and 81 percent of the total
community assets impacted in KSHIP and KRDCL projects have been reconstructed
incurring an expenditure of 62 crores and 8 crores respectively. The study revealed
effective functioning of the sample assets. The ground water reservoir system built by
KSHIP in Pavagada, WAP I package is a good practice in holistically addressing a local
issue relating to water. The key good practices in LARR implementation included
prompt initiation of the LARR Act, 2013 to all awards passed after 1st January, 2014;
provision of additional 25 percent of market value to those coming forward for consent
award; annual inflation adjusted 10 percent increase in R & R entitlements, entitlements
for non-titleholders (government land) and vulnerable people, defining thresholds for R
& R entitlements etc.
The Study finds that higher compensation rates (under 2013 Act) and updation of
market value prior to land acquisition still fell short of expectations of some landowners
(particularly in the bypasses). The Study finds that redetermination of the class of land in
line with the ground realities may be important prior to land acquisition. The vast
difference between sales value and guidance value in some cases also lends
credence to the above. A major issue of concern in LARR implementation in KSHIP II is
the high volume of court deposits and the financial/physical distress faced by the
concerned landowners. About 25/4 crores constituting about 25/10 percent of the total
compensation in KSHIP/KRDCL still lie deposited in the Court. Lending necessary support
to landowners whose compensation is deposited in the Court deserves urgent
attention. The Study recommends preparation of a database of the court deposits;
identification of cases with clear documents, recruiting additional manpower including
legal officer(s)/NGO/SWIs in road projects with large pending deposits, providing legal
support for the landowners for the release of compensation from the Court including
payment of retainer fees and direct payment of compensation in the much delayed
revalidation cheques cases to landowners with clear land titles.
The outstanding actions relating to RCs include construction of RC at Tangadgi and
addressing issues of existing RCs-distribution of titles in Hunasagi and Gowrapura;
provision of electricity to resettled households in Gowrapura layout; address issues
relating to access roads (Hunasagi), lack of functioning toilets and drinking water supply
in other RCs; Other outstanding actions from project authorities recommended by the
Study include reimbursement of income tax deducted from the landowners (44.99
lakhs/67 landowners in KRDCL and 6.71 lakhs/7 landowners in KSHIP); release of balance
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 9
resettlement assistances to titleholders who have withdrawn compensation from the
Court; completion of land acquisition proceedings and possession of remaining land
and addressing grievances raised by the community relating to drainage, lack of
access, stagnation of water in the fields etc.
The recommendations for future projects include mandatory receipt of regulatory
approvals relating to forest clearances and encumbrance free land in possession prior
to award of contract; addressing issue of high staff turnover; development of robust LA
designs: dedicated fund for addressing post construction grievances; broader definition
of livelihood losers; adoption of definition of family in 2013 Act; redetermining class of
land prior to land acquisition process; court deposit to be confined to unclear
titles/land disputes; proactive persuasion with the Finance Ministry to exempt income
tax deductions from compensation awarded under the KHA, 1964, support to
vulnerable households during LA process (besides extending additional assistances to
such households that is being done presently) and improvement in the project GRM.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 10
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Objectives and Scope of the Study
1.1 The main objective of the Study is to evaluate the outcome of the land acquisition and
rehabilitation implementation process in different road projects implemented by
KSHIP/KRDCL. This will include assessment/evaluation of:
Socio-economic impacts of the project on affected people (various categories)
Compensation payments and process
Land Acquisition Process and timelines
R & R Process including functioning of resettlement sites
Relocated families and their post resettlement living conditions
Reconstructed community assets and level of satisfaction of the community
Contract workers and employment generated
Implementation outcomes relating to LARR
Institutional arrangements for implementation
Data Sources and Study Methodology
1.2 Data Sources: Both primary and secondary sources of data were used in the prepara-
tion of this Report. The secondary data sources included project documents, docu-
ments from the field, documents related to legal cases, etc. The primary data included
sample survey of different categories of the affected population across road projects of
KSHIP/KRDCL and informal interviews of major impacted categories.
1.3 Desk review: These included a review of the project documents, secondary data, re-
view of the legislative framework and identification of gaps in the existing information.
1.4 Primary Survey of Affected Families: The study conducted primary survey of 717 house-
holds spread across different road packages of KSHIP and KRDCL. The sample plan in-
cluded the major impacted categories of the affected population viz. displaced resi-
dential titleholders/squatters; displaced commercial titleholders/squatters/tenants who
had lost their entire structure; and the land losers (private land) becoming marginal. The
household level analysis was carried out from the survey data collected through a
structured schedule from the above categories of project major impacted people. The
sample plan in KSHIP and KRDCL are given in A1.1 & A1.2.
1.5 Interactions/Discussions with Impacted Categories: The Study team had detailed inter-
actions with 75 landowners (whose compensation was/is deposited in the Court/lands
are severed/have become marginal), about 60 commercial squatters and 20 residen-
tial titleholders. FGDs and consultations were also organised at various roads projects of
KSHIP and KRDCL with different impacted categories to understand the community’s re-
flections of LARR implementation of the project. Case briefs from interactions with dif-
ferent impacted categories were prepared to substantiate the Study findings.
1.6 Socio-Economic Impact on Affected Families: The Study evaluated the post resettle-
ment socio-economic condition of the major impacted families vis-a-vis the baseline
situation and the control population. Besides the baseline information available in the
RAP/RIP, the Study also collected some additional information on recall basis for the re-
located population (housing conditions, access to safe drinking water, school within 5
kms; accessible and functioning government hospital; etc.). The assessment was carried
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 11
on different parameters including housing standards, demographic features, indebted-
ness, household assets, commercial structure size and quality etc.
1.7 Index to Capture Living Standards Post Relocation: To understand the pre and post liv-
ing standards of communities in the resettlement colonies, the Study made use of the
Multi-dimensional Poverty Index. The indicators pertaining to education and health
were altered from the original MPI Index to make it more useful for evaluating R & R. Ta-
ble A 1.3 shows the list of indicators and weights to each indicator.
1.8 Site visits of Community Assets and Discussion with Local Community: The team visited
selected community assets (within given time constraints) and also took views of the lo-
cal community/local officials with regard to its functioning/transfer of assets. The prima-
ry survey also captured the responses of the affected people regarding functioning of
such assets located in their village/vicinity.
1.9 Assessment of Implementation Mechanisms: The study team assessed the implementa-
tion arrangements in LARR including staff strength, turnover etc. Discussions were held
with the NGOs, M & E Consultants to ascertain their views on the adequacy and re-
sponsiveness of the implementation mechanism.
Limitations and Challenges in Survey/Study
1.10 Missing Landowners/Other Impacted Categories: Some of the impacted categories
could not be surveyed as they seemed to have changed their location of stay. The
survey of those commercial squatters who had shifted from their original location was
also extremely difficult. The short–term study is hence constrained to come to conclu-
sion about those squatter families who could not reestablish their business yet.
1.11 Duration of the Study: To evaluate the impact of LARR implementation of road projects
spread across 18 districts of the State was extremely challenging in the three months
duration. This was also because the agreed sample plan was spread across different
packages, links and roads.
1.12 Lack of Data: The survey team could not get consolidated data on the land holdings
owned by the landowners and that acquired by the project. This constrained the Study
team to identify with precision the extent of impact of land acquisition on the affected
landowners.
1.13 Data on land supply as per contractual agreements: The Study team found it difficult to
get the data on land availability as per contractual agreements from the contractors.
In some cases, the project was completed many years ago and the contractor could
not furnish the details and, in some others, it was rendered difficult owing to informal ar-
rangements between the contractor and the project authorities.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 12
Figure 1.1: Evaluation Study: Pre Survey to Submission- Key Activities at a Glance
Pre-survey Activities Discussions with KSHIP and KRDCL
Review of project documents including Entitlement Matrices of KSHIP-II Project
Study of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Karnataka Highway Act, 1964
Visit of the project area
Preparation of survey instruments
Training of Investigators; Pilot testing and Finalisation of Questionnaires
Collection of secondary data
Survey Activities Field Survey with structured schedule
Unstructured interviews with different impacted categories
Conduct of FGDs
Development of brief case studies
Post Survey Activities Compilation of data from various sources
Data cleaning
Data analysis and table generation
Report preparation
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Submission of Preliminary Survey Findings
Submission of Draft Report
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 13
CHAPTER II IMPLEMENTATION OF LARR IN KSHIP II
Introduction
2.1 The Second Karnataka State Highway Improvement Project (KSHIP) involves widening and im-
provement of ten roads implemented by two agencies, KSHIP and KRDCL. The aim of the pro-
ject is to improve the performance of the States’ road transport network by improving road
conditions and capacity and to improve the capacity to plan, develop and maintain the
road networks. The project involved acquisition of about 600 acres of private land in 18 districts
of North/South Karnataka.
Land Acquisition for Road Projects of KSHIP/KRDCL Projects
2.2 The land acquisition process for KSHIP-II was carried out under the provisions of the Karnataka
Highway Act (KHA), 1964. Under KSHIP, the roads have been categorised into two catego-
ries; for engineering and contracting purpose; Annuity and Engineering Procurement &
Construction (EPC). In road projects implemented by KSHIP, there are seven EPC pack-
ages and two packages under Annuity. The total road length under EPC and Annuity
packages is 293.33 and 558.48 respectively. Under KRDCL, there are six priority state
highway roads (about 361 kms in ten districts) that were developed under a co-
financing arrangement with the World Bank.
2.3 Table A2.1 reflects the area covered for each road/package, land acquired
/transferred and pending awards. For KSHIP projects, 59 ha of government land was
transferred and 441 acres of private land was acquired. Supplementary Awards are
pending for about 20 acres of land in KSHIP. About 12 ha of government land and 160
acres of private land was transferred/acquired for the KRDCL projects and land acquisi-
tion is in progress in about 2 acres of land.
Compensation Payment-Consent & General Award
2.4 Under the Karnataka Highway Act (KHA), 964, there is option for the government to ac-
quire land through the ‘consent mode’. The policy and entitlement matrix adopted at the
beginning of the project in 2010 was revised after the coming into force of the 2013 Land Ac-
quisition Act. The Government Order (GO) dated 14th November, 2014 incorporated R & R
provisions /entitlements as provided under the 2013 Act.
2.5 The land acquisition awards for KSHIP projects were passed from 2011 onwards. All
awards passed after 1st January 2014 and prior to the issuance of the new GO were ex-
tended the differential amount of compensation arrived as per the 2013 Act norms
(wherever applicable). An evaluation of the awards by date shows that the new Act
norms were extended to 80 percent of the landowners1. A major progressive provision in
the amended entitlement matrix is the option to landowners for negotiated settlement
with an additional 25 percent market value of land over and above that calculated as
per 2013 Act. The provision was extended to all landowners who come forward for ne-
gotiated settlement after the issuance of the GO.
2.6 Table A2.2 shows the consent and general award in road projects by KRDCL. All the
awards for the roads implemented by KRDCL were passed in 2015 and henceforth. On
an average, about 84 percent survey numbers and 69 percent of land extent were
covered under the consent award. There were some differences across the roads, for
1 Survey numbers is taken as a proxy for landowners.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 14
instance in Road No. 6 (Mundargi-Harpanahalli-Huvinahadagali), only 67 percent of
farmers and 48 percent of land extent were covered under consent award while the
proportion was highest in Road No. 5 (Hirekerur-Ranibennur) at 90 percent of land ex-
tent and 86 percent of farmers. Table A2.3 shows the awards passed in KSHIP projects in
two phases; Phase 1, before 1st January, 2014 when the payment of compensation was
as per the old prevalent law; Phase 2 comprising awards passed after 1st January, 2014
when the revised entitlements were extended to the landowners as per the 2013 Act.
Half of the awards passed by KSHIP were general awards and the remaining were con-
sent awards.
2.7 For the landowners covered under the consent award, the average per acre compen-
sation was more than twice that of general award in KRDCL (28 lakhs as opposed to 11
lakhs under general award). This also meant that landowners who were otherwise
agreeable for the award but who could not submit the required docu-
ments/disagreement between legal heirs etc. on time lost out on the higher compensa-
tion. An analysis of compensation awarded under the 2013 law shows that the multipli-
cation factor has been 2 in most of the award cases in KSHIP II.
Extent and Type of Lands Acquired
2.8 About 83 percent of the land extents (in survey numbers) acquired for KSHIP II were less
than 506 Sqm (5 guntas) and 97.3 percent of acquisition for less than half an acre (Ta-
ble 2.1). Only about 0.5 percent of the total acquisition was for one acre and above2.
The land extents acquired by KSHIP and KRDCL shows a similar picture, with slightly
higher extents of above one acre acquisitions in KSHIP
Table 2.1 Extent-wise Acquisition of Land in KSHIP
Agency 0-0.5 acre 0.5-1 acre Above 1 acre Total
KSHIP 4364 (96.6) 127(2.8) 24 (0.5) 4515 (100)
KRDCL 2095 (98.9) 16 (0.8) 7 (0.3) 2118 (100)
Total 6459 (97.3) 143(2.2) 31(0.5) 6633(100)
2.9 For the project as a whole, dry land constitutes about 83 percent of total acquisition. In
KSHIP, the private land acquired is 79 percent dry, 20 percent irrigated and the remain-
ing residential/commercial lands. On the other hand, the proportion of dry lands ac-
quired by KRDCL higher at 93 percent (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 Type of Private Lands Acquired in KSHIP
Package Dry Land Irrigated land Commercial/Residential/ Others
KSHIP 79% 20% 1%
KRDCL 93.3% 5.5% 1.2%
Total 83% 16% 1%
2 The study team did not have access to consolidated information available on the lands owned by
affected landowners across various road projects of KSHIP and KRDCL.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 15
Time Taken for Land Acquisition (Preliminary Notification till Award)
2.10 The minimum timeline conceptualised from PN till the issue of direction under section
19 for taking possession of land is about 6 months. The average time taken for land
acquisition in KSHIP II is 1.96 years for 100 awards (78 awards in KSHIP and 22 awards in
KRDCL). In KSHIP, the average time taken was 3.41 years for 28 regular awards and
1.12 years for 50 additional awards. On the other hand, in KRDCL, the average time-
line was about 2.02 years in 22 awards (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3 Consolidated timelines for Land Acquisition in KSHIP
Below 1 Year 1-2 years 2-3 years Above 3 years
Awards
(%)
Land
(Acres)
Awards
(%)
Land
(Acres)
Awards
(%)
Land
(Acres)
Awards
(%)
Land
(Acres)
KSHIP 36(46) 77(18) 11(14) 58(13) 14(18) 74(17) 17(22) 23(52)
KRDCL 4 (18) 24.6(10) 9 (41) 74.8(32) 4(18) 44(19) 5(23) 93(40)
Total 40(40) 102 (15) 20(20) 133(20) 18(18) 118(17) 22(22) 324(48)
Average Time Taken for Acquisition-78 awards in KSHIP (years) 1.95
Average Time Taken for Acquisition- 22 awards in KRDCL (years) 2.02
Average Time for Land Acquisition in KSHIP II-100 Awards (years) 1.96
2.11 In KSHIP, 46 percent of the 78 awards, covering 18 percent of lands were acquired in
a period less than 1 year. About 52 percent of the land extent (covering 22 percent of
awards) took more than three years. The maximum and minimum time taken for any
ward under KSHIP is 6.3 years and minimum of 5 months respectively. On the other
hand, the maximum and minimum time taken in KRDCL is 3.5 years and 4 months re-
spectively. In KRDCL, all the awards were passed during the period 2016-18, and the
compensation was determined as per the provisions of the 2013 Act. About 18 per-
cent of the awards covering 14 percent of the land took a period of less than one
year. On the other hand 23 percent of the awards covering 39 percent of land extent
was acquired in more than three years.
2.12 In KSHIP, a potent reason for the delay in award in majority of cases was the coming
into force of 2013 Act from 1st January, 2014, the lack of clarity that existed initially on
the applicability/entitlement norms and time for finalization of the revision in the enti-
tlement matrix besides staff constraints/high turnover (explained later). The land ac-
quisition proceedings initiated during 2012 and 2013 in KSHIP were held up owing to
the above-mentioned reasons. In KRDCL, the preliminary notification of all the lands
acquired was issued after December 2014 and hence remained unaffected by the
new law. The delayed awards and payment were largely caused delay in approval
JMC (primarily impacted by various elections (municipal, bye elections, state elec-
tions etc.)) and turnover of staff at higher and operational levels at critical times dur-
ing the land acquisition process. Table 3.8 and 3.9 shows the detailed road-wise/link-
wise time line of land acquisition process in KSHIP and KRDCL.
