Community Participation Plan
Community Participation Plan for Chhattisgarh November 2011
IND: Rural Connectivity Investment Program
Prepared by Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency for the Asian Development Bank.
ABBREVIATIONS
ADB – Asian Development Bank AE – Assistant Engineer AP – affected persons BPL – Below Poverty Line CC – concrete cement CPF – Community Participation Framework CPP – Community Participation Plan CPR – Common Property Resources CRRDA – Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency DACS – District Aids Control Society DORD – Department of Rural Development DOSW/TD – Department of Social Welfare/Tribal Development DPR detailed project report DRDA – District Rural Development Agency EA – Executing Agency EAF – Environmental Assessment and Review Framework ECOP – Environmental Codes of Practice EE – Executive Engineer FGD – focus group discussion FHH – female-headed household GP – Gram Panchayat GRC – Grievance Redressal Committee IA – Implementing Agency IAY – Indira Awaas Yojana JE – Junior Engineer LMC – Land Management Committee MORD – Ministry of Rural Development MOU – Memorandum of Understanding NGO – nongovernment organization NHDR – National Human Development Report NPRR – National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation NREGA – National Rural Employment Guarantee Act NRRDA – National Rural Roads Development Agency PESA – Panchayats Extension to the Scheduled Areas PHC – Primary Health Center PIC – Project Implementation Consultant PIU – Project Implementation Unit PMGSY – Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (Prime Minister’s Rural Roads Program) PRI – Panchayati Raj Institutions PWD – persons with disability RD – Rural Development ROW – right-of-way RRIII – Rural Roads III SC – Scheduled Caste SE – Senior Engineer SES – socioeconomic survey SHG – self-help group ST – Scheduled Tribe
STA – State Technical Agency TSC – Technical Support Consultant ZP – Zilla Parishad
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
km – kilometer m – meter sq. km – square kilometer
GLOSSARY
Detailed Project Report
– An engineering report detailing the technical project details
Encroacher – A person, who has trespassed government land, adjacent to
his/her own land or asset, to which he/she is not entitled, by deriving his/her livelihood there. Such act is called “Encroachment.”
Kutcha
– A house which has walls and roof that are made of material that includes grass, leaves, reeds, bamboo, mud, unburnt brick or wood.
Panchayat – An institution (by whatever name called) of self-government for rural areas constituted at the village, intermediate, and district levels under article 243B of the Constitution of India.
Panchayati Raj Institution
– Local self-governing body within the state. In this CPF, Panchayats at different levels are collectively referred to as PRIs.
Patwari – A Revenue Department official Pucca – A house which has walls and roof that made of material that
includes tiles, cement sheets, slates, corrugated iron, zinc or other metal sheets, bricks, lime and stone or RBC/RCC concrete.
Sarpanch – Elected head of the Gram Panchayat Scheduled
Caste – The lowest caste in the Hindu caste system
Scheduled Tribe (ST)
– One of the weaker sections of the Indian population. Article 342 of Consitution of India on fundamental rights describes STs as “specific tribe or tribal communities or parts or groups within tribes or tribal communities”. The Constitution also enshrines their rights taking into account their vulnerable status in the society.
Zilla – A district which is the first administrative division at the state level.
NOTE
In this report, "$" refers to US dollars.
This community participation plan is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. No. Topic Page No.
1 Chapter One: Overview of The Project & Community Participation Plan 1
2 Chapter Two: Land Requirements and Methodology for Participatory Project Planning 6
3 Chapter Three: Transect Walk and Finalization of Road Alignment 10
4 Chapter Four: Consultations with Affected Persons (APs) 19
5 Chapter Five: Project Impacts 22
6 Chapter Six: Assistance/ Support to Vulnerable APs 63
7 Chapter Seven: Budget 69
8 Chapter Eight: Implementation Arrangements 71
9 Chapter Nine: Monitoring and Reporting Procedures 79
Annexure
Annexure 1: Memorandum of Understanding
Annexure 2: Stretch-wise Documentation of Transect Walks
Annexure 3: Stretch-wise List of Affected Households
Annexure 4: Stretch-wise List of Affected Assets
Annexure 5: List of Some Rural Development Schemes in Chhattisgarh
Annexure 6: Monitoring Formats
Chapter One: Overview of The Project & Community Participation Plan
1.1. Description of the Project
1. The Rural Connectivity Investment Program involves the construction and upgrading of a
total of approximately 494.458 km of rural roads in the states of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Assam. The Program forms part of the nationally popular
program called Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (Prime Minister‟s Rural Roads Program or
PMGSY), which started in 2000, and aims to provide connectivity to hitherto unconnected
villages1 and promote access to economic opportunities and social services, including increased
agricultural incomes and employment/trading opportunities for the local villagers.
2. The Ministry of Rural Development (MORD) administers the PMGSY as a centrally
sponsored scheme in all the states and Union Territories. In the state of Chhattisgarh, the
Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (CRRDA) is implementing the PMGSY through
the Program Implementation Units (PIUs) established at the district level and the Panchayati Raj
Institutions (PRIs).
3. The Government of India (GOI) requested the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for
financing part of the Program. Under the multitranche financing facility, the ADB will extend
multiple loans, each to finance a subset of the Program (such subset will be hereafter be called
“Project”). Each Project will comprise subprojects, each forming a single or multiple contract
package(s) for civil works.
4. In the five project states, sample roads were taken for conduction of the socio-economic
survey, census survey and transect walk to get a holistic picture of the project areas, as well as
to assess the positive and negative impacts of the Project and to work towards minimizing
adverse impacts due to loss of assets incurred by households. Table 1.1 below provides details
of the roads covered in the five states:
Table 1.1 List of Roads covered in the Five States and Length in Km
S.No. State District Road Length (Km)
1. Orissa
Bargarh 53.244
Sundargarh 5.632
Bolangir 30.574
Jharsuguda 18.265
Sub-Total 107.715
2 Madhya Pradesh Sidhi 21.903
1 In 2000, about 40% of villages in rural India still remained unconnected by all-weather roads
2
S.No. State District Road Length (Km)
Dhar 37.58
Sagar 2.023
Damoh 38.15
Sub-Total 99.656
3 Chhattisgarh
Bilaspur 19.76
Durg 42.852
Raipur 29.604
Sub-Total 92.216
4 West Bengal
North 24 Parganas 7.925
Burdawan 10.53
Jalpaiguri 20.384
Murshidabad 16.342
Bankura 39.23
Sub-Total 94.411
5 Assam
Kamrup 22.76
Morigaon 13.543
Nagaon 15.378
Golaghat 28.198
Jorhat 20.582
Sub-Total 100.46
Source: Transect Walk, 2010
5. The PMGSY employs a bottom-up approach for project planning and preparation. The
Core Network, from which the roads to be improved are selected, is prepared at the block
level in consultation with the concerned Panchayats and consolidated at the district level.
The list of roads to be taken up in each yearly allocation is first prepared by the PIU,
3
approved by the Zilla Parishad, and then forwarded to the state government for further
approval.
6. Table 1.2 provides details of all the roads covered under the Project in the state of
Chhattisgarh.
Table 1.2: List of Roads in Chhattisgarh
District
Road Name Length
(in Kms)
Raipur
Parsada to Aamdi
2.285
07T14 (Siltora) to Mandhar Neodih
3.140
T07 (Keshla) to Sankari (S)
3.260
T07 (Km.1) to Khaira
1.564
T04 (Km.9) to Shahada
2.507
Hirmi (Sigma) to Parswani
2.240
Manikpur to Ranijarod
3.210
Parkidih to Tekari
8.100
Motinpur Kala to Padobhat
3.298
Sub Total
29.604
Bilaspur
L074 to Udgaon 1.050
Batori to Beltukri 5.020
Khutera to Klarjevra 2.940
Pathrapali to Korbi Banka 9
Bijuria to Uraihapara 1.75
Sub Total 19.76
Durg
Main Road to Jangalpur Road 2.008
Darhi-Khandsara to Bandhi Road 4.400
Main Road T02 to Jhalam Road 1.423
Dokerbekla to Damadiah Road
1.887
Ghatiyakala to Mudpar Road 1.153
4
District
Road Name
Length
(in Kms)
Piperia to Korway Road 1.839
Padumsara to Hathmudi Road 3.050
Dhamdha Gandai Road to Patharikhurd Road 4.839
Main Road (Keshtara) to Bagledi Road 2.379
Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road 1.550
Bortara to Khairy Road 3.100
Padumsara to Kirki Road 3.446
Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road 0.800
Tiriyabhat to Sonpandar Road 1.454
Kanhera to Sukhatal Road 3.035
Saja Deorbija to Bod Road 2.459
Main Road Baghul to Gopalbhaina Road 4.030
Sub Total 42.852
Grand Total = 92.216
Source: Transect Walk Reports, 2010
1.2. Objectives of the Community Participation Plan (CPP)
7. The primary objective of the Community Participation Plan is to aptly document the
major findings and outcomes of the various stages undertaken in:
- Transect Walks including community consultations and finalization of road alignment
with the aid of active community participation;
- Identification of all APs being directly affected through the Project and recording the type and extent of loss being incurred by them;
- Profiling of vulnerable APs identified, across socio-economic parameters in order to
understand the kind of socio-economic pressures that they may face as a result of the losses being incurred for the Project; and
- Discussions on perceptions of community and APs about the Project and its impacts.
8. The CPF guides the process to develop the Plan so as to address all social issues in the
ADB Rural Connectivity Investment Programme. The Plan is prepared based on the findings of
the Socio Economic Surveys (SES), Census Survey and Community Consultations held with the
5
stakeholders, in keeping with the detailed methodology specified in the „Community
Participation Framework„. Figure 1.1 highlights the standard approach adopted across all road
sections for each state in the preparation of the Community Participation Plan.
Figure 1.1.Stages in Participatory Project Preparation
- Transect Walks including community consultations and finalization of road alignment with the aid of active community participation;
- Identification of all APs being directly affected through the RRIII project and recording
the type and extent of loss being incurred by them;
- Profiling of vulnerable APs identified, across socio-economic parameters in order to understand the kind of socio-economic pressures that they may face as a result of the losses being incurred for the Project; and
- Discussions on perceptions of community and APs about the project and its impacts.
The Plan is prepared based on the findings of the Socio Economic Surveys (SES), Census
Survey and Community Consultations held with the stakeholders, in keeping with the
detailed methodology specified in the „Community Participation Framework„. Table 1.2
highlights the standard approach adopted across all road sections for each state in the
preparation of the Community Participation Plan.
Finalization of
the Alignment
Survey to Identify Socio-
Economic Profile of APs &
Consultation with APs
Database of all
APs
Dissemination of Process of Land Transfer
& Support/Assistance Options
Database of
‘Vulnerable APs’
Submission of Written
Confirmation by Affected Persons
PIU (SE/EE), ZP, GP
PIU (SE/EE), ZP, GP
PIU
(A
E/J
E),
PIC
, Z
P,
GP
(S
arp
an
ch
), P
an
ch
ay
at
Me
mb
ers
,
Vil
lag
e C
ou
nc
il,
Rev
en
ue
Dep
art
me
nt
(Pa
twa
ri),
Oth
er
Dep
art
me
nt
Off
icia
ls (
fore
st,
etc
.)
PIU (AE/JE), GP
(SARPANCH)
Dissemination of Information on
PMGSY road under Core Network
Dissemination of Project Information to
Project Affected Community
Transect Walk & Consultations,
Road Safety Sessions
Identification of ‘Vulnerable’ APs
& Consultation with them
6
Chapter Two: Land Requirements and Methodology for Participatory Project Planning 2.1. Selection of Roads and Land Requirements
9. The selection of sample 92.216 Kms of subproject roads in the Project state of
Chhattisgarh for improvement under the Project is from the PMGSY Core Network. The Core
Network, from which the roads to be improved are selected, is prepared at the block level in
consultation with the concerned Panchayats and consolidated at the district level thereby
entailing a bottom-up approach for project planning and preparation. The list of roads to be
taken up in each yearly allocation is first prepared by the PIU, approved by the District
Panchayat, and then forwarded to the state government for further approval. As per the CPF,
the following criterions were adopted while selecting these roads:
Adequate land width availability as specified in the Rural Roads Manual, Specification for Rural Roads 2004 and PMGSY Operations Manual 2005
The proposed alignment involves limited land loss and the remaining land and or/structures remain viable for continued use
In case impacts are unavoidable, the impacts will be minimized through one or more of
the following mechanisms:
a. Design modifications by reduction of land width, alignment shifts, and modifications in cross-sections etc, to the extent required from safety considerations;
b. Voluntary donation of land/assets by the land/asset owner by means of MOU to the PIU or the state government; and
c. Providing support and assistance to vulnerable affected persons (AP) as per eligibility through GP and rural development (RD) schemes and agreed mitigation matrix.
10. Roads for which no scope exists for addressing the social impacts through any of the mechanisms above shall not be taken up under the Project for that particular year. Such roads will be taken up after the social issues are resolved by the community and there is a demand made for the improvement of the roads by the community to the PIU.
11. Under the PMGSY, the existing revenue tracks have been taken up for construction to
the standards in the Rural Roads Manual and other relevant specifications as detailed above.
The available width of the existing tracks is not always sufficient to accommodate the proposed
improvements, as a result requiring additional land. However, the extent of impacts on land,
structures and livelihood sources is expected to be minimal, as the road improvements are
generally carried out along the existing tracks.
7
2.2 Land Donation Principle
12. Additional land required for the subproject road improvements under the PMGSY shall
be secured through voluntary donation by the land/asset owners.
13. As per the transect walks conducted among 31 out of 34 roads (3 roads of Bilaspur have
been dropped from the scope of the CPP2) of Chhattisgarh, a total of 308 Households will be
required to donate their assets for the project. Table 2.1 below provides details on the number
of affected households per road stretch across the project districts in the state of Chhattisgarh.
Table 2.1.Stretch-Wise Number of Affected Households Donating Assets
District
Road Name Affected Households
(Numbers)
Raipur
Parsada to Aamdi
15
07T14 (Siltora) to Mandhar Neodih
8
T07 (Keshla) to Sankari (S)
0
T07 (Km.1) to Khaira
6
T04 (Km.9) to Shahada
4
Hirmi (Sigma) to Parswani
9
Manikpur to Ranijarod
0
Parkidih to Tekari
0
Motinpur Kala to Padobhat
2
Sub Total 44
Bilaspur
L074 to Udgaon 0
Batori to Beltukri 16
Khutera to Klarjevra 36
Pathrapali to Korbi Banka 12
Bijuria to Uraihapara 16
Sub Total 80
Durg
Main Road to Jangalpur Road 9
Darhi-Khandsara to Bandhi Road 0
2 Road Pendri (s) to Sorla: Road construction has begun, Road T01 to Jewra Patelpara: DPR is yet to be finalized and Toad T06 to
Bhatli: dropped due to resistance faced in land donation by some APs
8
District
Road Name
Affected Households
(Numbers)
Main Rd T02 to Jhalam Road 0
Main Road to Damaidih Road 27
Ghatiyakala to Mudpar Road 0
Piperia to Korway Road 23
Padumsara to Hathmudi Road 13
Dhamdha Gandai Road to Patharikhurd Road 27
Main Road (Keshtara) to Bagledi Road 12
Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road 11
Bortara to Khairy Road 15
Padumsara to Kirki Road 10
Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road 3
Tiriyabhat to Sonpandar Road 0
Kanhera to Sukhatal Road 12
Saja Deorbija to Bod Road 6
Main Road Baghul to Gopalbhaina Road 16
Sub Total 184
Grand Total = 308
Source: Transect Walk, 2010
14. The Plan and its support provisions to vulnerable APs in the project districts follow the
ADB safeguard requirements listed below for projects involving voluntary donations:
(i) There is full consultation with landowners and any non-titled people on site selection;
(ii) Voluntary donations do not severely affect the living standards of affected people and are directly linked to benefits for the affected people, with community sanctioned measures to replace any losses that are agreed through verbal and written record by affected people;
(iii) Any voluntary donation will be confirmed through verbal and written record and verified by an independent third party; and
(iv) Adequate grievance redress mechanisms are in place.
9
15. The process of information dissemination on the process of land transfer and entitlement
provisions for the vulnerable shall also be undertaken in the subprojects based on which all
MOUs as per Annexure I will be taken from each affected person voluntarily donating the land.
2.3 Methodology Used Across Stages of Participatory Plan Preparation
16. The process of finalization of road alignment was undertaken through transect walks
along each sample road section by PIUs, including community participation.
17. Post transect walk, the methodology for obtaining information on APs, type and extent of
loss and socio-economic profile of households being affected, relevant to the CPP entailed:
- Covering 100% villages located along each sample road
- SES (Socio-Economic Surveys) conducted for 20% households in each village located along each sample road
- This includes SES of all APs (if any) in each village located along the each sample road
- Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with women and IPs on each sample road
- Census Survey with 100% APs in each village located along each sample road
- Consultation with each AP surveyed regarding loss incurred and corresponding entitlements
18. As part of the census surveys, all households incurring an agricultural loss, structural-
including residential and commercial loss, loss of trees and other loss were covered, in order to
aptly understand the type and extent of loss incurred by the total APs. The socio-economic
surveys and FGDs undertaken on the subproject roads further enable an assessment of the
impacts of the Project on the lives of the households in villages situated along the road sections.
The objective of the surveys was to identify the affected households and generate an inventory
of social and economic impacts on them, the structures affected, socio-economic profile of the
project affected people, their perceptions about the project and rehabilitation and resettlement
options. Consultations with APs were also held during the survey process in order to make clear
communication on loss incurred and corresponding entitlement options, as well as to record
feedback from the APs, if any. Appropriate tools were developed collect the requisite data.
10
Chapter Three: Transect Walk and Finalization of Road Alignment
3.1. Process & Participants
19. The PMGSY guidelines require the PIU to conduct Transect Walks along project roads
before finalizing the alignment, to ensure active community participation, to select the
alignment that best suits the community’s needs and minimizes adverse social and
environmental impacts of the proposed improvement. The key objectives of the Transect
Walks may be specified as follows:
Finalization of alignment through consultations with the communities and their elected representatives
A joint on-site inventory, cross-checking and verification of the alignment (as per the revenue map)
Identification of grievances on ground and redressal of the same
Identification of APs and vulnerable groups among them
Acceptance of the Project and alignment by the community
Communication of Road Safety Measures and receipt of feedback from community
members
20. As part of the Rural Connectivity Investment Programme in the state of Chhattisgarh,
Transect Walks were conducted on a total of 34 roads. (Of which construction has already
commenced on road Pendri (s) to Sorla by the Public Works Department (PWD), while the DPR
for road T01 to Jewra Patelpara is yet to be finalized. One road T06 to Bhatli has been dropped
due to resistance faced in land donation by some of the APs. All three roads belong to Bilaspur
district. The CPP therefore covers loss information on 31 roads.) The Transect Walks on each
of the 34 subprojects was organized by the Domestic Resettlement & Social Development
Consultants team along with the respective PIU in close coordination with the PRIs. These
transect walks were organized in the months of April to June 2010.
21. The key objective of the Transect Walk was to finalize the road alignments in
consultation with the communities and their elected representatives. During the course of the
transect walk attempts were made to identify community grievances related to the project
alignment and especially to consult those getting affected by the project. All concerns,
recommendations and suggestions, as well as responses provided by PIUs were recorded at
the time of the transect walks.
22. The key stakeholders involved in the process of conduction of Transect Walks included:
community members including men, women, children, elderly, vulnerable groups such as those
below poverty line (BPL), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), persons with
disability (PWD), females heading households, household members losing land, structure
11
and/or other assets, farmers, as well as PRI members and school teachers; Participants from
the government and PIU such as Revenue Officials, Senior Engineers, etc.
3.2. Community Consultations During Transect Walk
23. Before initiation of Transect Walks, consultations were held across the communities
being affected along the sample 92.216 Kms of subproject roads in Chhattisgarh. All major
stakeholders including members of the affected communities and PRI members participated in
the consultations.
24. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project, especially with
regard to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of
the transect walk and how the participation of the community and their suggestions were
important in finalizing the alignment of the roads. It was explained to the community members,
that all stages in the planning and implementation of the Project required constant support,
cooperation and inputs from the community and that all concerns and grievances should be
openly discussed in order to generate suitable solutions.
25. Community members actively participated in the Transect Walks and provided valuable
inputs pertaining to minimization of loss, maximum utilization of available government land,
necessary safety requirements, region and terrain specific road requirements, etc. The Transect
Walks served as a good platform of discussion, wherein community members tried to gain
maximum clarity regarding extent of land being donated per affected household, as well as
stated preferences regarding road alignment and possible extension to maximize benefits.
26. Overall, community members along the road sections in each of the Project districts
voiced a dire need for the pucca roads and expressed their willingness to donate land for the
purpose. During the Transect Walks however, a number of community members also expressed
their concern regarding the amount of time the Project would take in implementation. Having
witnessed multiple visits of officials to the villages, mapping of road length and various
consultations, the community members displayed a sense of eagerness towards the timely
commencement of the road construction.
27. All suggestions, recommendations and concerns of the community members pertaining
to the road alignments were addressed by the PIUs and suitable measures were discussed and
included in the final designs. The suggestions on road alignment are discussed in detail in the
subsequent section.
3.3. Finalization of Road Alignment through Community Participation
28. As one of the main objectives, the Transect Walks also looked at the finalization of road
alignment through measurement of current tracks, specifying land required and procuring inputs
from the community. The process was carried out collectively by the community members,
government officials, PRI members and PIU present.
12
29. Community members played a vital role during the Transect Walks in putting forward
suggestions to minimize the loss of agricultural land and inhabited land. Possible avoidance of
loss in and around religious places, temples, trees, ponds, electricity poles, etc was also
considered while finalizing the road alignment. Construction of CC roads and possible shifts in
alignment were incorporated in the road designs to meet such requirements.
30. With respect to road safety, and especially the safety of school going children,
community members emphasized the need for speed breakers and provision of sign boards
along road curves and sharp turns.
31. Construction of good quality, all-weather roads was noted to be a major requirement in
the discussions, as community members spoke about their plight during the monsoon season.
Construction of CC roads, bridges, drainage lines, provision for increase in height of alignment,
side walls along canals, retaining walls along ponds, etc, were therefore requested for along
affected roads. All suggestions regarding the construction of cross drains, culverts, side drains,
retaining walls, protection walls, etc were duly noted by the PIU for consideration during the
road construction.
32. Concerns regarding durability and strength of roads were also voiced along certain road
sections where extent of use of roads and amount of traffic are known to be high. On roads
Manikpur to Ranijarod and Parkidih to Tekari of Raipur for instance, community members
informed the PIU of the close proximity of limestone mines and stone crusher operating units,
which may lead to an increase in flow of heavy traffic and vehicles on the roads. Community
members therefore stated that roads should be designed in keeping with all such technical
requirements. Requests for slight slopes along the edges of the roads were also made by
farmers to enable to them move bullock carts and tractors to the fields with ease.
33. The Transect Walks were conducted with complete community participation and enabled
community members to make suggestions for better road connectivity. On road Kanhera to
Sukhatal of Durg for instance, land donation on the proposed alignment came up as a possible
area of concern as land owners belong to different villages and had earlier created problems
regarding land donation. The proposed alignment was also stated to be accident prone due to
the irrigation canal which passes through the alignment on the left. Provision of an embankment
for the same would also be costly. A preference was therefore stated by community members
to develop the road on an alternated alignment. In consultation with the PIU, the Transect Walk
was therefore carried out on the alternate route from Betara till the end of the proposed road,
which connects the same village (sukhtal).
34. The reports of Transect Walks including record of key project related issues on each
road section and recommendations made by the community members, decisions taken by PIU
and other recommendations by social safeguard specialists on the chain-age wise road plans
are enclosed as ANNEXURE II.
35. In the course of the decisions made, measures were adopted to ensure that the loss
incurred by the APs was avoided or minimized. The following table 3.1. provides road wise
13
information on the number of households being affected before and after the transect walk,
measures adopted to reduce the loss being incurred and total households saved from being
affected as a result of the measures adopted.
Table 3.1.Measures Adopted to Minimize Loss During Transect Walk
District Name of Road Section Impacts on Affected
Households Remarks
Before Transect
Walk
After Transect
Walk
Raipur
Parsada to Aamdi 36 15
Residential structure loss to 6 households as well as agricultural land loss to 15 households was avoided by making a shift in road alignment towards RHS where government land is available. Agricultural land loss to 15 other households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
07T14 (Siltora) to Mandhar Neodih
21 + 9 Trees 8
Agricultural land loss by 10 households, commercial structure loss (shops) by 3 households and loss of 9 trees was avoided by making a shift in road alignment. Residential structure loss to 7 households and loss of 1 commercial structure were found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
T07 (Keshla) to Sankari (S) 5 0
Agricultural land loss to 5 households was avoided as available government land was found to be sufficient for road construction during transect walk.
T07 (Km.1) to Khaira 12 + 1 Temple 6
Residential structure loss to 6 households and loss of 1 Temple were avoided by making a shift in road alignment. Agricultural land loss to 6 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
T04 (Km.9) to Shahada 4 4
Residential boundary wall loss incurred by 4 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk. Loss incurred by 3 of these households is on encroached land.
Hirmi (Sigma) to Parswani 19 9
Residential Structure loss to 10 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Residential land loss to 1 household and agricultural land loss to 8 households, including 1 household also losing trees was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
14
District Name of Road Section Impacts on Affected
Households Remarks
Before Transect
Walk
After Transect
Walk
Manikpur to Ranijarod 0 0
Uncultivated government owned land is available along the road
Parkidih to Tekari 3 0
Agricultural land loss by 3 households was avoided by re-measuring the width of the current road, which was found to be sufficient for road construction during transect walk.
Motinpur Kala to Padobhat 4 2
Agricultural land loss by 2 households (encroached land) was avoided by re-measuring the amount of government land available. Agricultural land loss to 2 other households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Sub Total
104 + 9 Trees + 1 Temple 44
A total of 60 households were saved from incurring any kind of loss. Loss of 9 Trees and 1 Temple were also avoided post the transect walks in the district.
Bilaspur
L074 to Udgaon 4 0
Residential land loss by all 4 households is avoided by making CC roads.
Batori to Beltukri 25 16
Agricultural land loss to 9 households is avoided by making a shift in road alignment. Agricultural land loss by remaining 16 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walks.
Khutera to Klarjevra 46 36
Residential land loss by 8 households and agricultural land loss by 2 households was avoided by making a shift in road alignment and re-measuring available government land. Residential land loss by 20 households and agricultural land loss by 16 households was however found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
15
District Name of Road Section Impacts on Affected
Households Remarks
Before Transect
Walk
After Transect
Walk
Pathrapali to Korbi Banka 23 12
Residential land loss by 11 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Agricultural land loss by 10 households, including 1 household also losing trees, and residential land loss by 2 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk
Bijuria to Uraihapara 16 16
Agricultural land loss by 9 households and residential land loss by 7 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Sub Total 114 80
A total of 34 households were saved from incurring any kind of loss.
Durg
Main Road to Jangalpur Road 19 9
Residential land loss by 10 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Agricultural land loss by 9 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Darhi-Khandsara to Bandhi Road 0 0
Land required is entirely government land.
Main Rd T02 to Jhalam Road 0 0
Land required is entirely government land.
Main Road to Damaidih Road 33 27
Residential land loss by 6 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Residential boundary wall/structure loss by remaining 27 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Ghatiyakala to Mudpar Road 0 0
Land required is entirely government land.
16
District Name of Road Section Impacts on Affected
Households Remarks
Before Transect
Walk
After Transect
Walk
Piperia to Korway Road 31 23
Residential land loss by 8 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Agricultural land loss by 23 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Padumsara to Hathmudi Road 23 13
Agricultural land loss and/or structural loss to 10 households is avoided through construction of CC roads and by making a shift in road alignment. Agricultural land loss to 13 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Dhamdha Gandai Road to Patharikhurd Road 35 27
Residential land loss by 8 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Agricultural land loss by 21 households and residential land/ boundary wall loss by 6 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Main Road (Keshtara) to Bagledi Road 21 12
Residential land loss by 9 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Agricultural land loss to 3 households and residential land loss to 9 other households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road 19 11
Residential land loss by 8 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Agricultural land loss to 9 households and residential land loss by 2 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Bortara to Khairy Road 20 15
Residential land loss by 5 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Agricultural land loss to 15 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
17
District Name of Road Section Impacts on Affected
Households Remarks
Before Transect
Walk
After Transect
Walk
Padumsara to Kirki Road 24 10
Residential land loss by 10 households and agricultural land loss by 4 households is avoided through construction of CC roads and reduction of road width along the alignment. Agricultural land loss by remaining 10 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road 6 3
Residential land loss by 3 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. While residential land/boundary wall loss by remaining 3 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Tiriyabhat to Sonpandar Road 0 0
Land required is entirely government land.
Kanhera to Sukhatal Road 19 12
Agricultural land loss by 6 households was avoided by making a shift in road alignment and re-measuring available road width. Agricultural land loss by 11 households and loss of commercial structure by 1 household could not be avoided during transect walk.
Saja Deorbija to Bod Road 6 6
Agricultural land loss to 4 households and residential structure loss to 2 households could not be avoided during the transect walk.
Main Road Baghul to Gopalbhaina Road 26 16
Residential land loss by 10 households is avoided through construction of CC roads. Residential land/boundary wall loss by 16 households was found to be unavoidable during transect walk.
Sub Total 276 184 A total of 98 households were saved from incurring any kind of loss.
Grand Total
494 + 9 Trees + 1 Temple 308
A total of 186 households + 9 Trees and 1 Temple were saved from incurring any kind of damage/loss post the transect walks across all districts covered under the Project in the state of Chhattisgarh.
Source: Transect Walk, 2010
18
36. The final road alignment designs incorporate the total number of all speed breakers,
culverts, and other specifications that were mutually decided upon by all participants of the
Transect Walk, with the help of technical inputs from the PIUs. During the course of all such
decision making, queries regarding length of the roads, width in case of CC roads, connectivity
being provided via the roads, placement of culverts, etc were answered by the PIUs. It was
explained that a minimum width of 3.75 meters is required in the built up areas from the safety
point of view however, if land was willingly donated the width of the road (through the village)
could be increased to 7.5 meters. The importance of community participation and involvement in
the entire process and voluntary land donation for successful implementation of the Project was
further emphasized.