Additional Land Acquisition
2.13 Presently, land acquisition process is going on for about 20 acres of land in KSHIP and
2.06 acres in KRDCL. No displacement or R & R is envisaged for these additional ac-
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 16
quisitions. Land available to the contractor at the time of contract agreement was
about 64 percent of the total. In KSHIP (based on details furnished), additional land
acquisition was mandated for various reasons, important among them being LA ne-
cessitated by high embankment (and thereby the construction width), junction im-
provement, shifting of electric poles, construction of major bridge, missing survey
numbers in actual acquisition etc. In KRDCL, the land plan for bypasses and toll plazas
were finalised after the commencement of the project largely owing to lack of con-
sensus among the landowners (major cause that necessitated additional LA) The
Study team also came across cases of landowners raising issues of more land being
taken by the project than that acquired, necessitating further acquisition. In such
cases, the additional land acquisition has come as a reactive measure following
grievances raised by the community. In KRDCL, the 30 acres of land in WACP-1 was
acquired in six instalments.
Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R) Entitlements
2.14 The R & R entitlements for the impacted categories were as per the 2010 and 2014
GOs issued by the Government of Karnataka3. The monetary R & R entitlements were
hiked up for each of the impacted categories in the revised entitlement matrix as per
the 2013 Act (GoK, November, 2014) from the date of the order
2.15 The revised entitlement matrix provides for higher R & R assistance (subsistence allowance,
shifting allowance and transportation grant). In keeping with the norms laid down in 2013 Act
to provide for suitable adjustments for price inflation, the GO also provided for 10 percent
annual increase in R & R assistances from 1st January, 2014. The entitlement of employ-
ment/lump sum of Rs. 5 lakhs/Annuity of Rs 2000 per month for a period of 20 years as pro-
vided in the second Schedule of the 2013 Act was to be extended to only the livelihood los-
ers as defined below:
Landowners losing one hectare un-irrigated land/half hectare irrigated land.
Titleholders losing entire commercial structure of more than 50 sqm.
The resettlement colonies with infrastructure facilities as given in Schedule III of 2013
Act were to be constructed as per the revised matrix when more than 20 families
including residential squatters are displaced at a two Kms continuous stretch. As an
income generation support, shopping units with 100-150 sq.ft were to be constructed
if more than 20 shops were affected in a continuous stretch of 2 kms.
2.16 The revised matrix adopts the definition of ‘project affected family’ provided in the
2013 Act. The definition of ‘family’ that treats adult children/dependents as separate
family is however not adopted. As such the R & R entitlements are provided to the
head of PAFs. Given that the impacted categories in KSHIP projects have received
entitlements under both the old and new Act norms, it is important to understand the
major changes in the monetary entitlements for different impacted categories in the
revised entitlement matrix are given below:
3The resettlement entitlements to the residential title holders include shifting allowance, subsistence
allowance and allotment of houseplots along with construction grant. The commercial titleholders
are paid shifting allowance, subsistence allowance and income generation grant. The
encroachers are entitled to reconstruction cost of the house. The tenants are given shifting and
subsistence allowance.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 17
Landowners becoming marginal: The subsistence allowance and income
generation grant have increased from 1.05 lakhs to 1.40 lakhs.
Land owners losing a narrow stretch of land: The additional entitlements have
increased from Rs 20,000 under the old norms to Rs. 30,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs.50,000/-
, depending on the extent of land lost (Shifting, Subsistence, Resettlement
Allowances and Site Development Cost).
Residential titleholders: The construction cost increased from 60,000 to 1.5 lakhs/2
lakhs in rural urban areas; Other R & R entitlements have increased from Rs. 40,000 to
1.9 lakhs.
Commercial Titleholders: The gross monetary entitlements increased from Rs. 75,000
to 1,90,000. For those losing the entire commercial structure, the
annuity/lumpsum/employment benefits (Schedule II of 2013 Act) are applicable4
Residential Tenants: For tenants residing in the affected area for less than three years
before the PN, the rental entitlements increased from 3000/6000 in rural/urban areas
to 12000/18000. In case of tenants staying in the area for a period of more than
three years, R & R package applicable for a residential titleholder is applicable.
Commercial Tenants: The rental increased from Rs. 6000/9000 in rural/urban areas to
9000/12000. Other monetary benefits were raised from Rs. 85,000 to Rs I lakh. Shifting,
resettlement and subsistence allowance as applicable for a commercial titleholder
is applicable in the case of tenants staying in the area for a period of more than
three years, besides an income generation grant of Rs. 1 lakh.
Residential squatter: The gross entitlements for a residential squatter increased from
Rs. 60,000 (when a developed plot is given instead of a house in the resettlement) to
Rs. 1,60,000 (1.20 lakhs as construction cost and Rs. 40,000 as shifting and subsistence
allowance) and an additional 40,000 as site cost (in case the PAP does not possess
a site.
Encroachers: Reconstruction cost equal to valuation of the affected portion of the
structure at PWD SR rates without depreciation
Commercial Squatters: The gross entitlements for a commercial squatter increased
from Rs. 50, 000 to Rs. 90,000 apart from the construction cost.
Vulnerable people: The option of a lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000 was only paid
when not covered under any pension scheme, while in the revised matrix, a lump
sum of Rs. 40,000/Rs. 20,000 was to be paid to the titleholders/non-titleholders in
addition to the government pension.
R & R Implementation in KSHIP and KRDCL
2.17 Progress: The R & R implementation has largely completed in KSHIP, both for titleholders and
non-titleholders. Tables A2.4 and A2.5 shows the progress of R & R Implementation in KSHIP
and KRDCL. A major pending work in KRDCL is the construction of resettlement colony in
Tangadgi (WACP-7)5.
2.18 Major and Minor Impacted Categories: The major impacted project people are those
persons whose total house or livelihood was impacted, or those who become mar-
4 This is as per the entitlement matrix in the KRDCL RAP 5 In Hamsabhavi, there were 41 families who were to be relocated. It is now proposed to change the
initial conceptualised amendment in a way that the residents are not impacted. The proposal of
RC is proposed to be dropped.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 18
ginal farmers. The minor impacts include partial impacts that will be limited to one-
time payment of cash or giving advance notice. Table 2.4 provides details of major
and minor impacted categories in KSHIP and KRDCL Projects. In KSHIP, there are 1821
PAPs who come under the major impacted categories, about 90 percent of them
non-titleholders, the largest group being the commercial squatters (52 percent). The
maximum number of major impacted categories in projects implemented by KSHIP
was in WAP 1(25 percent) and WAP 2 (21 percent). In KRDCL too, the largest propor-
tion of major impacted PAPs are commercial squatters (81.5 percent) followed by res-
idential titleholders (11.9 percent). WACP 6 (38 percent) and WACP 7 (20 percent)
have the largest proportion of major impacted categories.
Table 2.4 Major and Minor Impacted Categories in KSHIP
KSHIP KRDCL
Major Impacted
Land owners-Marginal 44 (2.4) 0
Residential Structure (TH) 34(1.6) 52 (11.9)
Comm Structure (TH) 0 11 (2.5)
Residential NTH 111(6.3) -
Commercial NTH 963 (52.3) 357 (81.5)
Encroachers 570 (31.3)
Res-cum-Commercial Structure(Tenants) 100 (5.5) 18 (4.1)
Total 1821(100) 438 (100)
Minor Impacted
Losing Land 4313 1942
Partial Residential Structure NA 176
Partial Commercial Structure NA 45
Partial Residential cum Commercial NA 37
Total 4313 2200
Note: Major impacted project people are those whose total house/livelihood (commercial
structure) was impacted, or those landowners who became marginal farmers.
2.19 Physical Resettlement: There were 145 displaced families in KSHIP project, 34 titlehold-
ers and 111 non-titleholders. According to the entitlement matrix, Resettlement Cen-
tres (RCs) with infrastructure facilities as given in Schedule III of 2013 Act were to be
constructed as per the revised matrix when more than 20 families including residential
squatters are displaced at a two Kms continuous stretch. Table A 2.6 provides infor-
mation about the PAPs accommodated in different RCs of road projects implement-
ed by KSHIP. Out of the 111 displaced non-titleholder families in KSHIP, 49 families have
shifted to the resettlement colonies at Hunasagi (27), Timmapur (14) and Savdatti (8).
Also, at Hanagal, 7 plots have been allotted to titleholder families, out of which two
have constructed their houses.
2.20 There are no resettlement colonies constructed by KRDCL (55 titleholders out of which
24 have self-relocated). In Tangadagi (Road No.7 of KRDCL), 31 families have to be
relocated. The government land that was finalized by the Project was held up in a
court dispute and was cleared by the judiciary in January, 2019. Approval has now
been given to the concessionaire for construction of the colony. Most of the inhabit-
ants of the village are agricultural labourers. The land for the resettlement colony is in
the locality itself. The residents are ready to shift, provided constructed houses are
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 19
given to them. The affected families have only received the structure compensation.
The Tangadgi residents expressed their deep resentment over the delay in payment of
compensation and relocation. In Humsabahavi, the alignment is proposed to be
changed to avoid displacement of 47 families.
2.21 Employment/Annuity/5 Lakhs Package as per 2013 Act: Land acquisition in KSHIP II
was largely for small extent of land (explained earlier). The proportion of farmers losing
more than an acre of land were less than one percent in both KSHIP and KRDCL. As
per the revised entitlement matrix, those losing one hectare of un-irrigated land/half hec-
tare irrigated land/titleholders losing entire commercial structure of more than 50 sqm. were
categorised as livelihood losers. Only livelihood losers as per this definition were eligible for
annuity/employment/lump sum of 5 lakhs. No PAPs in either KSHIP or KRDCL came under this
category.
2.22 Resettlement benefits to Marginal Landowners: According to data furnished by KSHIP,
50 landowners out of the 74 applications were found eligible to receive the entitle-
ments for marginal landowners in WAP I and no landowners falling in the category in
any other packages/roads. Though all the entitled PAPs were given entitlements as per the
revised entitlement matrix after the 2013 Act, the amount paid as R & R for losing a narrow
stretch of land was deducted from the entitlement. This may still not be the final number.
The resettlement benefits for marginal landowners (subsistence allowance and in-
come generation grant) are provided to only those landowners who produce the
certificate from the Tehsildar. Ignorance of the provision or lack of timely submission of
documentation may have resulted in the non-filing of claims as found by the Study
team in few cases. According to data furnished by KRDCL, there are no marginal
farmers in their road projects.
2.23 Vulnerable Persons: Vulnerable persons include physically handicapped, those above
the age of 60 years and widows. Prior to the 2014 revised entitlement matrix, the addi-
tional cash support was only extended to those households who did not receive gov-
ernment pension. This was revised in the November 2014 matrix when additional cash
support of Rs. 40,000 to title-holders and 20,000 to non-titleholders was extended to all
vulnerable people. In KSHIP, the additional cash support was extended to three vul-
nerable people (one title-holder and two non-title-holders). Besides, one squatter fam-
ily (single woman household) will be given a plot in Gowrapura layout in Haveri. In
KRDCL, 103 vulnerable persons (63 titleholders and 40 non-titleholders received addi-
tional cash support (Table A2.7)
2.24 Land severance cases: A landowner whose agricultural lands are severed by the con-
struction of roads between their fields is paid additional 25 percent of base market
value as additional amount compensation. The payment is released along with com-
pensation. In KRDCL, lands are severed in 50 survey numbers in Sampagaon and
Chikkerur bypasses, covering an extent of about 18 acres. In KSHIP, there are 155 land
severance cases who were paid additional compensation.
Compensation Rates for Land Acquired
2.25 Market Value vs. Guidance Value: The 2013 Act provides two benchmarks to arrive at
the base market value/compensation rate; the higher of guidance value and aver-
age sale value of transactions of similar type of land in the nearest village/vicinity ar-
ea (fifty percent of those transactions with highest sales price to be considered for ar-
riving at the average). Guidance value may not always represent the market value of
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 20
property. The actual sales value may vary owing to various factors; location, extent,
infrastructural facilities etc.
2.26 The Study made a quick assessment of proportion of awards where guidance value
(published u/s 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957) was fixed as the base rate for
fixation of compensation vis-a-vis the average sales transaction in KRDCL. About 64
percent of the cases (village/crop category) had guidance value as the base com-
pensation rate, while 36 percent had average sales price fixed as the benchmark
compensation rate. In Road No. 7 of KRDCL, average sales value was fixed as the
compensation rate in 85 percent cases. Overall, the proportion of sales values as the
benchmark rate was significantly higher at 55 percent in case of dry lands in KRDCL
(Table A2.8). In KSHIP, guidance value was taken as the base compensation rate in 78
percent cases and average sales transaction only in remaining 22 percent cases6
(Table A2.10).
2.27 The Study found that the proportion by which the average sales value (fixed as the
compensation rate) exceeded the guidance value was very high in many cases. Out
of 109 such cases in KRDCL, 47 percent had deviation between 0-50 percent 18 per-
cent between 50-100 percent; 27 percent between 100-500. In 6 cases (5.5 percent);
the average sales value exceeded the guidance value in the range of 500-1000 per-
cent and in three cases, the deviation exceeded 1000 percent (Table A2.9). The
highest deviation between the compensation rate fixed as per the average sales and
the guidance value was seen in Road No. 3 and 5 of KRDCL7. In KSHIP, the deviation
was less than 100 percent in 72 percent cases; 25 percent between 100 and 500 per-
cent and the remaining 2 percent were above 500 percent8 (Table A2.11)
2.28 In India, market prices for properties have historically ruled much higher than the cir-
cle rates. However, the magnitude of deviation in few cases outlined above requires
deeper analysis and corrective measures. Differences in class/nature of land in rec-
orded entries and actual ground realities; speculative land transactions etc. could be
plausible reasons. If guidance value widely undervalues the actual market value
across the study area, it may be unjust to have this as the base compensation rate in
other areas, particularly where enough sales transactions did not exist.
2.29 The Study made an assessment of the updation of guidance value in the village(s)
covering bypass areas where some landowners expressed discontentment with com-
pensation rate fixation. The selected areas were sample villages in Kortagere bypass,
Madhuigiri bypass and Huliyudurga bypass. In KRDCL, the Study made an assessment
of the two areas where people have moved the Court for enhanced compensation9.
6 Averages calculated from data available for WAP 1 and WAP 3 7 For instance, in Hirehalli village in Hassan district, the guidance value and average sales
(fixed as base compensation rate) was Rs. 3250 and 50,000 per 505 sqm (per gunta); in
Machagowdanahalli village, the GV was Rs. 5950 as against average sales value of
87,118; and in Shambhunathapura village, the GV was 5950 as against average sales
value of 82,729. The average sales value exceeded the GV by 16/15/14 times respectively in the
three villages. 8 In KSHIP, the data was received only from WAP 1 and WAP 3. 9 Considering the short duration of the study, an elaborate verification exercise of market value
updation (guidance value as the proxy indicator) could not be carried out. Hence, an assessment
is carried out only of those areas where people have sought reference for higher compensation
under the 2013 Act (KRDCL). In KSHIP, 95 of the 97 cases filed were those awarded under the old
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 21
The guidance value for dry and wet land in Kamabalapur village saw only a 11 per-
cent increase in the two-year period (2014 to 2016; no guidance value updation
happened during 2015). In Vaderalli village (Madhugiri bypass), market value of
dry/wet land increased annually by about 12 percent during the period 2013 to 2016
(guidance value of lands situated near National and State Highways were however
fixed at significantly higher level). In Kortagere village (Kortagere bypass), the annual
increase in the guidance value during a two-year period (2015-17) was about 8 per-
cent.
2.30 The analysis reflects that though the updation of market value is not a yearly basis, the
exercise has been carried out prior to compensation fixation in KSHIP II. To understand
the concerns raised by the landowners, it is also important to see if the increases have
taken into account the land, location characteristics and potential value of land ad-
equately. In case of Sampagaon Bypass, where the farmers are discontented with the
compensation rates, the average guidance value is Rs. 4188 per gunta and the aver-
age of sales value is Rs. 4500. The major contention is the irrigated nature of the land
(Malaprabha command area) and guidance value of dry land not reflective of the
nature and potential of land. Thus, the Study team finds that across the board market
value updation without redetermining the class of land may not yield fair outcomes.
2.31 The varying market value of land in the same village owing to different dates of notifi-
cation also creates perception of lower compensation to the earlier recipients. For in-
stance in WCP-1 of KRDCL, the notification for 30-27 (A-G) acres of land that was ac-
quired was done in six installments of 7.7 acres, 3.67 acres, 2.2 acres, 15.32 acres, 0.42
acres and 0-02 acres; the first notification being in December 2014 and the last in
March 2016. In the case of KSHIP, WEP II, the Reference Court has enhanced com-
pensation from Rs. 20,000 per gunta to 44,000 per gunta in Maharajpet village and
from Rs. 1319 to 90,000 in Hanagal based on the sales statistics of comparable land
with productive potential in the vicinity as well as the non-submission of material relied
by the LAO to arrive at the market price.
2.32 While landowners losing comparatively large chunks of land in the bypasses/Toll plaza
in both KSHIP and KRDCL shared their discontentment with the compensation rates,
few of them have actually moved the Court for higher compensation. There are only
about 28 landowners in KRDCL (19 in WCP-1 and 9 in WCP-7) and 82 landowners in
KSHIP (80 in WEP and 2 in WAP 2) who have approached the Court for higher com-
pensation (as per information accessed from KSHIP/KRDCL).
Income Tax Deductions
2.33 The LA and RR Policy provide that all taxes including income tax if any, will be borne
by KSHIP/KRDCL. However, it was observed that TDS of 10% has been deducted u/s
194 LA of Income Tax Act and that the land owners have been issued Form No. 16 to
enable them get re-imbursement of the tax deducted. In KRDCL, TDS @ 10 percent
amounting to Rs.44.99 lakhs were deducted from 67 landowners. In KSHIP, the total
TDS deduction amounted to 6.71 lakhs from 7 landowners. The confusion prevailed
because both the interventions by the Finance Ministry viz. CBDT Circular on taxability
of compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land and Finance Act, 2017
amending Section 194LA of the Income tax Act providing for exemption to tax de-
Act norms. Hence, the assessment is limited to selected areas, where people complained about
lack of updation of market value.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 22
duction at source specifically provided for cases under RFCTLARR Act, 201310. The
State finance/tax authorities pointed out its non-applicability to awards made under
KHA, 1964.
Compensation and Court Deposits
2.34 A significant issue requiring attention and action of the project authorities is the issue
of large quantum of compensation deposits. Under the Karnataka Highway Act, 1964.
after the publication of Preliminary Notification under Section 15, the Highway Authori-
ty causes land to be measured (Section 16); public notices to the interested persons
to file their claims for compensation within 15 days of receipt of the notice (Section
17). Though under the KHA, at any time after the publication of PN, the state govern-
ment can take possession of land and the land will be vested in the state government
free of all encumbrances, in KSHIP II, it was mandated that the possession of land un-
der Section 19 will be taken only after compensation was offered to the land owners
through general awards. For landowners coming forward for consent accepting 25
percent higher compensation, consent awards were passed thereafter. If landowners
do not agree for consent award, general awards were passed11.
2.35 Procedural Requirements for Claiming Compensation: There are series of documents
mandated to be produced by the landowners (KRDCL RAP) for claiming compensa-
tion. This includes original copy of the RTC for the current year; attested copy of muta-
tion in respect of land and Khata certificate in respect of the site building; encum-
brance Certificate for 13 years; No Tenancy Certificate and Certificate regarding 79
A, 79B and 66 (prohibiting the acquisition of land by persons above a certain level of
annual income from acquiring any land; by persons other than cultivating land per-
sonally; filing of declaration of holding) and genealogical tree. The NGOs were en-
gaged to support the landowners in the process. The multiple documentation re-
quirements were seen to be a significant bottleneck in the timely submission of docu-
ments.
2.36 Magnitude of Court Deposits in KSHIP and KRDCL: Tables A2.12 and A3.13 provides the
details of quantum of court deposits and proportion of farmers/survey numbers and
land extent involved in KRDCL and KSHIP Projects. In KRDCL, the compensation of Rs. 4
crores covering about 20 percent of their farmers and 25 percent of the total extent
of land is deposited in the Court. The maximum court deposits (as a proportion of total
10 Prior to 1st January, 2014, compensation received from compulsory acquisition of an agricultural
land was not taxable under the Land Acquisition Act (subject to fulfilment of certain conditions for
specified urban land)[1]. The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (post 1st January, 2014) provided that income-
tax shall not be levied on any award or agreement made (except those made under section 46)
under the RFCTLARR Act (Section 96). On Taxability of Compensation received on Compulsory
Acquisition of land, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Circular dated 25th of October, 2016)
clarified that compensation exempted from levy of income-tax vide section 96 of the RFCTLARR
Act shall also not be taxable under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 even if there is no
specific provision of exemption for such compensation in the Income-tax Act, 1961. On Tax
deduction at Source under section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, the Finance Act, 2017 amended
section 194LA of the Income-tax Act to provide that no deduction shall be made under this
section where such payment is made in respect of any award or agreement which has been
exempted from levy of income-tax under section 96 (except those made under section 46) of
RFCTLARR Act. This amendment took effect from 1st June, 2017. 11 An assessment of the date of section 19 and award shows that the date of award has always
succeeded the notification under section 19.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 23
compensation) is in Road No. 1(108.6 lakhs) followed by Road No. 6 (85.5 lakhs) and
Road No. 7(68.4 lakhs).
2.37 In KSHIP, about 31.79 crores of compensation covering about 46 percent of the total survey
numbers was deposited in the Court out of which 6.77 crores were released to the landown-
ers and about 25.02 still lie deposited in the Court. The maximum court deposits are in WAP 1
(11.86 Crore comprising 47 percent of the total deposits) followed by WAEP 3(8.38 crores
comprising 33 percent of the total deposits). There are more than 2 crores still deposited in
the Court in WAP 2 and WEP 2 as well.
2.38 Issue of Revalidation12: In KSHIP, a serious issue of concern is the delay in revalidation
of compensation cheques. During the field visits, the Study team came across several
landowners who are ready with their documents but unable to get their compensa-
tion released because their cheques are required to be revalidated. There are 339
cheques which owing to various procedural delays could not be admitted by the
court within the mandated three months. The approval of the Accountant General is
mandatory before the treasury can issue a fresh cheque. The details of these
cheques are given in Table A2.14. Out of the 339 cheques, approval for revalidation
has been received for 145 cheques; 82 cheques in October 2018 and 63 cheques in
January-March 2019. Out of the remaining 194 cheques that requires to be revalidat-
ed, 11 cheques were issued in 2014; 56 in 2015, 120 in 2016; 5 in 2017 and two in 2018.
The pending 194 cheques involves a compensation amount of 4.07 crores13. The Study
team interacted with several such landowners who have clear land title documents
but whose compensation is locked up in these procedural issues.
2.39 Causes: The team interviewed more than 50 such landowners from different road pro-
jects of KSHIP and KRDCL. The brief cases of such landowners, representing different
cases are presented in the Case Brief Section. Though the dispute over ownership is
often cited as the most potent reason for the deposit of the compensation in the
Court, the Study team found that there were many other reasons for the same. There
is no data maintained by both KSHIP and KRDCL providing reasons for deposit of the
money in the Court for each individual case. Given the timelines for the Study, it was
not practically feasible to go through individual case files. However, it would be im-
portant to understand the reasons besides title disputes that came out in the exten-
sive interactions with such landowners:
Lack of updation of land records14.
12 KSHIP had written a formal letter to the landowners in April 2018 to withdraw the amount of money
from the Court. The revalidation issue came to light when landowners started obstructing the work
(on finding that they are not able to release money from the Court). The communication was sent
by the Court during November 2017, the KSHIP Office did not receive the same. These
compensation cheques would have to be revalidated by the Accountant General. 13 Some more cheques were revalidated during the course of the Study. As per the latest
figures shared by KSHIP at the time of submission of final report, out of the 194 checks awaiting
revalidation, 35 checks amounting to Rs. 1,46,03,411 have been revalidated. Only 159 checks
valued at Rs. 2,60,73,066/- are pending. 14 In the November 2014 GO issued by the Government of Karnataka, (Section 11(6) of the 2013
Act), it is mandated that the Government will issue a separate order for updating the land records
by the respective Tehsildars within two months of issuance of PN. Land records updation is a
comprehensive exercise to be initiated by Tehsildars. The exercise involves deleting the entries of
dead persons and entering the names of the legal heirs of the deceased persons; taking effect
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 24
Delay in the submission of documents by landowner due to multiple personal
reasons (notice not clearly understood; staying in a different village when notices
were served; etc.).
Limited time for rigorous claim enquiry and award process
Massive documentation requirements may have required more staff to support the
landowners to consolidate the documents.
Multiple khatedars in the land records and shares of individuals in the plots proposed
for acquisition not clear;
Error in survey numbers in the land record documents
Disputes relating to land (that have hence been resolved)
Updation in e-khata (made a compulsory requirement for compensation payment)
Perceived inadequate valuation and compensation under protest
2.40 Consequences: The high court deposits have multiple consequences-primarily on the
landowners and on the project as a whole.
1. Issues faced by the Affected Landowners
High legal fees associated with withdrawing the compensation from the Court: The
advocate fees are generally in the range of Rs. 3000 to 6000 in absolute terms (varying
with the number of court hearings, installments etc.). In cases where, compensation
have been paid in two installments (the second installment to adjust the difference in
higher entitlements after the 2013 Act), lawyers were seen to be charging separately
from each installment. This becomes a substantial proportion of the compensation
amount particularly when the amount of compensation is for a small extent of land.
Long delay, Multiple Court hearings and Cases of Revalidation: The landowners
interviewed by the Study team had shared about the severe hardships faced by them
for multiple visits to the court for the release of their compensation; many are yet to be
successful. The change of court in some cases further delayed the process. The issue is
much more complicated for cases of revalidation.
Non-receipt of benefits of consent award: The concept of consent award is to expedite
land acquisition and ensure litigation free acquisition through a mutually agreeable
higher monetary compensation entitlement to the landowners. The consent award is
passed in favour of those landowners who come forward to give their consent with the
mandatory documentary requirements. Ideally, only those landowners who have
received the compensation under protest and who have approached the court for
enhanced compensation should be the ones to be denied the benefit. In practice, this
is not entirely so. Those landowners who could not submit the documents on time owing
to various reasons outlined above could also not benefit from consent award. The
efforts of KSHIP however should be acknowledged in cases where even after drawing
the cheques from Treasury in favour of Courts and before submission to courts, the
general awards were cancelled and consent award passed in favour of PAPs
approached with documents.
the registered transactions of the rights in land such as sale, gift, partition, etc; making all entries of
the mortgage in the land records; deleting the entries of mortgage in case lending agency issues
letter towards full payment of loans etc.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 25
Vulnerable people: The multiple court visits for getting the money released was seen to
be particularly burdensome for vulnerable households/members.
2. Obstruction and Project Delay: Some landowners, especially in WACP 1, 5, 6 & 7 of
KRDCL have obstructed the construction of roads until the project helps in release of the
compensation amount.
3. Implications for Future Projects: Though the landowners have contributed their land to
the project, there is great sense of distress, helplessness over delay/non-receipt of
compensation and also a sense of alienation from the project authorities over perceived
lack of support. This will not augur well for future projects.
Unskilled Employment Generated by KSHIP and KRDCL Projects
2.41 KSHIP generated 4.77 lakh man-days of employment out of which local man days
generated was about 50 percent. The female workforce among the local man-days
was about 63 percent. On the other hand, KRDCL generated about 3.70 lakhs man-
days employment for the 6 road projects (Table A2.15). Out of these, local man-days
generated was close to 97 percent, male workforce comprising 95 percent and fe-
male workforce comprising 5 percent.
2.42 Some among the PAPs also benefited from the contractual employment. The primary
survey results revealed that 5.5 percent of commercial tenants, 11.2 percent of com-
mercial squatters and 16.6 percent of residential titleholders benefited out of the
short-term employment from the contractor during road construction (Table A2.16). In
KRDCL, 9/25 percent of the residential/commercial titleholders benefited from the
contractual employment. The team also met local labourers in some packages em-
ployed by the contractor who claimed to be receiving Rs. 8000 per month with full
holidays/half holidays on alternate Sundays. In some cases, holidays were reduced to
half a day/full day.
Community Assets Impacted and Reconstructed
2.43 A large number of community assets (temples, bus shelters, Aralikate, Noise barriers,
compound, borewells, sanitary blocks etc.) were impacted by the road projects of
KSHIP and KRDCL. The Study team evaluated sample assets in different road projects
and discussed the functioning of the projects with the local community (photographs
in Annexure II). These assets were to be reconstructed by the project and transferred
to the local bodies/trusts. Table A2.17 provides the community assets reconstruct-
ed/yet to be relocated in KSHIP and KRDCL.
2.44 The Study found that the water supply system created in WAP 1 is a good practice
example of how a project can create best social returns from its investment if there is
a sensitivity and commitment to address local issues holistically (Box 2.1).
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 26
Box 2.1 Water Supply System-WAP 1
In a one of its kind initiatives, the impacted borewells by the WAP I (Link 64G) package
was replaced with a comprehensive drinking water scheme that could provide the
water to Midigeshi village of Pavgada. The village had no proper drinking water supply
system. Constructed at a cost Rs. 31 lakhs, the scheme consists of a ground level service
reservoir of 4 lakh litres located on a hillock just above the village and connected to
the water distribution system in the village. There is a pump house with three motors and
the location of the reservoir at the hillock provides advantages of gravity for supply of
piped water located to the village. For the villagers who had been reeling under water
scarcity for years, nothing could have been a greater blessing!
2.45 In KSHIP, out of 1349 assets that were impacted by the project, 1317 have been relo-
cated incurring an expenditure of 62.02 crores. The construction of assets is pending in
WEP II owing to lack of site for relocation. In KRDCL, 80 percent of the targeted CPRs
have been replaced and transferred to the local governments/trusts. The target is
achieved in WACP-1 and 3. In WACP-2, 12 assets are under process with investment of
45.50 lakhs and the envisaged completion time is by December, 2019. In WACP-5, 16
CPRs have been dropped due to change of alignment in Hamsabavi and Hirekerur. In
WACP-6 and 7, construction of seven assets is under progress.
2.46 The Study team evaluated some of the sample assets and made enquiries from the
local people and gram panchayat offices. The primary survey captured the feed-
back of the PAPs about the functioning of the reconstructed assets. The following are
the important observations of the Study team.
According to the primary survey (Table A2.18), 75 percent of PAPs in KRDCL have
claimed effective functioning of the reconstructed community assets. In case of
KSHIP, while one third of the PAPs confirmed that the reconstructed assets were
functioning well, 58 percent of the PAPs were not aware of the reconstructed assets
or its functioning. This is not surprising as some of the projects have been almost a
decade old and some of the assets are common resources that may not yield
direct benefit to all people.
The field feedback from the local population (in the vicinity) revealed efficient
functioning of the CPRs.
Some assets like bus shelters, temples, dargas are not constructed due to non-
availability of sites (WEP 3).
The Study team found borewells in WAP 1 and Road No. 5 and 6 not functioning
(photographs in Annexure II). However, as per the information shared by KSHIP and
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 27
KRDCL (signed by the respective EE of the project), all the reconstructed assets
have been transferred to respective panchayats/trusts.
The Study team visited gram panchayat offices in some road projects to verify the
transfer of assets and found this to be in order. There were couple of places where
the team received the feedback from local government officials that assets are yet
to be transferred (WAP II-local government official complained regarding non
transfer of pipelines, though this could not find corroborative evidence). In
Tangadgi, the Panchayat President shared that the community assets (two
borewells and a pipeline) have been constructed by the project authorities but yet
to be handed over to the local institutions.
Land Requirement and Supply of Land to Contractors
2.47 Table A2.19 shows the road-wise provision of land as per contractual agreement &
gaps in road construction owing to non-receipt of unencumbered land by the con-
tractor; the obstructions owing to LARR issues and the physical/financial progress of
the project in KRDCL. The obstructions of 0.65 ha (1.6 acres) have caused gaps in
completion of road in several patches in KRDCL road projects15. In KRDCL, for all the
road projects (except WACP-2), 100 percent land availability had to be ensured by
March-May 2017. The toll and bypass land is however pending even now in all the
roads. The information could not be accessed from KSHIP.
2.48 Precise information on quantum of land availability with the contractors on the date
when the project authorities had to transfer 100 percent of land could not be ac-
cessed. However, the Study team’s interactions with some contractors revealed the
following:
Encumbrance free lands on paper may have meant physically clear land. The
grievances of landowners owing to court deposits, land measurements etc. resulted
in obstructions and time/cost delay.
The contractors went ahead with the contract even when the 80 percent land was
not available on the ground anticipating the benefit from the project as per the
contractual agreement for timely completion of work at hand.
To speed up the execution of the project, lease agreements with the landowners
seemed a win-win situation for both the land owners (additional monetary benefit)
and contractors (speedy execution).
According to contractors, owing to obstructions by landowners and incomplete
road construction (in patches), they are unable to demobilise the machinery
(regardless of the extent of land affected). This adversely impacted the construction
schedule, work plan, financial estimates and their credibility with the financial
institutions.
Land Acquisition and R & R Cost Vis-à-vis Project Cost-(KSHIP & KRDCL)
2.49 The total LARR Cost including compensation payment, R & R, relocation of the CPR
and administrative expenses is about 198 crores in KSHIP and 76 crores in KRDCL. This is
15 In some cases, (WACP-1), landowners are strongly opposing the initiation of construction till they
receive their compensation (presently deposited in the Court). There are also cases (WACP-1),
where the landowners are demanding compensation for earlier roads constructed by Karnataka
government. In WACP-3, a mosque is to be reconstructed.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 28
about 6.9 percent of the Project Cost in KSHIP and about 5.1 percent of the project
cost in KRDCL (Table 3.20).
LARR Implementation Arrangements
2.50 Staff Strength: In KRDCL, starting from 2015-16, besides the engineering staff, a Special
Deputy Commissioner, Special LAO each was deputed by the government. In 2015-
16, a Tehsildar was also under deputation to KRDCL. During the period 2015-16 to
2018-19, the contractual staff annually appointed included 1-2 Land Acquisition con-
sultants; 4 Asst. Land Acquisition consultants; 2 Social Welfare Inspectors and one So-
cial Development Officer (Table A2.21).