19
Chapter Four: Consultations with Affected Persons (APs)
37. A number of consultations were held with the APs from the time of conduction of Transect Walks up till the conduction of SES and Census Surveys. As has been noted in chapter three, consultations held during transect walks mostly comprised of queries regarding technical details of the Project, as well as concerns regarding loss of land and how the same can be avoided. All such queries and concerns were aptly responded to by the team of PIUs and an effort was made to ensure that all community members are adequately informed about the Project, as well as feel free to participate in the process of alignment finalization in order to avoid or atleast minimize loss of assets where possible. 38. The following series of consultations further bring to light some of the key issues that were discussed in the course of the participatory project planning: 5.1. Initial Perceptions Regarding Project 39. A large majority of the community members, including affected persons were noted to
have a very positive approach towards the Project and its anticipated benefits. Community
members were largely supportive of the Transect Walks and displayed high levels of
enthusiasm in providing suggestions and recommendations for deciding upon preferred road
alignments. As a large number of the APs are noted to lose only marginal portions of their land,
the general perception is that the voluntary land donation is acceptable and that the Project
would be a major boon for the community.
40. Some of the expected benefits from the Project, according to the community members,
include the improvement in public transportation which would enable children to access schools
of higher education and thereby prevent them from dropping out after completion of primary or
middle school. This is especially seen to be a boon for young girls who often have to leave
formal education due to the limited accessibility to schools in surrounding villages or towns. The
construction of pucca roads would therefore enable children to travel even in the monsoon
season when the Kutcha roads are known to get submerged in water, thereby leaving villages
isolated for months together.
41. The increased accessibility to hospitals, timely medical aid and maternal health care is
also expected once pucca roads are constructed. Moreover, as the roads would help connect
villages to each other, the overall mobility of men and women for work and other purposes is
also expected to increase. Community members are therefore noted to look forward to a rise in
economic activities in the villages as well as corresponding income levels. Apart from the direct
benefits of road construction, community members are also noted to look forward to the
additional work that would be generated during the road construction Project, which could help
them gain temporary employment.
42. During the Transect Walks, all efforts were made to try and minimize the loss incurred by
APs as much as possible. While most community members were noted to be in favour of the
20
Project, the discussions gave the affected persons a fair chance to voice their concerns as well.
For instance, along the road Ghatiyakala to Mudpar in Durg, an AP residing in Mudpar Village
was vocal about the fact that the present kutcha road was constructed on his land without his
consent and that he would need time to think over the request for land donation. PRI
representatives present stated that they would organize a Gram Sabha meeting in order deal
with the situation fairly. Such proceedings and discussions therefore provided a platform of clear
communication through which concerned APs agreed to the land donation principle for pucca
road construction.
43. Separate consultations with women groups also reveal that they consider the Project to
be extremely important for them. Increased road connectivity means that more women would
have the opportunity to visit towns for purposes of employment. Some women state that once
they are connected to the towns, they would want to explore the possibility of starting small
businesses, rather than being completely dependent on agricultural labour. Increased
commuting facilities, better transportation and corresponding opportunities of social and
economic development are therefore anticipated by community members as an outcome of the
Project.
5.2. Road Safety Consultations
44. Specific consultations regarding road safety were also held with community members on
each road section on the necessary safety precautions that must be adopted once the roads are
constructed. The purpose of the sessions was also to obtain feedback from the community
members on the kind of safety concerns that they may have with respect to the Project.
45. The groups usually comprised of anything between 15 to 70 participants from the
community, and at times up to 120 to 200 participants, including men, women, children, elderly,
disabled, PRI members, school teachers, health volunteers, ASHA, Anganwadi workers, etc.
Most community members were noted to be aware about the PMGSY. The sessions were
commenced by giving community members a clear idea about the objectives of the session and
by recording the participants‟ expectations from the session. Community members were
provided enough time to think and reflect over their road safety concerns, encouraging open
discussion. Road safety pamphlets translated in the local language were provided to all
participants to enable them to steer their discussions more productively. The pamphlets were
found to be informative and useful, the contents of which were also explained during the session
for the benefit of those who could not read.
46. The sessions encouraged community members to make further suggestions to increase
safety measures along the roads. Provision of speed breakers and sign boards near schools,
indicators/ arrows along turns and/or junctions, protective wall around ponds, adequate street
lighting to avoid accidents at night, provision of boards with speed limit of 20kmph and traffic
regulating gates along roads with railway lines, etc were some of the recommendations.
Community members further emphasized on the need to pay special attention to children and to
ensure that both, parents and teachers, provide adequate guidance to children with respect to
road safety measures.
21
47. The sessions were appreciated by all participants and a request was made to conduct
such sessions in future as well. A request was also made to make information pamphlets more
pictorial so as to enable the illiterate masses to understand them as well. It was further stated
that the PRIs along with school teachers must play an active role in ensuring that the road
safety measures discussed are adhered to and also take the initiative to spread higher road
safety awareness among the villagers on a time to time basis.
5.3. Consultations with APs during Census Survey and Willingness to Donate Land
48. Individual consultations were conducted with vulnerable APs across villages on the
sample subproject roads during the conduction of census surveys, in order to have a detailed
discussion on the land being donated per household as well as the extent of loss borne; to
record feedback/concerns/suggestions of the APs, if any; and to make a clear communication
on the linkages with RD schemes in case the APs are eligible for the same.
49. The consultations did not see too many questions being raised by the APs, as they had
already made necessary clarifications during the Transect Walk, signed the MOUs and were
therefore mentally prepared to make the required donations. Most APs are noted to lose only
small portions of agricultural land and are therefore not adversely affected by it. The losses
being borne are further noted to be acceptable in comparison to the greater good that will come
out of the Project. Moreover, many APs are of the opinion that once the Project is completed,
the value of their land would also increase significantly. They are therefore not too worried about
donating a small portion of their land in keeping with the larger benefits that they may receive.
The provision of being linked with RD schemes has also been received well by the APs, some
of whom have already benefited by such schemes in the past.
50. Issues with respect to voluntary land donation were however identified on one road
namely „T06 to Bhathli‟ in Bilaspur district. The problem was identified at the time of the census
surveys, wherein owners of close to 800mts of private agricultural land on the road connecting
Siltara village were found to be unwilling to donate their land for the Project. The road has
subsequently been dropped from the scope of the Project.
51. Having witnessed multiple rounds of road inspection and consultations, the community
members are now eagerly anticipating the commencement of the Project and have made a
request to not delay the process any further.
22
Chapter Five: Project Impacts
52. The chapter brings to light the major types of losses incurred by the APs, as well as the
socio-economic impacts the losses may have on the vulnerable APs. In light of the losses
incurred, a study is also made of the mitigation measures that may be adopted as per the
approved mitigation matrix.
5.1. Type of Loss Incurred by APs
53. The section provides information on the types of losses incurred by the households
across road sections. It is important to note here, that though the total number of APs identified
across the Project roads is 308, only 292 census interviews were conducted due to the non-
availability of 16 households who had migrated or were absent at the time of the census survey,
54. All data pertaining to APs as per the census survey has been recorded for 292 APs; the
following statistics are therefore presented with respect to the 292 APs interviewed (exclusive of
absentees).
55. Table 5.1 below provides details on the type of losses incurred by APs along each of the
road sections in the project state of Chhattisgarh.
Table 5.1: Types of Loss Incurred by APs
NAME OF THE ROAD CO
MM
ER
CIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
+ T
RE
ES
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
BO
UN
DA
RY
WA
LL
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
LA
ND
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
Gra
nd
To
tal
07 T 14 (SILTORA) TO MANDHAR NEODIH 1 3 4 8
BATORI TO BELTUKRI 15 15
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 6 7 13
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 15 15
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 21 1 5 27
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 1 11 12
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 16 3 12 5 36
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 3 9 12
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI 13 13
23
NAME OF THE ROAD CO
MM
ER
CIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
+ T
RE
ES
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
BO
UN
DA
RY
WA
LL
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
LA
ND
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
Gra
nd
To
tal
MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 14 2 16
MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 25 1 1 27
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 9 9
MASULGONDI TO KONGIYAKHURD ROAD 1 1
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 2 2
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 8 8
PARSADA TO AAMDI 15 15
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 9 1 2 12
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 18 18
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 4 2 6
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 9 9
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 6 1 1 8
T04 TO SHAHADA 4 4
T07 TO KHAIRA 6 6
Grand Total 2 186 2 51 41 10 292 Source: Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
56. The major type of loss being incurred by the APs is of agricultural land. 188 APs
(64.38%% - excluding the absentees) are losing agricultural land of which 2 APs are also losing
trees. A significant 102 APs (34.93%) however are also noted to lose residential land
and/property. Of these, 10 APs are incurring a loss of a portion of their main residential
structure, while 41 and 52 APs are incurring a loss of residential land and residential boundary
wall area respectively. Moreover 2 APs are also losing their commercial property, of which 1 AP
on road Kanhera to Sukhatal in Durg district is incurring a substantial loss to the commercial
structure.
57. As has been noted in table 3.1, a number of agricultural, residential land and structural
losses could be avoided during the Transect walk with the decision to make CC roads which
occupy less road width, as well as by making the necessary shifts in road alignment. The
process was carried out with complete community participation which could ensure that the
24
interests of the APs as well as their concerns are being duly considered while making the final
road alignment, and in ensuring that the loss incurred is minimized as much as possible.
58. Despite the efforts however, a total of 104 APs are incurring loss of residential or
commercial land/structure due to the high density of population along specific road sections.
Respective APs have agreed to the process of voluntary land donation as the amount of loss
taking place is generally small and also in the larger good of the habitant villages.
5.2. Vulnerability of APs
59. The socio-economic vulnerability of APs is assessed by placing them under categories
such as: Below Poverty Line (BPL), Disabled, Elderly, Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe
(ST), and Female Headed Households. As per the SES and Census Survey, it is noted that a
majority of the vulnerable APs fall under more than one vulnerability criterions. Table 5.2
provides a breakup of the various vulnerable groups among the APs.
Table 5.2.Vulnerability of APs
NAME OF THE ROAD BP
L
BP
L +
D
BP
L +
D +
ST
BP
L +
D+
E
BP
L +
E
BP
L +
E +
FH
H
BP
L +
FH
H
BP
L +
ST
D
D +
E
D +
E +
FH
H
E
E +
FH
H
E +
ST
FH
H
NO
VU
LN
ER
AB
ILIT
Y
SC
ST
Gra
nd
To
tal
07 T 14 (SILTORA) TO MANDHAR NEODIH 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 8
BATORI TO BELTUKRI 5 1 5 2 2 15
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 8 2 1 2
13
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 14 1
15
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 7 2 1 2
15
27
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 1 5 2 2 2 12
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 5 1 1 11 1 1
15 1
36
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 3 4 1 2 2
12
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI 2 1 1 6 2 1
13
MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1
16
25
NAME OF THE ROAD BP
L
BP
L +
D
BP
L +
D +
ST
BP
L +
D+
E
BP
L +
E
BP
L +
E +
FH
H
BP
L +
FH
H
BP
L +
ST
D
D +
E
D +
E +
FH
H
E
E +
FH
H
E +
ST
FH
H
NO
VU
LN
ER
AB
ILIT
Y
SC
ST
Gra
nd
To
tal
MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 16 3 1 1 6
27
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 1 2 1 3 1 1 9
MASULGONDI TO KONGIYAKHURD ROAD 1 1
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 1 1 2
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 4 1 3 8
PARSADA TO AAMDI 4 1 2 1 7 15
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 4 1 5 1 1
12
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 17 1
18
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 4 2 6
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 1 2 2 4 9
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 3 3 2
8
T04 TO SHAHADA 1 1 2 4
T07 TO KHAIRA 2 1 1 2 6
Grand Total
100
5
2
4
46
2
6
14
1
4
1
44
1
2
2
49
6
3
292
Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011(Please note: D = Disabled, E = Elderly, FHH = Female Headed Household, SC = Scheduled Caste, ST = Scheduled Tribe)
60. A total of 179 (61.3%) out of 292 surveyed APs are noted to fall under the BPL or Below
Poverty Line vulnerability category, of which 79 APs also fall under other vulnerability criterions
such as „Disabled‟, „Elderly‟, „Female Headed Households‟ and/or members of „Scheduled
Tribes‟.
61. A total of 104 affected households (35.61%) have one or more elderly members, 17 APs
(5.82%) are disabled, and 12 (4.11%) of the affected households are female headed. 21 APs
(7.19%) belong to scheduled tribes and 6 APs belong to scheduled castes. Only 49 APs
(16.78%) do not fall under any vulnerability criterion.
26
62. A majority of the affected persons are therefore noted to be more vulnerable to the
effects of the losses being borne by them under the Project. In keeping with the types and
extent of household vulnerability, the Project provides for assistance and support to be provided
to all vulnerable APs as per the agreed mitigation matrix. The mitigation measures would
primarily aim at linking all vulnerable APs with appropriate Rural Development Schemes that
may enable them to minimize the adverse effects of the losses being incurred by them.
63. The stretch wise list of all APs in the Project state of Chhattisgarh including details of
their vulnerability is annexed as ANNEXURE III and the stretch wise detail of affected assets is
annexed as ANNEXURE IV.
5.3. Type of Loss Incurred by Vulnerable APs
64. Having gained an understanding of the total loss incurred by all the APs taken together,
it is also necessary to review the losses being incurred specifically by the Vulnerable APs.
Table 5.3.Type of Loss Incurred by Vulnerable APs
NAME OF THE ROAD AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
+ T
RE
ES
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
BO
UN
DA
RY
WA
LL
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
Gra
nd
To
tal
07 T 14 (SILTORA) TO MANDHAR NEODIH 1 3 4 8
BATORI TO BELTUKRI 13 13
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 6 7 13
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 15 15
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 9 1 2 12
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 9 1 10
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 16 3 11 5 35
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 2 8 10
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI 11 11
MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 13 2 15
MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 20 1 21
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 9 9
MASULGONDI TO KONGIYAKHURD ROAD 1 1
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 1 1
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 5 5
PARSADA TO AAMDI 8 8
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 9 1 2 12
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 18 18
27
NAME OF THE ROAD AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
+ T
RE
ES
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
BO
UN
DA
RY
WA
LL
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
Gra
nd
To
tal
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 4 2 6
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 5 5
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 6 1 1 8
T04 TO SHAHADA 2 2
T07 TO KHAIRA 5 5
Grand Total 151 2 2 43 36 9 243 Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
65. In line with the overall figures, 153 (62.96%) out of 243 the vulnerable APs are incurring
a loss of agricultural land, while 36 (14.81%) VAPs are noted to lose residential land, 43
(17.69%) VAPs are incurring a loss to their residential boundary wall area, 9 (3.7%) VAPs are
losing portions of their main residential structure and 2 (0.8%) VAPs are incurring a
loss/damage to their main commercial structures.
66. The highest number of vulnerable APs is observed to be on road Khutera to Klarjevra of
Bilaspur district, a majority of which are incurring a loss of residential land and/or structure and
would therefore need to be linked with relevant RD schemes.
5.4. Extent of Impact on Agricultural Land among Vulnerable APs
67. The tables above provide the specific numbers of APs and Vulnerable APs along each
road section, as well as information on the types of household vulnerability and the type of loss
incurred by the APs. As is noted, agricultural land loss is the predominant kind of loss being
incurred by the vulnerable APs, many of who also fall under the BPL category and may be
depending on their agricultural land as their major/only source of livelihood. It is therefore
essential to understand the extent of loss incurred in order to gauge the impacts of the loss on
the lives and livelihoods of the people.
68. Table 5.4 provides detailed information on the size of agricultural land holdings among
the vulnerable APs as well as the extent of loss (in %) being incurred by each of them. Each
road section therefore has multiple values provided as per the responses of the vulnerable APs
surveyed.
28
Table 5.4.Extent of Agricultural Land Loss Incurred by Vulnerable APs
NAME OF THE ROAD AND LAND HOLDINGS OF VAPs (Acres)
≤ 1 %
1% - 2%
2% - 3%
3% - 4%
4% - 5%
5% - 6%
6% - 7%
MORE THAN 10%
Grand Total
BATORI TO BELTUKRI 11 1 1 13
2 1 1
2.5 2 2
3 2 1 3
5 3 1 4
10 1 1
12 1 1
19 1 1
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 5 1 6
1 1 1
1.5 1 1
2.5 1 1
3 1 1
10 2 2
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 15 15
1.25 1 1
2.25 1 1
2.5 2 2
3 3 3
4 1 1
5 3 3
7 2 2
8 1 1
10 1 1
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 8 1 9
2 1 1
4 1 1 2
5 3 3
9 2 2
12 1 1
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 7 1 1 9
4 1 1
5 1 1 2
6 1 1
12 1 1
14 1 1
15 1 1
16 1 1
29
NAME OF THE ROAD AND LAND HOLDINGS OF VAPs (Acres)
≤ 1 %
1% - 2%
2% - 3%
3% - 4%
4% - 5%
5% - 6%
6% - 7%
MORE THAN 10%
Grand Total
20 1 1
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 11 3 2 16
1 2 2
2 1 1
2.5 1 1
2.75 1 1
3 3 2 5
4.5 1 1
5 1 1
9 1 1
11 1 1
14 1 1
21 1 1
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 1 1 2
2 1 1
10 1 1
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI 10 1 11
2.37 1 1
2.5 1 1
3.2 1 1
4 1 1
10 2 2
11.5 1 1
17 2 2
65 1 1
72 1 1
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 6 2 1 9
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 1 1
4 2 1 3
10 1 1
15 1 1
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 1 1
5 1 1
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 4 1 5
2.48 1 1
30
NAME OF THE ROAD AND LAND HOLDINGS OF VAPs (Acres)
≤ 1 %
1% - 2%
2% - 3%
3% - 4%
4% - 5%
5% - 6%
6% - 7%
MORE THAN 10%
Grand Total
4 1 1
5 1 1
10 1 1
17 1 1
PARSADA TO AAMDI 2 3 1 1 1 8
0.15 1 1
1 1 1
1.5 1 1
1.75 1 1
2.5 2 2
3 1 1
4 1 1
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 8 2 10
0.05 1 1
0.09 1 1
2 3 3
3.5 1 1
4 1 1
5 1 1
10 2 2
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 13 2 1 1 1 18
2 2 2
2.5 2 1 1 4
3 1 1 2
3.5 1 1 2
5 1 1
6 1 1
7 1 1
8 2 2
10 1 1 2
17 1 1
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 1 2 1 4
3 1 1 2
5 1 1
15 1 1
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 5 5
2 1 1
3 1 1
4 1 1
31
NAME OF THE ROAD AND LAND HOLDINGS OF VAPs (Acres)
≤ 1 %
1% - 2%
2% - 3%
3% - 4%
4% - 5%
5% - 6%
6% - 7%
MORE THAN 10%
Grand Total
9 1 1
10 1 1
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 4 1 2 7
0.85 1 1
1.75 1 1
2 1 1 2
3 1 1
3.6 1 1
5 1 1
T07 TO KHAIRA 4 1 5
0.5 1 1
3 2 2
4 1 1
15 1 1
Grand Total 115 16 4 4 6 2 2 4 153 Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
69. The size of agricultural land holdings among the vulnerable APs ranges between
minimum 0.05 acres to a maximum of 72 acres. A majority of the vulnerable APs (losing
agricultural land) are however noted to lose only up to 1% of the land holdings. 115 APs
(75.16%) fall under this category. Only 8 (5.23%) APs are noted to lose 5% or more of their
agricultural land of which 4 APs are losing more than 10% of their land holdings (ranging
between 11.11% land holdings up to 40.60% land holdings).
70. Section 5.6 brings to light the high dependence on agriculture and agricultural labour as
a source of income among the VAPs. However, as the number of APs incurring a loss of
agricultural land is a lot more as compared to the extent of land loss, all APs have been in favor
of the voluntary land donation. The Project provides for support and assistance to be provided
to those incurring a higher loss, in an effort to ensure that the vulnerable and especially the BPL
are not affected adversely as a result of the Project.
5.5. Ownership Pattern of Land/Structure among Vulnerable APs
71. The section provides information on the ownership pattern of land and structures being
lost by the vulnerable APs. As noted in table 5.5, a large majority of 216 (88.89%) VAPs are
Title Holders of the agricultural/ residential/ commercial land and/or structure that they are losing
as a result of the voluntary land donation required under the Project.
32
Table 5.5.Land/Structure Ownership Pattern
ENCROACHER SQUATTER
TITLE HOLDER
USER'S RIGHT
NAME OF THE ROAD A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
OU
ND
AR
Y W
AL
L
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
+ T
RE
ES
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
OU
ND
AR
Y W
AL
L
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
OU
ND
AR
Y W
AL
L
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
Gra
nd
To
tal
07 T 14 (SILTORA) TO MANDHAR NEODIH 1 1 1 3 1 1 8
BATORI TO BELTUKRI 13 13
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 6 7 13
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 15 15
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 9 1 2 12
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 1 9 10
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 14 1 4 1 2 2 5 5 1 35
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 2 8 10
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI 11 11
MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 13 2 15
MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 20 1 21
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 9 9
MASULGONDI 1 1
33
ENCROACHER SQUATTER
TITLE HOLDER
USER'S RIGHT
NAME OF THE ROAD A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
OU
ND
AR
Y W
AL
L
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
ND
+ T
RE
ES
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
OU
ND
AR
Y W
AL
L
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
OU
ND
AR
Y W
AL
L
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L L
AN
D
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L S
TR
UC
TU
RE
Gra
nd
To
tal
TO KONGIYAKHURD ROAD
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 1 1
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 5 5
PARSADA TO AAMDI 8 8
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 9 1 2 12
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 18 18
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 4 2 6
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 5 5
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 6 1 1 8
T04 TO SHAHADA 2 2
T07 TO KHAIRA 5 5
Grand Total 14 4 4 1 1 137 2 1 38 30 8 1 1 1 243 Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
72. 22 (9.05%) APs are Encroachers on the agricultural/ residential land or boundary wall
area while 2 APs are squatters on residential and commercial land respectively, and therefore
have no objections to the voluntary land donation. Moreover, 3 APs losing residential
land/structure are stated to have user‟s rights, as a result of long occupancy of the land since
older generations. It may therefore be observed that while a majority of the land loss is
marginal, most of these land holdings are rightfully owned by Title Holders, who see the
34
potential benefits of the Project and are therefore keen on commencing the process of land
donation for road construction.
5.6. Sources of Income among Vulnerable APs
73. The section provides information on the various primary sources of income among the
vulnerable APs. Most families are noted to have more than one source of income as observed
in table 5.6.
Table 5.6.Sources of Income among Vulnerable APs
NAME OF THE ROAD 3
OR
MO
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ B
US
INE
SS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ C
OM
ME
RC
E &
TR
AD
E
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T J
OB
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ O
TH
ER
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ P
VT
.JO
BS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ S
KIL
LE
D L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
NO
N-A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
OT
HE
R
PV
T.
JO
BS
SK
ILL
ED
LA
BO
UR
Gra
nd
To
tal
07 T 14 (SILTORA) TO MANDHAR NEODIH 3 4 1 8
BATORI TO BELTUKRI
13
13
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 1 4 8
13
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 6 7 1 1
15
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 2 1 8 1
12
35
NAME OF THE ROAD 3
OR
MO
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ B
US
INE
SS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ C
OM
ME
RC
E &
TR
AD
E
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T J
OB
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ O
TH
ER
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ P
VT
.JO
BS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ S
KIL
LE
D L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
NO
N-A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
OT
HE
R
PV
T.
JO
BS
SK
ILL
ED
LA
BO
UR
Gra
nd
To
tal
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL
10
10
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA
29 6
35
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 4 4 1 1
10
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI
10 1
11
MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 7 3 1 1 3
15
MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 2 9 6 1 2 1
21
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 4 3 2 9
MASULGONDI TO KONGIYAKHURD ROAD 1 1
36
NAME OF THE ROAD 3
OR
MO
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ B
US
INE
SS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ C
OM
ME
RC
E &
TR
AD
E
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T J
OB
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ O
TH
ER
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ P
VT
.JO
BS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ S
KIL
LE
D L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
NO
N-A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
OT
HE
R
PV
T.
JO
BS
SK
ILL
ED
LA
BO
UR
Gra
nd
To
tal
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 1 1
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 4 1 5
PARSADA TO AAMDI 3 2 3 8
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA
12
12
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 4 9 1 1 2 1
18
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 6 6
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 4 1 5
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 2 3 1 1 1 8
T04 TO SHAHADA 2 2
T07 TO KHAIRA 1 1 1 1 1 5
37
NAME OF THE ROAD 3
OR
MO
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ B
US
INE
SS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ C
OM
ME
RC
E &
TR
AD
E
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T J
OB
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ O
TH
ER
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ P
VT
.JO
BS
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
+ S
KIL
LE
D L
AB
OU
R
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ A
LL
IED
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
+ N
ON
-AG
RIC
UL
TU
RE
LA
BO
UR
NO
N-A
GR
ICU
LT
UR
E L
AB
OU
R
OT
HE
R
PV
T.
JO
BS
SK
ILL
ED
LA
BO
UR
Gra
nd
To
tal
Grand Total
24
104
45
2
1
1
1
25
1
1
1
18
1
3
12
1
1
1
243
Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
74. A large majority of 204 (83.95%) VAPs are noted to pursue agriculture and/or
agricultural labour and allied work as a primary source of income for their families. 170 (69.96%)
of these VAPs are involved solely in agriculture/agricultural labour work while the remaining 34
are also noted to pursue other work including skilled labour, non-agricultural labour, commerce
& trade, private jobs, business and government jobs.
75. Moreover, 24 affected vulnerable households are involved in 3 or more than 3 kinds of
occupations, wherein different family members may be involved in different jobs, a number of
which are noted to be involved in agricultural activities as well. The high dependence on
agriculture as a source of livelihood and therefore on the agricultural land owned is evident
through the results of the census survey.
5.7. Household Size of Vulnerable APs
76. The total household dependence on agricultural land and the impacts of the Project on
the household members may further be understood through a review of the number of family
members in each household. This is illustrated in Table 5.7.
38
Table 5.7.Number of Members per Affected Vulnerable Household
NAME OF THE ROAD UP TO 5 MEMBERS
6 - 10 MEMBERS
11 - 15 MEMBERS
16 OR MORE MEMBERS
Grand Total
07 T 14 (SILTORA) TO MANDHAR NEODIH 1 2 3 2 8
BATORI TO BELTUKRI 2 9 2 13
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 3 8 2 13
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 5 7 2 1 15
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 3 7 2 12
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 5 3 2 10
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 10 15 9 1 35
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 5 3 2 10
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI 9 2 11
MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 8 7 15
MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 7 13 1 21
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 2 6 1 9
MASULGONDI TO KONGIYAKHURD ROAD 1 1
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 1 1
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 2 3 5
PARSADA TO AAMDI 1 6 1 8
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 4 5 3 12
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 7 8 3 18
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 2 3 1 6
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 2 1 2 5
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 6 2 8
T04 TO SHAHADA 1 1 2
T07 TO KHAIRA 1 3 1 5
Grand Total 75 121 41 6 243 Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
77. Family sizes are predominantly large with 168 (69.14%) VAPs belonging to households
with 6 or more household members, of which 41 (16.87%) households have between 11 – 15
members and 6 households have more than 15 members each. Only 75 households have up to
5 family/household members.
78. As has been noted earlier in the chapter, over 73% of the total VAPs fall below the
poverty line and over 83% depend on agriculture/agricultural labour as a primary source of
income. The dependence on agricultural land is therefore noted to be extremely high, especially
for the poorest of the poor, which is further intensified due to the large family sizes that need to
be sustained on the income earned. However, as has been noted during the transect walks and
39
the census surveys, most vulnerable affected households are looking at the benefits of
improved road connectivity, and hope that the Project would enable them to improve the
marketability of their produce as well.
5.8. Status of Literacy and Access to Health Facilities among Vulnerable APs
79. The table below provides information on the general level of education of vulnerable
affected household members living on all Project roads taken together. The table is therefore
representative of all family members of each affected household and records their education
status in order to provide a comprehensive understand of the total „level‟ of education in the
Project area.
Table 5.8.Education Level of Vulnerable Affected Household Members in Chhattisgarh
Education Level Number of Household Members % Household Members
Illiterate 514 27.98
Primary 524 28.52
Middle 341 18.56
Secondary 171 9.31
Senior Secondary 66 3.59
Graduate 29 1.58
Post Graduate 8 0.44
No Response 184 10.02
Total 1837 100 Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
80. The 243 vulnerable affected households identified and surveyed have a population of a
total of 1837 persons. While an effort has been made to procure the literacy status of each of
these 1837 household members, a „no response‟ was recorded for 184 (10.02%) members
during the survey. The statistics obtained for close to 90% of the population however, provides a
clear understanding of the status of literacy among vulnerable affected households in the
Project area.
81. 27.98% members are noted to illiterate while a close 28.52% have obtained literacy only
up till the primary level. Only 103 (5.61%) have studied beyond the secondary level of which
only 37 have attained graduate or post graduate qualifications.
82. As has been noted during the consultations held with APs, the lack of road connectivity
and therefore the lack of adequate transport facilities along the road sections has been a major
cause of limited literacy among the young, and especially among the girls. Community members
are hopeful that once the Project would bring about an improvement in public transportation
which would enable children to access schools of higher education and thereby prevent them
from dropping out after completion of primary or middle school. The construction of pucca roads
40
would therefore enable children to travel even in the monsoon season when the Kutcha roads
are known to get submerged in water, thereby leaving villages isolated for months together.
83. Another positive impact of the Project on the lives of the people is that of increased
accessibility to health care. The table below enables one to understand the current status of
health facilities along the road sections as stated by the vulnerable APs.