2.51 Staff Turnover: The turnover of key staff and inadequacy of LA staff was an important
cause for the delay in completion of LA process. In KSHIP, the Special DC and the As-
sistant commissioners had an average term of just five and nine months respectively.
The Special DC of KSHIP is also assigned the additional responsibility of approving the
awards passed by Special LAO of KRDCL. The change of the Special DC in between
and the absence of Special LAOs (signing authority for notification, notices, awards
and release of compensation for Land Acquisition) posed issues in timely passing of
compensation awards.
2.52 Implementation support by NGOs: The NGOs were entrusted a major responsibility of
supporting facilitating the resettlement implementation in both KSHIP and KRDCL Pro-
jects. This included updation of census, educating PAPs about their entitlements, dis-
tribution of entitlement cards, advising PAPs on productive utilization of cash compen-
sation, assisting them on grievance redressal and supporting them in their relocation
and livelihood restoration.
2.53 A good practice in KRDCL was to involve the NGOs in supporting the PAPs in putting
together all the documents to claim their compensation on a fixed payment ar-
rangement (Rs 916 to collect the Encumbrance Certificate, RTC, Mutation extract and
four bond papers). The contract term of the NGO ended on 31st March, 2015 in KSHIP
and in November 2018 in KRDCL. The functioning of NGOs provided the necessary
support to both KRDCL and KSHIP in successful implementation of LARR. The Study
team felt that KSHIP could have extended their contract after March 2015 in road
packages where the major quantum of the compensation was deposited in the
Court to provide necessary support to such landowners.
2.54 Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM): An effective GRM is important to enhance
relationship, improve communication, and increase the trust of the affected commu-
nity. KSHIP projects envisaged the partnering NGO to resolve the grievances at the
first level, followed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Project and finally the
GRC headed by the Deputy Commissioner of the district (Members being academi-
cians, representative from the PAPs and the Divisional EE). The Study found that the
GRCs were constituted in 14 districts. In each of these districts, a social representative
(generally retired government officers) and a representative of the PAPs were ap-
pointed. Table A2.22 provides the details of the nominated members of the GRC in
KSHIP.
2.55 In KRDCL, the first level of GRC was at the Executive Engineer and SLAO level and the
second at the MD, KRDCL level. The LARR Authority at the district level is the forum to
appeal against the quantum and apportionment of R & R. As per information shared
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 29
by KRDCL, about 543 grievance letters were received and attended to at the first lev-
el and 13 grievances attended at the MD level. However, there was no consolidated
information available to understand the nature of grievances and the action taken at
various levels. Hence, the Study could not independently assess the nature of com-
plaints received by the project and how effectively they were addressed. In road pro-
jects implemented by KSHIP, the aggrieved PAPs could also register their complaints
through multiple channels; online; phone/SMS; social media (whatsapp /facebook).
The complainant receives a unique complaint No., an acknowledgement and on his
acceptance of the resolution of grievances, the resolution is closed. According to the
reports received from KSHIP, the main issues raised in the complaints are relating to
compensation; requests to exclude the lands from the acquisition; non receipt of no-
tice; payment of difference in compensation and details of R&R benefits released
etc. About 377 complaints (353 on LAQ and 24 on R&R) were received and resolved
till December 2018.
2.56 The primary survey captured the level of satisfaction among PAPs from the existing
GRM. About 69 percent and 72 percent of the sample PAPs in KSHIP were satisfied
with the functioning of the GRM (Table A3,10). However, during consultations, several
people did not seem to be aware of the mechanism and process. Grievances were
also shared regarding perceived lack of transparency regarding change of align-
ments and access/drainage related issues caused by the road construction (Chapter
III). The Study team feels that the GRM requires improvements on various fronts-
grievance uptake/receipt; sorting & processing; acknowledgement & follow-up; veri-
fication/investigation; monitoring and feedback (discussed in concluding chapter).
Monitoring and Evaluation
2.57 In KSHIP II, an External Monitoring & Evaluation consultant concurrently monitored the
R & R activities on periodical basis with the NGOs. The internal monitoring reports were
consolidated at KRDCL and KSHIP level at regular intervals. These monitoring reports
have been tracking the progress of payment of compensation and resettlement assis-
tances. Monitoring may also extend to the construction related grievances/redressal
and pending court deposits/withdrawal etc. It was observed by the Study team that
the pending issue of court deposits requires continuous monitoring and provision of
necessary support by the project officials. Presently, the process after deposit of com-
pensation is not tracked. Hence, there seems to be no organized data on the with-
drawal of compensation from the Court. An effective data base management system
with inclusion of updated details on the court deposits/release and close monitoring
may be helpful. It would be useful if the role of external monitor is extended to those
areas with substantial compensation is deposited in the Court. There is scope for im-
provement with regard to involvement of the community in monitoring.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 30
CHAPTER III SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
Introduction
3.1 The present Chapter presents the findings of the Study with respect to the socio-economic
conditions of the major impacted categories and provides a comparative picture of the cur-
rent and baseline periods (along with the control sample, wherever required). The analysis is
both in terms of primary survey findings and the broad conclusions from the interac-
tions/consultations with the affected community. Table 3.1 shows the key socio-economic in-
dicators in the pre and post project implementation phases.
Table 3.1 Changes in Key Socio-Economic Indicators
S.
No. Key Socio-Economic Parameters KSHIP KRDCL
Baseline Sample Control Baseline Sample Control
I Housing Conditions-Relocated Households
1 Pucca Houses (%) 9 76 62 46 74 70
2 Houses with Separate Kitchen (%) 67 98 85 74 97 89
3 Houses with Separate Bath (%) 70 76 69 66 89 81
II Ownership of Consumer Durables
4 Households having TV (%) 39 88 82 88 88 98
5 Households having Fridge (%) 2 12 13 9 43 21
6 Households having Telephone (%) 11 97 92 25 77 98
7 Households having Two wheeler(%) 9 49 55 58 33 47
8 Households having Four wheeler (%) - - - 3 18 6
9 Households having Tractor (%) - - - 2 3 4
III Size and Quality of Commercial Structure
10 Size (Sq.ms) 8 31 26
11 Kucha Structure (%) 47 8 22 - 6 63
12 Pucca Structure (%) 38 59 26 - 56 13
13 Semi Pucca Structure (%) 15 33 52 - 38 26
14 Units employing people in shops (%) - 62 70 12 41 29
IV Living Standards-Resettlement Colony
15 Houses with Mud/Dung Floor (%) 79 0
16 Houses with Independent Toilet (%) 21 100
17 Drinking Water Accessibility (%) 69 31
18 Houses Electrified (%) 62 100
19 Households using Cooking Fuel (%) 21 69
20 Households with accessible and
functioning govt. Hospital (%)
59 45
V Poverty Assessment Pre Project Post Project
21 Multi Dimensional Poverty (%) 39.10 10.89
22 MPI (Poverty percent * Poverty
Intensity)
0.14 0.03
Demographic and Occupational Profile of Sample Households
3.2 The sample of 573 households for the Evaluation Study involves a total population of
3043 at an average family size of 5.3. According to the baseline information of occupa-
tional pattern of the PAPs in KSHIP projects, 5.95 percent of PAPs were engaged in agri-
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 31
culture; 11 percent as agricultural labour; 3 percent PAPs in the Service Sector and 40
percent of PAPs commerce and trade. In KRDCL, about 41 percent of the affected
PAPs were engaged in business/Trade; 12 percent of the PAPs in private service and 47
percent of them as agricultural labour.
3.3 Table A3.1 reflects the comparative occupational profile of the sample households in
KSHIP and KRDCL along with the baselines/control population (road package-wise in
KSHIP). Figure 3.1 shows the occupational profile separately for the sample households
from KSHIP, KRDCL and the residents of the Resettlement Centres (RCs). While petty
business dominates the overall profile, the residents of the RCs are distinct, earning their
living solely working as agricultural/non-agricultural labour. As compared to the base-
line in KSHIP, there are higher proportion of people engaged in petty business and pri-
vate service in KSHIP. In KRDCL, the share of agricultural labour and petty business has
declined, the share of own agriculture has increased.
Figure 3.1 Occupational Profile of the Sample Households
Housing and Living Conditions
3.4 Table A3.2 provides information on the housing conditions of the sample households
(structure area; quality of houses–pucca/kucha; house wall made of brick; RCC house
roof; separate bath and kitchen etc.) and showing the comparison of the present con-
ditions with the baseline conditions for both the categories-self relocated and those
who have relocated to the resettlement colonies. The improved housing condition is re-
flected in the larger number of pucca houses, houses with separate bath and kitchen in
both KSHIP and KRDCL. In KSHIP, the number of pucca houses in the sample population
is 76.5 percent as against 9/65 percent in the baseline/control population; houses with
separate kitchen is 97 percent as against 67/83 percent among baseline/control popu-
lation; houses with separate bath (76 percent as against 69/70 percent in the base-
line/control population). In KRDCL too, there is a marked improvement in the housing
standards; pucca houses from 46/69 percent in the baseline/control to 73.5 percent
among the sample; houses with separate kitchen from 74/87 percent in the base-
line/control to 95 percent in the sample and houses.
3.5 Self-relocated Households: About 58 percent self-relocated title-holder households
have constructed houses in KRDCL (Table A3.3), while one-third are continuing to stay
with their relatives. About 65 percent of the households are residing within 2 kms of their
original habitation. In KSHIP, all the sample households surveyed have constructed
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 32
houses. About, 73 percent of the households are staying within 1 km of original settle-
ment and there were no complaints of issue of access from workplace. On the other
hand, 10 percent of the sample households shared that they are staying in a place
which is very far from work place and hence are finding it very difficult to manage.
3.6 Community in RCs: Out of the 49 families (residential squatters) who are presently stay-
ing in resettlement colonies, the primary survey covered 29 families. The residents of
Timmapur and Savdatti RCs have confirmed receipt of the patta while people of Hu-
nasagi was about to receive (at the time of the visit of the Study team. Their perception
of the facilities in the resettlement colony and living conditions is given in Table A3.4.
Majority of the residents are satisfied with the location of the colony, electricity and
drainage/sanitation. The residents of all the three resettlement colonies are also happy
with their social/community life in the new habitation. The areas of concern are the
quality of access roads and water supply. Women residents in Timmapur claimed that
they are no longer productively engaged and the distance between their workplace
and the new settlement has increased (explained in later part of the chapter).
3.7 Landowners: The housing conditions of 24 landowners included in the sample survey re-
veals that 100 percent have separate kitchen; 95 percent have separate bath; 48 per-
cent live in pucca houses; 43 percent of them live in semi pucca houses and 9.5 per-
cent in kuccha houses.
Ownership of Assets
3.8 There is a significant increase in the consumer durables owned by the affected house-
holds in both KSHIP and KRDCL(Table 3.1 and A3.5). A comparison of the data of the
sample households with the baseline shows that the number of households having tele-
vision increased from about 39 percent during base period to 88 percent during the
evaluation period. Similarly, ownership of fridge increased from 1.7 percent to 12 per-
cent; ownership of telephone increased from 11 percent to 97 percent. About 50 per-
cent of the households owned a two wheeler during the evaluation period; 1.7 percent
also owning a four wheeler. In KRDCL, though the ownership of television has largely
remained constant, there is a significant increase in ownership of fridge (from 8.9 to 43
percent), telephone (from 25 to 77 percent) and four wheelers (from 3 to 17 percent).
Basic Economic Parameters of Losers of Commercial Structures
3.9 The available baseline information relates to the area of the commercial structure,
monthly turnover, type of shops affected and quality of the structure. The findings of the
Study in terms of these parameters along with the baseline and control are given in
TableA 4.6. In KRDCL, the average size of the commercial structures in the baseline pe-
riod was 8.13 sqms. The size of the commercial structures of the sample PAFs is 31.4 sqms
while that of the control population is 25.8 sqms. Similarly, in most of the road projects of
KSHIP, the average area of the commercial structure owned by the sample households
is much larger than the baseline. Given that money changes in time as a result of an in-
flation, the comparable baseline figures for monthly turnover is obtained after applying
the inflation rate (monthly turnover in the initial year is inflated by the price index). The
monthly turnover is seen much higher than the baseline in most road projects. Barring
WAP1, the monthly turnover of the affected households has increased in the range of 4
to 88 percent in different road projects.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 33
3.10 In KSHIP, kuccha shops have declined from 47 percent in the baseline to 8 percent in
the sample PAFs; pucca structures have increased from 38 to 59 percent and semi
pucca has increased from 15 to 33 percent (TableA 3.7). In KRDCL, about 56 percent of
commercial structures are pucca structures and 38 percent are semi-pucca, higher
than control population. There is no perceptible change in the type of commercial
structures from the baseline period. The largest proportion of these structures is pan
shops (44 percent), tea shops (23 percent) and barber shops (6.5 percent). In KRDCL,
pan shops and tea shops are distributed at 38 and 35 percent respectively.
Indebtedness
3.11 Table A3.8 and A3.9 shows the level of Indebtedness among baseline and sample
households in KRDCL and KSHIP Projects. There is substantial increase in the level of in-
debtedness in KRDCL projects; from 9.2 percent of the affected PAPs to about 60
percent among the sample households. Banks accounted for 61 percent of the loan
provided while 9 percent came from the money lenders and the remaining from oth-
er sources. While 85 percent loan of the borrowing during the baseline period was for
purposes of business, this has declined to 54 percent in the sample households. The
share of agriculture (28 percent) and house construction (12 percent) in the total bor-
rowings has on the other hand increased from the baseline.
3.12 About 62 percent of the sample households are indebted in KSHIP from just about 6
percent during the baseline period. Institutional sources (banks) accounted for 52
percent of the loan amount, while 20 percent came from the money lenders and 28
percent from other sources (chit funds, relatives, friends etc.). Among the different
categories of sample households, the highest level of indebtedness is seen among
commercial tenants (83 percent) followed by commercial squatters (61 percent) and
the least indebted were the residential titleholders (33 percent). About 77 percent of
the loan was taken for business purposes followed by house construction at 11 per-
cent, agriculture at 8 percent and social functions at 6 percent.
Living Standards and Poverty Assessment of Displaced People
3.13 Impoverishment is a looming risk in displacement. Productively re-establishing a dis-
placed family and community is bound to exceed the market value of the physical
losses on the affected PAP, their families and the community as a whole. Poverty is
now recognised as a multi-dimensional phenomenon. As much as the difficulty of ac-
curately assessing income in an informal setting, the very exercise of focusing on in-
come alone, is not enough to capture the true reality of poverty. It is now universally
accepted that poverty is not just lack of income, but a capability deprivation. It is also
about being deprived of basic needs for normal human existence viz. access to
clean water, sanitation, healthcare and education16. Health, education and physical
infrastructure are central to the capabilities of individuals. The extent of their presence
determines whether the poor will remain so or exit poverty permanently.
16 Increasingly, social scientists have devised different approaches to understanding poverty without
relying on income. Some of these are the basic needs approach, material deprivation, subjective
well-being, and the capability approach. In the 1970s Amartya Sen proposes the ‘capability
approach’ as a framework to understand development and specifies that poverty is a ‘capability
deprivation’. He argues that income is not a satisfactory space to evaluate the well-being of
individuals.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 34
3.14 The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) captures ten indicators across these three
broad areas. The MPI looks beyond income to understand how people experi-
ence poverty in multiple and simultaneous ways. It identifies how people are
being left behind across three key dimensions: health, education and living
standards. The Study made an effort to calculate the MPI for the residents of each of
the RCs.17, both pre and post relocation. The pre-relocation values have been col-
lected on recall basis. The results are given in Table 3.2. The multi-dimensional poverty
decreased from 42 percent to 10 percent in Hunasagi; 28 to 8 percent in Timmapur
and 33 percent to 16 percent in Savdatti. The MPI values declined from 0.15 to 0.04 in
Hunasagi; 0.12 to 0.03 in Timmapur and 0.18 to 0.12 in Savadatti18. The significant re-
duction in MPI is owing to an improvement in the living standard indicators (electricity,
sanitation, house floor, cooking fuel and assets ownership) while education and
health indicators largely maintained status quo. For the entire relocated sample
households MPI declined from 0.14 to 0.06 and the number of multi-dimensionally poor
declined from 39 percent to 11 percent.
Table 3.2 MPI Pre and Post Relocation
Hunasagi Timmapur Savadati Total
Pre-Relocation
Head Count (multi-dimensional) 42.1% 27.8% 32.6% 39%
MPI 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.14
Post Relocation
Head Count Poor (multi-dimensional) 10% 8.2% 15.8% 11%
MPI 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.06
3.15 The analysis of aggregates often leave out some critical elements that may merit at-
tention. Table 3.3 shows the percentage of deprivation (pre and post relocation)
among the sample residential displaced households across these major indicators.
Significant improvement is seen in the housing and living condition (house floor, sani-
tation facility, electrification, cooking fuel and consumer durable assets). However,
open defecation is reported to have increased from 79 percent to 100 percent; ac-
cessibility (distance to travel) to drinking water has declined. Accessibility to health in-
frastructure has also declined for relocated community in Hunasagi (primarily be-
cause of poor access roads).
3.16 Independent toilets and separate bath for each of the relocated household does not
in itself address issues of open defecation. In the present case 100 percent independ-
ent sanitation facility coexists with 100 percent open defecation in the resettlement
centres. Secondly, in addition to providing a liveable area with basic infrastructure, it
is also extremely important to focus on accessibility to health and social infrastructure
and provision of good access roads.
17 MPI was first published in the Human Development Report of 2010 and is widely discussed,
used and applied. 18 A person is considered multi-dimensionally poor if his household is deprived in at least 30 percent
of the weighted indicators. MPI consists of two components, first the percentage of multi-
dimensional poverty and second the intensity of poverty.
MPI = H*I
Where, H is the percentage of people who are Multi dimensionally poor; and A is the average
intensity of poverty across the poor
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 35
Table 3.3 Multi-Dimensional Poverty Indicators Pre and Post Relocation
Broad Areas Indicators Pre Post
Living
Standards
House Floor (Mud/dung) 79.31 31.03
Sanitation facility (Independent) 20.69 100
Sanitation facility (Open defecation) 79.31 100
Drinking water/30-minute walk to & fro from home 68.97 31.03
Electrified (Number & %) 20.69 68.97
Cooking fuel 62.07 100
Household Assets
Education Access to Primary school within 5 kms 86.21 89.66
School-aged child not attending school up to Class 8 - -
Health Accessible and functioning government hospital 58.62 44.83
Non-insured chronically ill family member - -
Utilization of Compensation/Resettlement Assistances
3.17 A major concern in all resettlement projects is the misutilization of compensa-
tion/resettlement in unproductive uses. The KSHIP project fares well in this regard.
About 80 percent of the compensation/resettlement assistances have been utilized
for resurrecting business; 5 percent for house construction; 3 percent for clearing debt;
2 percent for saving. Marriage and social functions only made up for two percent of
the spending. Purchase of land formed less than 1 percent.
Figure 3.2 Utilization of Compensation/Resettlement Assistances
Level of Satisfaction on Resettlement Implementation
3.18 An important component of the evaluation study is to understand the perception of
the community with regard to resettlement implementation. The aspects on which the
feedback of the community was collected included the compensation rates, reset-
tlement and rehabilitation assistances, compensation/R & R payment process, func-
tioning of community assets, grievance redressal, overall resettlement implementation
etc. A qualitative question was also added in terms of their perception about savings
and income post relocation.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 36
3.19 The perception about resettlement implementation is provided in Table A3.10. More
than two-thirds of the PAPs in KRDCL were satisfied with the compensation rates. This
was slightly lower at 60 percent in KSHIP. While 62 percent of people in KSHIP were
satisfied with the R & R assistances, the proportion was significantly higher in KRDCL
where assistances have been entirely paid as per the 2013 Act. In KRDCL, about 87
percent of the commercial squatters and 80 percent of all the PAPs were satisfied
with the assistances received for resettlement. More than 90 percent of the PAPs in
both KSHIP and KRDCL were satisfied with the payment process.
3.20 About the perception of impact on income in KSHIP projects, 32 percent of PAPs con-
veyed increase in income; 52 percent shared that there is no change from the pre
project phase and 15 percent shared that their income has declined. On the other
hand, in KRDCL, where the quantum of benefits was as per the new land acquisition
Act, 53 percent of PAPs have conveyed increase in income; 34 percent have re-
mained as they were and only 13 percent shared that their income has declined. In
terms of overall resettlement implementation, 69 and 80 percent were satisfied in
KSHIP and KRDCL respectively.
Impact on Women
3.21 About 20 percent of land compensation has been paid to women titleholders in
KSHIP. Similarly, out of the total beneficiaries who were extended R & R assistance,
about 20 percent were female headed households in KRDCL (Table A3.11). It is now
widely recognised that women bear disproportionate burden of displacement and
require special attention at each stage of resettlement implementation. Special at-
tention to address women’s needs is required for resettlement site planning, housing,
sanitation, location of social amenities, accessibility to health and education infra-
structure and livelihood restoration. The parameters successfully considered in LARR
implementation in KSHIP and that requiring further improvements given in Table 3.4.
3.22 Majority of the women in the sample households acknowledged that they were con-
sulted during the planning stage of the project (74.6 percent). For the relocated
households in the resettlement colony, the greatest advantage is the security of title
as they always lived under the constant threat of eviction. Women of all resettlement
colonies were comfortable in their new space in terms of physical safety and security
(100 percent). Given group relocation, social networks are intact. Pucca houses (in
comparison to their earlier ones) along with separate kitchen, more usage of cooking
gas, and possession of consumer durable assets now offer them better comfort and
living conditions.
3.23 However, the areas that women felt required more attention of the project staff was
provision of drinking water, livelihood support, child care centres and functioning toi-
lets (lack of water/poor construction quality that has prevented their usage). Also, an
ignored parameter is the requirement of special support to be extended to women
headed households to consolidate documentation requirements for land acquisition
award enquiry and facilitate the timely receipt of compensation by such households.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 37
Table 3.4 Engendering LARR
S. No Parameters Successfully Considered in resettlement
1 Special consultation with women during planning stage
2 Security of title to squatter families
3 Site selection has ensured physical safety and women felt comfortable in their
new surroundings
4 Relocation of entire community has ensured proximity to social network and
facilitated their continued socio-cultural relationship
5 Separate kitchen and separate bath in the relocated houses have provided
better living conditions
Parameters Requiring Improvement
1 Support for focussed livelihood opportunities for women
2 Provision of assured drinking water facilities in the RC or near vicinity to reduce
drudgery
3 Functioning toilets with water to prevent open defection
4 Child care centres and access to health infrastructure
5 Support to women headed households during land acquisition award enquiry
and claims distribution
3.24 Vulnerable Households: The Project facilitated government pensions to those who
were eligible and not covered as well as additional cash support. The additional cash
support received by the household along with other R & R assistances is generally uti-
lised for the betterment of business or construction of house. The Study team interact-
ed with several such vulnerable people across different projects. The elderly/widow
beneficiaries conveyed a greater sense of dignity and respect in the family after re-
ceiving the special support.
Broad Findings regarding Different Categories of Impacted PAPs and Core Issues
3.25 In addition to the comprehensive primary survey, the findings of which have been
summarized above, the Study team visited all important roads by KSHIP and KRDCL
and organised FGDs/interviews with impacted people belonging to different catego-
ries. The key findings are summarized below.
3.26 Physically Resettled at Resettlement Colonies: There are four resettlement colonies in
KSHIP, three comprising of non-titleholder families at Hunasagi, Thimmapur, Savadatti
and one resettlement Centre where plots were distributed to titleholder families in
Gowrapura, Hanagal and Haveri. The resettlement centres have all been constructed
on government land. Security of tenure is the most cited advantage cited by the re-
settled communities. While the improvement in the general living conditions is vis-à-vis
their pre-settlement scenario, there are certain issues that would require immediate
attention of the authorities. The observations and recommendations of the Study
team are presented at the end of each case study. The Gourapura Resettlement
Centre at Hanagal, where seven plots were distributed to titleholder families on the
other hand is causing hardships owing to non-transfer of titles, lack of power supply
and water related issues. A case study of each of the Resettlement Centre is provided
in Boxes 3.1 to 3.4.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 38
Box-3.1 Hunasagi Resettlement Colony (WAP IV)
Hunasagi is a town in Shorapur taluk of Yadgir district. The movement of inhabitants from
a squatter settlement to a resettlement colony can be perceived as a rise in the status
of slum dwellers. However, often the squatters do not prefer to move away from their
desperate living conditions to a more secure settlement, fearing adverse impact on their
livelihood opportunities. This is not the case of 27 families of Hunasagi Resettlement
colony. All the residents of her previous squatter settlement were resettled at the colony,
about 8 kms from their original settlement. The inhabitants occupied the colony in
January, 2018. Primarily, labourers, they (both men and women) have been able to find
work nearby that fetch them about 100-150 per day.
Well laid out roads, power connection, pucca houses with separate baths/toilets and
which they afford them comfort of security (without fear of dislocation), the inhabitants
conveyed their utmost satisfaction with the resettlement process and implementation
and facilities in the new area vis-à-vis the earlier settlement. That the title to the land will
be distributed to them in a short while have also enthused the community. The
transferred title for the house will provide them right to sell after 10 years. This
resettlement colony has a temple for the Hindus (all inhabitants are Hindus) and an
Anganwadi building. The old people in the resettlement colony are receiving the old
age pensions.
The only issue that was raised by the community was with regard to failure of the project
in providing them with water. Located in an area with lower water table, the bore well
constructed by the project is not functioning. On an average, a member of the
household has to walk about 1.7 Kms (one way) to fetch drinking water. Given lack of
water, open defecation is the only way out for the community. The community
requested for an early resolution for the issue. The community also requested
appointment of anganwadi staff from within the community. Presently the old people
take care of the young ones when their parents go out to earn their livelihood.
Resettlement Site-Hunasagi
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 39
Resettled Community-Hunasagi Colony
Anganvadi Building Temple at the Hunasagi Colony
Property Papers
3.27 Observations: The community spoke in unison that they are utmost happy in the new
resettlement area sans the issue of water. The neatly maintained infrastructure and
the efforts of the project staff in attending to the needs of the squatter families and
ensuring better living conditions deserves utmost appreciation. The need to fix the
drinking water issue merits urgent attention of the project staff. Lack of water has also
meant compulsion to engage in open defection. The constructed toilets remain un-
used.
3.28 The study team observed that distance to social infrastructure/amenities (schools,
hospitals, fair price shops etc.) has increased for the community. The kuccha road
that leads us to the resettlement colony takes considerable time for commutation
and could be fatal in case of urgent hospitalisation requirements besides presenting
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 40
immense hardship for the school going children (about 30 children from the colony at-
tends the nearby school that is about 4.5 kms away). Ensuring good road that can
provide easy/faster access deserves the urgent attention of the project authorities.
The 2013 LARR Act (applicable for lands acquired) mandates accessibility to 25 im-
portant infrastructural amenities at the resettlement site and though the legislation
provides these entitlements to titleholder families/those staying there for a period of
more than three years and without homestead land, the KSHIP entitlement matrix is
progressive in extending the benefits to squatter families identified during the survey.
As per the information received from KSHIP and after the visit of the team, the drinking
water issue has been attended to. The few remaining works, particularly improving the
state of roads would have to be taken up on priority basis.
Box-3.2-Timmapur Resettlement Colony
WEP-3 (Dharwad-Savdatti)
Timmapur resettlement colony, situated in Dharwad district and home to 14 squatter
families was constructed in the year 2011. The resettlement centre is situated at a
distance of 10 kms from their original habitation. Repositioning the 14 squatter families
from an uncertain settlement and an environment where threat of eviction existed to a
structured resettlement colony with pucca houses; can be seen as a marked elevation in
their lives. The resettlement colony has pucca houses with separate kitchen and
bathrooms; fledged with all basic necessities such as water, electricity and well laid out
road that connects the community of Timmapur to the nearby hospital and school.
The community is grateful of a secure place as well as for the ownership of titles that
provides them the right to sell after the completion of the ten years, a right that they have
the discretion of exercising in another three years. The group resettlement meant that
there has been no breakdown of community life that they were used to. The women
conveyed that they feel more secure in the RC than in their earlier place.
Timmapur Resettlement Colony
Presently, the community is earning their livelihood in sheep rearing and construction work
fetching a daily wage of about Rs.400. The commutation cost of Rs. 50 incurred for a to
and fro journey to the workplace is an additional expenditure after shifting to the RC. Lack
of drinking water, poor construction of toilets that leave the households with no option but
to practice open defecation, chargeable electricity bills are issues raised by the
community. More than the time taken (about two hours to and fro) to fetch water, it is the
resentment of the residents from the nearby village from where they get the water that is
of greater concern to the community. Some focused initiatives for livelihood support for
women was another demand put forth by the women folks.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 41
Temple Borewell
Focus Group Discussion with women of the Resettlement Colony
3.29 Observations: The RC is located at a convenient distance (2 kms) from all the basic
amenities (schools, hospital, fair price shops etc.). The environment is safe and secure
for women. Though the RC is located at some distance from the work site of non-
agricultural labourers, access is not considered a big factor by the residents. Open
defecation is however an issue of concern. Lack of functioning toilets and drinking
water are therefore significant issues that require attention of project authorities.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 42
Box-3.3 - Savadatti Resettlement Colony (WEP 3)
In 2011, eight squatter families moved to the small resettlement colony of Savadatti.
Situated at a distance of about 3 kms from their original habitation, relocation did not
impact their access to livelihood sources. Both pre and post relocation, majority of the
inhabitants of the colony have been engaged in labour work. The colony has eight
pucca houses (constructed by Nimrit Kendra), a common borewell and separate
washrooms, well connected by the road adjacent to the colony.
A common issue raised by the inhabitants of the colony is lack of regular water supply
at the resettlement site. The existing water supply, constructed by the project fetches
water twice a week for a limited duration of 2 hours. However, this limited water supply
does not prove to be sufficient for the populace of approximately 60-70 individuals. To
overcome the deficiency, the inhabitants of the resettlement colony fetch water from
a source at a distance of 2 kms. This water is mainly used for drinking purpose. Lack of
regular supply has prevented the community from using the toilets and open
defecation remains the only option. Women folk appeared very happy with their new
neat surroundings and there were no concerns with their security as well.
Savadatti Resettlement Colony
Borewell Tank fixed by Residents
3.30 Observations: The entire discussion with the resettled community focused on the
issue of water and their discomfort owing to the limited supply. While this remains,
an area requiring intervention and improvement, the Study team observed that
the location of the RC ensures easy access to other important social infrastructure
(education and medical facilities). Undoubtedly, in terms of living conditions, the
resettled community is leading a vastly better life in contrast to the earlier settle-
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 43
ment (with a constant threat of dislocation). The heightened aspiration levels are
also reflected in the demands for mobile towers (for improved mobile connectivity
inside their house) and pucca internal roads. It is also apparent that the plot
owned by the community and situated just adjacent to the highway, will continue
to be their most prized asset.
Box-3.4 Gourapura Layout – RC, Hanagal (WEP 2)
The Gourapura layout has 22 plots, out of which 7 plots have been allotted to
titleholder families. Besides the residential titleholders of Sanguru and Gowrapura village
who were displaced by the road project (WEP 2A-Link T8), the project has formally
allotted a plot to a squatter single-headed family (female).
Besides compensation for land and structure cost, the titleholders received benefits of
subsistence and shifting allowance amounting to Rs. 1.4 lakhs and construction cost of
66,000. An additional assistance of Rs.40,000 under the vulnerable category was
extended to one of the household (Savitravva, whose husband is physically
handicapped). At present, the RC has only three constructed houses, including the one
in which the old lady who squatted from before. The two other houses are in stark
contrast; one is a pucca house with electricity line and separate baths/toilet and the
other a semi-pucca structure with limited basic amenities. The two families conveyed
their extreme disappointment with the delay in transfer of titles and lack of power
supply.
3.31 Observations: This resettlement site requires urgent attention of the authorities. Land
titles are yet to be transferred and there is no power supply. The remaining plot own-
ers have therefore not constructed their houses yet. Due to paucity of water, the resi-
dents are forced to resort to open defection.
3.32 Commercial Squatters/Tenants: Commercial squatters (whose shops had to be de-
molished) comprised the largest category of major impacted categories among the
sample households. There are 963 commercial squatters in KSHIP projects and 357 in
KRDCL. The Study conducted a sample survey of 285 households from KSHIP projects
and 52 PAPs from KRDCL projects belonging to this category. The Study team also
conducted FGDs and unstructured interviews with 60 commercial squatters. On a
general note, the project has been beneficial to those who have managed to resur-
rect their business along the roads. The major findings regarding the socio-economic
impact on the impacted categories is reflected in the following tables:
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 44
The compensation payments have generally been timely and none of the PAFs had
any complaints neither with the quantum nor with the process.19
The turnover has generally increased after the construction of roads and some of them
have diversified their business.
Nearly all the commercial squatters interviewed (brief cases in the Annexure) have
purchased additional assets in their shops and hence there has been a marked
improvement in the nature of business as well as quality of shops.
The training conceptualised in the RAP has not materialized owing to many reasons.
There is no confidence in starting a new business; PAPs wanted to continue in the same
profession and hence have not opted for training. No separate budget was however
provisioned for the activity.
There are squatters who are yet to resurrect their business in the stretches of land that
are yet to be completed, who could not get access to government land and who find
the rental for land to set up their business on private land not economically viable.
Some The rehabilitation assistances received have been spent for consumption needs.