Table 5.9: Access to Health Facilities among Vulnerable APs
NAME OF THE ROAD
DO
CT
OR
S O
N
CA
LL
DO
CT
OR
S O
N
CA
LL
+ Q
UA
CK
S
HE
AL
TH
CA
MP
S
HO
SP
ITA
L
HO
SP
ITA
L +
NU
RS
ING
HO
ME
+
HE
AL
TH
CA
MP
S
NO
PR
OP
ER
FA
CIL
ITIE
S
NU
RS
ING
HO
ME
/
DIS
PE
NS
AR
Y
QU
AC
KS
Gra
nd
To
tal
07 T 14 (SILTORA) TO MANDHAR NEODIH 3 1 4 8
BATORI TO BELTUKRI 1 2 10 13
BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 13 13
BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 4 1 10 15
DHAMDHA GANDAI ROAD TO PATHARIKHURD ROAD 8 1 3 12
KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 10 10
KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 1 34 35
MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 10 10
MAIN ROAD (PADUMSARA) TO HATHMUDI 3 8 11
MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 15 15
MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 20 1 21
MAIN ROAD TO JANGALPUR ROAD 9 9
MASULGONDI TO KONGIYAKHURD ROAD 1 1
MOTINPUR KALA TO PADOBHAT 1 1
PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 1 4 5
PARSADA TO AAMDI 7 1 8
PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 12 12
PIPERIA TO KORWAY ROAD 18 18
SAJA DEORBIJA TO BOD ROAD 4 2 6
SAJA KOTWA ROAD TO MATRA ROAD 2 1 2 5
SIGMA TO PARSWANI 8 8
T04 TO SHAHADA 2 2
T07 TO KHAIRA 5 5
Grand Total 57 1 1 20 1 152 10 1 243 Source: SES & Census Survey, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme, 2011
41
84. A large majority of 152 vulnerable APs (62.55%) mention that there are no proper
facilities in their villages for accessing medical aid. 58 (23.87%) VAPs however state that they
are aware of doctors on call while 31 (12.76%) VAPs access hospitals, nursing homes or
dispensaries. The problem however lies in being able to access these services during the
monsoon months when Kutcha roads remain submerged in rain water; as well as in accessing
immediate medical aid during emergencies, due to the lack of proper transportation facilities.
Community members therefore associate the Project with corresponding benefits of improved
access to proper health care as well.
5.9. Information on type and extent of loss per AP in the state of Chhattisgarh
85. The following tables provide a detailed over-view of the type of loss incurred and the
extent of loss incurred per AP in the state of Chhattisgarh.
5.9.1. DISTRICT: RAIPUR
Table1: District: Raipur/ Block: Dharsiva/ Road Name: 07 T 14 (Siltora) to Mandhar Neodh/ Length of
Road: 3.140km
Total APs: 8/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
1 KRISHNALUMAR BAGHEL
MANDHAR
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 165 3.75 2.27
2 TIJAU RAM NEODIH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + D 58.8 3.7 6.29
3 DEDURAM NISHAD NEODIH
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + D 233.09 8.15 3.50
4 KHEDURAM NISHAD NEODIH
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E 159.6 6 3.76
5 KANHAIYA LAL MANDHAR
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL D 147 12 8.16
6 LAKSHAN RAO KORE
MANDHAR
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E 31.5 2.5 7.94
7 SONIA NEODIH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + FHH 217.5 7.5 3.45
8 GULAB BANJAR MANDHAR
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE SC 10.56 1.6
15.15
86. While shifts in alignment could prevent the loss to agricultural land bordering the proposed road, loss to residential and commercial property could not be avoided due to the habitation along the proposed road alignment. 4 main residential structures and 1 commercial structure are being affected in the process up to a maximum of 15.15% loss. All APs along the road fall under one or more vulnerability category.
42
Table 2: District: Raipur/ Block: Tilda/ Road Name: Motinpur Kala to Padobhat / Length of Road: 3.298km
Total APs: 2/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 PREM CHAND CHINGARIYA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D 5 0.02 0.4
2 ANJORDAS CHINGARIYA
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 3 0.009 0.3
87. The proposed road passes mainly through government land and hence there are only two APs identified along the stretch. Further the land loss suffered by both APs is less that 1% of their total agricultural land holdings.
Table 3: District: Raipur/ Block: Abhanpur/ Road Name: Parsada to Aamdi / Length of Road: 2.285km
Total APs: 15/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 GAYARAM AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1.75 0.038 2.17
2 HIRALAL AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 0.15 0.032
21.33
3 KAMNATH YADAV AMDI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1 0.046 4.60
4 SIRAJ SINGH AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1.5 0.027 1.80
5 AGNU AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E 2.5 0.01 0.40
6 DAVLAL AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 4 0.043 1.08
7 PITAMBER AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 3 0.052 1.73
8 MILAU NISHAD AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND E 2.5 0.01 0.40
9 PUNARAM AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 1.15 0.02 1.74
10 VISHESWAR NISHAD AMDI
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 1.3 0.055 4.23
11 SHATRUGHAN AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABI 2.5 0.036 1.44
43
LITY
12 CHINTA YADAV AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 0.5 0.032 6.40
13 MURALI AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 0.5 0.011 2.20
14 INDU YADAV AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 0.5 0.021 4.20
15 DAUDKHAN AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 0.5 0.076
15.20
Note: There are only 7 APs losing more than 10% of agricultural land and none of them belong to scheduled tribes.
88. The 2.285km road passes through agricultural land holdings of 15 APs, of which 6 APs are incurring a loss of more than 4% of their total agricultural land holding including 2 APs losing more than 15% of the land owned. Further, more than half the APs on the road belong to one or more vulnerable groups.
Table 4: District: Raipur/ Block: Sigma/ Road Name: Hirmi (Sigma) to Parswani / Length of Road: 2.240km
Total APs: 9/ Absentees: 1
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 BALRAM PARSWANI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.008 0.16
2 LAKHAN PARSWANI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1.75 0.009 0.51
3 SOMNATH PARSWANI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3.6 0.011 0.31
4 RAMLAL PARSWANI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 3 0.001 0.03
5 REWA RAM PARSWANI
AGRICULTURE LAND + TREES BPL + E 0.85 0.03 3.53
6 RAMLAL PARSWANI
AGRICULTURE LAND E 2 0.052 2.6
7 AWADH PARSWANI
AGRICULTURE LAND E 2 0.07 3.5
44
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
8 MANIKPURI PARSWANI
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E 216 8.986 4.16
89. 8 APs (including 1 absentee) are incurring a loss of agricultural land. Among the 7 surveyed APs, 4 are incurring a loss of less than 1% while 3 are losing between 2% to 4% of their agricultural land holding. All APs fall under one or more vulnerable groups. Further, 1 VAP is noted to lose 4.16% of his residential land. Residential land loss to 10 other APs was successfully avoided with the decision to construct CC roads taken at the time of the transect walks itself.
Table 5: District: Raipur/ Block: Pallari/ Road Name: T04 (Km.9) to Shahada / Length of Road: 2.507km
Total APs: 4/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
1 BAISHAKHU SHAHADA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 1120 56 5.00
2 KHUMAN SHAHADA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL D + E + FHH 1100 72 6.55
3 PARMANAND SHAHU SHAHADA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 45.36 10.8
23.81
4 BIPAT SHAHADA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 1100 60 5.45
90. Only 4 APs have been identified along the road, losing residential boundary wall area. The extent of loss is however relatively bigger, with 3 APs (encroachers) losing between 5% to 6.55% of the area and 1 AP (title holder) losing as much as 23.81% of residential area. This AP is only losing residential boundary wall and has no more impact on the main structure or any of the productive assets.
Table 6: District: Raipur/ Block: Palari/ Road Name: T07 to Khaira / Length of Road: 1.564km
Total APs: 6/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 SANT KUMAR KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 0.5 0.016 3.20
2 BHAGCHAND KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.01 0.33
45
3 KRISHLAL KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND
BPL + D + ST 3 0.005 0.17
4 BRIJESH KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 10 0.033 0.33
5 KHUBSHU RAM KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND SC 15 0.0076 0.05
6 SANTI BAI KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND SC 4 0.014 0.35
91. The road is only 1.56km long and affects less than 1% of the agricultural land holding of 5 APs and 3.20% of the agricultural land of 1 AP. Five of the APs fall under different vulnerability groups. Shifts in proposed road alignment during the transect walk further prevented the loss of residential land and one temple.
5.9.2. DISTRICT: BILASPUR
Table 7: District: Bilaspur/ Block: Belha/ Road Name: Batori to Beltukri / Length of Road: 5.020km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 1
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 RAJA RAM KURELI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.098 3.27
2 RAJ KUMAR BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 10 0.027 0.27
3 RAM DHUNI BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.5 0.011 0.44
4 HARI PRASAD BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.005 0.17
5 BHARAT BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.04 0.80
6 SAT RUHAN KURFLI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E 5 0.04 0.80
7 NAROTTAM BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 2 0.01 0.50
8 SHATRUHAMS BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 5 0.014 0.28
9 DASRATH BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 5 0.07 1.40
10 PRADEEP BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 3 0.022 0.73
11 PANSH RAM YADAV BARTORI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 19 0.006 0.03
12 GORELAL KAUSHIK BARTORI
AGRICULTURE LAND
BPL + E + FHH 2.5 0.015 0.60
13 BODHWA RAM BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND
BPL + E + FHH 12 0.085 0.71
46
14 MAHARAN DASS BARTORI
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 15 0.025 0.17
15 LATEL YADAV BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.008 0.16
92. The road stretches over more than 5 km and is noted to affect the agricultural land of 16 households (including 1 absentee). Among the 15 APs surveyed, 14 are losing less than 2% of their agricultural land holdings while 1 is incurring a loss of 3.27% of his agricultural land. 13 of the APs further belong to one or more vulnerable groups. During the transect walks efforts were made to reduce the scale of loss, thereby saving 9 households from losing portions of their agricultural land. Due to the marginal loss being incurred by the APs however, no resentment to land donation was faced.
Table 8: District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Bijuria to Uraihapara / Length of Road: 1.75km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 3
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 KUSHUAL SAHU URAIHAPARA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1 0.061 6.10
2 CHHABI LAL PATEL
URAIHAPARA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 10 0.004 0.04
3 LAXMAN PATEL URAIHAPARA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 10 0.01 0.10
4 RAMCHARAN SAHU
URAIHAPARA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1.5 0.008 0.53
5 FULSIR SURWANSI
URAIHAPARA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + FHH 2.5 0.004 0.16
6 SITA RAM SAHU URAIHAPARA
AGRICULTURE LAND SC 3 0.002 0.07
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
7 BHUSHAN SAHU
URAIHAPARA
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 161.88 17
10.50
8 CHHANNU RAM KEWARI
URAIHAPARA
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 161.88 20
12.35
9 KULESIWAR URAIHAP RESIDENTIAL BPL 121.41 19 15.6
47
PATEL ARA LAND 5
10 RAM SAHI URAIHAPARA
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 687.99 7 1.02
11 TULSI SURYWANSHI
URAIHAPARA
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + FHH 121.41 15
12.35
12 CHNDRIKA PATEL
URAIHAPARA
RESIDENTIAL LAND FHH 283.29 7 2.47
13 BHAGHU SAHU URAIHAPARA
RESIDENTIAL LAND SC 121.41 12 9.88
93. The 1.75km road is noted to have a higher density of population living along the road section, thereby affecting both, agricultural and residential land. 9 APs (including 3 absentees) are incurring a loss of agricultural land. Of the 6 surveyed APs, only one VAP is losing over 6% of his agricultural land holding while the others are incurring a loss of less than 1% land holding. Moreover, 7 APs are losing portions of their residential land holdings, of which 4 APs (all vulnerable) are losing more than 10% of their residential land holdings. Though efforts were made during the transect walks to minimize the extent of loss (preventing 9 households from incurring land loss), the loss being incurred by the APs was found to be unavoidable.
Table 9: District: Bilaspur/ Block: Patharia/ Road Name: Khutera to Klarjevra / Length of Road: 2.940km
Total APs: 36/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 KISHUN KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 11 0.076 0.69
2 KA;LI RAM KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2 0.015 0.77
3 DWARIKA KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E 3 0.044 1.47
4 DEWAN SINGH KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 3 0.006 0.22
5 RAM RATAN KALARJEWRA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 1 0.044 4.40
6 GHANSHYAM KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 2.5 0.04 1.60
7 LAL SINGH KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 21 0.029 0.14
8 ALAKHRAM KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 3 0.0034 0.11
9 KUSHAL KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 4.5 0.015 0.33
10 SHIV KUMAR KALARJEWRA
AGRICULTURE LAND D + E 1 0.044 4.40
11 DEWNARAYAN KALARJEWRA
AGRICULTURE LAND E 2.75 0.026 0.95
12 UMEN SINGH KALARJE AGRICULTURE E 3 0.003 0.10
48
WRA LAND
13 SUDAMA KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND E 5 0.009 0.18
14 MANDODARI KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND E 14 0.03 0.21
15 ASHOK KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND E 9 0.018 0.20
16 SANTOSH KALARJEWRA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.031 1.03
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
17 OM PRAKASH KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 1800 5 0.28
18 JANKU KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + D 9600 208 2.17
19 VISH RAM KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 264 8.25 3.13
20 BEDURAM KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E 750 65 8.67
21 SHIVNADAYAN KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E 4080 2.08 0.05
22 BEDURAM KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 750 8.66 1.15
23 BHUNESHWAR KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 233.24 6.8 2.92
24 CHHOARAM KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 1305 145
11.11
25 GOKUL KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 2720 42.5 1.56
26 HINCHHARAM KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 8649 93 1.08
27 ISHWARI KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 540 15.6 2.89
28 KEJRAM KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 11060 237 2.14
29 KHEM SINGH KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 801 10 1.25
30 RADHEYSHYAM KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E 3380 32.5 0.96
31 RAM LAKHAN KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 2960 96.2 3.25
32 SHIV KUMAR KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL 122.4 3.6 2.94
33 GAUKARAN KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E 590 5.9 1.00
34 KUBER KUTERA RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E 93 2.79 3.00
35 SOHAN KUTERA RESIDENTIAL BPL + E 187.2 9 4.81
49
STRUCTURE
36 NARESH KUMAR
KALARJEWRA
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE E 175.95 5.75 3.27
94. The relatively more densely populated 2.9km road section is noted to affect a total of 36 households, even after loss to 10 households was avoided during the transect walk. 16 of these APs are losing agricultural land of which a majority are losing less than 1% of their land holdings while only 2 APs are losing slightly over 4% of their agricultural land holdings. Therefore, while the number of APs might be more, the extent of loss incurred is relatively small. 94. Of the remaining 20 APs, 12 are losing portions of their residential land (ranging 0.05% to 11.1% of total residential land holdings), 3 are incurring a loss to their residential boundary wall area while 5 are incurring a loss to their main residential structure. All 5 APs losing structure belong to one or more vulnerable groups and the extent of loss incurred ranges 1% to 4.81% of the total structured area.
Table 10: District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Pathrapali to Korbi Banka / Length of Road: 9km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 RAM SAY YADAV KORBI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 0.05 0.01 20.00
2 NIRTAN DAS MANIKPURI KORBI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 4 0.02 0.50
3 ANAND MARVI KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 3.5 0.005 0.14
4 MOHAN BANWOLI KORBI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 2 0.01 0.50
5 RAMESWAR KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 10 0.01 0.10
6 JATRI KORAM KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 2 0.007 0.35
7 MAHESH PRASAD KORBI
AGRICULTURE LAND
BPL + D + ST 2 0.006 0.30
8 SANTARAM KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND SC 0.09 0.01 11.11
9 FUKU SYAM KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND ST 5 0.01 0.20
10 HEERA RAM RAV KORBI
AGRICULTURE LAND + TREES BPL + ST 10 0.02 0.20
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding
Land/Structure Loss
% Loss
50
(sq.m) (sq.m)
11 DIWAN DAS MANIKPURI KORBI
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 1618.8 33 2.04
12 SANTOSH DAS MAHANI KORBI
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 121.41 15
12.35
95. The road is one of the longer ones covered under the Project, stretching over 9km. Construction of a CC road helps avoid loss to 11 APs who would have otherwise lost portions of their residential land. Due to limited availability of sufficient land width however, 2 APs are still losing portions of their residential land, of which 1 AP (BPL) is noted to lose over 12% of his residential land holding. Extent of agricultural land loss to the remaining 10 APs is relatively less, barring 2 VAPs who are losing 11.11% and 20% of their agricultural land holdings respectively.
DISTRICT: DURG
Table 11: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Bortara to Khairy Road / Length of Road: 3.100km
Total APs: 15/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 DINA LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 7 0.019 0.27
2 HARI NAIE KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1.25 0.002 0.16
3 SUNDER LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.5 0.004 0.16
4 BHUWAN SINGH KHAIRIY
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.02 0.40
5 SANTOSH LODHI KHAIRIY
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.5 0.014 0.56
6 BAHAL LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.25 0.021 0.93
7 AMARU LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 10 0.02 0.20
8 SANTOSH GHONDU KHAIRIY
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 4 0.017 0.43
9 RAM NATH LODHI KHAIRIY
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.011 0.22
10 TEJASVI LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.02 0.67
11 LACHCHU LODHI KHAIRIY
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 8 0.016 0.20
12 SHUKLAL LODHI KHAIRIY
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.011 0.37
13 NAND LAL KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE BPL 5 0.005 0.10
51
LODHI LAND
14 BISOHA LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.004 0.13
15 HARI GOND KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 7 0.02 0.29
96. All 15 APs (BPL) are losing less than 1% of their total agricultural land holdings. No residential land loss is taking place along the road due to alignment shifts made during the transect walk itself.
Table 12: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Dhamdha Gandai Road to Patharikhurd Road / Length of Road: 4.839km
Total APs: 27/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 MAHANT LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.018 0.36
2 ANJORI LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.034 0.68
3 DULAR SINGH PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 4 0.033 0.83
4 RADHELAL LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 9 0.037 0.41
5 MOHAN LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 9 0.007 0.08
6 JAGESWAR LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 4 0.17 4.25
7 CHHABILAL LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 2 0.02 1.00
8 ESWAR LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND E 12 0.024 0.20
9 SHITKUMAR LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND E 5 0.002 0.04
10 SHIVKUMAR LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 20 0.029 0.15
11 JAGDISH LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.011 0.22
12 LEKHU LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.015 0.30
13 DUKHWA LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.015 0.30
14 DAN SINGH PATHARJ AGRICULTURE NO 15 0.043 0.29
52
KHURD LAND VULNERABILITY
15 ALICHAND LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.01 0.20
16 PRATAP LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.023 0.46
17 SAMARU LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.025 0.50
18 HARAN LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 3 0.009 0.30
19 REKHA LODHI PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 6 0.011 0.18
20 BHAWSINGH LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.027 0.54
21 KH. SINGH LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 3 0.012 0.40
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
22 DULARWA LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 400 29 7.25
23 ASWINI LODHI PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 400 24 6.00
24 PALTON GOND PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + ST 500 56
11.20
25 BHAGBAT LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 240 16 6.67
26 ESHWARI LODHI
PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 560 56
10.00
27 JEDHU LODHI PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 600 12 2.00
97. 20 APs are losing up to 1% of their total agricultural land holdings while 1 AP is incurring a loss of 4.25% agricultural land holding. Therefore once again, while the number of APs may be more than those on other roads, the extent of loss being incurred per AP is noted to be minimal. On the other hand, 6 APs are noted to bear a loss of residential land/ boundary wall area, of which 5 APs are losing over 5% land holdings, including 2 APs losing 10% or more. Residential land loss by 8 other households was avoided through the decision to construct a CC road requiring less land width, taken at the time of the transect walk.
53
Table 11: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Kanhera to Sukhatal Road / Length of Road: 3.035km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 ANJORI SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E 5 0.011 0.22
2 JHOOLARAM SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 14 0.017 0.12
3 KHURBAHARA SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 16 0.011 0.07
4 BENIRAM SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 20 0.0088 0.04
5 BUDHIYA SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 5 0.28 5.60
6 SHYAMLAL SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND D + E 12 0.042 0.35
7 GANESH SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND D + E 15 0.072 0.48
8 LAKSHMAN SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND E 4 0.061 1.53
9 TIHARI SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND E 6 0.018 0.30
10 DUKALU SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 13 0.045 0.35
11 KHAMMAN SUKHATAL
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 18 0.149 0.83
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
12 SHIV KUMSR BETAR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E 1500 1500 100
54
98. Agriculture land loss by 2 APs and 9 VAPs is noted to be minimal, not affecting the total land holdings to a great extent. However 1 VAP is noted to incur a loss of his entire commercial structure owing to the voluntary land donation. The VAP must therefore be linked with relevant RD schemes on a priority basis.
Table 14: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Main Road (Keshtara) to Bagledi Road / Length of Road: 2.379km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 HIRDAY RAM NISHAD BAGLEDI
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 2 0.035 1.75
2 RATI RAM LODHI BAGLEDI
AGRICULTURE LAND E 10 0.41 4.10
3 RAJ KUMAR PATEL BAGLEDI
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 15 0.065 0.43
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
4 KAMTA PATEL BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 510 20 3.92
5 BUDHU NISHAD BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 300 18 6.00
6 POORU PATEL BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 600 75
12.50
7 BISHRAM LODHI BAGLEDI
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E 300 24 8.00
8 KHEMU NAI BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E 600 75
12.50
9 BISHUL NISHAD BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E 400 18 4.50
10 DWARIKA BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND E 600 30 5.00
11 KANSHBATI SEN BAGLEDI
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + FHH 500 15 3.00
12 SANTOSH PATEL BAGLEDI
RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABI 600 24 4.00
55
LITY
Table 15: District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Hathmudi Road /
Length of Road: 3.050km
Total APs: 13/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 SHIV KUMAR GIDHWA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 3.2 0.003 0.09
2 GENDLAL HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 2.37 0.054 2.28
3 BED RAM HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 11.5 0.024 0.21
4 HOLKAR HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND D + E 65 0.0098 0.02
5 NEM SINGH HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E 17 0.0024 0.01
6 FAGUA HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E 17 0.003 0.02
7 KEJU RAM HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E 4 0.014 0.35
8 BINDUBAI HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E 10 0.0024 0.02
9 AAJU RAM HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E 72 0.019 0.03
10 BALDAU HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E 10 0.013 0.13
11 POKESHWAR GIDHWA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 11 0.018 0.16
12 LATEL HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 8 0.033 0.41
13 NARAD SINGH HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND ST 2.5 0.003 0.12
99. All 13 APs are incurring a loss of agricultural land, 1 of which is losing slightly over 2% of his land holdings while 12 are incurring a loss of less than 1%. 11 out of 13 APs are noted to fall under different vulnerable groups. The reduction in extent of loss incurred was possible during the transect walk through the decision to construct a CC road, further saving 10 households from incurring any kind of land/structural loss.
Table 16: District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road Baghul to Gopalbhaina Road / Length of Road: 4.030km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 0
56
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
1 SATRUHAN SAHU
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 300 20 6.67
2 SANTARAM SAHU
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 300 23 7.67
3 KRIPAL SAHU GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 7 3.50
4 CHHANU SAHU GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 400 40
10.00
5 JAGDISH SAHU GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + D 200 8 4.00
6 PANCHU SAHU GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 400 30 7.50
7 RATIRAM YADAV
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 560 28 5.00
8 DASHRATH SEN GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 240 12 5.00
9 MANGLU SINHA GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E 400 40
10.00
10 CHANDRAMAN SINGH
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E 600 40 6.67
11 ADALAT SAHU GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E 300 24 8.00
12 KRISHNA BAJPAYEE
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E + FHH 300 18 6.00
13 ANUP SAHU GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 300 30
10.00
14 SURESH THAKUR
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL ST 300 18 6.00
15 BHAGIRATHI DHARU
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 300 16 5.33
16 GONDA BAI THAKUR
GOPALBHANA
RESIDENTIAL LAND E + ST 300 28 9.33
100. The 4.030km road passes through inhabited land thereby affecting 16 APs, all of which are incurring a loss of residential land or boundary wall area. Residential loss incurred by 10 other households was avoided during the transect walk with the decision to construct a CC road. However, due to limited land width available, 16 households continue to be affected. 15 APs fall under one or more vulnerable groups, while 14 APs are incurring a loss of 5% or more of their total residential land holdings. 3 of these APs are incurring a loss of 10% or higher.
Table 17: District: Durg/ Block: Bemetara/ Road Name: Dokerbekla to Damadiah Road / Length of Road: 1.887km
Total APs: 27/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
57
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
1 HIRAVAN NISHAD DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 10 5.00
2 RAJESH SEN DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 12 6.00
3 GHASHIYA NISHAD DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 15 7.50
4 KESHAV NISHAD DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 8 4.00
5 REKHA LAL NISHAD DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 9 4.50
6 RAMDHAR YADAV DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 10 5.00
7 TULSI SAHU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 250 25
10.00
8 MUNNA NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 250 8 3.20
9 KEJAHA SAHU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 20
10.00
10 MANGLU NISHAD DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 10 5.00
11 MANGLU NISHAD DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 250 15 6.00
12 MANI CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 600 66
11.00
13 HARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 250 20 8.00
14 MALIK NIRMALKAR DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 600 90
15.00
15 TIRIT CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 250 20 8.00
16 KHILAWAN SEN DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 250 26
10.40
17 BIRJU NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 200 15 7.50
18 ANGAT VISWAKARMA DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E 250 24 9.60
19 SITA NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + FHH 200 10 5.00
20 CHAITU DHRU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + ST 200 14 7.00
21 BIHARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 600 66
11.00
22 TIHARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 400 60
15.00
23 CHATUR NIRMALKAR DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 300 20 6.67
58
24 BHAGWANI CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 250 20 8.00
25 SOBHA SAHU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY 200 12 6.00
26 GANGA RAM NISHAD DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 200 9 4.50
27 JANAK BAISHNAV DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
NO VULNERABILITY 200 15 7.50
101. The 1.887km road is noted to affect 27 households, 25 of which are losing portions of their residential boundary wall area, 1 AP losing residential land and 1 AP incurring a loss to his main residential structure. Further, only 6 of these APs do not fall under any vulnerability criterions, while 21 APs are noted to fall below the poverty line, 5 of which also fall under other vulnerable groups. The extent of loss incurred is noted to range 3% to 15%; with 23 APs losing 5% or more of their total residential land/structure and 7 APs incurring a loss of more than 10% of their residential land holdings.
Table 18: District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road to Jangalpur Road / Length of Road: 2.008km
Total APs: 9/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 ARJUN SHIVARE LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2 0.015 0.75
2 CHANDRIKA MANIKPURI LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 10 0.016 0.16
3 LAXMAN GADRIYA LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 1 0.059 5.90
4 HARENDRA GOND LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 4 0.013 0.33
5 BHOLA RAM SAHU LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 4 0.044 1.10
6 JEEVAN GOND LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 2 0.003 0.15
7 MARHU GADRIYA LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND E 3 0.04 1.33
8 YASH PAL SINGH THAKUR LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND E + ST 15 0.025 0.17
9 BEDIYA GADRIYA LITIPUR
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + FHH 4 0.025 0.63
102. 9 APs are incurring a loss of agricultural land, of which only 1 AP is losing more than 5% of the total agricultural land holdings. All 9 APs fall under one or more vulnerable groups.
59
Table 19: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road / Length of Road: 0.800
Total APs: 3/ Absentees: 2
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
1 FEKKU SAHU KONGIYA KHURD
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E 500 50 10
103. Only 3 APs (including 2 absentees) are incurring a loss of residential land/boundary wall area along the road. The VAP interviewed however is noted to lose 10% of his residential boundary wall area and is hence eligible for assistance on a priority basis.
Table 20: District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Kirki Road / Length of Road: 3.446km
Total APs: 10/ Absentees: 2
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 KRIPA PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND E 5 0.088 1.76
2 MOTI PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND E 10 0.0098 0.10
3 DAYA RAM PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND E 17 0.031 0.18
4 ROOP SINGH PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND E 2.48 0.0163 0.66
5 SHANTU VERMA
PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND FHH 4 0.023 0.58
6 AWAD RAM PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 10 0.072 0.72
7 CHAKENDRA PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 140 0.088 0.06
8 LAKSHMAN PADUMSARA
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 4 0.0175 0.44
104. 10 APs (including 2 absentees) are incurring a loss of agricultural land, while losses by 14 other households was avoided by making shifts in road alignment during the transect walk itself. Among the 8 surveyed APs, extent of loss is noted to be minimal with 7 APs losing less
60
than 1% of their total agricultural land holdings.
Table 21: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Piperia to Korway Road / Length of Road: 1.839km
Total APs: 23/ Absentees: 5
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 THANU SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.042 1.40
2 GHASI SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 17 0.033 0.19
3 JITU NIRMALKAR PIPERIYA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.5 0.17 6.80
4 MELU NILMARKAR PIPERIYA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.5 0.008 0.32
5 PANCHU NIRMALKAR PIPERIYA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 7 0.017 0.24
6 LEKHURAM SAHU PIPERIYA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 10 0.23 2.30
7 RUNGO SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.013 0.26
8 CHOTURAM SAHU PIPERIYA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2 0.012 0.60
9 KALLU SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 10 0.01 0.10
10 GANESH SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.012 0.40
11 MOJI SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.5 1.015
40.60
12 HIRA SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2 0.017 0.85
13 RAMESH SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 2.5 0.003 0.12
14 BRIJ SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3.5 0.07 2.00
15 SANJITA PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3.5 0.013 0.37
16 SANJITA PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 8 0.014 0.18
17 SANJITA PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 8 0.029 0.36
18 SUNDER GOND PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 6 0.011 0.18
105. The 1.839km long road has a total of 23 APs (including 5 absentees) all losing agriculture land. All 18 surveyed APs are noted to belong to BPL families, though the extent of loss being incurred is predominantly less than 1% of the respective land holdings. Only 1 AP is
61
incurring a substantial loss of close to 40% of his agricultural land holding and must therefore be linked with requisite RD schemes and assistance on a priority basis.
Table 22: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Deorbija to Bod Road / Length of Road: 2.459km
Total APs: 6/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 SANTOSH YADAV BOD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.058 1.16
2 MAN HARAN SAHU BOD
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.13 4.33
3 DHAN SINGH SAHU BOD
AGRICULTURE LAND E 3 0.019 0.63
4 LEKHRAM VERMA BOD
AGRICULTURE LAND E 15 0.17 1.13
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Land/Structure Holding (sq.m)
Land/Structure Loss (sq.m)
% Loss
5 GANESH SATNAMI BOD
RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 2400 80 3.33
6 HARI MEHER BOD RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 3200 80 2.50
106. The road has a total of 6 APs, of which 4 are losing agricultural land (less than 5% loss in all cases) and 2 BPL APs are incurring a loss of residential land not exceeding 4%. Ample land width is available along other stretches for road construction.
Table 23: District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road/ Length of Road: 1.550km
Total APs: 11/ Absentees: 2
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP
Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
Total Agricultural Land Holding (Acres)
Land Loss (Acres)
% Loss
1 GHANSHYAM SAHU MATRA
AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.009 0.30
2 JATI VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E 4 0.012 0.30
3 YUVRAJ VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE BPL + E 2 0.008 0.40
62
LAND
4 CHAKAN SINGH VERMA MATRA
AGRICULTURE LAND E 9 0.007 0.08
5 MANNU VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND E 10 0.024 0.24
6 BAHORAN DAS MANIKPURI MATRA
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 10 0.012 0.12
7 VISHRAM VERMA MATRA
AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 2 0.004 0.20
8 ROHIT VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 5 0.006 0.12
9 BASANT VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY 6.5 0.018 0.28
107. The road has a total of 11 APs (including 2 absentees incurring a loss of residential land). All 9 surveyed APs are incurring a loss of agricultural land, not exceeding 1% of their total land holdings. 5 of these do not belong to any vulnerable groups.
63
Chapter Six: Assistance/ Support to Vulnerable APs
108. In accordance with the provisions of the Community Participation Framework, all
Vulnerable APs are entitled to assistance and support measures in order to ensure that they are
not adversely affected by the Project. The following categories of APs shall be entitled for
assistance/support as vulnerable APs:
Households Below Poverty Line3 (BPL) as per the state poverty line for rural areas;
Households who will become BPL as a result of loss to assets and/or livelihoods;
Households losing structure
Female Headed Households
Scheduled Castes
Scheduled Tribes
Disabled Person
Elderly
6.1. Mitigation Matrix
109. The support/ assistance would be provided to the vulnerable APs that have been
identified through the SES and Census Surveys in accordance with the Mitigation Matrix
provided in the Community Participation Framework.
110. The PIU will facilitate and coordinate the enrollment of vulnerable APs in rural
development schemes and delivery of entitlements as described in the agreed mitigation matrix.
Currently the RD schemes are implemented by Panchayats & Rural Development Department
in Chhattisgarh. The PIUs will therefore coordinate with the respective government departments
and facilitate the enrollment to RD schemes.
111. The PIU will ensure the timely and fair disbursement of assistance through Panchayat
and proper enrollment of vulnerable APs in the RD schemes. The PIU will also liaison with other
line departments at the state and Panchayat level to facilitate smooth delivery and of RD
schemes in the subproject areas.
112. The Mitigation Matrix provided in the CPF may be viewed in Table 6.1.
3 The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criterions: a) Government list or
BPL card b) Community meeting, wherein the community confirms that an affected family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project.
64
Table 6.1.Mitigation Matrix for Support/Assistance to Vulnerable APs Impact
Category
Mitigation Measures Responsibility
Loss of
Agricultural
Land
Willing transfer of land by means of MOU
Advance notice to harvest standing crops
For vulnerable affected persons (APs), assistance/support by means of (a) alternate land sites provided by GP, or (b) cash assistance as per replacement cost
4 by the Gram Panchayat (GP) to meet loss of land;
and inclusion as beneficiaries in the existing poverty alleviation/livelihood restoration programs.
For land involving traditional and tenurial rights, the legal provisions applicable of the central and state governments pertaining to transfer of land will be followed. Existing customary rights of the tribal communities on various categories of land shall be taken into account during the process of land transfer.
GP, PIU and
land revenue
department
Loss of
Structure
Provision of alternate plot of land and structure of equivalent quality and value to be provided as per AP‟s choice, or cash assistance by GP to meet the loss of land and structure allowing the AP to purchase land and rebuild structure of equivalent standard
For loss of boundary walls and fences, willing transfer by means of MOU. In case voluntary donation of such structures are not possible, cash assistance as per replacement cost by GP to meet loss of such structures, or provision of materials and/or labor by GP to allow the AP to replace/rebuild the same
For vulnerable APs, inclusion as beneficiaries in the rural development (RD) programs/housing schemes
For tenants, assistance to find alternative rental arrangements by GP, or cash assistance equivalent to advance payments made to the owner
For squatters, provision of alternative relocation site, or cash assistance as per replacement cost, or provision of building material and/or labor by GP, or inclusion as beneficiaries in the RD programs/housing schemes.
For land and structure involving traditional and tenurial rights, the legal provisions applicable of the central and state governments pertaining to transfer of land will be followed. Existing customary rights of the tribal communities on various categories of land shall be taken into account during the process of land transfer.
GP, PIU and
land revenue
department
Loss of
livelihood
For vulnerable APs, inclusion as beneficiaries in the existing poverty alleviation /livelihood restoration programs. In case of non inclusion in such programs, cash assistance to meet the loss of income during transitional phase and for income restoration.
Assistance for asset creation5 by community and Gram Panchayat.
GP and PIU
4 Replacement cost means the "cost" to replace the lost asset at current market value or its nearest equivalent, plus
any transaction costs such as administrative charges, taxes, registration and titling costs allowing the individual / community to replace what is lost and their economic and social circumstances to be at least restored to the pre-project level.
5 Assistance for asset creation shall comprise of assistance for creation of cattle shed, shop, production unit or any
other form of income generating asset that will enable the affected household in restoring their livelihood.
65
Loss of
Assets such
as Trees,
Well, and
Ponds
Willing transfer of the asset by means of MOU.
For vulnerable APs, assistance for the loss of these assets through inclusion as beneficiaries in the existing poverty alleviation/livelihood restoration programs. In case of non inclusion in such programs, cash assistance by GP to meet the loss of assets and income.
GP, PIU and
land revenue
department
Loss of
community
owned
assets such
as temple,
wells,
ponds,
grazing land
etc
Relocation or construction of asset by GP with technical inputs from PIU
Consultations with the concerned section of the community in case of grazing land, etc
GP, PIU and
land revenue
department
Temporary
impacts
during
construction
Civil works contract conditions to include provisions to obligate the contractor to implement appropriate mitigation measures for the temporary impacts include disruption of normal traffic, increased noise levels, dust generation, and damage to adjacent parcel of land due to movement of heavy machinery to be included the Civil Works Contract
PIU
Other
impacts not
identified
Unforeseen impacts will be documented and mitigated based on the principles in the CPF.
Source: Community Participation Framework, Rural Connectivity Investment Programme
6.2. Rural Development (RD) Schemes
113. In order to mitigate project related losses and assist the vulnerable households, the
mitigation matrix provides the option of linking the vulnerable affected household with the on-
going rural development schemes available at the respective district levels.
114. The following table 6.2 provides some of the appropriate RD schemes that the
vulnerable APs may be linked with:
66
Table 6.2.Rural Development Schemes for Assistance to Vulnerable APs Name of the Scheme Eligibility/beneficiary Kind of assistance
1. Indira Awaas
Yojana
Prioritization of beneficiaries will be
as follows:
(i) Freed bonded laborers
(ii) SC/ST households
(iii) Families/widows of personnel
from defense killed in action
(iv) Non- SC/ST BPL households
(v) Physically and mentally
challenged persons
(vi) Ex-servicemen and retired
members of the paramilitary forces.
(vii) Displaced persons on account
of developmental projects,
nomadic/semi-nomadic, and de-
notified tribals, families with
physically/mentally challenged
members
The objective of the Indira Awaas Yojana is primarily to help construction/ upgradation of dwelling units
Funds available under the Scheme in a district are earmarked for various categories as under:
(i) Atleast 60% of the total lAY
allocation during a financial year
should be utilized for construction/ up
gradation of dwelling units for SC/ST
BPL households
(ii) A maximum 40% for non-SC/ST
BPL rural households
(iii) 3% houses reserved for BPL
disabled persons living in rural areas
If any particular category is
exhausted or not available in a
district, allocation can be utilized for
other categories as per priorities
given in the Guidelines after it has
been certified to this effect by the
Zilla Parishad/ DRDA concerned.
2. Credit-cum
Subsidy Scheme for
Rural Housing
Rural households (APL or BPL)
who could not be covered under
IAY and have annual income below
Rs. 32,000. Preference will be
given to BPL households, SC/STs
At least minimum 60% funds allocated under the scheme as subsidy to each state shall be utilized in financing construction of houses for SC, ST and freed bonded laborers.
Ceiling of subsidy under the Scheme Rs. 10,000 per household.
The upper limit of construction loan under this scheme will be Rs. 40,000 only.
3. National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act
Adult members who volunteer to do unskilled manual work may apply to GP
Enhancement of livelihood security of households in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year
Wages to be paid as per
67
Minimum Wages Act 1948
3. Swampoorna
Grameen Rozgar
Yojana
Includes rural poor (BPL and APL)
Preference given to poorest among
poor, and SC/ST
Wage employment in manual or unskilled work
4. Jawahar Rozgar
Yojana
Includes rural poor with preference
to weaker sections SC/ST and
women
Wage employment during lean agricultural season
5. Swarnajayanti
Gram Swarozgar
Yojana
Includes poor families Organizing the rural poor into Self Help Groups (SHGs) through the process of social mobilization, their training and capacity building and provision of income generating assets.
6. National Social
Assistance
Programme
National Old Age
Pension Scheme
National Widow
Pension Scheme
National Disability
Pension Scheme
Old persons, widows and disabled
who are destitute in the sense of
having no regular means of
subsistence from their own sources
of income or through financial
support from family members or
other sources.
Persons provide financial assistance per month
Implemented by the Panchayats
Source: Rural Development Department & Planning Commission of India
115. A list of some of the key rural development schemes in the state of Chhattisgarh is
enclosed as Annexure V.
6.3. Due Diligence of RD Schemes
116. Consultations were held with PRI members on each road section regarding the various
Rural Development Schemes that are known to them and have been implemented in the
villages.
117. NREGA, Total Sanitation Campaign and the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) were found to be
three of the most popular RD schemes known to the PRIs and also implemented in the
communities. Villagers have benefited in the past through provision of homes to BPL families
under the IAY, wherein special attention has been given to SC/ST families. Further, through the
central government funded Total Sanitation Campaign, PRIs have been mobilized across the
68
blocks and districts for provision of aid to construct sanitary toilets in the villages. Some
community members have also gained employment under the NREGA, for up to 100 days in
manual labour jobs such as construction of roads and wells, earning up to Rs.100/day.
118. The schemes are noted to be actively implemented in some communities currently, while
in others, the schemes have been implemented in the past and no new activity has taken place
of late.
119. Apart from this, the Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) has also been
implemented in certain villages, wherein poor families have benefited from assistance in the
form of subsidy and loan for the purpose of acquiring income generating assets. Multiple
villages have also benefited under the Construction of Pond/Water Shade Development
Scheme, wherein the state government undertakes the responsibility of developing man made
ponds which villagers can use collectively for their household requirements.
120. Through the Pension scheme, widows, elderly people and disable people have also
received benefits of Rs.200 – Rs.300 per month; however the benefits are limited due to limited
knowledge of the scheme and application procedures. Many prospective beneficiaries are also
noted to have put in their applications and are currently awaiting their pension.
121. Other schemes mentioned by the PRIs, which are being implemented in small numbers
or have been implemented in the past across the communities include the Rashtriya Parivar
Sahayata Yojana, Janani Suraksha Yojana, Adult Literacy Programme, Nal-Jal Yojana, credit
facilities by cooperatives for agriculture, provision of smart cards for health security, SHG
formation for women empowerment and Gram Utkarsh Yojana, among others.
122. During the consultations, PRI members were duly informed that all scheme disbursals
under the Project, to the concerned APs would be taking place through them, to which the PRIs
were agreeable. The PRI members stated that they are eagerly anticipating the commencement
of the Project as they know the Project would benefit the community members immensely.
123. With respect to the Project and entitlements of the vulnerable APs, queries were made
by the community members concerning the linkages with different schemes; who would be
responsible for implementation of the schemes; who one should go to for addressal of concerns
regarding the schemes or in case of lack of proper implementation; the kind of entitlements that
vulnerable APs qualify for; etc. All queries were answered in detail during the individual
consultations held with each of the vulnerable APs during the conduction of census surveys.
69
Chapter Seven: Budget
124. The PIU is responsible for enrolling the vulnerable APs under the existing Rural
Development (RD) Schemes as per his/her vulnerability. The PIU will inform vulnerable APs on
the timeline of enrollment into a specific RD scheme. The states will acquire or make available
on a timely basis the land and rights in land, free from any encumbrances. Subsequent to award
of civil works contract under any subproject, no section or part thereof under the civil works
contract will be handed over to the contractor unless the applicable provisions of the CPF and
EAF/ECOP have been complied with.
125. The following is the budget for Cash assistance, alternate land, and replacement cost of
structure, if concerned APs cannot be linked to RD schemes:
Item
Unit
Rates
(Rs.)
Quantity Assistance (Rs.) Support
Cost
A. Assistance
Transitional
Assistance for
Residential Loss (one
time assistance for
88 VAPs incurring
damage/loss to
residential land,
boundary wall and
main residential
structure)
Rs.
10,000 88 880,000.00
Transitional
Allowance for
Livelihood Losses
(one time allowance
for 155 VAPs losing
agriculture land and
commercial structure
)
Rs.
25,000 155 3,875,000.00
Sub Total 4,755,000.00
B: Support implementation of CPP
PD PIU (on deputation)
RO in PIU (on deputation)
Independent Monitoring & 5,00,000.00
70
Evaluation Agency6
Capacity building 2,00,000.00
Sub- Total 7,00,000.00
C: Consultation & Information Dissemination
Brochures 20.00 500.00 10,000.00
Pamphlets 5.00 5,000.00 25,000.00
Consultation 33 5,000 1,65,000.00
Sub-Total 2,00,000.00
D: Grievance redressal
Per meeting 5000 20 1,00,000.00
Sub Total 1,00,000.00
TOTAL OF ALL SUB TOTAL 5,755,000.00
Contingency (10%) 5,75,500.00
GRAND TOTAL
6,330,500.00
6 In case PIC is not hired or delayed, then PIU could use the services of a local NGO for undertaking consultations,
surveys and the implementation of the CPPs.
71
Chapter Eight: Implementation Arrangements
8.1 Key Agencies: Roles and Responsibilities
126. The key agencies involved in implementation of this Framework are as follows:
Program Implementation Unit (PIU) with support of the Project Implementation Consultant (PIC)
Panchayat Raj Institution (PRI) State Implementing Agency: Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (CRRDA) State Executing Agency: Rural Works Organisation Ministry of Rural Development (MORD)/National Rural Roads Development Agency
(NRRDA)
127. Table 8.1 below summarizes the major tasks under the CPP and responsible agencies
for the tasks.
Table 8.1: Major Tasks as proposed under the CPF and Responsible Agencies Project stage Task Target
Groups
Responsible
agency/Person
Time Frame
Road
Selection
stage
Dissemination of PMGSY
road under Core network
Community PIU (EE/AE), ZP, GP
(Sarpanch)
After approval of
Core Network
Selection of Roads PIU (EE/AE), ZP, GP
Pro
ject
Pla
nn
ing
& D
esig
n S
tag
e
DP
R P
rep
ara
tio
n S
tag
e
Dissemination of Project
Information
Community PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), PIC
First week of
DPR preparation
Sensitization of community Community PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), panchayat
Members, PIC
First week of
DPR preparation
Finalization of alignment
(Transect Walk, alignment
shifts & incorporation of
community suggestion)
Community PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, Revenue Dept
(Patwari), Other Dept
Officials (if required), PIC
First month of
DPR Preparation
Consultations with
Community/APs
Community/
APs
PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, PIC
5th week of DPR
Preparation,
after alignment
finalization
Census for Profile of APs APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, PIC
5th to 6
th week of
DPR Preparation
72
Identification of vulnerable
APs
Vulnerable
APs
PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, PIC
6th week of the
DPR preparation
Dissemination of process
of voluntary donation,
support/assistance options
and grievance procedures
APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, PIC
7th week of DPR
Preparation
Finalization of
support/assistance
Vulnerable
APs
PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, DRDA, DoSW,
DoTW, PIC
8th week of DPR
preparation
Marking of Alignment - PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, Revenue Dept
(Patwari), PIC
12 th week of
DPR Preparation
Incorporating impact
mitigation measures in
DPR
- PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, PIC
End of fourth
month of DPR
preparation
Scrutiny and approval of
DPR
- State Technical Agency
and TSC
Sit
e P
rep
ara
tio
n S
tag
e
Po
st
DP
R S
tag
e
Collection of MOUs APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, Revenue Dept
(Patwari),
First month of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Advance notice to farmers
with standing crops
APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members,
First month of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Relocation/Shifting of
structures / Common
Property Resources
Community/ APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, Revenue Dept
(Patwari),
By the 2nd
month
of
implementation
after approval
Provision of assistance Eligible APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members,
Between 3rd
-5th
month of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
73
Enrollment into RD
schemes
Eligible APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, DRDS, DoSW,
DoTW
From 3rd
month
of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Physical possession of
land by PIU
- PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, Revenue Dept
(Patwari),
From 3rd
month
of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Temporary impacts during
construction
community GP (Sarpanch),
Panchayat Members,
Contractors
From 4th month
of project
implementation
till completion of
construction
work
Po
st
DP
R S
tag
e
Health impacts including
HIV/AIDS
Community GP (Sarpanch),
Panchayat Members,
Contractors, PHC, DACS
From 4th month
of Project
implementation,
till completion of
construction
work
Co
nstr
ucti
on
sta
ge
Redressal of grievances Community/APs PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, Revenue Dept
(Patwari),
Throughout
Project cycle
Unforeseen impacts Community PIU (AE/JE), GP
(Sarpanch), Panchayat
Members, Revenue Dept
(Patwari), Contractors
From 4th month
of project
implementation ,
till completion of
construction
work
MOU for local resources Community Contractor , GP
(Sarpanch)
From 4th month
of Project
implementation
till completion of
construction
work
Po
st
Co
nstr
u
cti
on
Sta
ge Reclamation of temporarily
used land, borrow area,
water body, etc.
Community Contractor as per
contract conditions
74
Tree Plantation Community GP (Sarpanch),
Panchayat Members,
Community
Monitoring Progress Internal: PIU (AE/JE)
External: TSC
PIU – Project Implementation Unit, GP – Gram panchayat, ZP – Zila Panchayat, DRDA – District Rural
Development Agency, DoRD – Department of Rural Development, DoSW/TD – Department of Social
Welfare/Tribal Development, DACS – District Aids Control Society, PHC – Primary Health Centre, TSC-
Technical Support Consultants.
8.2. Responsibilities of Key Agencies
128. The section provides a detailed description of the responsibilities of the agencies listed
above:
8.2.1. State Social Safeguard Cells: 129. In order to ensure effective implementation of social safeguard processes and
accountability of Social Safeguarding interests, procedures and documents post the
demobilization of the PIC, it is necessary to formulate state level Social Safeguard Cells. The
social safeguard cell has the following key responsibilities:
Coordinate all agencies involved in dealing with Social safeguards process
Assist the PIU and PIC in organizing social safeguard processes as mentioned in CPF
Ensuring documentation of all documents on time
Facilitate PIU/PIC for better linkage with APs
Monitoring PIU and PIC
8.2.2. Program Implementation Unit (PIU)
130. The PIU will play the key role of coordinating with other concerned agencies and
facilitating the entire process. The PIU will facilitate and coordinate the enrollment of
vulnerable APs in rural development schemes and delivery of entitlements as described in the
agreed mitigation measures matrix.
131. The PIU will ensure that no malpractices are involved during the disbursement of
assistance through PRI and during enrollment of vulnerable APs in the RD schemes.
(a) District Level (EE/SE)
Ensure disclosure of the Core Network by the Zilla Parishad and Gram Panchayats at Panchayat offices
Oversee land availability for taking up proposed roads Ensure that Transect Walks and subsequent community consultation are properly
conducted by AE/JE
75
Provide support to AE/JE in making revenue records and maps available before the Transect Walk
Ensure that MOUs are signed and support/assistance provided on time
(b) Field level (AE/JE)
Disseminate Project information at various stages of the Project implementation as envisaged in this Framework
Ensure availability of revenue records and maps prior to the Transect Walk Organize the Transect Walk with the Gram Panchayat concerned and with participation
of Revenue Department officials and forest officials, if required Finalize alignment through community participation giving proper consideration to road
safety and scope for future growth Along with Patwari and PRI identify land to be additionally required and land/asset
ownership including customary rights in tribal areas Verify ownership of impacted land parcels trough proof of ownership during census Verify vulnerability of APs based on the criteria adopted Coordinate with DRDA, DoTW, DoSW etc for finalization of support/assistance and
schedule for enrolments Ensure provision of support/assistance as per schedule with support of PRI Initiate process of land transfer and addressal of grievances involving the PRI Collect MOU from landowners with support of PRI Responsible for addressal of additional unforeseen impacts during construction Ensure incorporation of social issues in DPR prior to approval from STA Monitor the progress of Framework tasks during implementation in coordination with PRI
(c) Project Implementation Consultant (PIC)
132. At the PIU level the Social Development/Safeguard Specialist of the PIC will support the
PIU in every aspect of the implementation of the Framework provisions and identified impact
mitigation measures. He/she will also closely interact with the PRI and representatives of other
agencies at the village and district levels concerned with social safeguard aspects of the
Project. He/she will be a professionally trained expert with a Master‟s Degree in relevant
disciplines.
Assist the PIU in organizing Transect Walk for documenting the social features and profile along the subproject roads
Undertake a detailed inventory of the land and structures getting affected along the proposed alignment by means of a census covering the 100% affected households along the alignment, and identify vulnerable APs among them
Based on the survey, prepare support/assistance options for the APs with particular attention to vulnerable groups
Assist the PIU and the relevant panchayats in disseminating information on land transfer, support/assistance options and grievance procedures
Assist the PIU and the concerned panchayat in preparing the documentation for land transfer (MOU)
76
Assist the PIU in monitoring of the progress of mitigation measures during implementation
(d) Role of NGO
133. If PIC are not hired or are delayed, the PIU will use the services of the local NGOs in
undertaking consultations, surveys and in the implementation of the CPP.
8.2.3. Panchayati Raj Institutions
(a) District Level (Zilla Parishad)
Display of Core Network at the Zilla Parishad and Gram Panchayat Office Disseminate project information to the project affected community in coordination with
the PIU Ensure establishment of a Land Management Committee at the village level and a
Grievance Redressal Committee at the district level for grievance Redressal
(b) Field level (Sarpanch and other Panchayat Members)
Display of Core Network at the Zilla Parishad and Gram Panchayat Office Disseminate Project information to the community in coordination with the PIU Facilitate finalization of alignment during Transect Walk along with PIU and Revenue
Department Encourage community participation during Transect Walk and consultations Organize consultations involving community and APs to disclose Transect Walk output Encourage community/APs to voluntarily donate assets especially land Facilitate the survey of profiles of APs Facilitate identifying vulnerable APs and their verification Facilitate finalization of procedure for land transfer and provision of support/assistance Collect MOU from land owners and subsequently submit to PIU Facilitate consultation by the civil works contractor with community prior to mobilization
of machinery Supervise the mitigation measures during implementation and its progress in
coordination with PIU
8.2.4. State IA
Ensure that all DPR for subprojects are completed with the required formats on community participation and social safeguard aspects
Ensure that the DPRs are reviewed by the Technical Support Consultants and also by the State Technical Agency (STA)
Ensure that bidding document of civil works covers mitigation measures to address temporary impacts during construction
Undertake routine monitoring on the implementation of mitigation measures and grievances and advise PIUs in resolving grievances
77
8.2.5. State EA
Provide the State IA and PIUs with resources required to implement the CPF Ensure that all CPF requirements are met by the State IA Ensure that MOU are signed and support/assistance provided on time
8.2.6. MORD/NRRDA
Undertake due diligence systematically for the implementation of the CPF. Guide state agencies to resolve critical implementation issues and, if required, update
the Framework through review of the internal and external monitoring outputs. Enforcement of all such changes will be carried forward with prior approval from ADB.
Required to submit the subproject proposals for the additional 100 km rural roads in the state for ADB review prior to giving final approval. ADB will also conduct field review of the implementation of the Framework provisions for the same subprojects. If ADB is satisfied with the implementation of the core sample subprojects and additional 100 km subprojects, further approval of subproject proposals will be by MORD.
8.3. Grievance Redressal Mechanism
134. Grievances, if any, will be resolved at the village level. A Land Management
Committee (LMC) consisting of all members of Gram Panchayat, Lekhpal of Gram Sabha as
Secretary, Pradhan, Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat will be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman
of the LMC. The LMC shall act as the village level grievance committee, and will meet for
addressing grievances once in a month until DPR approval and quarterly after initiation of the
construction work until completion of the construction work. Residual grievances shall be
addressed through a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) at the district level, comprising:
(i) Executive Engineer of the PIU (ii) Sub-collector of Revenue Department (iii) Member of Zilla Parishad (iv) Member of the grievance committee of the concerned GP
135. Representatives of APs will be active participants in the proceedings of grievance
redressal. Figure 8.2 below further represents the grievance redressal mechanism.
78
Figure 8.2.Grievance Redressal Mechanism
Agencies Involved
AE/JE, Sarpanch,
Other GP Members, Patwari
EE, Sub-collector,
Members of Zilla Parishad,
Members of LMC, Representatives
of AP
* AP- Affected Person, LMC- Land
Management Committee, GRC –
Grievance Redressal Committee, AE
– Assistant Engineer, JE – Junior
Engineer, EE – Executive Engineer
* AP- Affected Person, LMC- Land Management Committee, GRC – Grievance Redressal Committee, AE – Assistant Engineer, JE –
Junior Engineer, EE – Executive Engineer
Aggrieved Individual AP
LMC at Village Level
Grievance Redressal
YES NO
Written complaint to GRC
at District Level
Hearing by GRC
Decision by GRC
Grievance Redressed
79
Chapter Nine: Monitoring and Reporting Procedures
9.1. Monitoring System
136. The State IA shall be responsible for supervision of the Framework implementation. In
order to monitor the implementation of the Framework provisions, a two-tier monitoring system
will be followed:
a) Internal Monitoring b) External Monitoring and Evaluation
9.2. Internal Monitoring: 137. The Project Implementation Units (PIUs) will be responsible for the internal monitoring
throughout the implementation of the Project. The PIU shall collect the data as per the
monitoring indicators adopted and report them to the State IA. The data shall be later audited by
the Social Development Specialist of the Technical Support Consultant (TSC). The Junior
Engineer (JE) will communicate the report, on a monthly basis, to the Gram Panchayat to
enable a discussion on the same in quarterly meeting of the Panchayat.
9.3. External Monitoring and Evaluation 138. The Technical Support Consultant (TSC) will perform the task of the external
monitoring and evaluation. The TSC will have Social Development Specialist as part of the
team, who will be responsible for organizing tasks for monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring
cycle will be once in six months. The TSC will submit monitoring reports to the State IA,
NRRDA and ADB.
As external monitor, TSC will be responsible for the following:
(i) Review DPRs for all additional subprojects prepared by PIUs to assess whether the
Framework requirements have been generally met during the planning and preparation
stages. Conduct verification on a sample basis of the information contained in the DPRs
through field visits to project affected communities.
(ii) Review and verify the progress of the identified mitigation measures during
implementation on a sample basis.
(iii) Based on the review and verification above, evaluate the effectiveness of the community participation process defined in the Framework in mitigating adverse socioeconomic impacts of the Project, and recommend improvements to the Framework procedures.
80
(iv) Conduct on a sample basis monitoring of socioeconomic indicators associated with the well-being of the project affected communities and persons, and evaluate if the mitigation measures have brought about intended outcome.
139. The key formats for reporting and monitoring implementation of the plan are in Annex
VII.
140. In addition, Gram Panchayat which is an independent legally constituted people‟s body
will be the independent third party monitor for the Project.
ANNEXURE
Annexure I: Memorandum of Understanding
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(in case signing is done individually)
This memorandum of understanding is made on _____________day of _____ 2011 between
Sri/Srimati_______________________________ resident of______________________________
(hereinafter referred to as “the First Party”) and the Governor of (State) through
Sri/Srimati_______________________________(designation) _________________ (hereinafter
referred to as “the Second Party”).
THESE PRESENTS WITNESS AS FOLLOW:
1. That the First Party is landowners with transferable right of _______________acres of land
bearing khasra Nos_______________ in village __________________________ block
_______________, tehsil________________________, district _________________.
2. That the First Party has taken part in the transect walk conducted under the requirements of the
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and has been made to understand the benefits of
obtaining a rural road for the village under PMGSY.
3. That the First Party hereby grants to the Second Party, out of its free will, above said land for
the construction and development of PMGSY rural road in the village ___________ under
_______________Panchayat for the benefit of the villagers and the public at large.
4. That the First Party would not claim any compensation against the above said grant of land.
5. That the Second Party agrees to accept the above grant of land for the purposes mentioned in
Clause
6. That the Second Party shall construct and develop the PMGSY road and take all possible
precautions to avoid damage to land adjacent to PMGSY road.
7. That the First Party also assures the Second Party that the first party will not indulge in any
willful act of damaging the PMGSY road or obstructing the movement of public and vehicles on the
PMGSY road.
8. That both the Parties hereto agree that the PMGSY road so constructed/developed shall be
public premises.