3.33 Residential Titleholders: Majority of residential titleholders in both KRDCL and KSHIP are
satisfied with the compensation rates and R & R assistances. The Study team visited a
number of houses constructed by the displaced project affected families and the
housing conditions were much improved. There are few issues that merit attention:
The Study team came across some cases where lower entitlements as applicable to
non-titleholders have been extended to those title-holders whose compensation is
deposited in the Court. The Study team considers this as unavoidable only in case of
non-clear titles/title disputes (as discussed earlier, all cases of compensation deposit
do not belong to this category). Prompt release of balance entitlements when the
land owners withdraw the compensation from the Court should be ensure in such
cases. According to KSHIP, there are only five such cases.
Three economically vulnerable residential titleholders (WAPI -63B,
P.Honnamachanahalli village) had purchased the land and constructed their
houses long time back. However, their documents were not complete and hence
compensation was deposited in the court. These households have only received R &
R assistances as applicable for residential squatters. Their houses on the road side
are in semi-constructed /dilapidated state condition and would require urgent help
to tide over the crisis. The project authorities may provide necessary assistances to
these vulnerable households.
3.34 Land Owners Whose Lands were Severed: Adequate compensation in land acquisi-
tion mandates the payment of open market value of the land taken plus its conse-
quences including severance, injurious affection and disturbances. When a portion
of land is left out from acquisition, there could be the following consequences:
There could be a diminution in the value of the land that is left out for which some
compensation has to be allowed.
The agricultural productivity may be adversely impacted with land falling on both
sides of the road.
19 Except in one case where shops of commercial tenants in commercial complex owned by Wakf
Board (WAP 1) were demolished before removing R & R entitlements.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 45
The value of lands may increase for its non-agricultural use
3.35 Section 28 of the 2013 LARR Act provides for land severance as one of the factor in
determining compensation by the Collector (damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of
severing such land from his other land. However, since the amount is not quantified in
the legislation, the provision is more often ignored. For an agriculturalist, the first two
factors may be more important. The KSHIP entitlement matrix is progressive in provid-
ing for 25 percent higher compensation to landowners whose land gets severed by
the construction of roads between their agricultural lands. While KRDCL payment
release reflects the payment of the severance along with compensation to appli-
cable cases; in KSHIP, few instances came to the fore whereby landowners shared
that they did not receive the amount and the officials pointed out that necessary
documents proving severance would have to be submitted by the landowner.
These cases would have to be further verified.
3.36 The field survey reflects elements of dissatisfaction among the affected landowners
by way of the value of land taken, severances, injurious affections, disturbances
and delivery of notices. While the KSHIP entitlement matrix addresses the first issue
relating to the land severance and compensation per se, it ignores the second i.e.
the livelihood impact of such severance. This is especially the case when the given
landowner does not own land elsewhere.
3.37 Other Prominent Issues Raised by PAPs with the Study Team: On the whole, the PAPs
were satisfied with the resettlement implementation and the assistances received.
They were also satisfied with the hassle-free receipt of their R & R entitlements. As in
any other road projects, the land value has increased manifolds bringing in a windfall
gain for the landowners. The better quality of roads is also bringing economic benefits
to the households through improved accessibility and better living standards. There
were however some grievances raised by the affected people during the visit of the
study team to various projects. These are categorized into compensation related;
contractor related; and transparency related (some photographs in Annexure IV).
Given the short duration of the Study, the veracity of some of the complaints could
not be assessed.
3.38 Entitlements related:
While the quantum of R & R assistances (especially after the 2013 Act) was
appreciated, the quantum of compensation did not satisfy landowners especially in the
bypasses (Sampagaon bypass; Chikerur bypass of KRDCL; Koratagere bypass of KSHIP
etc.). Lack of market value updation; difference in nature of land in revenue records
and on the ground etc. were cited as prominent issues.
Perceived meager compensation for land severance and varying compensation rates
for adjoining lands in the same village.
A large number of complaints related to deposit of compensation into the Court.
In KRDCL, there are several stretches where land is not acquired owing to multiple
reasons. The landowners are requesting for resurvey, disagreements over
compensation, delay in the submission of document etc.
Additional assistances for commercial tenants who received R & R assistances after
their dislocation and who had to remain unemployed for more than a year
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 46
No confidence in starting new business and more handholding support requested.
3.39 Contract work related:
Higher road elevation causing access related issues to residential houses on the
roadsides
Inundation of water in the fields/residential areas
Drainage not constructed/poor drainage resulting in stagnation of waste water
Cutting of trees beyond the impacted area
3.40 Lack of Transparency Related
Acquiring more land than envisaged as per DPR
Land shown in different names in compensation awards as per earlier land records
3.41 Conclusion: The Chapter presented the findings relating to socio-economic impact of
the project on the affected people besides a summary of the discussions held by the
Study team with different impacted categories. The key socio-economic indicators
were presented in Table 3.1 and additional details are provided in the Annexure Ta-
bles. The overall living standards of the affected people as reflected in terms of key
socio economic indicators (housing standards; ownership of assets; size/quality of
commercial structures and monthly turnover; quality of life in resettlement colony) has
improved considerably. The assessment of poverty through multi-dimensional poverty
index reveals that poverty declined from 39 percent in the pre project period to 11
percent post relocation. About 76 percent of sampled households conveyed their sat-
isfaction regarding resettlement implementation in KSHIP II. On the impact of resettle-
ment on women, aspects like security of title in resettlement colonies, group reloca-
tion and general better housing conditions post relocation have impacted women
positively. However, lack of drinking water and functioning toilets are issues requiring
urgent attention of project authorities. FGDs and interviews with over 60 commercial
structure losers have revealed that the project has been extremely beneficial to those
households who have been able to resurrect their business along the roads (increased
turnover, purchase of additional assets etc.).
3.42 The important issues requiring attention of project authorities in resettlement colonies
include lack of drinking water supply, lack of functioning toilets, access roads etc.
squatter inhabited RCs; non-distribution of land titles and lack of electricity provision-
ing to residential titleholders who were allotted plots in Gowrapura and special sup-
port for vulnerable households who are struggling to withdraw their compensation
from the Court. The other common grievances in KSHIP II relates to inadequate com-
pensation rate for lands in some bypasses (Sampagaon & Cikerur bypass of KRDCL;
Kortagere bypass of KSHIP etc.), lack of adequate coverage of losses caused by land
severance, inconveniences and financial losses to landowners in withdrawal of com-
pensation from the Court etc. These entail both outstanding actions by the project
authorities before the closure of the project and adequate measures to present their
occurrences in future projects.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 47
CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
4.1 The End Term Evaluation Study of LARR Implementation of KSHIP-II was commissioned
to evaluate the outcome of land acquisition and R & R implementation in different
road projects of KSHIP and KRDCL. The Study Report, an outcome of extensive analysis
of primary and secondary data reflects the positive impact of the project initiatives on
the various impacted categories and their living standards. The Study also compre-
hensively reflected upon various procedural aspects of resettlement implementation.
The Chapter summarises the key aspects of LARR implementation, key outcomes of
LARR implementation and good practices in KSHIP II. The Study also includes the out-
standing actions on behalf of the project authorities with some recommendations for
future projects.
LARR Implementation Process
4.2 Land Acquisition for KSHIP II has largely caused minor impacts. More than 83 percent
of the landowners lost less than 506 sqms of land (88 percent in KRDCL and 81 percent
in KSHIP) and less than 1 percent of landowners in both KRDCL and KSHIP lost more
than one acre of land. Private land acquired for the project included 83 percent of
private land, 16 percent of private land and the remaining commercial/residential
land (KRDCL acquired only 5.5 percent of irrigated land as against 20 percent in
KSHIP). About 80 percent of land owners in KSHIP and all the landowners in KRDCL
were paid compensation under the 2013 land acquisition Act. The average time tak-
en for the land acquisition in KSHIP II is 1.96 years. About 41 percent of land acquisition
awards in KSHIP II were passed in less than a year (46 percent in KSHIP against 23 per-
cent in KRDCL) while 22 percent of awards covering 48 percent of land extent took
more than three years (52 percent land extent in KSHIP as against 39 percent in
KRDCL). In terms of awards composition, 80 percent of the awards in KRDCL and
about half of the awards in KRDCL were consent awards. The vast divergence be-
tween average sales value and guidance value (in few cases) may require in-depth
analysis.
4.3 About 1.65 acres of lands are not under possession in KRDCL. Additional land acquisi-
tion is still under process in 20/2 acres in KSHIP/KRDCL. The Study found variations in
land supply to contractors as per the contract timeline and has made recommenda-
tions for future projects. About 25 percent of the total compensation in KSHIP and 10
percent of the compensation in KRDCL is still deposited in the court. The Study finds
that withdrawal of compensation from the court has caused considerable inconven-
iences, delays and financial cost to the landowners.
LARR Implementation Outcomes
4.4 Overall Socio-economic improvement of Impacted PAPs in different Categories: The
Study reflects the success of the LARR implementation in the upliftment of living
standards of the PAPs. The post resettlement phase of the PAPs, captured through
various indicators; standard of housing, possession of consumer durable assets and
economic parameters of the commercial structure losers saw significant improve-
ment. The housing conditions of the relocated people is much improved, both for ti-
tleholders and non-title-holders (self-relocated and in the resettlement colony). For
KSHIP II as a whole, the proportion of pucca houses increased from 25 percent to 75
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 48
percent, houses with separate kitchen from 70 percent to 98 percent and separate
bath from 70 percent to 76 percent, with data for both KSHIP and KRDCL showing no-
table improvement. The living standards of the community residing in the resettlement
colony in KSHIP has seen notable upgradation. The proportion of houses with
mud/dung floor no longer exists (from 79 percent in the baseline); houses with inde-
pendent toilet increased from 21 percent to 100 percent; electrified houses from 62
percent to 100 percent and proportion of households using cooking fuel has in-
creased from 21 percent to 69 percent. The ownership of assets among the affected
households has seen significant increase from the baseline in both KSHIP and KRDCL.
For the project as a whole, the percentage of households possessing television in-
creased from 72 to 88 percent; fridge from 6 to 20 percent; telephone from 22 to 93
percent; two wheeler from 32 to 45 percent; four wheeler from 3 to 17 percent).
4.5 Similarly, there is also notable improvement in the size of commercial structure (from 8
sqm to 31 Sqm. in KRDCL) and quality of commercial structures of the impacted
households (proportion of kucha houses declined from 47 to 8 percent; pucca houses
increased from 38 to 59 percent and semi pucca increased from 15 to 33 percent) in
KSHIP II. The proportion of commercial structure losers employing people in business,
reflecting better prospects increased from 12 percent in the baseline to 41 percent in
KRDCL. The utilization of compensation/resettlement assistance have largely been
productive; 80 percent for resurrecting business; 5 percent for house construction and
just about 2 percent for marriage and social functions. Women who accounted for 20
percent of titleholders receiving compensation shared positive feedback regarding
LARR implementation process. About 75 percent of the sample households shared
adequate consultation and 100 percent of women in the resettlement colony shared
a physically/emotionally secured environment (with land titles in their name) as the
biggest advantage of relocation. About 62/66 percent affected people in KSHIP II
conveyed their satisfaction with compensation/R& R assistances in KSHIP II. KRDCL,
where the compensation and R & R assistances have been disbursed as per the re-
vised entitlement matrix showed higher satisfaction at 68 percent and 80 percent re-
spectively. 92 percent of all the affected people were satisfied with compensation
payment process in KSHIP and 70 percent with the grievance redressal.
4.6 Improvement in the Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI): The post resettlement liv-
ing standards of the relocated communities reflected by the MPI shows remarkable
improvement in reducing both the number of multi dimensionally poor as well as the
intensity of poverty among the relocated people in the resettlement colonies. The
multi-dimensional poverty declined from 39 percent in the pre project period to 11
percent post relocation, the MPI (reflecting both headcount and poverty intensity)
declined from 0.14 to 0.06.
4.7 Social Inclusion of Non-Title-holder Households: Inclusive growth necessitates paying
special attention to the economically underprivileged and vulnerable. The Entitlement
matrix of KSHIP captures the impacts holistically and extends R & R benefits to the non-
titleholders and vulnerable households. In KSHIP II, the non-titleholder beneficiaries
comprising the commercial squatters (54 percent) and residential squatters (6 per-
cent) comprise 60 percent of the major impacted categories. The Study reflected the
improved living standards of both the self-relocated and project sponsored relocated
households. The Study also found that the timely R & R assistances have enabled most
of the commercial squatter households to purchase assets/make small investments in
their existing business as well as improving their living standards.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 49
4.8 Effective Utilisation of Compensation/Resettlement Assistances: In most LARR projects,
an important issue faced is the difficulty in providing in-kind compensation (land for
land) to the affected communities and the misutilization of cash compensation into
unproductive uses. KHSIP II project has been a success in this regard. More than 80
percent of the amount were utilised by the PAPs in resurrecting business.
Good Practices in LARR Implementation
4.9 Extension of compensation/R & R norms as per 2013 Act: KSHIP II project not only
promptly introduced the 2013 Act norms but also extended it to all awards passed af-
ter 1st January, 2014.
4.10 High Compensation Standards: KSHIP is unique among the projects in India providing
for 25 percent additional compensation than that arrived as per the 2013 Act to those
who come forward for consent award.
4.11 Entitlements for non-titleholders (government land) and vulnerable people: While land
acquisition Act addresses the impacts on private land, this leaves out the people on
government land which is not acquired but resumed by the government. Also, the
vulnerable households are more impacted from any acquisition process requires addi-
tional support. KSHIP II provided entitlement to those squatting/encroaching on gov-
ernment land besides providing additional entitlement to vulnerable households.
4.12 Increases in prescribed R & R entitlements to account for cost/inflation factor: There is
a 10 percent annual increase in the R & R entitlements than prescribed by the 2013
Act. The PAPs who received their entitlements in 2015-2018 received an increase of
annual 10 percent in their respective entitlements. The KSHIP project is unique in im-
plementing this progressive provision.
4.13 Defining Thresholds for R & R Entitlements: The 2013 Act has certain grey areas in not
providing thresholds for R&R implementation. KSHIP II provides for an entitlement ma-
trix that interprets the central legislation and provides for thresholds for construction of
resettlement colony, definition of livelihood losers etc. (though this could be made
more progressive).
4.14 From replacement of community assets to addressing a holistic issues of a region:
While reconstruction of CPR is usually undertaken in a mechanical fashion, the water
supply system in Pavagada (WAP I package) that assures water supply to a severely
water scarce village deserves appreciation not only for achievement of its objectives
but also the sensitivity and commitment to address the issues impacting communities
holistically.
Outstanding Actions by KSHIP/KRDCL
4.15 The Study recognizes that in terms of release of compensation and resettlement assis-
tances, LARR implementation in KSHIP II is nearly complete. The success in LARR im-
plementation has also been outlined above. There are however few outstanding ac-
tions requiring proactive intervention of the project authorities. Both KSHIP/KRDCL may
complete the following in a time bound manner:
4.16 Court Deposits: Most of the road projects under KSHIP and KRCL have been complete
and there are only few obstructions caused by landowners in some road projects ow-
ing to LARR issues. However, many of the landowners on whose land the project has
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 50
already come up have been bereft of their compensation entitlements including rea-
sons other than relating to title disputes/or compensation enhancement (that can on-
ly be decided by the Court). The Study deems it extremely important for KSHIP/KRDCL
to take proactive measures to address the issue. It is also important to strengthen the
implementation arrangements in road packages where there are large court deposits
(WAP 1, WAP 2, WAP 3 and WEP 2). While expediting the completion of the project
within the targeted timeline should undoubtedly be a prime consideration, it is equally
important to assist the landowners in getting their entitled compensation released
from the court. The following are the recommendations of the Study. The following is
suggested.
Preparation of a database of landowners whose compensation is deposited in the
Court with reasons for the same.
Identification of those cases that are owing to reasons other than title
disputes/compensation enhancement.
Appointment of a legal officer in the HO/legal retainer in road packages with high
court deposits.
The legal cases pertaining to withdrawal of the compensation of those landowners
with complete documents may be taken up by the KSHIP/KRDCL appointed
lawyers.
For the compensation cheques awaiting revalidation (4.07 crores), efforts should be
made to pay directly to pay the landowners with clear documents.
Special attention and legal aid/assistance may be extended to vulnerable
titleholder households (WAP 1, 63B), discussed in para 3.33, Chapter III
Extension of services of the NGO in the selected road packages with high quantum
of court deposits. Alternatively, two/three welfare inspectors may be appointed with
specific responsibility, necessary infrastructure and incentive framework.
4.17 Addressing Issues in Resettlement Colonies: In KRDCL, an early construction of RC at
Tangadgi is the most important need of the hour. In KSHIP, distribution of titles to title-
holders in Hunasagi and Gowrapura layout should be a priority area. The project may
also proactively pursue with the local government to extend power supply in the lat-
ter. Also, issues relating to access roads (Hunasagi), lack of functioning toilets and
drinking water supply may be attended to on a priority basis in the resettlement colo-
nies.
4.18 Release of balance resettlement assistances to titleholder families: Assistance of bal-
ance entitlements (four households according to information shared by KSHIP)may be
released to eligible residential titleholders (who were paid resettlement assistances
applicable for non-titleholder category) who have had their compensation released
from the Court.