9. That the provisions of the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING will come into force and
effect from the date of signing of this deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have signed this deed on the day and the year first
above written.
Signatures of the First Party Signature for and on behalf of the Second Party
________________________ ________________________
Witnesses: Witnesses:
1. ____________________________ 1. _________________________
2.____________________________ 2.__________________________
(Signature, name and address) (Signature, name and address)
Note: The witnesses will include the panchayat head and the Junior Engineer conducting the
transect walk. More witnesses can be added – including NGOs, village elders etc.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(in case signing is done community-wise)
This memorandum of understanding is made on _____________day of _____ 2011 between the
persons listed below on the one part (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the First Party”), and
the Governor of (State) through Sri/Srimati ________________ (designation)
_______________________ (hereinafter referred to as “the Second Party”).
THESE PRESENTS WITNESS AS FOLLOW:
1. That the First Party is the landowners with transferable right of the respective acres (OR
OTHER UNITS AS APPLICABLE) of land bearing khasra Nos as listed below in village
__________________________, block _______________, tehsil________________________,
district _________________.
2. That the First Party has taken part in the transect walk conducted under the requirements of the
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and has been made to understand the benefits of
obtaining a rural road for the village under PMGSY.
3. That the First Party hereby grants to the Second Party, out of their free will, above said land as
detailed in the list below for the construction and development of PMGSY rural road in the village
___________ under _____ Panchayat, for the benefit of the villagers and the public at large.
4. That the First Party would not claim any compensation against the above said grant of land.
5. That the Second Party agrees to accept the above grant of land for the purposes mentioned in
Clause 3.
6. That the Second Party shall construct and develop the PMGSY road and take all possible
precautions to avoid damage to land adjacent to PMGSY road.
7. That the First Party also assures the Second Party that the first party will not indulge in any
willful act of damaging the PMGSY road or obstructing the movement of public and vehicles on the
PMGSY road.
8. That both the Parties hereto agree that the PMGSY road so constructed/developed shall be
public premises.
9. That the provisions of the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING will come into force and
effect from the date of signing of this deed.
S.No: Name Description of land owned Description of land granted for
PMGSY rural road
(add as many more who are granting their land)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have signed this deed on the day and the year first
above written.
Signatures of the First Party Signature for and on behalf of the Second Party
1.________________________ ________________________
2.________________________
3.________________________
…
(all the signatures of the First Party should be obtained)
Witnesses: Witnesses:
1. ____________________________ 1. _________________________
2.____________________________ 2.__________________________
(Signature, name and address) (Signature, name and address)
Note: The witnesses will include the panchayat head and the Junior Engineer conducting the
transect walk. More witnesses can be added – including NGOs, village elders etc.
Annexure II: Stretch-Wise Documentation of Transect Walks
a) District: Raipur
1. Name of Road: Hirmi to Parswani
2. Village: Parswani
3. Gram Panchayat: Baradi
4. Block: Simga
5. District: Raipur
6. Date; Time: 26 April 2010; 12:00 pm to 3:30 pm
7. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 45
8. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: 01 Scheduled Caste: 05 Scheduled Tribe: 03 Disabled: Nil BPL: 35 Households losing structure: 01 Women in general: 20
9. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. S.K. Tamarkar, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI):
1. Pran Nath, Janpad Sadasaya 2. Ram Narayan Dohre, Up-sarpanch 3. Savita sahoo, Panch 4. Savitri Lasel, Panch 5. Savana Yadav, Panch 6. Godavri Verma, Panch 7. Reva Ram, Panch
10. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on revenue map)
i. Road alignment: During the transect walk the road length was found to
be 2.24 km whereas the proposed length by PIU is 2.40 km. PIU was not aware of end point as core network was prepared almost 10 years back as shared by PIU. At the proposal of community transect was done up to chainage 2+240. The village is situated near cement plant of Ultratech. Community told that starting part of alignment is passing through Ultra tech’s land and this land has been left for construction of road only.
ii. Road width and land availability: The width of the land along the entire length of the alignment varies from 4 mtrs to 12 mtrs. Up to chainage 1+328 required width is available but after this chainage alignment is passing through agricultural land and inhabited area.
iii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or
possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project. None
iv. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None
v. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): At chainage 1+743 a religious place on LHS would be affected. On this community has shown willingness to shift it to another location.
vi. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community and PIU has proposed for construction of cross drain at chainage 0+465, 0+525, 0+563, 1+011 (on RHS approach road), 1+182, 1+222, 1+328, 1+420, 1+981, 2+073, 2+133 and 2+218.
Side drain has been suggested by community from chainage 0+824 to 1+000 on RHS.
Retaining wall has been by PIU from chainage 1+381 to 1+420 on RHS along the canal as land is not available as per the requirement.
vii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.):
Speed breakers are suggested by the community at chainage 2+240 for
safety of school going students.
Community proposed for signboards at chainage 0+489 where there is
a turn towards LHS.
viii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc: Community has proposed for shift in alignment from chainage 0+380
to 0+708. Since, land belongs to Ultratech a consultation is required before proposing this change in final design of road.
From chainage 1+609 alignment is passing through inhabited area where width is not available and large number of private assets was found to be getting affected. Hence community and PIU has suggested for construction CC road.
At chainage 1+441 a tree is on the centre of alignment. Community has proposed for either shift in centre line towards left or it could be laid down if necessary.
11. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
i. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Community has demanded for the shift in the alignment from chainage 0+380 to 0+708 to avoid the bent on the road. But the land belongs to Ultratech, therefore prior consultation needs to be done.
According to community CC road needs to be constructed from chainage 1+609 to 2+240 as alignment is passing through inhabited area affecting private assets of community.
Either centre line has to be shifted or tree (falling at center of the alignment) has to be laid down at chainage 1+441. Community has agreed for both the alternatives.
ii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: From where alignment is passing through agricultural field community is not aware about the available government width and hence asked for consultation of revenue inspector to know the actual width available and how much they have to donate.
iii. Environmental issues to be resolved: At chainage 0+650 two trees
would affected on both side. At chainage 1+441 a tree is in centre of the alignment for which community proposed to shift the alignment by 1.5 mtrs towards left as well as laying down the tree.
iv. Other Issues: None Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Before the initiation of transect walk a consultation was held with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name)
Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 12
HIRMI
0+078 10 1.10 1.10 0+380 10 1.10 1.10 Alignment has to be
shifted towards left to avoid the sharp left
turn 0+465 9,90 1.00 1.00 Cross drain proposed 0+489 10 1.10 1.10 Community expressed
that signboards to be installed at this
chainage as alignment is taking turn towards
left 0+525 10 1.10 1.10 Cross drain proposed 0+563 8.30 1.20 1.20 Cross drain proposed 0+650 8 1 1 Tree Tree 0+708 8 1.40 1.40 Shift in alignment has
been suggested by community up to this
chainage 0+824 8.40 2.30 2.30 Side drain on RHS has
been proposed by community
1+000 9.10 1.70 1.70 Side drain ends 1+011 9 1.80 1.80 Cross drain RHS
approach road proposed
1+182 9.20 1.40 1.40
PARSWANI
Cross drain proposed 1+222 9.20 1.40 1.40 Cross drain proposed 1+309 10 1+328 10 Cross drain proposed 1+381 12 0.40 Canal Retaining wall has to
be constructed on RHS along the canal as
available width is not required
1+412 8.6 2.5 3.5 Agricultural land
Canal
1+420 8.6 2.5 3.5 Cross drain proposed, Retaining wall ends
1+441 8 1.5 Agricultural land
Tree A tree is falling in mid of alignment.
Community has proposed for either
shift in alignment by 1.5 mtr towards left or
laying down of tree 1+570 4 4 4
1+609 5 CC road to be constructed from this
12. Name of Road: Manikpur to Ranijarod
13. Village: Manikpur and Ranijarod
14. Gram Panchayat: Amakoni and Ranijarod
15. Block: Simga
16. District: Raipur
17. Date; Time: 28 April 2010; 11:40 am to 3:30 pm
18. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 60
19. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: 01 Scheduled Caste: 25 Scheduled Tribe: 10 Disabled: Nil BPL: 17 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 25
20. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. S.K. Tamarkar, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI):
chainage onwards 1+647 4.60 1 Kuccha
house Affected person is willing to donate.
1+678 4 2.60 2.60 1+743 3.7 1.5 Religious
place Community is willing
to shift the religious place to another
location 1+772 3.6 0.20 Step of a
house
1+820 8 2 2 1+900 3.3 1.70 1.70 PIU and community
has suggested for construction of CC road in the available width
1+981 3.3 1.70 1.70 Cross drain proposed 2+073 3.3 1.70 1.70 Cross drain proposed 2+094 7 2 2 2+133 7 2 2 Cross drain proposed 2+218 7 2 2 Cross drain proposed 2+240 8 1.30 1.30 Speed breakers to be
provided. End point
8. Padmini, Panch 9. Pyaribai, Panch
21. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on revenue map)
ix. Road alignment: During the transect walk the road length was found to
be 3.210 km whereas the proposed length is 3.25 km. In the core network map road has been marked up to 2.200 km. PIU has assured that core network map will be revised as actual alignment ends at 3.210 km.
x. Road width and land availability: The width of existing road varies from 4 mtrs to 12 mtrs. Throughout the alignment land is available for construction of road
xi. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project. None
xii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None
xiii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None
xiv. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.): Community has proposed for construction of cross drain/ culverts at chainage 0+000, 0+400, 1+000, 1+400, 1+900, and 2+400
xv. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.):
Speed breakers are suggested by community at chainage 2+190 and
2+270 for safety of students of nearby school.
Community suggested for signboards at chainage 0+600 and 2+300
where alignment has sharp turns.
xvi. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc: Community suggested that for construction of road mud can be
obtained from pond at chainage 2+100.
Community and PIU told that along the alignment at some chainage there are limestone mines and stone crusher operating units due to which there is possibility in increase of the heavy traffic flow on the
road. Therefore, both have demanded that road should be designed considering these technicalities.
22. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
v. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
As per the suggestion of community and PIU road has to be constructed
up to 3.210 connecting with “suhela pahunch marg”.
Community and PIU asked that design of the road should take heavy flow of traffic in account as limestone mines and stone crushers units are present along the alignment.
Centre line has to be shifted by 2 mtrs toward RHS from chainage 0+000 to 0+300 to avoid loss of private land on LHS as community told that government land is available on RHS
At chainage 0+000, 0+400, 1+000, 1+400, 1+900, and 2+400 community has proposed for construction of cross drain/ culverts.
vi. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: From chainage 0+000 to 0+300 along the alignment 2 private uncultivable land would be affected on LHS for which owner are not willing to donate because on RHS sufficient government land is available. Therefore, to avoid loss of private land affected person and community proposed to shift the centre line by 2 mtrs towards right for government land. From chainage 0+300 onwards throughout the alignment land is available for construction of road.
vii. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
viii. Other Issues: Length has to revise in core network map upto “suhela pahunch marg” in the core network map. Community will be benefited by road only if it will be connected up to the above said road. PIU told that marking in core network has been done long time back but actual alignment has been proposed up to 3.210 Km.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Before the initiation of transect walk a consultation was held with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development
scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment. Community informed that throughout the alignment government land is available and no private asset will get affect. They shared that road has to be constructed upto suhela pahunch marg. PIU told that alignment is not marked up to 3.210 in core network but has been proposed up to that point only. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 5 3.5 2 Private
(uncultivated) land
MANIKPUR
Centre line has to be shifted by 2 mtr towards RHS to avoid affecting private land. 0+300 4 3.5 3 Private
(uncultivated) land
#0+400 12 Field crossing (culvert proposed)
0+600 15 Signboard to be installed as there is a
bend in road. 1+000 10 2.50 2.50
RANIJAROD
Culvert 1+400 10.20 2.40 2.40 Culvert
1+900 10.700 2.10 2.10 Culvert 2+100 10.700 2.10 2.10 Mud has to be taken
from pond existing on RHS
2+158 11 2+190 11 Speed breaker to be
made for safety of students
2+270 11 Speed breaker to be made for safety of
students 2+300 11 Signboard to be
installed as there is a bend in road.
23. Name of Road: Motinpur kala to padobhat
24. Village: i. Motinpur kala ii. Chenguriya iii. Padobhat
25. Gram Panchayat: i. Motinpur kala
ii. Khapri iii. Padobhat
26. Block: Tilda
27. District: Raipur
28. Date; Time: 02 May 2010; 11:15 am to 4:30 pm
29. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 60
30. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: Nil Scheduled Caste: 42 Scheduled Tribe: 08 Disabled: 01 BPL: 17 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 15
31. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Tarun Kumar Sao, S.E. 2. Abhijeet Singh, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI):
10. Shiv Kumar, Sarpanch 11. Janakram Verma, Panch 12. Chandni deheriya, panch 13. Nema bai, panch 14. Manharan Verma, panch 15. Dhan bai, panch 16. Ganeshri, panch
2+332 12 2+400 12 3.40 3.40 Culvert Proposed 3+210 12
# From 0+400 to 2+332 alignment is passing through government land.
32. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on revenue map)
xvii. Road alignment: During the transect walk the road length was found
to be 3.300 km whereas the length proposed by PIU is 3.50 km. PIU told that core network has been prepared approximately 10 years back and length has not been revised after that.
xviii. Road width and land availability: The width of existing road varies from mtrs to mtrs. At chainage 0+733 land donation is required as private agricultural land falls on both side of alignment otherwise, throughout the alignment width is available.
xix. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project. None
xx. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None
xxi. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None
xxii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community has proposed for construction of cross drain at chainage 0+204, 0+465, 0+542, 0+612, 0+703, 1+330, 1+530, 2+020, 2+388, 2+745, 3+035, 3+206, 3+210, 3+235, 3+290 and 3+298. At chainage 1+435 PIU suggested for no change in existing cross drainage as it is in good condition.
Community has proposed for side drainage from chainage 1+530 to 1+587 and 3+206 to 3+235.
xxiii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): None
xxiv. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc:
CC road has been proposed from 1+435 to 1+790 and 3+000 to 3+300
to avoid the stagnation of water.
Community suggested for shift in centre line by 2.5 mtrs at chainage 0+350 towards LHS as government land is available.
Community suggested for slope on LHS at chainage 0+522 and 2+066 so that they can move their bullock carts and tractors to the field safely.
To avoid the loss of private land at chainage 0+836 on LHS community proposed for shift in centre line by 2 mtrs toward RHS.
PIU suggested for shift in centre line by 2 mtrs towards RHS from chainage 2+692 to 2+792 as per the design requirement.
33. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
ix. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Alignment as measured, to be constructed up to chainage 3+300.
From chainage 1+435 to 1+790 and 3+000 to 3+300 CC Road was proposed by community due to the stagnation of water.
Ample sloping is demanded on LHS at chainages 0+522 and 2+066 as community told that these slopes are used as cart track.
Community suggested that at chainage 0+350 centre line could be shifted by 2.5 mtrs towards LHS because government land is available on the same side.
Similarly at chainage 0+836 shift in centre line by 2 mtrs towards RHS has been proposed by community to avoid the adverse affect on private land on LHS.
From chainage 2+692 to 2+792 PIU suggested for shift in centre line by 2 mtrs towards RHS as required by the design of alignment.
x. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Land donation is required at chainage 0+733 where private agricultural land falls on both side of alignment. Affected person was not present during the transect walk. Community gave assurance that owner (affected person) will willingly donate land required.
xi. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
xii. Other Issues: None
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: In the initiation of transect walk a consultation was held with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was
informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 8 2 2 MOTINPUR
KALA
0+204 13 Cross drain proposed 0+250 13 0+350 12 Centre has to be shifted
by 2.5 mtrs towards LHS
0+465 12 Cross drain proposed 0+522 11.50 Cart track on LHS
0+542 11.50 Cross drain proposed 0+612 10.70 Cross drain proposed 0+703 7.80 Cross drain proposed 0+733 7.5 2.70 1 Agricultural
land Agricultural
land
0+836 7 2 2 Agricultural land
CHENGURIYA
Shift in centre line by 2 mtr towards RHS as
proposed by community
1+330 8.90 1.70 1.70 Cross drain proposed 1+435 8.90 1.70 1.70 No change in existing
cross drain, CC road proposed by
community in built up area.
1+530 8.90 2.70 2.70 Cross drain proposed, side drain on LHS
starts 1+587 8.90 2.50 2.50 Side drain ends at this
chainage 1+690 9 1 1 1+790 9 1 1 CC road has to be
constructed up to this
34. Name of Road: Parkidih to Tekari
35. Village: i. Parkidih ii. Amakoni iii. Manikpur iv. Tekari
36. Gram Panchayat: i. Parkidih,
ii. Amakoni, iii. Manikpur
37. Block: Simga
38. District: Raipur
chainage 1+996 12 2+020 8.60 2 2 Cross drain proposed 2+066 7.7 1.90 1.90
PADOBHAT
Cart track to be provided on LHS
2+340 8.7 1.50 1.50 Agricultural land
(encroached)
Agricultural land
(encroached)
2+388 8.7 1.50 1.50 Cross drain proposed
2+440 13
2+692 13 Shift in centre line by 2 mtr towards RHS
2+745 13 Cross drain proposed
2+792 13 Centre line has to be shifted towards right
up to this chainage 2+828 12
3+000 10.5 CC road to be constructed as
inhabited area starts from this chainage
onwards 3+035 10.5 1 1 Cross drain proposed
3+206 9.60 1.00 1.00 Cross drain proposed, side drain on RHS
starts 3+210 9 1.30 1.30 Cross drain proposed
3+235 9 1.30 1.30 Cross drain proposed, side drain ends at this
chainage 3+278 9 1.30 1.30 3+290 9 1.30 1.30 Cross drain proposed 3+298 9 1.30 1.30 Cross drain proposed
39. Date; Time: 29 April 2010; 11:30 am to 3:30 pm
30 April 2010; 11:30 am to 4:00 pm
40. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 110
41. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: 03 Scheduled Caste: 14 Scheduled Tribe: 17 Disabled: Nil BPL: 22 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 43
42. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. S.K. Tamarkar, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 17. Dhaneshwari bai, Sarpanch parkidih 18. Anju Verma, Sarpanch, Amakoni 19. Kalindri bai, Upsarpanch, Manikpur 20. Geetabai, Panch 21. Jitender Verma, Panch 22. Saroj sahu, panch 23. Koshilya, panch 24. Savita panch 25. Chhaggan, panch 26. Ramkumari, panch 27. Revati, panch 28. Johan, panch 29. Jagdish, panch 30. Sammat, Panch 31. Ashok, Panch
43. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on revenue map)
xxv. Road alignment: The proposed length of alignment by PIU was 8.15
km and after transect walk is found to be 8.10 km.
xxvi. Road width and land availability: The width of the road in the entire alignment was from 4.5 mtrs to 12 mtrs. Throughout the alignment width was available but was found to be encroached at some chainages.
xxvii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project. None
xxviii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None
xxix. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None
xxx. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community has proposed for construction of cross drain at chainage 0+143, 0+310, 0+600, 1+570, 1+890, 2+227, 2+345, 2+531, 2+737, 2+920, 3+232, 3+302, 3+794, 4+194, 4+387, 4+722, 5+024, 5+156, 5+376, 5+750, 6+089, 6+243, 7+621 and 7+891 (to be dismantled).
At chainage 1+046 and 2+065 bridge is proposed by the community over the existing natural water body as community told that during rainy season it becomes impossible to cross the road.
PIU and community proposed for Side wall from chainage 0+850 to 1+046 on LHS, 1+140 to 1+850 on RHS and 3+090 to 3+232 on LHS as water body flows in parallel direction of alignment.
xxxi. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.):
A speed breaker is demanded by the community at chainage 7+114 for
safety of students.
Community suggested for signboards at chainage 0+850 because road
is taking sharp turn towards right.
xxxii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc: Community and PIU told that from chainage 4+660 to 5+210 there are
limestone mines/ quarries which increases the heavy vehicle movement on the road. Therefore, both have demanded that road should be designed considering these technicalities.
Community expressed that at chainage 0+280 ample sloping should be provided at RHS so that they can easily move towards their agricultural land with their carriage.
From chainage 0+436 to 0+740 private lands would be affected on RHS. Since, government land was available on LHS so community proposed for shift in centre line by 3 mtrs toward LHS.
44. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
xiii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
As limestone mines/quarries are present from chainage 4+660 to 5+210 hence Community and PIU suggested to consider the factors like movement of heavy vehicles while designing the road.
From chainage 0+436 to 0+740 private lands would be affected on RHS. Since, government land was available on LHS so community proposed for shift in centre line by 3 mtrs toward LHS.
PIU and community have suggested for construction of bridge at chainage 1+046 and 2+065 over the existing water body.
xiv. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: At some chainage the width of the land is limited; where the land is encroach by the villagers for agriculture purpose. Community is willing to donate the land wherever required.
xv. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
xvi. Other Issues: None
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk:
Transect walk started after consultation with each of the affected communities. Consultation is held with all major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Additional Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
Land Width*
Land Required
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 12
PARKIDIH
0+056 8 1.50 1.50 0+143 8.90 2.20 2.20 Cross drain proposed 0+280 13 Cart track on RHS 0+310 17 Cross drain proposed 0+390 19 0+436 12 3 Agricultural
loss Centre line has to be
shifted by 3 mtrs towards LHS
0+600 10.40 2 2 Cross drain proposed 0+740 11 Centre line has to be
shifted up to this chainage
0+850 10 1.30 1.30 Sign board has been proposed by
community and PIU suggested for side wall
on LHS 1+046 11 Bridge has to be
constructed at this chainage, Side wall
ends 1+140 11 Bridge is proposed 1+570 11 Cross drain proposed 1+850 12 1+890 12 Cross drain proposed 1+940 12 1+970 8 1.50 1.5 Agricultural
land (encroached)
2+020 12
AMAKONI
2+065 12 New construction of
bridge proposed by community and PIU
2+227 12 Cross drain proposed 2+345 12 Cross drain proposed 2+404 12 2+452 5 3.5 3.5 2+531 6 2.5 2.5 Cross drain proposed
2+665 10 2+737 7.5 2.6 2.60 Cross drain proposed 2+800 7.5 2.6 2.60 Agricultural
land (encroached)
2+850 12 2+920 12 Cross drain proposed 2+946 8 2 2 3+090 8 2 2 Side wall starts on LHS 3+232 8 2 2 Side wall ends on LHS 3+295 9 1.80 1.80 3+302 9 1.80 1.80 Cross drain proposed 3+385 11.5
MANIKPUR
3+794 10.40 .90 .90 4+194 12 Cross drain proposed 4+387 9 1.40 1.40 Cross drain proposed 4+660 8 2 2
45. Name of Road: Parsada to Aamdi
46. Village: Aamdi
47. Gram Panchayat: Aamdi
48. Block: Abhanpur
49. District: Raipur
50. Date; Time: 25th April 2010; 10:30 am to 1:40 pm
51. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 67
52. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: 01 Scheduled Caste: 35 Scheduled Tribe: 04 Disabled: Nil BPL: 20 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 19
53. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. M.R. Sahoo, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 32. Rameshwari, Sarpanch 33. Satyawati, Panch 34. Sarojini bai, Panch
4+722 8 2 2 Cross drain proposed 5+024 7 3.10 3.10 Cross drain proposed 5+156 6.50 1,90 1,90 Cross drain proposed 5+376 4.5 2 2 Cross drain proposed 5+400 4.5 2 2 5+750 5.5 2.30 2.30 Cross drain proposed 6+089 6.40 1.70 1.70 Cross drain proposed 6+243 6 1.80 1.80
TEKARI
Cross drain proposed 6+518 6 1.5 1.5 6+921 12 7+114 12 Speed breaker has
been suggested by community for safety
of students. 7+621 12 Cross drain proposed 7+891 12 Cross drain to be
dismantled 8+100 12 End Point
35. Geeta bai, Panch 36. Chandbi, Panch 37. Uma bai, Panch 38. Ghenuram, Panch 39. Rupesh kumar, Panch 40. Ganeshu Pushpakar, Up- Sarpanch 41. Lalit Nishad, Panch
54. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on revenue map)
xxxiii. Road alignment: After the transect walk the length of the road
was found to be 2.285 km.
xxxiv. Road width and land availability: The width of the road varies from 6.3 mtrs to 14 mtrs. At some part of alignment requisite width is is limited; where the private assets are getting affected.
xxxv. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per
two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project: At chainage 1+420 a BPL household is getting adversely affected.
xxxvi. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: At chainage 1+420 a household will get vulnerable after the implementation of project as 2.2 mtrs width is required from their agricultural land falling on the RHS of the alignment.
xxxvii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None
xxxviii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community has proposed for construction of cross drain at chainage 0+000, 0+054, 0+321, 0+335, 0+505, 0+716, 0+798, 0+898, 0+956, 1+035, 1+138, 1+295, 1+501, 1+591, 1+901, 2+080, and 2+229.
Community has proposed for drainage line on LHS from chainage 1+501 to 1+675 along the pond so that if it overflows than water doesn’t get stagnate on the road.
At chainage 0+431 bore well 1 mtrs away from the alignment exists on LHS, owner and community people has asked not to affect it.
xxxix. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): Speed breakers are demanded by community at chainage 1+940 for safety of students.
xl. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc: Community has suggested for raise in height of alignment by 1.5 mtrs
from 1+470 to 1+757 because water overflows the road during rainy season.
Community suggested for sloping on the side of alignment at chainage 0+881 (RHS), 1+040 (LHS), 1+366 (RHS) and 1+863 (LHS) so that they can cross the road safely for their field.
From chainage 2+198 to 2+285 communities proposed for CC road because during rainy season the water from nearby Kharu River overflows the road.
55. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
xvii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Community and PIU has proposed for construction of 6 mtrs (ToW)
wide road.
Centre line has to be shifted by 3 mtrs toward RHS from chainage 0+000 to 0+881 to avoid loss of private land on LHS as community shared that government land is available on RHS.
From chainage 1+470 to 1+757 communities suggested for raise in height of the alignment by 1.5 mtrs as water overflows over this section of road.
Area between chainage 2+198 to 2+285 is situated near Kharu river. During monsoon the River water overflows the road. Hence, community proposed for construction of CC road.
For the movement of the carts/vehicles towards the field community suggested for sloping on side of the alignment at chainage 0+881 (RHS), 1+040 (LHS), 1+366 (RHS) and 1+863 (LHS).
xviii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: From chainage 0+881 to 1+470 private land on both side of the alignment would be affected. Affected persons falling on these chainage are ready to donate only 50 cm to 1 mtrs land (width) from their agricultural field.
xix. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
xx. Other Issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Before the initiation of transect walk a consultation was held with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment. Community shared that they have submitted application to the concerned department that road should be made as per the available width only and if norms of PMGSY doesn’t allow for this road should be constructed under some other programme/scheme. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 14 0.50 2 Agricultural
Land
AAMADI
Centre line has to be shifted by 3 mtr towards RHS to avoid affecting agricultural land.
0+054 13.40 1.30 1.30 Culvert proposed
0+177 9.8
0+302 19.00
0+321 16.00 Culvert proposed
0+335 16.00 Culvert proposed
0+431 9.00 Bore well on LHS 1 mtrs away from the
alignment. 0+505 9.00 3.70 3.70 Culvert proposed
0+716 9.00 3.70 3.70 Culvert proposed
0+798 9.00 3.70 3.70 Culvert proposed
0+871 13
0+881 13 Up to this chainage centre line has to be shifted towards right
by 3 mtr, 2 Sloping
56. Name of Road: T04(km.9) to Shahada
57. Villages: Shahada
(cart track) on RHS has to be provided.
0+898 13 Culvert proposed
0+900 6 1.6 2 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
0+956 6 4.60 4.60 Culvert proposed
0+962 6 1.5 2.1 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
1+035 6 4.60 4.60 Culvert proposed
1+040 6 4.60 4.60 Sloping for cart track to be provided at LHS
1+138 6 4.60 4.60 Culvert proposed
1+220 6.3 1.4 1.9 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
1+295 6 4.60 4.60 Culvert proposed
1+366 6 4.60 4.60 Sloping for cart track to be provided at RHS
1+420 6 2 2.2 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
The affected person on RHS will become vulnerable after
implementation of project
1+470 7 2 1 Agricultural land
Pond starts on RHS, height of alignment has to be raised by 1.5 mtr
from this chainage onwards
1+501 7.4 3.60 4.60 Culvert proposed, Drainage line on LHS
starts 1+591 7.4 3.60 4.60 Culvert proposed
1+675 7.4 2 2 Drainage line on LHS ends
1+757 7.4 2 2 Height of the road has to be raised up to this
chainage 1+863 8 1.20 1.20 Sloping for cart track
has to be provided at LHS
1+901 9 1 1 Culvert proposed
1+940 8 2 2 Speed breaker to be provided for safety of
students 1+953 7.7 4.50 4.50
2+080 7.7 4.50 4.50 Culvert proposed
2+198 6.5 CC road proposed by community as water overflows the road.
2+229 6.5 4.10 4.10 Culvert proposed
2+285 7 1.50 1.50 End Point
58. Gram Panchayat: Shahada
59. Block: Pallari
60. District: Raipur
61. Date; Time: 22 April 2010; 10:50 pm to 3:00 pm
62. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 100
63. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: 02 Scheduled Caste: 15 Scheduled Tribe: Nil Disabled: Nil BPL: 20 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 25
64. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Lokesh Chandraker, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 42. Hirabai Kanauje, Sarpanch 43. Aanand Prakash Tondon, Sachiv 44. Dahilliya Bai, Panch 45. Yashoda Bai, Panch 46. Knauji, Sarpanch Pratinidhi
65. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on revenue map)
xli. Road alignment: After the transect walk the road length was found to
be 2.570 km.
xlii. Road width and land availability: The width of the road in the length of the alignment varies from 4.9 mtrs to 12 mtrs. Whereas, available land width from chainage 0+000 to 2+328 is 7.5 mtrs to 12 mtrs and from chainage 2+328 onwards alignment is passing through inhabited area of the village having pucca structures on both sides of the road with limited width.
xliii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per
two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an
affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project. None.
xliv. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
xlv. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None.
xlvi. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Culverts have been suggested by community at chainage 0+010, 0+048,
0+230, 0+491, 0+702, 0+766, 1+193, 1+543, 1+735, 1+897, 2+206 and 2+328. Community also proposed for dismantling of culvert at chainage 0+753.
Community told that from chainage 0+919 to 1+245 a canal flows parallel to road on LHS and during monsoon its water overflows the road. Hence, PIU suggested for side wall on LHS.
From chainage 1+934 to 2+013 communities proposed for pitch wall along the pond on LHS.
xlvii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has proposed for the signboard and speed breakers at chainage 0+841, 0+861 and 0+881 as there is a sharp bent on right side of the road.
xlviii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc: From chainage 2+328 to 2+570 alignment is passing through inhabited area. To minimize the adverse impact on private assets community suggested for CC road.
66. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
xxi. Changes to be incorporated in the design: CC road has to be constructed from chainage 2+328 to 2+257 as
required width is not available due to habitation area. So community proposed for the C C road.
Culverts have been suggested by community at chainage 0+010, 0+048, 0+230, 0+491, 0+702, 0+766, 1+193, 1+543, 1+735, 1+897, 2+206 and 2+328. Community also proposed for dismantling of culvert at chainage 0+753.
Community told that from chainage 0+919 to 1+245 a canal flows parallel to road on LHS and during monsoon its water overflows the road. Hence, PIU suggested for side wall on LHS.
From chainage 1+934 to 2+013 communities proposed for pitch wall along the pond on LHS.
Community has proposed for the signboard and speed breakers at chainage 0+841, 0+861 and 0+881 as there is a sharp bent on right side of the road.
xxii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Land donation is required at chainage 2+148 to 2+194 where community have extended their Kutcha boundary on government land. Households have shown their willingness to donate the land for construction of road.
xxiii. Environmental issues to be resolved: None xxiv. Other Issues: None
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Before the initiation of transect walk a consultation was held with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment. Community told that for major part of alignment width is available. They participated enthusiastically and shared that road is very important to them. They use this road to reach Geeta puri chowki, tehsil in Pallari, government hospital etc. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None. The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 12
SHAHADA
0+010 12 3.80 3.80 Culvert proposed 0+025 12
0+048 12 3.80 3.80 Culvert proposed
67. Name of Road: T07 (km.1) to Khaira
68. Village: Khaira
69. Gram Panchayat: Khaira
70. Block: Pallari
71. District: Raipur
72. Date; Time: 20 April 2010; 11:00 pm to 2:20 pm
73. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 90
0+230 12 3.80 3.80 Culvert proposed
0+491 12 3.80 3.80 Culvert proposed
0+702 12 3.80 3.80 Culvert proposed 0+753 12 3.80 3.80 Culvert to be
dismantled 0+766 12 Culvert proposed 0+841 12 Speed breaker 0+861 11.30 Sign board 0+881 11.30 Speed breaker 0+919 11.30 Side wall to be
constructed on LHS 1+193 11 Culvert Proposed 1+245 11 Side wall on LHS ends 1+303 11 1+543 11 Culvert Proposed 1+735 11 Culvert Proposed 1+897 11 Culvert Proposed 1+934 11 Pitch wall has to be
constructed on RHS along the pond
1+958 10.5 2+013 10.70 1.30 1.30 Pitch wall to be
constructed up to this chainage
2+138 11 2+148 6.5 1.80 1.80 Kutcha
Boundary wall
(encroached)
Kutcha Boundary
wall (encroached)
2+194 6.5 1.80 1.80 Kutcha Boundary
wall (encroached)
Kutcha Boundary
wall (encroached)
2+206 6.5 4.40 4.40 Culvert Proposed 2+320 7.5 3.40 3.40 2+328 7.5 4.40 4.40 Culvert Proposed and
CC road starts 2+442 6 2 2 2+483 5 3 3 2+507 4.90 2.80 2.80
74. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: 01 Scheduled Caste: 39 Scheduled Tribe: 11 Disabled: Nil BPL: 40 Households losing structure: 01 Women in general: 18
75. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Lokesh Chandraker, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 47. Hriday lal, Sarpanch 48. Revati, Panch 49. Urmilla, Panch 50. Maniram Verma, Sachiv 51. Knauji, Sarpanch Pratinidhi
76. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on revenue map)
xlix. Road alignment: During the transect walk the road length was found
to be 1.564 km whereas the length submitted by the PIU is 1.00 km. The difference in the length of the alignment is by 500 mtrs because transect walk is done up to the end of habitation as per the community demand and PIU suggestion.
l. Road width and land availability: The width of existing road varies from 3.00 mtrs to 4.00 mtrs whereas available land width varies from 5 mtrs to 17mtrs. From chainage 0+763 to 1+564 alignment is passing through private land where width of the road at some chainage is not available as per the requirement.
li. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project: A BPL house hold structure would be affected at chainage 1+253 by 0.50 mtrs.
lii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: At chainage 1+253 a BPL household is losing its main structure which is under construction. PIU has suggested for reduction in width of road by 0.50 to avoid the loss.
liii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): On LHS at chainage 1+103 a worship place would be affected by 1 mtrs. Community is willing to shift it to another location.
liv. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community has proposed for construction of cross drain at chainage 0+011, 0+022, 0+450, 0+609, 0+626, 0+686, 0+718 and 1+390.
At chainage 0+184 and 0+336 existing cross drains are of good condition and community has proposed not to replace them.
lv. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.):
The community proposed for a signboard at chainage 1+066 as there is a sharp bent (towards left) in road.
At chainage 0+161 and 0+626 community has proposed for straightening of alignment as these are accident prone sites due to turns.
At chainage 0+612, 0+648 and 0+987 as observed and shared by community ample slope on RHS & LHS of the alignment should be provided so that their carts can cross safely.
lvi. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc:
At chainage 0+596 there is a borrow pit on LHS. There was no
suggestion from community.
Community has demanded for approach road at chainage 0+935 towards temple (RHS) and at chainage 1+280 to school (LHS).
Community suggested for the CC road from chainage 0+868 to 1+564 as the required width is not available due to dense habitation and also water stagnates on the road during monsoon.
Electric pole on LHS at chainage 1+005 would be affected due to the alignment, so PIU proposed to shift it.
77. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
xxv. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Community wants alignment to be straightened at 0+161, and 0+626
so that accidents could be avoided.
Ample sloping on RHS and LHS has to be provided for the cart ways at chainages 0+612, 0+648 and 0+987 so that they can cross the road safely.
Because of water logging and loss of private properties in built up area
community suggested for CC road from chainage 0+868 to 1+564.
Community has proposed for construction of cross drain at chainage 0+011, 0+022, 0+450, 0+609, 0+626, 0+686, 0+718 and 1+390.
At chainage 0+184 and 0+336 existing cross drains are of good condition and community has proposed not to replace them.
xxvi. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: The community is willing to donate the land required for the proposed road.
xxvii. Environmental issues to be resolved: Trees at RHS at
chainage 1+103, 0+977 would be affected. xxviii. Other Issues: At 0+626 wires are hanging from electricity pole
which has to be uplifted keeping safety into account. Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Before the initiation of transect walk a consultation was held with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment. During the transect walk community told that in past few years technical survey has already been conducted 3-4 times. So, they have lost hope about the construction of road. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 10
KHAIRA
0+011 10 Culvert 0+022 10 Culvert to be made
with consultation of irrigation department,
Accident Prone site 0+161 7 2 2 Agricultural
land Agricultural
land Community suggested
for straitening of alignment
0+184 7.6 1 1 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
Existing culvert in good condition
0+314 10 1 1
0+450 8 0.50 0.50 Culvert 0+573 10.5 0+596 10.5 Pit on RHS
0+609 10.5 2.40 2.40 Culvert proposed 0+612 10.5 Sloping for cart way
has to be provided 0+626 10.5 Culvert proposed, At
this chainage electricity wires are
hanging below which has to be uplifted by
the concerned department.
Community proposed for straightening of
alignment at this chainage.
0+648 10.5 Sloping for cart way has to be provided
0+686 10.5 3.20 3.20 Culvert proposed
0+718 5.5 4 4.5 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
Culvert proposed
0+766 5 1 1.5 Uncultivated land
Boundary wall
0+815 3 4 4 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
Agricultural loss on RHS is 1mtr and on
LHS its 1.5 mtr 0+868 11 BT ends here and CC
road started 0+909 5 .70 .50 Step of the
house getting affected
0+923 6.7 0+935 6.7 A Temple is present on
RHS of alignment community want
approach way towards it.
0+977 5 0.50 0.50 Tree 0+987 Sloping for cart way
has to be provided
78. Name of Road: T07 (Keshla) to Sankari (S)
79. Villages: Sankari (S), and Lutudih
80. Gram Panchayat: Sankari (S), and Khaira
81. Block: Pallari
82. District: Raipur
83. Date; Time: 21 April 2010; 11:00 am to 4:00 pm
84. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 60
85. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: Nil Scheduled Caste: 15 Scheduled Tribe: Nil
1+005 5 0.50 0.50 Boundary wall, Electric
Pole
Electric pole to be shifted
1+027 7 1 1 Electric Pole 1+066 8 Sign board has to be
installed as there is a bent in road.
1+103 5 1 1 Temple Tree Community is willing to shift the temple to another location.
1+119 8 .90 .90 1+225 6 3.50 3.50 1+253 5.50 .50 Main
Structure (under
construction)
Owner has accepted that he has encroached land for construction of
his house. PIU suggested for
reduction in width of the road by 0.50 to
avoid the loss 1+262 7 2 2 1+280 8 1 1 Speed breaker to be
installed for safety of school children.
Community has wished for approach road of 60
mtr length towards school on LHS
1+375 7 2 2
1+390 7.00 3.90 3.90 Culvert proposed 1+564 17 End point
Disabled: 00 BPL: 07 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 30
86. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Lokesh Chandraker, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 52. Amrilla Bai Kurre Panch 53. Mogra, Panch 54. Mahaveer, Sarpanch Pratinidhi
87. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on revenue map)
lvii. Road alignment: During the transect walk the road length was found
to be 3.260 km whereas proposed length by PIU to ADB is 3.20 km.
lviii. Road width and land availability: The width of existing land varies from 5 mtrs to 6 mtrs. From chainage 0+298 to 0+318 private assets fall along the alignment where required width is not available.
lix. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two
criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project. None.
lx. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None
lxi. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None
lxii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community has proposed for cross drains at chainages 0+180, 0+359, 0+405, 0+453, 0+567, 0+947, 1+519, 1+682, 3+036, 3+155, 3+170, and 3+200.
From chainage 3+155 to 3+260 PIU and community both have proposed for side drain on RHS.
lxiii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): Community has proposed for speed breakers at chainage 2+950 near school.
lxiv. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc:
According to community centre line has to be shifted by 1.5 mtrs
towards LHS at chainage 0+318 to straighten up the alignment.
Community proposed for construction of CC road from chainage 0+298 to 0+318 as inside the village water flows over the road and at certain part land width is not available.
88. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
xxix. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
At chainage 0+318 alignment has to be shifted by 1.50 mtr
towards LHS to straighten up the alignment.
CC road has to be constructed from chainage. Community proposed for the construction of the C C Road from chainage 0+298 to 0+318 as water overflows on the and also at some chainage required land width is not available.
Community has proposed for cross drains at chainages 0+180, 0+359, 0+405, 0+453, 0+567, 0+947, 1+519, 1+682, 3+036, 3+155, 3+170, and 3+200.
From chainage 3+155 to 3+260 PIU and community both have proposed for side drain on RHS.
xxx. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: The community is willing to donate the land required for the proposed road.
xxxi. Environmental issues to be resolved: None xxxii. Other Issues: None
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Transect walk started after consultation with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment.
During the transect walk community shared that there is another alternative alignment from other side of village known as Sankari (s) to shandi or shandi pahunch marg which is more feasible for them in terms of distance, time and approach. They proposed for construction of “shandi pahucnh marg” instead of this, if possible. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: As observed community mostly use another road “sankari (s) to shandi”. The alternate alignment proposed by community will provide more benefits to the community of Sankari (S). The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 9 1.30 1.30
LUTUDIH
0+180 8.90 1.70 1.70 Cross drain proposed 0+298 10 CC road proposed
0+318 6 2.5 2.5
0+359 6 2.5 2.5 Cross drain proposed
0+405 7.80 1.90 1.90 Cross drain proposed
0+453 9.30 2.20 2.20 Cross drain proposed 0+474 10.5 1.20 1.20 0+522 10.5 1.20 1.20 0+567 10.5 1.20 1.20 Cross drain proposed 0+732 10.5 1.20 1.20 0+947 8.50 2.30 2.30 Cross drain proposed 1+519 7 1.5 1
SANKARI (S)
Cross drain proposed 1+541 7 1.5 1 Agricultural
land Agricultural
land
1+682 8.40 1.5 1 Cross drain proposed 1+706 15 Agricultural
land
1+820 5.5 2.5 2.5 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
2+639 10.5 1.5 1.5 2+950 9 2 2 Speed breaker to be
provided 2+959 9 2 2 2+975 5.5 2.5 2.5
89. Name of Road: 07T14 (Siltora) to Mandhar Neodih
90. Village: Mandhar Neodih
91. Gram Panchayat: Mandhar Neodih
92. Block: Dharsiwa
93. District: Raipur
94. Date; Time: 05 May 2010; 10:30 am to 02:00 pm
95. Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 60
96. Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household: Nil Scheduled Caste: 10 Scheduled Tribe: 05 Disabled: Nil BPL: 08 Households losing structure: 01 Women in general: 22
97. Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Lokesh Chandraker, S.E.
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 55. Ganeshan Mandhar, Sarpanch Mandhar 56. J. Chandraker, Sarpanch Neodih 57. Krishna Mandhar, panch 58. Bhikharam Sahoo, Panch 59. Mantram, Panch 60. Laxmi Yadav, Panch
3+036 9 2 2 Cross drain proposed 3+048 9 2 2 Boundary
wall (Kuccha)
3+155 8.70 2.30 2.30 Cross drain proposed, Drainage line on RHS
starts 3+170 8.70 2.30 2.30 Cross drain proposed 3+200 8.10 1.80 1.80 Cross drain proposed 3+260 7.5 1.10 1.10
61. Kiran Chaturvedi, Panch 62. Bhagawantin Bai, Panch 63. Rajkumari Nishad, Panch 64. Mahender Kumar, Panch 65. Savita, Panch 66. Hirabai, Panch 67. Krishna Sen, Panch 68. Ramshilla, Panch
98. Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on revenue map)
lxv. Road alignment: The proposed length of the road by PIU to ADB is 3.20
km which after the completion of transect walk was found to be 3.140 km.
lxvi. Road width and land availability: From chainage 0+700 to 1+340 and 2+603 to 3+140 alignment is passing through densely inhabited area where required width is not available. Except at above mentioned part of chainage, there is land width is available.
lxvii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per
two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project. At chainage 1+137 a BPL household is kuccha boundary wall would be affected by 0.50 mtrs.
lxviii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None
lxix. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None
lxx. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water Courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community has proposed for construction of cross drain at chainage: 0+200 (no change in existing structure), 0+458, 0+661, 1+010 (sloping in the road), 1+204, 1+376 (repairing work only), 1+889, 2+055, 2+084, 2+357, 2+867, 2+990 ( 2 cross drains have to be provided- 1 in LHS approach road and 1 in alignment) and 3+124.
Community and PIU proposed for side drain from chainage 2+990 to 3+124 on both side and from 1+154 to 1+280 on RHS.
lxxi. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.):
Community proposed for speed breaker at chainage 0+775 as
habitation starts from this chainage onwards.
lxxii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc: Due to dense habitation along the alignment from chainage 0+700 to
1+340 and 2+603 to 3+140 the required width is not available. Community and PIU opted for CC road to avoid loss of private assets of community.
At chainage 0+624 and 0+790 electric poles on RHS would be affected and hence need to be shifted to some other location as share by PIU.
As community proposed centre line has to be shifted by 2 mtrs towards left at chainage 1+500 to avoid adverse effect on tree.
At chainage 1+532 community and PIU suggested for shift in alignment by 2 mtrs towards LHS to reduce the curvature in alignment and to avoid impact on tree.
From chainage 3+038 to 3+092 communities suggested for shift in the centre line by 2 mtrs toward LHS as land is available.
At chainage 2+540 a house would be affected on LHS, so community suggested for shift in centre line by 1 mtrs towards right to avoid the loss on same.
99. Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
xxxiii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
To avoid impact on private assets from chainage 0+700 to 1+340 and 2+603 to 3+140 of community in the inhabited area, PIU and community has decided to construct CC road.
At chainage 1+500 a tree would be affected on the alignment so, to avoid the impact community proposed for shift in centre line by 2 mtrs towards LHS.
At chainage 1+532 alignment has to be shifted by 2 mtrs towards LHS to reduce the curve in the alignment and to avoid affect on tree.
Community suggested for the shift in the centre line towards RHS by 1 mtrs at chainage 2+540 to avoid the loss of house on LHS.
Community told and as observed from chainage 3+038 to 3+092 land is available on LHS and hence proposed to shift the centre line by 1 mtrs towards same side.
xxxiv. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: In the habitant area the width of the road is limited hence community suggested for the C C Road at these particular chainage because they are not willing to donate their residential structure land for the road construction.
xxxv. Environmental issues to be resolved: At chainage 1+500 and 1+532 shift in centre line by 2 mtrs towards left at each chainage has been suggested by community to avoid affect on trees. From chainage 1+624 to 1+780 nine trees which are 80-90 years old as per the information given by community would be affected due to the alignment. Still, Community is willing to lay down these trees for the proposed alignment.
xxxvi. Other Issues: None
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Before the initiation of transect walk a consultation was held with each of the affected communities. All major stakeholders like members of the affected community, PRI participated in the consultations. During the consultations, the community was informed about the project especially with regards to PMGSY being a rural development scheme. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the transect walk and how the participation of the community, their suggestions etc were important in finalizing the design for the alignment. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL SAFEGUARD SPECIALISTS: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 12.5
MANDHAR
0+200 11.5 No change in existing
cross drain 0+458 7.80 Cross drain proposed 0+624 6.5 2 2 Electric
Pole Electric pole has to be
shifted
0+661 6.5 2 2 Cross drain proposed 0+700 6.5 2 2 CC road proposed 0+775 6.5 2 2 Speed breaker
proposed 0+790 3.6 0.20 Electric
pole Electric pole has to be
shifted 0+869 3.3 CC road has to be
constructed in the available width to
avoid effect on main structures of community
0+877 5 1+010 Sloping in road from
both side for passage of water
1+124 4.3 1+137 3.30 .50 Boundary
wall (kuccha)
A BPL, SC household losing its kuccha boundary wall.
1+152 4.30 1+154 7.5 Side drain on RHS
starts 1+204 Cross drain proposed 1+280 8 Side drain on RHS ends 1+340 8 CC road ends 1+376 Existing cross drain
has to be repaired 1+500 6 4 Shift in centre line
towards LHS by 2 mtrs to avoid trees at centre
1+532 6 4 Shift in alignment by 2 mtrs towards LHS
1+624 6 4 Nine Trees 1+780 6.30 4 1+889 6.30 2 2 Cross drain proposed 2+055 10 Cross drain proposed 2+084 10 Cross drain proposed 2+310 12 2+357 12 Cross drain proposed 2+540 8 1.50 2 Centre line has to be
shifted by 1 mtr towards RHS to avoid
effect on pucca structure
2+553 8 1.50 2 Railway land starts 2+603 7.70 2.50 2 Railway land limit
ends, CC road proposed 2+770 6 1.90 1.90 2+867 6 1.90 1.90 Cross drain proposed 2+940 4.50 2.80 2.80
2+990 4.50 2.80 2.80 Cross drain proposed
on main alignment and approach road on LHS,
side drain starts on both side
3+038 6.7 2 Shift in centre line by 2 mtr towards LHS
3+092 6.7 2 Centre line has to be shifted towards LHS
b) District Bilaspur
1) Name of Road: Batori to Beltukri Road
2) Villages: i. Batori, ii. Kureli, iii. Beltukri
3) Gram Panchayat: Beltukri
4) Block: Bilha
5) District: Bilaspur
6) Date; Time: 7 June 2010; 9.00 am to 4 :50 pm
7) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 28
8) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 05 Scheduled Tribe : 04 Disabled : Nil BPL : 09 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 03
9) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Narayan Nimjhe , AE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 1. Rakesh Kumar Khatri, Sarpanch ,GP Beltukri 2. Laxman, Panch GP Beltukri
10) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
upto this chainage 3+124 6.5 2.50 1.50 Side drain ends on both
side 3+140 6.5 2.50 1.50 End point
i. Road alignment: The length of the road was 4.500 km as submitted by PIU to ADB and after the transect walk the road was found to be 5.020 km. For the exceeded length of 520 mtrs PIU didn’t state any reasons.
ii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 6 mtrs to 12 mtrs.
iii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
iv. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
v. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
vi. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): Culverts have been proposed at various chainages by the PIU in consultation
with the community. These chainages are 0+170, 0+730, 0+834, 1+325, 1+580, 2+951, 3+440, 4+008, 4+200, and 4+330.
Similarly retaining wall has been suggested by the community and PIU from chainage 3+600 to 3+712 on LHS to avoid a pond from being affected.
vii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The
community has suggested for the safety sign boards at chainage 0+000 and 2+310 on RHS and speed breaker at 4+455 and 4+600.
viii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None.
11) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
i. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
1. The length of the road was 4.500 km which was measured to be 5.020 km after the transect walk.
2. Retaining wall needed from 3+600 to 3+712 on RHS to avoid erosion as pond is located at the LHS.
ix. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: At some chainage private assets are getting affected but the community as well as the affected persons is willing to donate the land for the road construction.
ii. Environmental issues to be resolved: At chainage 3+580 on LHS one tree would be affected due to the alignment for the community is ready to donate it.
iii. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk.
During the discussion community shared that they have seen people coming to inspect the road, doing measurement for ages without any results in construction of the road, which a major concern for the community. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 11.6 BORTORA
SIGN BOARD RHS 0+120 10.1
0+170 8.50 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
0+230 9.3 .60 .60 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
0+410 6.1 2.5 2.5 0+614 6.0 2.0 2.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
0+730 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT 0+834 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
0+915 5.9 2.0 2.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+000 6.0 2.0 2.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
KURELI
1+260 6.0 2.0 2.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+325 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
1+400 6.4 1.5 2.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+580 6.8 4.20 4.20 CULVERT
1+723 13.0
1+884 13.2
1+940 12.0
2+012 12.4
2+310 6.1 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
SIGN BOARD RHS
2+501 6.1 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
BELTUKRI
2+667 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
2+841 6.2 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
2+951 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
3+120 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
3+211 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
3+440 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
3+580 6.0 2.5 3.5 TREE(1
) Government land
3+600 6.0 2.5 3.5 Agricult
ural land
POND RETAINING WALL START
3+712 6.0 2.5 3.5 Agricult
ural land
POND RETAINING WALL END
4+008 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
4+200 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
4+330 7.0 3.50 3.50 CULVERT
4+450 10.4
4+455 10.4 SPEED BREAKER
4+600 10.0 SPEED BREAKER
4+858 12.0
12) Name of Road: Khutera to Klarjevra Road
13) Villages: Khutera, and Klarjevra
14) Gram Panchayat: Klarjevra
15) Block: Pathariya
16) District: Bilaspur
17) Date; Time: 9 May 2010; 11.30 am to 3:00 pm
18) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 14
19) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 10 Scheduled Tribe : 01 Disabled : Nil BPL : 07 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : Nil
20) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
2. MK Tiwari , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 3. Vinod Singh Thakur, Sarpanch ,GP Klarjevra 4. Onkar, panch GP Klarjevra
21) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
x. Road alignment: The length of the road after the transect walk was found to be 2.940 km which is deficit by 0.090 km from the length submitted by the PIU to ADB.
xi. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 4.2 mtrs to 12 mtrs.
5+000 12.0
xii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
xiii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None. xiv. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable. xv. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): Culverts have been proposed at chainage 0+020, 0+100, 0+800, 2+001, and 2+300 by the PIU in consultation with the community.
xvi. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The
community has suggested for the safety sign boards at chainage 0+000 and 2+350 on LHS.
xvii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.):
None
22) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
iv. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Built up area starts from chainage 0+120 to 0+540 and 2+350 to 2+500
where land width is in between 3.9 mtrs to 5 mtrs, so community and PIU have suggested for CC road.
Community and PIU during transect walk have suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+020, 0+100, 0+800, 2+001, and 2+300.
xviii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
v. Environmental issues to be resolved: None
vi. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. The main objective of the consultation was to inform the community about the PMGSY as a rural development scheme and the details of the proposed road alignment, Further the relevance and purpose of the transect walk and especially about community participation to finalize the alignment, people were very much supportive in the transect walk.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 8.0 1.0 1.0 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
KHUTERA KLARJEVRA
0+020 8.0 3.80 3.80 CULVERT 0+100 7.60 4.30 4.30 CULVERT
0+120 5.1 1.25 1.25 Residential loss
Residential loss
CC ROAD START
0+210 4.9 1.25 1.25 Residential loss
Residential loss
CC ROAD
0+326 5.1 1.25 1.25 Residential loss
Residential loss
CC ROAD
0+400 5.0 1.25 1.25 Residential loss
Residential loss
CC ROAD
0+540 5.80 4.70 4.70 CC ROAD END, CULVERT 0+664 6.0 2.5 3.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
0+720 6.3 2.5 3.5 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
0+800 6.1 2.5 3.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
CULVERT
0+920 6.0 2.5 3.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+333 6.0 2.5 3.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+500 6.0 2.5 3.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
SIGN BOARD LHS
1+778 12.0
2+001 5.70 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
23) Name of Road: L074 to Udgaon Road
24) Villages: Udgaon
25) Gram Panchayat: Ameri-Akbori
26) Block: Bilha
27) District: Bilaspur
28) Date; Time: 6 May 2010; 11.00 am to 3 :30 pm
29) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 12
30) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 09 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 07 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 02
31) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Narayan Nimjhe, AE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 5. Samelal Jangre, Sarpanch ,GP Ameri-Akbori 6. Resham Lal, Panch GP Ameri-Akbori
2+300 5.0 4.60 4.60 CULVERT
2+350 5.0 1.25 1.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD START, SIGN BOARD LHS
2+500 5.2 1.25 1.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD END
2+744 4.2 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
2+900 4.2 3.0 3.0 B WALL B WALL
32) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map) xix. Road alignment: The length of the road submitted to ADB by PIU is same
after the transect walk i.e. 1.050 km.
xx. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different chainage from 3.5 mtrs to 16 mtrs.
xxi. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
xxii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
xxiii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
xxiv. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): PIU in consultation with the community proposed for the culvert at chainage 0+128.
xxv. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): Safety sign board is suggested by the community at chainage 0+651 on RHS.
xxvi. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.):
At chainage 0+511 on LHS one electricity post would be affected due to the alignment on which the pole is existing.
33) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
vii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
The length of the road is 1.050 km. Built up area starts from chainage 0+661 to 1+050 where existing land
width is 3.9 to 5 mtrs affecting residential land hence community and PIU suggested for the C C road.
viii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
ix. Environmental issues to be resolved: None. x. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and
PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. During the discussion with the community it came out that govt official used to come and go to inspect the road without any outcome. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
c) District Durg
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 16.0
0+054 16.0
0+128 14.0 1.00 1.00 CULVERT
0+234 15.0 0+356 13.3 0+511 13.0 ELECT
RICITY POLE
COMMUNITY SUGGESTS SHIFTING OF THE POLE.
0+621 14.0 0+651 11.4 SIGN BOARD RHS
0+661 5.1 1.25 1.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD START
0+709 5.0 1.25 1.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD
0+856 4.9 1.25 1.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD
0+940 4.5 1.5 1.5 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD
1+050 3.9 1.75 1.75 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD END
34) Name of Road: Darhi-Khandsara Road to Bandhi Road
35) Villages: i. Darhi,
ii. Paraswara, iii. Bandhi
36) Gram Panchayat: Bandhi
37) Block: Saja
38) District: Durg
39) Date; Time: 17 May 2010; 10.00 am to 4 :50 pm
40) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 43
41) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 09 Scheduled Tribe : 04 Disabled : Nil BPL : 07 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 02
42) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
3. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 7. Taman Singh Sahu, Sarpanch ,GP Bandhi 8. Tikendra Sahu, panch GP Bandhi 9. Montora Bai, panch GP Bandhi 10. Punit Ram Sahu , panch GP Bandhi 11. Milan Ram Sahu, panch GP Bandhi
43) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
xxvii. Road alignment: The length of the road as submitted by PIU to ADB was 1.400 Km and after the transect walk it was found to be 4.400 Km.
On the difference of the length, PIU told that proposed length was taken decade ago and they never measured the road again.
xxviii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 6.5 mtrs to 15 mtrs.
xxix. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
xxx. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
xxxi. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
xxxii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Sides drain is proposed by the community on both sides from 3+482 to 4+015, so that water from the agricultural land will reach to the pond at 4+015.
Community has also suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+507, 1+050, 1+072, 1+190, 1+995, 2+184, 2+635 and 2+760.
Community have suggested for the boulder pitching at chainage 1+575 and 1+579 to avoid erosion on the sides of the alignment.
xxxiii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for safety sign boards at chainage 0+173 and 0+949 on RHS as there is a curve and starting chainage of the village.
xxxiv. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
44) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
xi. Changes to be incorporated in the design: The length of the road was 1.400 mtrs and after the transect
walk the road was found to be 4+400 mtrs.
Boulder pitching from 1+515 to 1+679 has suggested by the community on LHS to avoid erosion.
At chainage 0+507, 1+050, 1+072, 1+190, 1+995, 2+184, 2+635 and 2+760 culverts are suggested by the community.