4.19 Reimbursement of income tax deducted: According to the November 2014 Entitle-
ment Matrix of KSHIP II project, all taxes including income tax were to be borne by
KSHIP/KRDCL. In KRDCL, TDS amounting to Rs. 44.99 lakhs were deducted from 67
landowners. In KSHIP, the total TDS deduction amounted to 6.71 lakhs from 7 land-
owners. KRDCL / KSHIP have to ensure that the land owners who do not get re-
imbursement or not eligible for re-imbursement are assisted as per the entitlement ma-
trix / Policy of the Government”. This may be done in a time bound manner.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 51
4.20 Obstructions and possession of remaining land: Land Acquisition process is currently
underway for about 20 acres of land in KSHIP and 2 acres in KRDCL. Further, despite
completion of LA process, substantial portion of land (1.61 acres) is not in the posses-
sion of KRDCL. The pending issues may be completed in a time bound manner by
both KRDCL/KSHIP.
4.21 Grievances relating to impacts of road construction: Issues raised by the community
relating to drainage, lack of access, stagnation of water in the fields etc. requires at-
tention. Monthly review meetings may be organized by the Project Head to monitor
the complaints received and the actions taken by the project.
Recommendations for Future Projects
4.22 Award of contracts: To expedite the construction work, contracts are awarded on the
assumption that by the time appointed date is declared, the project will be able to
arrange requisite clearances (forest/environment etc). However, the LARR implemen-
tation in KSHIP has revealed that the project authorities may fail to arrange land within
the appointed date. The delay in the completion of the project not only results in rev-
enue loss to the Government on account of delay in collection of toll fee and incon-
venience to public/road users, but also cost overruns and consequential claims by af-
fected concessionaires. Further, the ability of the project authority to fix accountability
of violation of contract terms get corroded owing to non-fulfilment of their own obli-
gations under the contract relating to delay in timely delivery of encumbrance free
land, It is therefore recommended that in future projects, projects may be awarded
only after all regulatory approvals (environment/forest related) are obtained for the
project and the required land is available in possession to avoid post-bid delays and
litigations. In other words, no project may be awarded unless 80 percent encum-
brance free land is available with the Project.
4.23 Addressing Staff Requirements & Turnover: Land records updation and rigorous claim
award enquiry process are extremely important for smooth and timely implementa-
tion of LA process. The two processes must be rigorously implemented so that finan-
cial/physical stress involved in withdrawal of compensation from court can be limited
to minimum number of landowners. KSHIP does not have a dedicated LA cadre and
LA is carried out through deputed/contractual staff. Given the issues in KSHIP, special
Land Cells in districts with greater land issues (where land records have not been up-
dated/large number of expired titleholders) may be helpful. Special land cells may be
constituted in such areas with dedicated manpower to expedite the land record up-
dation work. High turnover of LA staff is also an area of critical concern. It is important
to take initiatives to make the State Governments realize that time-bound execution
of the project will be highly beneficial for the growth of economy in the state and to
reduce staff turnover midway in the project.
4.24 Robust LA designs: There are frequent changes in the designs and alignments during
implementation stage (various reasons like use of outdated revenue maps form for
preparation of land acquisition plans, lack of ground verification etc.). The LA designs
should be robust so as to limit additional land acquisitions to bare minimum. Also, al-
ternative land for relocation has to be firmed up along and if not, suitable design
changes may be mandated early on. The deviations result in procedural delays, po-
tential for unhealthy practices, varying levels of compensation and considerable dis-
contentment among the community.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 52
4.25 Dedicated Fund for Addressing Post Construction Grievances: State highways cannot
be conceptualized in isolation without taking into account the issues that may impact
the population which resides in nearby areas on both sides of the highways. Issues of
access roads, drainage, inundation of water etc. are serious concerns that cannot be
ignored on the grounds of insufficient fund of financial liability. Contractors generally
quote low to win the contract and hence addressing such issues becomes difficult
owing to lack of provisioned budget for the same. A dedicated fund may be provid-
ed for to address such post construction grievances.
4.26 Broader definition of livelihood losers: The present standards of 50 sqm area for com-
mercial structure losers may still leave out genuine households who need livelihood
support. All commercial structure losers (titleholders) whose primary source of liveli-
hood (more than 50 percent of family income) is affected by the project may be ex-
tended the annuity/employment/five lakh package.
4.27 Adoption of definition of family in 2013 Act20: The LARR Act that treats adult members
of affected families as separate families may be extended to all physically and eco-
nomically displaced families on private land.
4.28 Redetermining Class of Land: That guidance value is in many cases not the true reflec-
tion of market value is reflected by the large differences between average sales val-
ue and market value. Though this does not fall within the ambit of KSHIP/KRDCL, an
important cause of community dissatisfaction with the land compensation arises from
the differences in class/nature of land in recorded entries and actual ground realities.
The notion of ‘potential’ in re-determining the class of land becomes critical. A High-
level Committee headed by the Collector (as is the practice in some states) to rede-
termine land class/nature after actual spot verification may be a good practice.
4.29 Court deposit to be confined to unclear titles/land disputes: With regard to compen-
sation payment, KHA states that the provisions of Sections 31 to 34 (of the Land Acqui-
sition Act, 1894, shall mutatis mutandis, apply to such payment. Section 31(2) of the
now repealed Land Acquisition Act (Section 77 sub section 2 of the 2013 Act) states
that “if they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to al-
ienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation
or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the com-
pensation in the Court”. The Court deposits are mandated by the above provision in
the statute.
4.30 While depositing compensation in the Court is a step that should follow land records
updation and a rigorous award enquiry process and not that can precede the same.
Procedural change to confine the court deposits to unclear land titles/title disputes
may help ease things. The compensation in case of delay in production of docu-
ments, lack of updation of records after the expiry of the landowner etc. should not
be deposited in the Court. Till the nature of issue for deposit is known, it would be ad-
visable to find alternate ways of deposit of compensation money like deposit in es-
20 Section 3 (m) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 defines family as a person, his or her spouse. minor
children. minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him; provided that widows. divorcees
and women deserted by families shall be considered separate families: Explanation: An adult
of either gender with or without spouse or children or dependents shall be considered as a
separate family for the purposes of this Act.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 53
crow account which would also accrue an interest amount besides ensuring hassle
free/ timely release of the compensation amount to the landowner.
4.31 Exemption to Income Tax: Compensation paid to land owners under KHA should also
be extended income tax exemptions as applicable under the Central Land Acquisi-
tion Act. The judicial Interpretation of the income tax exemption provision has been
progressive. The apex Court has held that the provision would apply to consent
awards under Land Acquisition Act (SC-Balakrishnan Vs. Respondent: Union of India
and Others) pointing out that merely because the compensation amount is not
agreed upon would not change the character of acquisition from that of compulsory
acquisition to the voluntary sale.
4.32 The Judiciary has therefore given a wider mandate to interpretation of the income tax
provision for compulsory acquisitions under land acquisition Act. Though the directions
from the Finance Ministry regarding exemption from income tax/tax deduction at
source specifically relates to land acquisition under the 2013 Act, the compensation
norms prescribed in the 2013 Act has been extended to KHA from 1st January, 2014.
The KHA is a state govt. legislation also dealing with compulsory acquisition of land.
Section 107 of the 2013 Act provides for any state to have better compensation
standards, implying that the 2013 Act norms sets the minimum benchmarks. This is with
a view to ensure that similarly placed landowners whose lands have been acquired
under various acquisition Acts provide at par entitlements to the landowners. Unless
tax exemptions are extended to the state legislations, there will be unfair treatment of
landowners whose lands are acquired under the state legislations like the KHA. The
Govt. of Karnataka may therefore have to proactively pursue with the Finance Minis-
try to make necessary inclusions of these state legislations for tax exemptions21.
4.33 Benefit of Additional compensation for landowners agreeing to consent award: The
additional compensation (25 percent of market value) may be denied only to those
who are not genuinely eligible for the same, those not accepting compensa-
tion/accepting compensation under protest. All others, including those who were
otherwise agreeable but who could not submit the required documents may be con-
sidered eligible for the additional amount.
4.34 Support to vulnerable households during LA process: The support to such households
may not only confine itself to extending additional assistances for R& R but also sup-
port during land acquisition process (claim award enquiry, collection of documents
etc.) and claim for compensation.
4.35 Improvement in the GRM: The following are some suggestions to improve the GRM;
To improve the transparency and confidence of the community, the Chairperson of
the GRC may be an outside expert;
A centralized GR information system must be developed that can consolidate
grievances from various levels;
21 It is pertinent to note that the Finance Act, 2017amends Income Tax Act to provide
exemption from tax on transfer of land under the Andhra Pradesh Capital City land pooling
scheme as well as on transfer of Land Pooling Ownership Certificates (LPOCs) or
reconstituted plot or land.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 54
A Grievance Officer may be appointed at the HQ level who would be responsible
for consolidation and ensuring necessary follow for timely action on the grievances
and necessary information to the complainant.
The District level committees are often not considered accessible by the community.
The Committee may be formed at a lower (taluka) level.
Introduction of a tollfree number to collect grievances. This will help the accessibility
issues associated with the existing GRM and also improved sorting of the grievances
according to the nature of the complaint.
Grievances and actions taken from the management side should be routinely
checked by higher level officials in the department hierarchy. It may be important
to consolidate the grievances at the KSHIP and KRDCL at the HO level through a
one-tracking system. At present, the grievance register is maintained in hard copy
form in KRDCL.
The GRM is not subject to any independent audit. A formal audit of the grievance
system may have lent greater credibility to the outside stakeholders but also monitor
the reasons behind low utilization of the system by the community.
Community involvement in grievance handling may prove beneficial in future
projects. Displaced Persons Committees can be formed at the Village level/taluka
(with women representatives) which can coordinate with the PIU in dispute
resolution and for the smooth running of project activities.
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 55
PART – II ANNEXURES
Table A1.1 Sample Plan in KSHIP
Package Commercial
Tenant
Titleholder
(Residential)
Squatter
(Residential)
Squatter
(Commercial)
N 18 6 40 285
WAP 1 11 0 11 96
WAP 2 0 0 0 61
WAEP 3 0 0 0 33
WAEP 4 0 4 12 50
WEP 1 0 0 0 5
WEP 2 7 2 0 11
WEP 3 0 0 17 5
WEP 4 0 0 0 21
WEP 5 0 0 0 3
Total (N) 18 6 40 285
Total 349
24
Landowners 63
Grand Total 436
Table A1.2 Sample Plan in KRDCL
Road No. Titleholder
(Residential)
Titleholder
(Commercial)
Squatter
(Commercial) Total
N 44 16 52 113
WACP 1 2 0 7 9
WACP 2 0 0 4 4
WACP 3 4 1 8 13
WACP 5 9 2 10 21
WACP 6 20 0 23 43
WACP 7 9 13 0 22
Total (N) 44 16 52 113
Total 113
Landowners 2
Control Group 51
Grand Total 166
Table A1.3 MPI – Dimensions and Indicators for Evaluation
Dimensions /
Weights Indicators (Deprivations)
Education/
(1/3)
School Infrastructure: No school within 5 Kms
School attendance: Any school-aged child not attending school up to class 8
Health
(1/3)
Vulnerable: Household has a non-insured chronically ill person in the family.
Health Infrastructure: No functioning/accessible hospital
Living
Standard
(1/3)
Electricity: Household has no electricity
Sanitation: Household does not have separate bath
Drinking water: Household does not have access to safe drinking water
Floor: Household has a dirt, sand or dung floor
Cooking Fuel: Household cooks with dung/wood/ charcoal
Assets ownership: Household does not own more than one asset Television;
Refrigerator, Telephone, Two/Four-wheeler, Tractors
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 56
Table A2.1 Land Details for Projects Implemented by KSHIP & KRDCL (Acres)
Package Road (Kms) Govt. Land Pvt. Land Sy Nos Pending Award
KSHIP 914.5 58.39 441.07 4516 20.00
KRDCL 360.9 12.03 159.5 2118 2.06
Grand Total 1275.4 70.42 600.57 6634 22.06
Table A2.2 Compensation Payment in KRDCL-Consent and General Award
Road
No.
Sy.
Nos
Total
Extent
(A-G)
Consent Award General award
%
S.Nos
%
Farmers
Land
Extent
% Per acre
compensation
(Rs. Lakhs)
% S.
Nos
Per acre
compensatio
n (Rs. Lakhs)
Total 2118 159-35 82.86 77.53 109-13 68.5 27.66 15.34 11.25
Table: A2.3 Compensation Payment in KSHIP-Consent and General Award
Package Total
Survey
Numbers
Awards Passed
before 1/1/2014
Awards Passed
After 1/1/2014
Total
General
Award
Consent
Award
General
Award
Consent
Award
General
Award
Consent
Award
Total 4516 494 203 1579 2217 2073 (45.90%) 2420 (53.59%)
* 23 Survey Numbers are pending award
Table A2.4 R & R Implementation in KSHIP (Titleholders and Non-titleholders)
Sl.
No. Type of Assistance
Target as
per RIP
Revised
target Progress %
1 2 3 4 5 6
Non-Title Holders
1 ID cards issued 1792 1790 1770 99.81
2 Allotment of House Plots 73 111 111 100.00
3 Construction grant for houses 73 111 111 100.00
4 Subsistence allowance paid 721 T 1125 1125 100.00
5 Shifting allowance paid 721 1201 1201 100.00
6 IGA Support provided 169 1077 1074 99.72
7 Replacement cost for Encroachers 249 575 572 99.48
8 Tenants / Tenant 5 116 116 100.00
9 Others 0 10 10 100.00
10 Vulnerable people receiving pension
from Government / assistance received 41 1039 1039 100.00
11 No. of PAPs received all benefits 1792 1780 1774 99.66
Title Holders
1 Assistance for loss of Res. structure - 34 34 100.00
2 Subsistence Allowance paid - 83 83 100.00
3 Shifting Allowance paid - 35 35 100.00
4 Allotment of house plots - 34 34 100.00
5 Construction grant paid for houses - 34 33 97.06
6 Site Development cost - 28 27 96.43
7 Resettlement allowance - 33 29 87.88
8 IGA - 50 50 100.00
9 No. of PAPs received all benefits - 84 80 95.24
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 57
Table A2.5 Progress of R & R Implementation in KRDCL (Titleholders and Non-titleholders)
Sl.
No. Type of R&R Assistance
Target as
per RIP Target Progress
1 Families received full R & R Assistance (TH & NTH) NA 694 100%
2 Families resettled (TH & NTH) NA 55 43.6%
3 Families received IGA (TH & NTH) 282 384 100%
4 Number of community assets reconstructed 272 267 100%
Total 554 1400 97.8%)
Table A2.6 Details of Resettlement Centres and Resettled Communities
S. No District Area No. of Project Affected Families
KSHIP
1 Dharwad Thimmapur 14 Non-titleholder families
2 Yadgir Hunasagi 27 Non-title-holder families
3 Belgaum Savdatti 8 Non-titleholder families
4 Haveri Gourapura 7 plots allocated; 2 houses constructed, one squatter family,3
have constructed houses;
KRDCL
5 Bijapur Tangadgi 31 fully affected families. RC site is finalized;
In Humsabhavi (krdcl), the alignment has been shifted to avoid displacement
Table A2.7 Vulnerable People Assisted in KRDCL & KSHIP
S. No Category Widow Above
60 Years
Physically
Challenged
Above 60 60
Years/Widow
Total
KRDCL
1 TH 37 11 2 13 63
2 NTH 23 9 8 40 40
Total 60 20 10 53 103
KSHIP
1 TH 1 - - - 1
2 NTH - - 2 - 2
Total 1 - 2 - 3
Table A2.8 Benchmark Compensation Rate in KRDCL-Average Sales and Guidance Value
Road No. Dry Irrigation Bagayath Total
Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid.
Total Areas 97 79 11 78 5 45 113 202
AV+GV 176 89 50 315
% 55.11 44.89 12.36 87.64 10.00 90.00 35.87 64.13
Table A2.9 Comparison of Compensation Rate and Guideline Value in KRDCL
Range Dry Irri Bag. Total %
0-50 45 4 2 51 46.79
50-100 17 1 2 20 18.35
100-500 23 5 1 29 26.61
500-1000 5 1 0 6 5.50
1000-1500 3 0 0 3 2.75
Total 93 11 5 109 100
% 85.32 10.09 4.59
AV=GV=Comp. Rate are same in 4 cases (Dry Category)
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 58
Table A2.10 Benchmark Compensation Rate in KSHIP-Average Sales and Guidance Value
Dry NAK Wet Bagayath R/C/Sq Total
Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid. Avg. Guid.
Total 68 125 14 91 24 109 6 44 4 15 109 384
% 35.23 64.77 13.33 86.66 18.05 81.95 12.00 88.00 21.05 78.95 22.11 77.89
Note: Information compiled from only two packages WAP 1 and WAP III
Table A2.11 Comparison of Compensation Rate and Guideline Value in KSHIP
Range Dry NAK Wet Bag. R/C/Sq Total %
0-50 35 9 11 3 1 59 54
50-100 9 1 6 2 0 18 18
100-500 23 1 4 1 0 29 25.5
500-1000 2 0 1 0 0 3 2.5
1000-1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
% 60.00 12.17 19.13 5.22 3.48 100.00
AV=GV=Comp. Rate are same in 1 case (Dry Category)
AV=GV=Comp. Rate are same in 3 cases (Wet Category)
Table A2.12 Court Cases and Quantum of Compensation Deposits in KRDCL
Road no.