From chainage 3+482 to 4+015 on LHS, side drain is proposed by the community.
xii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
xiii. Environmental issues to be resolved: 8 trees would be affected at chainage 0+471, 0+646, 3+150, 3+317, and 3+482 due to the project. .
xiv. Other issues: None. Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 12.0
DARHI PARSWARA
0+098 8.0 1.5 1.5 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
0+173 8.2 1.5 1.5 Residential loss
Residential loss
SIGN BOARD RHS
0+287 7.8 1.6 1.6 Residential loss
Residential loss
0+396 7.8 1.6 1.6 Government land
Government land
0+471 7.8 1.6 1.6 TREE(2)
Government land
0+507 7.8 4.6 4.6 CULVERT 0+646 7.0 2.0 2.0 TREE(1
) Government land
0+878 8.2 1.5 1.5 Government land
Government land
0+949 8.2 1.5 1.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
SIGN BOARD RHS
1+050 7.3 4.5 4.5
PARASWARA
CULVERT
1+072 7.3 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
1+190 8.80 3.5 3.80 CULVERT
1+352 7.8 1.6 1.6 Govern
ment land
Government land
1+447 8.0 1.5 1.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
BANDHI
1+515 8.0 1.5 1.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
Boulder pitching LHS
1+679 8.0 1.5 1.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
Boulder pitching LHS
1+995 8.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
2+184 8.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
2+321 11.0
2+635 10 3.20 3.20 CULVERT
2+760 10 3.20 3.20 CULVERT
3+021 7.2 2.0 2.0 Govern
ment land
Government land
3+150 6.9 2.0 2.0 Govern
ment land
TREE(3)
3+317 6.9 2.0 2.0 TREE(1
) Government land
3+482 6.5 2.25 2.25 TREE(1
) Government land
SIDE DRAIN START BOTH SIDE
3+642 6.5 2.25 2.25 Govern
ment land
Government land
SIDE DRAIN BOTH SIDE
3+911 6.6 2.25 2.25 Govern
ment land
Government land
SIDE DRAIN BOTH SIDE
4+015 10 SIDE DRAIN BOTH SIDE
END, CULVERT
4+101 15.0
4+295 11 4 4 CULVERT
4+400 10.0
45) Name of Road: Main Road T02 to Jhalam Road
46) Villages: Jhalam
47) Gram Panchayat: Marka
48) Block: Bematara
49) District: Durg
50) Date; Time: 16 May 2010; 10.30 am to 3 :24 pm
51) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 29
52) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 06 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 04
53) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
4. Upaddhay , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 12. Rohit kumar Sahu, Sarpanch ,GP Marka 13. Ishwar Bai, panch GP Marka 14. Bharat Kumar, panch GP Marka 15. Sushila, panch GP Marka 16. Kunti Bai, panch GP Marka
54) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on Revenue map)
xxxv. Road alignment: The length of the road submitted to ADB and the length measured after the transect walk is 1.450 km.
xxxvi. Road width and land availability: Govt land is available along the alignment as told by the Community and the PIU. The road width varies at different chainage from 5 mtrs to 11 mtrs.
xxxvii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two
criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or
possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
xxxviii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
xxxix. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Temple boundary
wall would be affected at 0+835 by 0.50 mtrs on RHS.
xl. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): At chainage 0+547, 0+729, 0+884, 1+146 and 1+423 community have suggested for the culverts.
xli. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for safety sign boards at chainage 0+000 at the starting of the road on RHS, and speed breaker at 0+504.
xlii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
55) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
xv. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
The length of the road is 1.450 km. To avoid affect on Temple at chainage 0+835 on RHS community
suggested for the shift in the centerline by 1mtr on LHS and to straighten the road.
Since the alignment is passing through the habitation from chainage 0+610 to 0+723, community proposed for the C C road to avoid the losses.
Community suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+547, 0+729, 0+884, 1+146 and 1+423.
xvi. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: The community is supportive of the proposed road construction and agreed to donate land for the same. People are waiting for the construction of pucca road and very much ready for land donation if required.
xvii. Environmental issues to be resolved: At chainage 0+073 on
LHS a tree would be affected.
xviii. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: In the consultation with the community it was found that people are ready to donate land if
required for the construction of the pucca road and also they shared their age old problems such as inconvenience during monsoon due to sleeper road also shared that other villages also use the same road for communication. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 10.0
JHALAM
SIGN BOARD RHS 0+027 8.0 1.70 1.70
0+073 7.0 1.25 1.25 TREE(1)
Government land
0+114 7.9 1.00 1.00 Government land
Government land
0+175 7.0 1.25 1.25 Government land
Government land
ENCROACHMENT ON RHS
0+262 7.5 1.00 1.00 Government land
Government land
0+284 8.5 .25 .25 Government land
Government land
0+370 8.0 .50 .50 Government land
Government land
0+473 8.6 .25 .25 Govern
ment land
Government land
0+504 8.6 .25 .25 Govern
ment land
Government land
SPEED BREAKER
0+547 8.6 4.25 4.25 CULVERT
0+610 5.6 1.00 1.00 CC ROAD
0+723 5.6 1.00 1.00 CC ROAD END
0+729 5.6 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
0+835 6.5 1.25 1.25 Govern
ment land
TEMPLE CENTERLINES TO SHIFT BY 1MTR LHS TO AVOID
AFFECT ON TEMPLE LHS
56) Name of Road: Dokerbela to Damadiah Road
57) Villages: Damadiah
58) Gram Panchayat: Gidhwa
59) Block: Bematara
60) District: Durg
61) Date; Time: 15 May 2010; 11.30 am to 4 :00 pm
62) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 29
63) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 04 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 04
64) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
5. Upaddhay , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 17. Janki Devi Prena, Sarpanch ,GP Gidhwa 18. Gajanan, panch GP Gidhwa 19. Tilmati, panch GP Gidhwa
AND TO STRIGHTEN THE ROAD.
0+884 6.5 4.25 4.25 CULVERT
0+902 11.0
1+064 7.5 1.25 1.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+108 6.0 1.50 1.50 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+146 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
1+423 6.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
20. Dhaneswari, panch GP Gidhwa
65) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on Revenue map)
xliii. Road alignment: The length of the road as submitted to ADB by PIU was 2.80 km which was found to be 1.887 km after the transect walk. For the difference of 0.913 km PIU have no answer.
xliv. Road width and land availability: Govt land is available along the
alignment as told by the Revenue inspector and the PIU. The road width varies at different chainage from 4 mtrs to 8.9 mtrs.
xlv. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two
criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
xlvi. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
xlvii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
xlviii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): At chainage 0+020, 0+081, 0+574, 0+724, 0+848 and 0+986 community and PIU have suggested for the culverts.
xlix. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for the safety sign boards at 0+000 (RHS) on the starting of the road, 0+232 on RHS and 1+405 on LHS.
l. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
66) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
xix. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
After the transect walk the length of the road was to be 1.887 km. Community suggested for the shift in the centerline by 1mtr towards
RHS to straighten the road at chainage 0+131 for safety of the people. From chainage 1+425 to 1+887 community has suggested for the C C
Road because at these chainage alignment is passing through the habitation area.
Culverts suggested by the community at chainage 0+020, 0+081, 0+574, 0+724, 0+848 and 0+986.
xx. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: There would be no impact of the proposed road on the private assets. Hence no objections have been raised by the community for the project.
xxi. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
xxii. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. People are waiting for the construction of pucca road and very much ready for land donation if required. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 8.9 2.40 2.40
DAMADIAH
SIGN BOARD RHS 0+020 8.30 4.70 4.70 CULVERT
0+081 7.90 5.00 5.00 CULVERT
0+093 7.6 2 2 0+131 7.6 2 2 CENTERLINE SHIFT BY
1MTR TO STRIGHTEN THE ROAD.(COMMUNITY)
0+140 8.0 2 2 0+232 8.0 2 2 SIGN BOARD RHS 0+294 6.4 1.55 1.55 Residen
tial land
Residential land
0+511 4.4 2.55 2.55 Residen
tial land
Residential land
67) Name of Road: Ghatiyakala to Mudpar Road
68) Villages: Ghatiyakala, and Mudpar
69) Gram Panchayat: Ghatiyakala
70) Block: Berla
71) District: Durg
72) Date; Time: 1 June 2010; 10:50 am to 2 :59 pm
73) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 28
74) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 06 Scheduled Tribe : 02 Disabled : Nil
0+574 4.50 5.50 5.50
DAMADIAH
CULVERT
0+724 4.50 5.50 5.50 CULVERT
0+848 4.50 5.50 5.50 CULVERT
0+890 4.5 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial land
Residential land
0+986 4.50 5.50 5.50 CULVERT
1+094 6.8 2.35 2.35 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+148 7.8 1.00 1.00 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+293 7.6 1.00 1.00 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+405 7.8 1.00 1.00 Residen
tial land
Residential land
SIGN BOARD LHS
1+425 6.0 .75 .75 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD START
1+514 3.0 2.25 2.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD
1+615 5.5 1.00 1.00 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD
1+887 5.8 .85 .85 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD END
BPL : 07 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 05
75) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
6. Parag Tripathi , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 21. Shanti Markam, Sarpanch ,GP Ghatiyakala 22. Poon Das Nandi, Vice Sarpanch ,GP Ghatiyakala 23. Dulari Vema, panch GP panch ,GP Ghatiyakala 24. Kartik Ram panch ,GP panch ,GP Ghatiyakala
76) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on Revenue map)
li. Road alignment: The length of the road after the transect walk was found to be 1.250 mtrs.
lii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 5 mtrs to 12 mtrs.
liii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
liv. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
lv. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
lvi. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community and PIU have suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+332,
0+700 and 1+033.
lvii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for safety sign boards at 0+000 on LHS and 0+620 on RHS.
lviii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
77) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
xxiii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Centerline will shift by 2 mtrs on LHS from 0+927 to 1+033 to
straighten the alignment.
Community and PIU have suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+332,
0+700 and 1+033.
lix. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: From 0+407 to 0+510 landlord residing in another village shared that the present kutcha road was constructed on his land without his consent so he needs time to think over the situation. PRI representative told that they will organize a gram Sabha meeting and sort out the issue for the construction of the pucca road.
xxiv. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
xxv. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 12.0
GHATIYAKALA
SIGN BOARD LHS 0+101 12.0
0+230 10.0 1.0 1.0 Government land
Government land
0+332 10.0 4.0 4.0 MUDPAR CULVERT
78) Name of Road: Padumsara to Hathmidi Road
79) Villages: i. Padumsara, ii. Hardas, iii. Hathmidi
80) Gram Panchayat: i. Padumsara,
ii. Hardas, iii. Hathmidi
81) Block: Saja
82) District: Durg
83) Date; Time: 19 May, 2010; 10.21 am to 2 :40 pm
84) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 66
85) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 14 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 11 Households losing structure: Nil
0+407 7.5 1.5 2.0 Residential loss
Residential loss
0+510 7.4 1.5 2.0 Residential loss
Residential loss
0+620 7.0 1.5 2.5 Government land
Government land
SIGN BOARD RHS
0+700 9.2 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
0+711 9.2 2.0 2.0 Govern
ment land
Government land
0+769 9.2 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
0+805 8.9 2.0 2.0 Govern
ment land
Government land
0+927 6.0 2.5 2.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
CENTERLINE SHIFT BY 2 MTR ONLHS TO STRAIGHT
THE ROAD
1+033 6.0 2.5 2.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
CENTERLINE SHIFT BY 2 MTR ONLHS TO STRAIGHT
THE ROAD
1+101 7.1 .20 .20 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
1+153 7.1 .20 .20 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
Women in general : 05
86) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government: 7. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 25. Sahu, Sarpanch ,GP Hardas 26. Dabis Ram Sahu, panch GP Hardas 27. Uttara Nishad, panch GP Hardas 28. Devsingh Sahu, panch GP Hardas 29. Manisha Patel, Sarpanch GP Hathmidi 30. Ramkumar, panch GP Hathmidi
87) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
lx. Road alignment: The length of the road was found to be 2.90 kms after the transect walk. However according to the list submitted by the PIU, the length of the road was 3.050 kms. According to PIU the difference in the length of the road is because the measurement was done long years back.
lxi. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different chainage from 5.3 mtrs to 11 mtrs.
lxii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two
criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None
lxiii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
lxiv. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable. lxv. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): At chainage 0+193, 0+459, 0+781, 0+925, 1+069, 1+375, 1+511, 1+601, 1+839, 2+132, 2+382 and 2+442 culverts are suggested by the community and PIU.
lxvi. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for the speed breaker at chainage 1+723 and safety sign boards at 0+000 on LHS, 0+419 RHS, 0+855, RHS and 1+458 LHS.
lxvii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
88) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
xxvi. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
The length of the road is 2.900 km after the transect walk where the
proposed length was 3.050 km.
0+193, 0+459, 0+781, 0+925, 1+069, 1+375, 1+511, 1+601, 1+839, 2+132, 2+382 and 2+442 are the chainage where community and PIU suggested for the culverts.
Since from chainage 1+652 to 1+687, 2+540 to 2+650 and 2+876 to 3+050 the alignment crosses the habitation area so community proposed for the construction of C C roads. The existing width at these chainage is from 5.2 mtrs to 6.0 mtrs.
Community has suggested for the speed breaker at chainage 1+723 due to the presence of temple on LHS.
Safety sign boards were suggested by the community at chainage 0+000 on LHS, 0+419 RHS, 0+855, RHS and 1+458 LHS due to curves.
xxvii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: There would be no impact on assets due to the proposed road up gradation because government has the requisite land available on both sides. Hence no objections have been raised by the community for the project
xxviii. Environmental issues to be resolved: At 0+356 a tree would
be affected. Hence community suggested cutting down of the tree for the road construction.
xxix. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. People are waiting for the construction of pucca road and very much ready for land donation if required.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 11.0
PADUMSARA
SIGNBOARD LHS 0+110 5.3 1.85 1.85 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
0+193 5.3 3.85 3.85 CULVERT
0+259 8.5 .75 .75 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
0+356 5.2 2.40 2.40 Agricultural land
Tree(1)
0+419 7.5 1.25 1.25 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
SIGNBOARD RHS
0+459 7.5 4.25 4.25 CULVERT
0+661 9.6
0+716 10.2
HARDAS
0+781 CULVERT
0+830 7.8 1.10 1.10 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
0+858 8.5 .75 .75 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
SIGNBOARD RHS
0+925 8.5 4.75 4.75 CULVERT
0+972 6.5 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+069 7.90 3.70 3.70 CULVERT
1+192 8.5 .75 .75 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+278 9.0 1.00 1.00 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
89) Name of Road: Dhamdha-Gandai Road to Patharikhurd
Road
90) Villages: Patharikhurd
91) Gram Panchayat: Pathrijudi
92) Block: Saja
93) District: Durg
94) Date; Time: 21 May 2010; 10.00 am to 2:00 pm
95) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 35
1+375 9.0 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
1+458 6.5 1.75 1.75 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
SIGNBOARD RHS
1+511 6.5 4.75 4.75 CULVERT
1+601 6.5 4.75 4.75 CULVERT
1+652 5.2 1.15 1.15 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
CC ROAD
1+687 5.5 1.00 1.00 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
CC ROAD
1+723 7.5 .75 .75 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
SPEED BREAKER
1+839 7.5 3.75 3.75 CULVERT
2+000 9.0
2+132 9.0 3.50 3.50 CULVERT
2+382 8.20 3.50 3.50
HATHMIDI
CULVERT
2+442 8.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
2+540 6.0 .75 .75 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss CC ROAD
2+650 6.0 .75 .75 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss CC ROAD
2+728 5.0 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
2+876 5.4 1.05 1.05 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss CC ROAD
3+050 5.4 1.05 1.05 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss CC ROAD
96) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 05 Scheduled Tribe : 02 Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 05
97) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
8. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 31. Jam Bai, Sarpanch ,GP Pathrijudi 32. Sohan Verma, Panch GP Pathrijudi 33. Radhelal, Panch GP Pathrijudi 34. Maniklal, Panch GP Pathrijudi
98) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
lxviii. Road alignment: After the transect walk the length of the road was found to be 4.870 km where the length submitted by the PIU was 5.00 km, deficit by 130 mtrs. According to PIU they doesn’t have reasons for the variation in length.
lxix. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 5.5 mtrs to 12 mtrs.
lxx. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None:
lxxi. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
lxxii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
lxxiii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.):
At chainage 0+340, 0+820, 1+400, 1+500, 1+859, 2+130, 1+199,
2+669, 3+487, 3+777, 4+360, 4+672 and 4+839 community
suggested for the different types of culverts.
From chainage 1+670 to 1+840 community has proposed for the CC
Road to avoid the residential loss.
lxxiv. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for safety sign boards at 0+340 on RHS and 1+049 on LHS as according to community this is an accident prone area.
lxxv. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): One electricity pole would be affected at 1+922 due to the alignment. According to the PIU, technical changes like reducing the width of the shoulder or shift in the alignment would be made in the design to avoid the affect.
99) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue
map)
xxx. Changes to be incorporated in the design: The length of the road would be 4+ 870 mtrs.
Community suggested for culverts at chainage 0+340, 0+820,
1+400, 1+500, 1+859, 2+130, 1+199, 2+669, 3+487, 3+777, 4+360,
4+672 and 4+839.
To avoid the residential loss from chainage 1+670 to 1+840 community has proposed for the CC Road.
xxxi. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
xxxii. Environmental issues to be resolved: 18 trees would be
affected due to the alignment at chainage 0+250, 0+296, 0+697, 0+829 and 1+358.
xxxiii. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.
Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 11.0
PATHARIKHURD
0+120 12.0
0+250 12.0
0+340 11.0 3.10 3.10 CULVERT, SIGN BOARD RHS 0+544 11.0 0+656 11.0 0+721 11.0 0+820 11.0 3.10 3.10 CULVERT
1+049 11.0 SIGN BOARD LHS
1+229 5.5 2.75 2.75 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+345 6.0 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+400 6.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
1+500 6.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
1+604 6.5 2.25 2.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+670 6.4 .50 .50 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD START
1+840 7.0 .25 .25 CC ROAD END
1+859 7.0 3.25 3.25 CULVERT
1+922 7.5 .75 .75 ELECT
RICITY POLE
Residential land
2+034 7.8 .75 .75 Residen
tial land
Residential land
2+130 7.00 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
2+199 7.00 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
2+520 8.5 1.25 1.25 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
100) Name of Road: Piperiya to Korway Road
101) Villages: Piperiya, and Korway
102) Gram Panchayat: Piperiya
103) Block: Saja
104) District: Durg
105) Date; Time: 26 May 2010; 11.15 am to 3 :20 pm
2+669 8.50 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
2+823 8.5 1.25 1.25 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
3+080 7.0 2.0 2.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
3+200 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
3+487 7.0 3.60 3.60 CULVERT
3+560 7.0 2.0 2.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
3+681 8.4 1.25 1.25 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
3+777 8.8 4.25 4.25 CULVERT
3+945 9.0 1.0 1.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
4+132 9.0 1.0 1.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
4+360 9.0 3.0 3.0 CULVERT
4+425 9.0 1.0 1.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
4+672 9.0 3.0 3.0 CULVERT
4+720 11.0
4+839 11.0 2.30 2.30 CULVERT
106) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 17
107) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 03
108) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
9. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 35. Mahesiya Bai, Sarpanch ,GP Piperiya
109) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on Revenue map)
lxxvi. Road alignment: The length of the road as submitted by the PIU to ADB was 1.800 km and after the transect walk it was found to be 1.839 km.
lxxvii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 5.0 mtrs to 14 mtrs.
lxxviii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
lxxix. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
lxxx. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
lxxxi. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): Community has proposed for the culverts at chainage 0+453, 0+643, 0+814, 1+052, 1+079, 1+240 and 1+371.
lxxxii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): chainage
0+182 and 1+555 on LHS community has suggested for safety sign boards installation due to curves/ turn.
lxxxiii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
110) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
xxxiv. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
After the transect walk the length of the alignment is 1.839 km.
At chainage 0+453, 0+643, 0+814, 1+052, 1+079, 1+240 and 1+371culverts are suggested by the community.
From chainage 0+258 to 0+530 C C road is suggested by the community to avoid the residential losses.
xxxv. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
xxxvi. Environmental issues to be resolved: 1 tree and bamboo
groove need to cut at 0+553 and at 0+916 LHS.
xxxvii. Other issues: From chainage 0+258 to 0+530 the existing width is 5.00 mtrs to 5.60 mtrs. On both sides there would be residential loss due to widening of the alignment, hence to avoid the losses community suggested for the CC Road.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
111) Name of Road: Main Road (Keshtara)to Bagledi
Road
112) Villages: Keshtara
113) Gram Panchayat: Keshtara
114) Block: Saja
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 7.3 1.35 1.35 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
PIPERIYA
0+131
0+182 7.3 1.35 1.35 Residential loss
Residential loss
SIGN BOARD LHS
0+258 5.5 1.0 1.0 Residential loss
Residential loss
CC ROAD START
0+378 5.5 1.0 1.0 Residential loss
Residential loss
CC ROAD
0+453 5.5 4.80 4.80 CULVERT 0+530 5.6 1.0 1.0 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss CC ROAD END
0+553 5.0 2.5 2.5 Bamboo
groves
Agricultural loss
0+643 5.5 4.80 4.80 CULVERT
0+729 5.4 2.25 2.25 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
0+814 5.5 4.80 4.80 CULVERT
0+916 6.0 2.5 2.5 TREE(1
) Agricultur
al loss
0+987 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
1+052 5.80 4.60 4.60 CULVERT
1+079 5.80 4.60 4.60
KORWAY
CULVERT
1+199 5.8 2.6 2.6 Agricult
ural loss
Boundary wall
1+240 5.80 4.60 4.60 CULVERT
1+303 5.6 2.25 2.25 Bounda
ry wall Residential loss
1+371 5.6 4.25 4.25 CULVERT
1+555 12.0 SIGN BOARD LHS
1+703 14.0
1+839 10.0
115) District: Durg
116) Date; Time: 22 May 2010; 10:20 am to 3 :00 pm
117) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 25
118) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 01
119) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
10. BK Dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 36. Raj Kumar Verma, Sarpanch ,GP Keshtara 37. Ved Ram Verma, Panch GP Keshtara 38. Bhagwati Kaushal, Sachiv GP Keshtara
120) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
lxxxiv. Road alignment: The length of the road as measured was 2.400 Km.
lxxxv. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different chainage from 5.5 mtrs to 12 mtrs.
lxxxvi. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None:
lxxxvii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
lxxxviii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
lxxxix. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.):
At 1+221 Kardhwa River goes through the alignment where irrigation
department built a VC. According to the community during monsoon of two to
three months the VC remained closed because water over flows it. One suggestion is stated by community for the RCC Bridge where on the other side PIU insisted on repairing of the existing VC.
Community has suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+214, 1+017, 1+612, 1+692, 1+852, 2+030 and 2+314.
xc. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The
community has suggested for safety sign boards and speed breaker at chainage 0+833 on RHS and 1+795 on LHS.
xci. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.):
One electricity pole would be affected at chainage 1+922. According to PIU, technical changes would be made in the design to avoid affecting these.
Community also suggested for the protection wall from chainage 0+214 to
0+280 on LHS to avoid erosion.
From 1+692 to 1+852 on RHS community suggested for the guard wall for low lying area and to avoid erosion.
121) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
xxxviii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Protection wall on LHS from 0+214 to 0+280 to avoid erosion.
Guard wall on RHS from 1+692 to 1+852 for low lying area and avoid erosion.
Safety sign boards and speed breaker at chainage 0+833 on RHS and 1+795 on LHS.
At chainage 0+214, 1+017, 1+612, 1+692, 1+852, 2+030 and 2+314 community has suggested for the culverts.
xxxix. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
xl. Environmental issues to be resolved: 1 tree at chainage 2+273
would be affected.
xli. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and
PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 8.0 1.5 1.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
KESHTARA
0+085 7.0 2.0 2.0 Government land
Government land
0+134 5.7 2.15 2.15 Government land
Government land
0+214 9.70 3.80 3.80 CULVERT, PROTECTION WALL START LHS
0+280 10.0 PROTECTION WALL END LHS
0+310 10.0 2.0 2.0 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+434 10.0 2.0 2.0 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+613 8.0 1.5 1.5 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+833 8.0 1.5 1.5 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
SIGN BOARD RHS
0+959 8.0 1.5 1.5 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
1+017 8.0 4.60 4.60 CULVERT
1+125 8.2 1.5 1.5 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
1+221 7.90 4.60 4.60 RCC BRIDGE BY
COMMUNITY, REPAIREMENT OF OLD VC
122) Name of Road: Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road
123) Villages: Matra
124) Gram Panchayat: Matra
125) Block: Saja
126) District: Durg
127) Date; Time: 20 May 2010; 11.00 am to 4 :00 pm
128) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 16
129) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 03 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 02 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : Nil
130) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
BY PIU.
1+363 6.1 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
1+593 6.0 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
1+612 6.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
1+692 6.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT, GUARD WALL
START RHS
1+795 6.4 2.25 2.25 Govern
ment land
Government land
SIGN BOARD LHS, SPEED BREAKER
1+852 6.4 4.25 4.25 CULVERT, GUARD WALL
START RHS
1+930 8.0 1.0 1.0 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
2+030 6.0 4.70 4.70 CULVERT
2+077 5.0 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
2+273 5.5 2.25 2.25 TREE(1
) Residenti
al loss
2+314 5.5 4.95 4.95 CULVERT
2+379 9.0 1.0 1.0 Govern
ment land
Government land
11. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 39. Om prakash Verma, Sarpanch ,GP Matra 40. Ramsukh, Vice Sarpanch GP Matra
131) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
xcii. Road alignment: the length of the road submitted by PIU to ADB is 1.500 km and after the transect walk the road was found to be 1.637 km, exceeded by 137 mtrs. According to the PIU they doesn’t have any clue about the length variation.
xciii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 5 mtrs to 11 mtrs.
xciv. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
xcv. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
xcvi. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
xcvii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community proposed for the side drain on RHS from 0+619 to 0+749 to avoid the stagnation water on the road.
At chainage 0+050, 0+568, 1+008, 1+140, 1+392, and 1+550 community suggested for the culverts.
xcviii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): community has suggested for safety sign boards at chainage 0+171 on RHS, and speed breaker at 1+066 LHS.
xcix. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
132) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
xlii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
The length of the road was 1.500 mtrs and after the transect walk
the road was found to be 1 + 637 mtrs. Centerline shift by 1mtr to straighten the road at 1+165 on RHS. Shoulder reduced both side to avoid tree cutting at 1+358 on RHS. Community suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+050, 0+568,
1+008, 1+140, 1+392, and 1+550.
xliii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land for the road construction.
xliv. Environmental issues to be resolved: 13 trees would be
affected at chainage 0+250, 0+296, 0+697, and 0+829 and at 1+358. At chainage 1+358 on RHS, community suggested to reduce the width of the road by 0.50 mtrs to avoid the affect on the trees.
xlv. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 11.0
0+017 5.5 2.75 2.75 Residen
tial land
Residential land
0+050 5.5 4.75 4.75 CULVERT
0+171 7.8 1.5 1.5 Residential
land
Residential land
SIGN BOARD LHS
0+238 9.5 .75 .75 AL TREE(1)
133) Name of Road: Bortara to Khairy Road
134) Villages: Bortara, and Khairy
135) Gram Panchayat: Bortara
136) Block: Saja
137) District: Durg
138) Date; Time: 25 May 2010; 10:12 am to 3 :00 pm
139) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 21
140) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
0+250 8.5 1.25 1.25 TREE(3)
TREE(1) MATRA
0+296 8.0 1.50 1.50 TREE(2)
TREE(2)
0+350 6.0 2.50 2.50 Residential
land
Residential land
0+429 11.0
0+568 11.0 2.10 2.10 CULVERT
0+619 11.0 DRAIN RHS
0+697 7.2 1.25 1.25 TREE(1
) Residenti
al land DRAIN RHS
0+749 7.0 1.25 1.25 DRAIN RHS, CC ROAD
START
0+829 5.7 .90 .90 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD
1+008 8.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT,CC ROAD END
1+066 8.0 1.50 1.50 Govern
ment land
Government land
SIGN BOARD, SPEED BREAKER LHS
1+140 8.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
1+358 7.0 1.50 1.50 Residen
tial land
TREE(2) SHOULDER REDUCED BY 50 CM BOTH SIDE TO AVOID
TREE CUTTING
1+392 8.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
1+411 8.0 1.50 1.50 Residen
tial land
Residential land
1+550 8.0 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 01 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : Nil
141) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
12. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 41. Manik Sahu, Sarpanch ,GP Bortara 42. Bihari, panch GP Bortara
142) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
c. Road alignment: The length of the road after the transect walk was found to be 3.100 Km.
ci. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage (shown in transect walk diagram) from 4.2 mtrs to 12 mtrs.
cii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
ciii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
civ. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None.
cv. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): At chainage 0+400, 0+800 and 2+915, community and PIU both have
suggested for culverts.
cvi. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for the safety sign boards at chainage 0+000 and 1+500 on LHS due to the existence curves.
cvii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
143) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
xlvi. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Community and PIU both have suggested for culverts at chainage 0+400, 0+800 and 2+915.
The community has suggested for the safety sign boards at chainage 0+000 and 1+500 on LHS.
Community and PIU has suggested for the C C Roads from chainage 2+991 to 3+100 since the alignment crosses he habitant area.
xlvii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: Community was supportive during the transect walk and ready to donate land for the road.
xlviii. Environmental issues to be resolved: None
xlix. Other issues: From chainage 2+991 to 3+100 the existing width of the road is 4.2
to 4.8 mtrs, due to the project houses would be affected on both sides of the alignment. Hence community and PIU suggested for the C C road.