No. of
Survey
Nos –
Court
Deposits
No of Farmers-
Compensation
deposited in the
Court
Land Extent
Involved in
Pending
Cases
Amount
deposited
in the Court
(in lakhs)
No. of
Disposal
Cases
Balance
Amount in
Court
Lakhs
Total 341 (17.3) 805 (20) 35.24 (24.3) 400.5 (13) 19 380.44
Figures in parenthesis percentages of total in that category
Table A2.13 Court Cases and Quantum of Compensation Deposits in KSHIP
Package
Court Deposits No. Of land owners
who have withdrawn
their compensation
Amount
Released
from Court
Balance
Amount in
Court
(Rs. Lakhs)
Sy.
Nos.
Land
Extent
Amount
(Rs. Lakhs)
Total 210-01 3179.52 527 677.34 2502.17
Table A2.14 Details of Compensation Cheques sent for Revalidation and Progress
S. No Package
Total no.
of
Cheques
Submission of
Letter by
Court / AC
Office
Submission of
Letter to
Accounts
Section
A.G AMR
Clearance
No. of
Cheques
Received
No. of
Cheques
Pending
1 T-8 11 08.07.2014 11.07.2014 - - 11
2 64-E 5 09.11.2015 02.12.2015 - - 5
3 63-A 4 30.06.2015 06.08.2015 - - 4
4 M-7D 1 22.08.2015 09.09.2015 - - 1
5 64-F 8 20.10.2015 20.11.2015 - - 8
6 63-E 18 2010.2015 20.11.2015 - - 18
7 64-G 14 20.10.2015 20.11.2015 - - 14
8 64-F 6 05.11.2015 20.11.2015 - - 6
9 63-B&C 1 15.11.2016 01.12.2016 11.03.2019 1 -
10 64-E 13 28.03.2016 02.05.2016 08.01.2019 13 -
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 59
S. No Package
Total no.
of
Cheques
Submission of
Letter by
Court / AC
Office
Submission of
Letter to
Accounts
Section
A.G AMR
Clearance
No. of
Cheques
Received
No. of
Cheques
Pending
11 21-C 19 24.08.2016 05.09.2016 - - 19
12 63-B&C 11 03.12.2016 05.12.2016 11.03.2019 11 -
13 63-C 6 03.02.2016 09.02.2016 - - 6
14 21-D 5 27.07.2016 16.09.2016 - - 5
15 M-7C 1 18.07.2016 18.07.2016 11.03.2019 1 -
16 57-B 89 13.10.2016 18.10.2016 - - 89
17 10-B 2 15.06.2016 20.06.2016 11.03.2019 2 -
18 63-C 1 04.02.2016 21.05.2016 - - 1
19 63-B 7 13.04.2016 27.04.2016 11.03.2019 7 -
20 64-F&G 6 13.04.2016 27.04.2016 11.03.2019 6 -
21 T-21 82 05.02.2017 07.02.2017 07.10.2018 82 -
22 63-B&C 19 14.02.2017 18.02.2017 11.03.2019 19 -
23 57-C 3 07.02.2017 19.12.2017 - - 3
24 19-B 1 15.03.2017 20.03.2017 08.01.2019 1 -
25 M-7A 1 26.04.2017 20.05.2017 18.02.2019 1 -
26 63-A 2 26.04.2017 20.05.2017 - - 2
27 63-B 1 16.05.2017 24.05.2017 12.03.2019 1 -
28 63-D 2 03.02.2018 09.02.2018 - - 2
Total 339
145 194
Compensation Amount in Pending Cheques for Revalidation (Crores) 4.07
Table A2.15 Employment Generated for Local Population in KSHIP and KRDCL
Agency Total man days Local man days Proportion of Local Workforce
Male Female Male Female % Male % Female % Total
KSHIP 354191 122540 149234 88444 37.2 62.8 49.9
KRDCL 341248 16097 352390 17282 95.50 4.50 96.67
Total 695439 138637 501624 105726 82.59 17.41 72.82
Table A2.16 Sample PAPs benefitted from Contractual Employment
Agency Tenant (Comm) Squatter (Res) Squatter (Comm) RTH Commercial (TH)
KSHIP (%) 5.5 0 11.2 16.6 NA
KRDCL (%) NA NA 0 9.1 25
Total 5.6 0 9.5 10 25
Table A2.17 Community Assets Impacted and Relocated/Pending
Agency Community Assets Impacted /
to be Replaced
Community Assets
Replaced/Relocated
Expenditure
(Rs.lakhs)
KSHIP 1349 1317 (97.6) 6202.21
KRDCL 186 150 (80.64) 896.83
Total 1535 1467(95.57) 7099.04
Table A2.18 Perception of PAPs regarding Replaced Community Assets
KRDCL KRDCL KSHIP
N=112 342
Yes (%) 74 29
No (%) 6 12
Don’t know(%) 20 58
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 60
Table A2.19 Land Supply to Contractors and Gaps in KRDCL
Table A2.20 LARR Cost and Project Cost in KSHIP& KRDCL (Lakhs)
S. No Heads KSHIP KRDCL
1 Compensation Payment 10596.49 4822.58
2 R & R Payment 1888.88 664
3 CPR 4073.11 800.96
4 R & R Consultancy 241.61 289
5 Administrative Cost 3037.43 987
6 Total LARR Cost 19837.52 7563.54
7 Project Cost 268588.49 140337.38
8 Project Cost (Including LARR Cost) 288426.01 147900.92
LARR as % of Project Cost 6.88 5.11
Table A2.21 Regular and Outsourced Staff for LARR Implementation in KRDCL
S. No Designation Staff strength(Numbers/Man Months)
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Total
1 Special Dy. Commissioner 0 0 0 1 1
2. SLAO 0 0 0 1 1
3. Thasildar 0 0 0 0 0
4. LAQ Consultants 24 12 15 12 63
Asst LAQ Consultants 15 12 27
5. R&R Manager 24 0 15 12 51
6. Surveyors 24 12 15 3 54
7. Social Welfare Inspectors 24 12 15 12 63
Social Development Officers 0 12 15 12 39
Table A2.22 Appointed Members of GRCs in KSHIP
S. No District Social Representative PAP Representative
1. Haveri N.R. Navale Rtd. Chief Officer, TMC ,
Hanagal, Haveri
Pratap Ramegowda, Hanagal
2. Chikkballapura Dr. Venkatesh, Rtd. Gov Officer,
Social service H. cross
Basavaraju, KM Santte Kalbhally,
Chintamani
3. Banglore rural Seethegowda, Rtd. Officer, KMF,
Banglore
Ramadasu, H. Cross
4. Gulbarga Subenne Biradas, Director,
Hyderabad Development Board,
Gulbarga
Smt. Prabhavathi w/o Yadavraj
Patil
5. Raichur S.S Ganti, Devadurga, Rtd Gov.
Officer
Hanumantaraya, Chikenandappa,
Gowdanabhavi
6. Yadgir B.T Jadav, Rtd. Food Inspector,
Gulbarga
Basawamagowda Sahebagowda
7. Belagavi 1)SD Sirligavi, Retd Gov. Officer KEB 1)Fakerappa
Area as per Agreement
(in Ha)
Available Area at Site (in Ha) Obstructions* (Ha)
On start date % At present
719.04 562.15 78.2 718.39 0.65 (36 Sy No.s)
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 61
S. No District Social Representative PAP Representative
2)S.C Patil, Rtd. EE,PWD
3) S.C Patil, Rtd. EE,PWD
2)M. Yallappa Doddemani
3) Tata Saheba Anagowda Patil
8. Mandya K.H. Nagaraj,Rtd. Asst Controller,
Weights and measure Dept.
Shashikala w/o Shankara Mandya
9. Bagalkot Gowdappa lingavegowda Patil,
Mudhol
AnilKumar Yamanappa
Mamedapare, mahalingapura.
10. Davanagere Yashede Reddy, Retd Gov. Officer Basaverajappa, Jagalur
11. Shivamogga M.Bommaiah, Retd. AEE Ashok Agadi Bin Krishnamurthi
Agadi
12. Vijayapura Baburao Basantha Patil Rtd. Lecturer,
Bijapur
M. Tavanappa Dodevathi,
Basvana Bagewadi
13. Dharwad S.I Sangannanavan Rtd. Chief
Officer, Mlaprabha
Virupakshappa Malakejappa
Katagi, Dharwad
14. Tumkur K.R Chowdaiah, Retd AEE KEB G.S Chickanna s/o late G.S
Narasimaiah, Gulur, Tumkur
Table A3.1 Occupational Distribution of Sample Households in KSHIP & KRDCL
Baseline and Sample Households Control
Baseline KSHIP RC Baseline KRDCL Total KSHIP KRDCL
Petty Business / Trade 32.16 39.78 0.00 40.51 15.88 32.0 30.85 23.08
Agriculture 5.95 4.3 1.64 - 50.78 14.8 8.51 36.26
Agriculture Labourer 11.00 20.07 19.67 47.20 29.41 22.2 12.77 12.09
Non-Agriculture Labourer - 4.12 73.77 0.00 7.3 5.32 1.10
Private Service 2.90 12.72 0.00 12.29 1.96 9.5 23.40 12.09
Self Employed / Misc. 19.00 4.92 1.97 14.3 19.15 15.38
Table A3.2 Housing Conditions of Project Affected People in KSHIP
Baseline Titleholder
(TH)
Non-TH
(Self-Relocated) Total
House wall
Mud walled houses 46.15
Brick-walled houses 23.08 33.33 90.9 70.6
Stone-walled houses 30.77 66.64 0 23.5
Wood-walled houses 0 0 9.1 5.8
House roof
RCC 38.46 100 72.7 83.3
Asbestos 0 0 0 0
Tin/Zinc 15.38 0 27.3 17.6
Thatched 0 0 0 0
Tiled 46.15
Water Supply (Types)
Municipal/Gram Panchayat 100 33.33 36.4 35.3
Borewell 0 66.64 63.6 64.7
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 62
Table A3.3 Impact on Self Relocated (Losing Complete Residential Structure)
KRDCL (%) KSHIP (%)
Constructed new house (%) 58 100
Staying with relatives (%) 27
House on rent (%) 15
Distance from original settlement
Within 1 km (%) 50 72.7
Within 2 kms (%) 15
Within 5 kms (%) -
Beyond 5 Kms (%) 35 27.3
Distance from work place
Near (%) 60 100
Far (%) 10
Far/manageable (%) 20
Far/Not manageable (%) 10
Table A3.4 Level of Satisfaction among Residents about Infrastructure in RCs
Hunasagi Savadatti Timmapur
Received land patta (%)
Yes (%) 6(100) 11(100)
No (%) 12(100)
Location of the colony
Very good (%) 8.3 83.4 9.1
Good (%) 91.7 16.6 90.9
Amenities in the Colony
Access Roads
Satisfactory (%) 16.6 16.6
Poor (%) 83.4 83.4 100
Street light
Good (%) 100
Satisfactory (%) 16.6 90.9
Poor(%) 83.4 9.1
Water Supply
Good(%)
Satisfactory (%) 8.33 100
Poor(%) 91.67 100
Electricity
Good(%) 83.33 90.9
Satisfactory(%) 8.33 83.4 9.1
Poor(%) 8.33 16.6
Drainage & Sanitation
Good(%) 91.67 100 100
Satisfactory(%) 8.33
Adverse Impact on social/community life
No(%) 91.67 100 100
Adverse Impact on livelihood sources of women
Yes (%) 25 83.4 90.9
No (%) 75 16.6 9.1
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 63
Table A3.5 Ownership of Household Items in Projects-Pre and Post Relocation
Household Item KSHIP KRDCL Total
Baseline Sample
PAFs
Control Baseline
Sample
PAFs
Control Baseline
Sample
PAFs
Control
Television 38.63 88.3 82.54 88.2 87.7 98.04 72 88.1 89
Fridge 1.73 11.6 11.11 8.9 43.4 21.57 6 19.6 16
Telephone 11.40 97.4 92.06 25.4 76.9 98.04 22 92.3 95
Two-Wheeler 8.66 48.7 55.56 57.7 32.8 47.06 32 44.8 52
Four wheeler - 1.8 0 3.2 17.7 5.88 1 4.4 3
Tractor - 1.22 0 2.16 2.65 3.92 1 0.7 2
Table A3.6 Commercial Structure Area & Monthly Turnover in KSHIP & KRDCL
Area of Commercial Structure
KSHIP Projects
WAP 1
WAP
2
WAEP
3
WAEP
4 WEP 1 WEP 2
WEP
3 WEP 4 WEP 5
Baseline 13.7 6.73 11.4 7.3 5.0 198.2 61.0 16.8 12.3
Sample PAFs 92.3 12.6 25.0 17.2 27.6 18.3 67 29.4 -
Control (50) 54 215.5 - 199.1 - 109.5 - - -
KRDCL Projects
Baseline 8.13
Sample PAFs 31.4
Control 25.8
Monthly Turnover (Rs.)
Baseline 15,50
0
23000 13500 600-
10000
1020-
10000
200-
6000
200-
7000
600-
1000
Price Indexed 22502 33390 19598 871-
14517
1480-
14517
290-
8710
290-
10162
871-
1451
Sample PAFs 9400 - 32086 25469 14375 - 6875 - 2333
% Change -58.2 3.9 29.9 86.8 - 52.7 -
Table A3.7 Type of Structure/Nature of Business-Commercial Structure Losers
Package KSHIP (%) KRDCL (%)
Sample Baseline
Control
Sample
Baseline Control
Structure Quality
Kucha 8 47 22 6 63
Pucca 59 38 26 56 13
Semi-Pucca 33 15 52 38 26
Type of Business
Pan/cigarrete 44 20 48 38 - 13
Tea shop 22 17 12 35 - 39
Barber 6 8 2 7 - 0
Others 26 39 19 - 48
Households employing people 62 70 41 12 29
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 64
Table A3.8 Level of Indebtedness among Sample Households in KSHIP
Package Baseline RTH CTH RS CS Total
Households indebted (%) 6.14 33.3 83.3 45.4 61.7 61.8
Source of Loan (%) -
Banks (%) - 50 60 - 41.4 51.0
Money lenders (%) - 50 - - 14.2 20.7
Other Sources (%) - - 40 100 25.5 28.3
Purpose of Borrowing -
House Construction (%) - 50 6.7 - 8.5 11.2
Agriculture (%) - - - - 9.1 8.1
Social functions (%) - - - - 6.8 6.1
Business 100 50 93.3 100 75.5 76.6
Table A3.9 Level of Indebtedness among Baseline & Sample Households in KRDCL
Baseline RTH CTH CS Total
No. of households indebted 81 21 9 36 66
% of households indebted 9.2 60 56.2 69.2 64
Source of Loan
Banks (%) 66.7 88.8 50.0 57.6
Money lenders (%) 4.8 11.2 8.3 7.6
Other Sources (Specify) % 23.8 - 41.7 30.3
Purpose of Borrowing
House Construction 8.6 23.8 11.11 25.6 12.1
Agriculture - 23.8 33.3 27.7 27.3
Social functions - 4.8 - 8.3 6.1
Business 84.5 42.9 55.5 58.4 24.2
Others 6.9 - - - - RS-Residential Squatters; CS-Commercial Squatters; RTH-Residential Titleholders; CTH-Commercial Titleholders
Table A3.10 Perception of Households regarding Resettlement Implementation
Project KSHIP KRDCL Total
Compensation rates % % %
Satisfied – Number (%) 60 68 61.91
Dissatisfied –Number(%) 40 32 38.09
R & R Assistance
Satisfied – Number (%) 62 80 66.46
Dissatisfied –Number(%) 38 20 33.54
Compensation payment process
Timely – Number (%) 90 95 91.13
Delayed – Number(%) 10 5 8.87
Income of the family
Increased– Number (%) 32 53 37.02
Status Quo– Number (%) 53 34 48.37
Declined– Number (%) 15 13 14.61
Redressal of grievances
Satisfied – Number (%) 69 72 69.81
Dissatisfied –Number(%) 24 28 24.89
Resettlement Implementation
Satisfied – Number (%) 74 80 75.54
Dissatisfied –Number(%) 26 12 22.50
Replaced Community Assets Functioning well
Yes – Number (%) 30 92 40.72
No –Number(%) 11 8 9.85
End Term Evaluation of LARR Implementation in KSHIP II Project CMLARR
2018-19
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad Page 65
Table A3.11 LARR in KSHIP and KRDCL-Impact on Women
Agency Land Compensation R & R (Female Headed Households
Total No. of female
owners
No. Female Joint
owners
KSHIP 4815 983 (20.41) 4 NA
KRDCL 4073 831(20.40%) 4 152 (20.49%)
Total 8888 1814 8 152