At chainage 2+946 two electric poles one on each side would be affected by 1.25 mtrs. Community and PIU has suggested for the relocation of electric poles.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. During the entire process community came up with questions and also with different suggestion to make the road according to their needs.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name)
Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 9.0 0.50 0.50 Govern
ment land
Government land
BORTORA
SIGN BOARD at LHS
0+100 6.0 2.5 2.5 Government land
Government land
0+210 6.3 2.1 2.1 Government land
Government land
0+326 6.3 2.1 2.1 Government land
Government land
0+400 7.00 4.30 4.30 CULVERT 0+524 7.4 1.25 1.25 0+664 7.4 1.25 1.25 0+720 10.0
0+800 11.30 2.50 2.50 CULVERT
0+920 12.0
1+010 12.0
1+215 12.0
1+333 12.0
1+500 9.0 1.50 1.50 Govern
ment land
Agriculture loss
SIGN BOARD at LHS
1+778 9.0 1.50 1.50 Govern
ment land
Agriculture loss
KHAIRY
2+004 9.0 1.50 1.50 Govern
ment land
Agriculture loss
2+325 9.0 1.50 1.50 Govern
ment land
Agriculture loss
2+540 9.0 1.50 1.50 Govern
ment land
Agriculture loss
2+744 9.0 1.50 1.50 Govern
ment land
Agriculture loss
2+900 7.5 1.5 1.0 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
2+915 7.5 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
2+946 7.5 1.25 1.25 ELECT
RICITY POLE
ELECTRICITY POLE
2+991 4.2 1.15 1.15 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss CC ROAD
144) Name of Road: Padumsara to Kirki Road
145) Villages: Padumsara, and Kirki
146) Gram Panchayat: Padumsara
147) Block: Saja
148) District: Durg
149) Date; Time: 18 May 2010; 11.42 am to 4 :00 pm
150) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk:
15
151) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 04 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 04
152) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
13. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 43. Parun Bai, Sarpanch ,GP Padumsara 44. Bhuvan Singh, Vice Sarpanch GP Padumsara 45. Dheli Singh, panch GP Padumsara
153) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
cviii. Road alignment: The length of the road as submitted to ADB and length after the transect walk is 3.500 km.
3+100 4.0 1.75 1.75 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss CC ROAD
cix. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different chainage from 5 mtrs to 11 mtrs.
cx. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
cxi. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
cxii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not
Applicable.
cxiii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): Culverts has been proposed by the community at chainage 0+155, 0+540, 0+870, 1+540, 1+610, 2+250, 2+590, 2+692,2+964 and 3+371.
cxiv. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): At chainage 0+938 on RHS community has suggested for the safety sign boards.
cxv. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits,
etc.): None
154) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
l. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
The length of the road is 3.500 km. Boulder pitching at chainage 3+201 on RHS to avoid affect on pond. Centerline will shift by 2mtr from chainage 0+938 to 1+234 on LHS to
straighten the road as suggested by the community. Community suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+155, 0+540,
0+870, 1+540, 1+610, 2+250, 2+590, 2+692, 2+964 and 3+371.
li. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: There would be no impact of the proposed road up gradation on assets because government has the requisite land available on both sides. Hence no objections have been raised by the community for the project.
lii. Environmental issues to be resolved: 3 trees would be affected at
chainage 0+898, 0+903 and 3+053 on RHS.
liii. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Consultations were held with the community about the proposed road. In these consultations, the community was made aware on the purpose of the transect walk, its relevance, PMGSY as a rural development scheme and the importance of community participation in finalizing the alignment. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 11.0
PADUMSARA
0+150 8.9 2.10 2.10
0+155 8.9 4.50 4.50 CULVERT
0+350 8.5 1.25 1.25 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
0+403 8.5 1.25 1.25 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
0+540 8.5 4.25 4.25 CULVERT 0+631 8.5 1.25 1.25 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
0+750 9.5 1.80 1.80
0+870 9.5 3.80 3.80 CULVERT
0+898 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
TREE(1)
0+903 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
TREE(1)
0+938 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
RL CENTERLINE WILL SHIFT BY 2MTR TO LHS TO
STRAIGHTEN THE ROAD
1+060 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
CENTERLINE WILL SHIFT BY 2MTR TO LHS TO
STRAIGHTEN THE ROAD
1+234 6.1 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
CENTERLINE WILL SHIFT BY 2MTR TO LHS TO
STRAIGHTEN THE ROAD
1+323 6.1 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ural Agricultur
al land
155) Name of Road: Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road
156) Villages: Masulgondi, and Kongiyakhurd
157) Gram Panchayat: Masulgondi
158) Block: Saja
land
1+490 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+540 5.0 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
1+610 5.0 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
1+724 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+820 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
2+016 5.0 3.0 3.0 Govern
ment land
Government land
2+250 5.0 4.0 4.0 CULVERT
2+480 8.2 1.5 1.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
KIRKI
2+590 8.2 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
2+692 8.2 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
2+720 9.0 1.50 1.50 Residen
tial land
Residential land
2+920 7.5 1.25 1.25 Residen
tial land
Residential land
2+964 7.5 4.25 4.25 CULVERT
3+053 6.5 1.75 1.75 Residen
tial land
TREE(1)
3+201 7.0 1.5 1.5 Residen
tial land
POND BOULDER PITCHING
3+371 7.0 4.5 4.5 Residen
tial land
CULVERT
3+446 7.9 .50 .50 Residen
tial land
Residential land
159) District: Durg
160) Date; Time: 29 May 2010; 1.00 pm to 4 :00 pm
161) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 16
162) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 03 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 02 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : Nil
163) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
14. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 46. Neera Bai, Sarpanch ,GP Masulgondi 47. Ishwar Ram, Vice Sarpanch GP Masulgondi 48. Shree Ram, Panch,GP Masulgondi 49. Tikam Ram, Panch,GP Masulgondi
164) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
cxvi. Road alignment: The length of the road after the transect walk the road was found to be of 800 mtrs.
cxvii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different chainage from 4.7 mtrs to 15 mtrs.
cxviii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
cxix. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None. cxx. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
cxxi. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): At chainage 0+482 and 0+660 community proposed for the culverts.
cxxii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The
community has suggested for the safety sign boards at chainage 0+000 RHS.
cxxiii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
165) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
liv. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Since government land is available on LHS community has suggested for the shift in the alignment from chainage 0+374 to 0+440 by 2.5 mtrs resulting in the straightening of the road.
Community and PIU has proposed for the guard wall from 0+208 to 0+362 on LHS due to low lying area.
Culverts are suggested at chainage 0+482 and 0+660.
At chainage 0+000 communities demanded for the sign boards for
safety.
lv. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
lvi. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
lvii. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Transect walk initiated with a meeting at village with the villagers. Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name)
Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
166) Name of Road: Tiriyabhat to Sanpandar Road
167) Villages: Tiriyabhat
168) Gram Panchayat: Tiriyabhat
169) Block: Saja
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 11.0
MASULGUNDI
SIGN BOARD RHS 0+080 8.4 1.25 1.25 Govern
ment land
Government land
0+171 9.0 1.0 1.0 Government land
Government land
0+208 9.8 1.60 0.60 Government land
Government land
KONGIYAKHURD
GUARD WALL ON LHS
0+240 9.8 1.60 0.60 Government land
Government land
GUARD WALL ON LHS
0+269 4.7 4.0 1.5 Government land
Boundary Wall
GUARD WALL ON LHS
0+280 5.0 4.0 1.5 Government land
Boundary wall
GUARD WALL ON LHS
0+362 5.0 4.0 1.5 Government land
Residential loss
GUARD WALL ON LHS
0+374 5.0 4.0 1.5 Govern
ment land
Residential loss
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 2.5 MTR LHS
0+440 5.0 4.0 1.5 Govern
ment land
Residential loss
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 2.5 MTR LHS
0+482 6.0 4.0 4.5 CULVERT
0+510 9.0 0.50 0.50 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
0+660 10 3.10 3.10 CULVERT
0+710 12.0
0+800 15.0
170) District: Durg
171) Date; Time: 23 May 2010; 11.42 am to 4 :00 pm
172) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 22
173) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 01
174) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
15. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 50. Girija Tiwary, Sarpanch ,GP Tiriyabhat
175) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
cxxiv. Road alignment: The length of the road after the transect walk was found to be 1.500 mtrs.
cxxv. Road width and land availability: The width of the road varies at
different chainage from 6 mtrs to 12 mtrs. cxxvi. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per
two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None:
cxxvii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
cxxviii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
cxxix. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): Culverts are being suggested by the community at chainage 0+124, 0+620, 0+762, 0+853, 1+058, 1+118, 1+231 and 1+454.
cxxx. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): The community has suggested for safety sign boards at chainage 0+293 on LHS due to curves in the alignment.
cxxxi. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
176) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
lviii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
Alignment shift by 1.5 mtrs to straighten the road as told by the community from 0+124 to 0+293 on LHS where govt land is available.
Community proposed for the culverts at chainage 0+124, 0+620, 0+762, 0+853, 1+058, 1+118, 1+231 and 1+454.
To avoid the loss of 1 mtrs on agriculture land on RHS community suggested for the shift in the alignment from chainage 0+124 to 0+293 towards LHS by 1.5 mtrs as the land on LHS belongs to government.
lix. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: Community is willing to donate the land were required for the road construction.
lx. Environmental issues to be resolved: At chainage 0+119, 0+258 and
1+002, three trees would be affected for which community suggested to cut down.
lxi. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name)
Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
177) Name of Road: Kanhera to Sukhtal Road
178) Villages: Betar, and Sukhtal
179) Gram Panchayat: Sukhtal
180) Block: Saja
181) District: Durg
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 12.0
TIRIYABHAT
0+033 12.0
0+119 7.5 2.25 1.0 TREE(1)
Agricultural loss
0+124 7.5 4.25 4.25 ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 1.5MTR ON LHS START,
CULVERT 0+258 7.5 2.25 1.0 Govern
ment land
Agricultural loss
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 1.5MTR ON LHS
0+293 7.5 2.25 1.0 Government land
Agricultural loss
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 1.5MTR ON LHS END
0+311 7.8 1.10 1.10 TREE(1)
Agricultural loss
0+428 11.0
0+620 12 3.40 3.40 CULVERT
0+653 14.0
0+762 11.0 3.20 3.20 CULVERT
0+785 11.0
0+853 11.0 3.20 3.20 CULVERT
1+002 8.0 1.5 1.5 TREE(1
)
Government land
1+058 8.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
1+118 7.0 3.5 3.5 CULVERT
1+211 6.0 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial loss Residenti
al loss
1+231 6.0 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
1+313 15.0
1+454 15.0 CULVERT
182) Date; Time: 28 May 2010; 10:12 am to 3 :00 pm
183) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 27
184) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 06 Scheduled Tribe : 02 Disabled : Nil BPL : 08 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 03
185) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
16. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 51. Motiram Chandrakar, Sarpanch ,GP Sukhtal 52. Ramkumar, panch GP Sukhtal 53. Luman, panch GP Sukhtal
186) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
cxxxii. Road alignment: the length of the road was 4.100 mtrs and after the transect walk the road was found to be 3+035 mtrs. The community and PIU have suggested for constructing an alternate alignment which would be beneficial for the community. According to the community in the proposed alignment land donation will be a major problem, because land owners are from different villages and earlier they had created problem regarding land donation. Secondly the proposed alignment is accident prone due to irrigation canal which is passing by throughout the alignment on LHS they prefer the alternate alignment. According to PIU embankment will be needed throughout the road on LHS which will result in high cost. They also feels that there is possibility of obstruction from the irrigation department, Hence the transect walk was carried out on the alternate alignment from Betara till the end of the proposed road, which connect the same village (sukhtal).
cxxxiii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chain ages from 4.5 mtrs to 12 mtrs.
cxxxiv. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None:
cxxxv. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
cxxxvi. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not
Applicable.
cxxxvii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.):
Community has suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+012, 0+839, 1+207, 2+190, and 2+862.
cxxxviii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.):
The community has suggested for the safety sign boards at chainage 0+000 on RHS and 2+710 on LHS.
cxxxix. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): One electricity pole would be affected at chainage 0+491 on LHS.
187) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
lxii. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
The length of the road was 4.100 mtrs the transect walk the road
was found to be 3+035mtrs.
Community proposed for the shift in the alignment by 3 mtrs on
RHS from chainage 0+937 to 1+042 and 2 mtrs on LHS from
chainage 2+830 to 2+862.
At chainage 0+102, 0+839, 1+207, 2+190, and 2+862 community
and PIU both have suggested for the culverts. .
lxiii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation: Community was supportive and ready to donate land.
lxiv. Environmental issues to be resolved: At chainage0+481,
0+584 on LHS total 2 trees would be affected.
lxv. Other issues: None.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has
been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and
PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the
consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk.
During the transect walk land donation in the proposed alignment came up as a
major problem, because land owners are from different villages and earlier they had
created problem regarding land donation. Secondly the proposed alignment is
accident prone due to irrigation canal which is passing by throughout the alignment
on LHS they prefer the alternate alignment. According to PIU embankment will be
needed throughout the road on LHS which will result in high cost. They also feels that
there is possibility of obstruction from the irrigation department, Hence the transect
walk was carried out on the alternate alignment from Betara till the end of the
proposed road, which connect the same village (sukhtal).
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: As discussed with the
community and PIU, on the basis of the situation and conditions the alternate
alignment is more important than the proposed road.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 10.0
BETAR
SIGN BOARD RHS 0+012 9.0 1.50 1.50 CULVERT
0+079 8.4 1.75 1.0 Residential loss
Government Land
0+193 8.5 1.75 1.0 Residential loss
Government Land
0+308 7.0 2.0 2.0 Agriculture loss
Agriculture loss
0+481 9.0 1.5 1.5 TREE(1)
Agriculture loss
0+490 9.0 1.5 1.5 LIGHT POST
Agriculture loss
0+584 8.0 1.5 1.5 TREE(1)
Agriculture loss
0+732 7.3 1.65 1.65 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
0+839 7.6 4.70 4.70 CULVERT
0+937 7.9 1.5 1.5 Agricult Agricultur ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 3
188) Name of Road: Saja Deorbija to Bod Road
189) Villages: Bod
190) Gram Panchayat: Bod
191) Block: Saja
192) District: Durg
193) Date; Time: 24 May 2010; 10.20 am to 3 :00 pm
194) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk:
25
ure loss e loss MTR ON RHS TO STRAIGHTEN ROAD
1+042 7.0 2.0 2.0 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 3 MTR ON RHS TO STRAIGHTEN ROAD
1+162 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
1+207 6.0 4.30 4.30
SUKHTAL
CULVERT
1+327 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
1+464 5.2 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
1+654 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
1+821 8.1 1.5 1.5 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
2+026 8.3 1.35 1.35 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
2+190 8.90 4.10 4.10 CULVERT
2+320 9.5 .75 .75 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
2+520 8.1 1.5 1.5 Agricult
ure loss Agriculture loss
2+710
6.9 2.0 2.0 Government Land
Government Land
SIGN BOARD LHS
2+830
6.0 2.0 2.0 Government Land
Boundary wall
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 2 MTR ON LHS TO AVOID STRUCTURE RHS
2+862 6.0 2.0 2.0 ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 2
MTR END,CULVERT
2+976 4.5 2.75 2.75 Residen
tial loss Residential loss
3+035 5.0 2.5 2.5 Residen
tial loss Residential loss
195) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 01
196) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
17. BK dubey , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 54. Gajju Verma, Sarpanch ,GP Bod 55. MK Sahu, Vice Sarpanch GP Bod 56. Bholaram, Panch GP Bod
197) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map)
cxl. Road alignment: The total length of the road was 2.50 kms which has been divided into two roads (one road branching out from the main road at chainage 2+100). The length of the first road (Road A) was noted to be 2.15 kms and second road (Road B) to be 0.350 kms.
cxli. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage (shown in transect walk diagram) from 3 mtrs to 8.5 mtrs.
cxlii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None:
cxliii. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None.
cxliv. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): At chainage 0+193 on the LHS (Road A), a private small temple would be affected due to the project. At this chainage the existing width of the alignment is 5 mtrs and requires 1.5 mtrs of land on both sides. Landlord has agreed to donate land on RHS to avoid affect on the temple and land.
Hence community suggested for the shift in the alignment by 1 mtrs towards RHS.
cxlv. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): Culverts are suggested by the PIU and community at chainage 0+020, 1+407 and 2+043 on Road A where in Road B no culvert has been suggested.
cxlvi. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): In Road A at Chainage 0+303 on LHS, 1+920 RHS community proposed
for the safety sign boards.
cxlvii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
198) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on
revenue map)
lxvi. Changes to be incorporated in the design: From chainage 0+193 to 0+235 in Road ‘A’ a Temple, trees and
agricultural land would be affected on both sides. Hence to avoid the impact on the assets community and PIU suggested for shift in the alignment by 1mtrs on RHS.
In Road ‘B’ community suggested for the C C road from chainage 0+028 to 0+323 to avoid the affect on the residential loss.
lxvii. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: Community is willing to donate their affected assets for the road construction. From chainage 0+028 to 0+323 in Road B there is 6 AP’s residential land would be affected due to the alignment for which they suggested for C C road and if not than they agree to donate it.
lxviii. Environmental issues to be resolved: 7 trees would be
affected at chainage 0+050 (both side), 0+060(RHS), 0+170(RHS), 0+190(RHS), 2+100(RHS) and at 2+136(RHS).
lxix. Other issues: From chainage 0+028 to 0+323, the required land is 0.75 mtrs to 2.0 mtrs which would affect residential land. To avoid these losses community suggested for the C C road in Road B.
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Community has been informed PMGSY as rural development scheme with the presence of PIU and PRI representative, Also the length and proposed width of the road in the consultation part. People were very much supportive in the transect walk. Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD (Road A):
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 9.0 1.0 1.0 Govern
ment land
Government land
BOD
0+020 7.10 4.80 4.80 CULVERT
0+050 5.0 3.0 3.0 TREE(1)
TREE(1)
0+060 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricultural loss
TREE(1)
0+132 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+170 5.0 3.0 3.0 TREE(1)
Agricultural loss
0+190 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricultural loss
TREE(1) ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 1MTR ON RHS
0+193 5.0 3.0 3.0 TEMPLE
Agricultural loss
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 1MTR ON RHS
0+235 6.4 2.25 2.25 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 1MTR ON RHS
0+303 8.0 1.5 1.5 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
SIGN BOARD LHS
0+422 6.0 2.5 2.6 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
0+617 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
0+810 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
1+000 5.0 3.0 3.0 Agricult
ural loss
Agricultural loss
1+175 6.1 2.5 2.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD (Road B):
199) Name of Road: Main road to Tursamariya
200) Villages: Risamli, and Gopalbhaina
201) Gram Panchayat: Gopalbhaina
202) Block: Nawagarh
203) District: Durg
204) Date; Time: 13 May 2010; 9.50am to 2:10 pm
205) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 25
1+295 6.1 2.5 2.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
1+407 6.1 4.5 4.5 CULVERT
1+571 6.3 2.5 2.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
1+834 8.4 1.25 1.25 Govern
ment land
Government land
1+920 8.0 1.5 1.5 Govern
ment land
Government land
SIGN BOARD RHS
2+043 7.00 4.20 4.20 CULVERT
2+100 7.3 1.35 1.35 Govern
ment land
TREE(1)
2+136 7.0 1.5 1.5 TREE(1
) Government land
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 6.0 4.70 4.70
BOD
CULVERT 0+028 6.0 .75 .75 Residen
tial land
Residential land
CC ROAD START
0+102 6.0 .75 .75 Residential
land
Residential land
CC ROAD
0+272 3.5 2.0 2.0 Residential
land
Residential land
CC ROAD
0+323 7.5 CC ROAD END
206) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : NA Disabled : Nil BPL : Nil Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 02
207) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Upaddhay , JE CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI):
1. Kunti Bai Sahu, Sarpanch, Gopalbhaina GP
208) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also recorded on
Revenue map) cxlviii. Road alignment: The length of the road submitted by PIU to ADB was
4.00 kilometers and after the transect walk it was found to be 4.030 km.
cxlix. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different chain ages from 3.85 mtrs to 13.30 mtrs.
cl. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per
two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus needs to be assisted under the Project? None.
cli. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people: None
clii. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): None.
cliii. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings, irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.):
During the transect walk community have suggested for the culverts at
chainage 0+356, 0+753, 1+085, 1+194, 1+482, 1+970, 2+406, 2+860,
3+044, 3+160, and 3+566.
cliv. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): At chainage 2+387 there is a blind turn on RHS which is also accident
prone area. Hence sign boards has suggested by the PIU and community on LHS.
clv. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits,
etc.): None
209) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
lxx. Changes to be incorporated in the design:
The total length of the road is 4+030mtrs.
Retaining wall is suggested by the community at chainage 3+396 on
RHS to avoid erosion.
The alignment is crossing through the habitation area from
chainage 3+581 to 4+030 so community has suggested for the C C
road to avoid the losses.
lxxi. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land owner/users for donation: All the community people whose land would be affected are willing to donate the land for the road construction.
lxxii. Environmental issues to be resolved: None.
lxxiii. Other issues: None
Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: : The participating community are all belong to labour class and they face lots of problem due to the bad condition of the road to reach the town for their daily work and in monsoon the road becomes worsened due to sleeper road and heavy clay content. Hence it found that they are really expecting the road and enquired us about the time of the construction.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned (Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)
CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land
Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS
0+000 6.00 2.50 2.50 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
RISAMLI
0+015 6.00 2.50 2.50 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+030 4.00 3.00 3.00 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+130 10.00
0+220 10.00 0+356 10.00 3.40 3.40 CULVERT
0+410 8.00 1.50 1.50 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+587 7.70 2.75 2.75 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
0+753 7.10 4.60 4.60 CULVERT
0+800 8.90 1.60 1.60
1+012 8.50 1.90 1.90
1+085 9.50 2.10 2.10 CULVERT
1+194 9.50 4.10 4.10 CULVERT
1+344 13.30
1+482 12 3.70 3.70 CULVERT
1+744 10.00
1+970 10.00 3.10 3.10 CULVERT
2+128 12.00
2+387 12.00 SIGN BOARD ON RHS
2+406 12.00
GOPALBHAIN
A
CULVERT
2+575 7.80 2.50 2.50 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
2+763 8.00 1.50 1.50 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
210) Name of Road: Jangalpur –Sonpori road to Gangpur
road
211) Villages: Jangalpur
2+860 8.00 5.50 5.50 CULVERT
2+938 8.00 0.50 0.50 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
3+044 8.00 5.50 5.50 CULVERT
3+160 8.00 5.50 5.50 CULVERT
3+448 8.00 0.50 0.50 Agricultural loss
Agricultural loss
3+396 8.00 5.50 5.50 CULVERT,RETAINING WALL RHS
3+410 6.00 0.75 0.75 Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
3+566 6.00 4.40 4.40 CULVERT
3+581 6.00 0.75 0.75 Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
CC ROAD start
3+620 4.10 1.75 1.75 Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
CC ROAD
3+635 3.85 1.83 1.83 Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
CC ROAD
3+692 3.10 2.00
2.00
Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
CC ROAD
3+789 4.20 1.65
1.65
Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
CC ROAD
3+862 4.40 1.50
1.50
Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
CC ROAD
4+030 6.40 .55
.55
Resid
ential
loss
Residen
tial loss
CC ROAD end
212) Gram Panchayat: Jangalpur
213) Block: Bematara
214) District: Durg
215) Date; Time: 14 May 2010; 10.30 am to 3.00 pm
216) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk: 35
217) Numbers of Participants falling in the following categories:
Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : Nil Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 14
218) Name & Designation of the Key Participants:
From Government:
1. Upaddhay , CGRRDA Chattisgarh
From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI):
2. Prabhabhai Rajput Sarpanch GP, Jangalpur 3. Radhesingh Thakur, Panch GP, Jangalpur 4. Bhagirathi Thakur ,Panch GP, Jangalpur 5. Appa Bhai,Panch GP, Jangalpur 6. Ganga Bhai,Panch GP, Jangalpur
219) Issues and suggestions raised by the Participants (issues to be also
recorded on Revenue map)
clvi. Road alignment: The length of the road after the transect walk was found to be 2.008 km where the length submitted to ADB was 1.450 km. According to PIU the exceeded length of 908 mtrs is because the measurement was done long years back and they didn’t have clue about the actual length.
clvii. Road width and land availability: The road width varies at different
chainage from 5 mtrs to 8.5 mtrs.
clviii. The determination of BPL households under the CPF will be as per two criteria: (a) written verification (entry in the Government list of BPL or possession of a BPL card) or (b) community confirmation that an affected person/family falls in the category of economically weaker section and thus need to be assisted under the Project? None
clix. Land owned/used by vulnerable groups of people : None
clx. Sensitive locations (forests, cultural properties, etc.): Not Applicable.
clxi. Water-related issues (drainage lines, rivers and water crossings,
irrigation water courses, other water bodies, etc.): At chainage 0+265, 0+669, 0+849, 0+875, 1+545, 1+631, and 1+784
community has proposed for the culverts.
clxii. Road safety-related issues (major junctions, curves, bends, etc.): At chainage 1+442 on RHS community has suggested for sign board and speed breaker near the school.
clxiii. Other suggestions (such as regarding cattle crossing, borrow pits, etc.): None
220) Major Outcomes of the Transect Walk: (to be also recorded on revenue map)
lxxiv. Changes to be incorporated in the design: The total length of the road is 2.008 km. Community proposed for the C C Roads from chainage 1+727 to 1+758
to avoid the residential land losses. Community suggested for the culverts at chainage 0+265, 0+669,
0+849, 0+875, 1+545, 1+631, and 1+784. lxxv. Extent of land take and willingness/unwillingness of land
owner/users for donation. Community people are willing to give the land for the road construction if affected due to the alignment.
lxxvi. Other issues: None
lxxvii. Environmental issues to be resolved: None. Details of the discussion took place during the Transect Walk: Consultations were held with the community about the proposed road. In these consultations, the community was made aware of the purpose of the transect walk, its relevance, PMGSY as a rural development scheme and the importance of community participation in finalizing the alignment.
Recommendations of social safeguard specialists: None.
The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues. Countersigned
(Signature & name) (Signature & name) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name) CHAINAGE WISE PLAN FOR THE ROAD:
Chainage
Existing Land Width*
Additional Land
Required
Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions
LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 9.00
JANGALPUR
0+145 9.00
0+265 9.00 3.80 3.80 CULVERT
0+328 7.60 1.00 1.00 Agricultural land
Agricultural land
0+583 8.00 1.30 1.30 0+608 6.90 1.50 1.50 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
0+669 6.90 4.50 4.50 CULVERT 0+809 5.00 2.00 2.00 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
0+849 5.00 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
0+875 5.00 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
1+108 5.00 2.00 2.00 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+256 7.50 1.00 1.00 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+309 6.00 1.75 1.75 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+442 6.40 1.50 1.50 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
SIGN BOARD AND SPEEDBREAKER ON RHS
1+545 6.40 4.54 4.50 CULVERT
1+585 6.50 1.50 1.50 Agricult
ural land
Agricultural land
1+631 7.90 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
1+690 7.90 1.00 1.00
1+727 5.50 1.00 1.00 RL RL CC ROAD
1+758 5.50 1.00 1.00 RL RL CC ROAD
1+784 5.50 4.00 4.00 CULVERT
1+853 8.50
1+858 7.50 1.00 1.00 RL RL
1+951 7.50 1.00 1.00 RL RL
2+008 7.90 1.00 1.00 RL RL
Annexure III: Stretch-Wise List of Affected Households
DISTRICT: RAIPUR
District: Raipur/ Block: Dharsiva/ Road Name: 07 T 14 (Siltora) to Mandhar Neodh/ Length of
Road: 3.140km
Total APs: 8/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 KRISHNALUMAR BAGHEL MANDHAR
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
2 TIJAU RAM NEODIH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + D
3 DEDURAM NISHAD NEODIH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + D
4 KHEDURAM NISHAD NEODIH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E
5 KANHAIYA LAL MANDHAR RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL D
6 LAKSHAN RAO KORE MANDHAR RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E
7 SONIA NEODIH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + FHH
8 GULAB BANJAR MANDHAR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE SC
District: Raipur/ Block: Tilda/ Road Name: Motinpur Kala to Padobhat / Length of Road: 3.298km
Total APs: 2/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 PREM CHAND CHINGARIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D
2 ANJORDAS CHINGARIYA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Raipur/ Block: Abhanpur/ Road Name: Parsada to Aamdi / Length of Road: 2.285km
Total APs: 15/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 GAYARAM AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 HIRALAL AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 KAMNATH YADAV AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
4 SIRAJ SINGH AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
5 AGNU AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E
6 DAVLAL AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
7 PITAMBER AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
8 MILAU NISHAD AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND E
9 PUNARAM AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
10 VISHESWAR NISHAD AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
11 SHATRUGHAN AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
12 CHINTA YADAV AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
13 MURALI AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
14 INDU YADAV AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
15 DAUDKHAN AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Raipur/ Block: Sigma/ Road Name: Hirmi (Sigma) to Parswani / Length of Road: 2.240km
Total APs: 9/ Absentees: 1
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 BALRAM PARSWANI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 LAKHAN PARSWANI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 SOMNATH PARSWANI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
4 RAMLAL PARSWANI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
5 REWA RAM PARSWANI AGRICULTURE LAND + TREES BPL + E
6 RAMLAL PARSWANI AGRICULTURE LAND E
7 AWADH PARSWANI AGRICULTURE LAND E
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
8 MANIKPURI PARSWANI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E
District: Raipur/ Block: Pallari/ Road Name: T04 (Km.9) to Shahada / Length of Road: 2.507km
Total APs: 4/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 BAISHAKHU SHAHADA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
2 KHUMAN SHAHADA RESIDENTIAL D + E + FHH
BOUNDARY WALL
3 PARMANAND SHAHU SHAHADA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY
4 BIPAT SHAHADA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Raipur/ Block: Palari/ Road Name: T07 to Khaira / Length of Road: 1.564km
Total APs: 6/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 SANT KUMAR KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 BHAGCHAND KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 KRISHLAL KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D + ST
4 BRIJESH KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
5 KHUBSHU RAM KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND SC
6 SANTI BAI KHAIRA AGRICULTURE LAND SC
DISTRICT: BILASPUR
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Belha/ Road Name: Batori to Beltukri / Length of Road: 5.020km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 1
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 RAJA RAM KURELI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 RAJ KUMAR BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 RAM DHUNI BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
4 HARI PRASAD BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
5 BHARAT BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
6 SAT RUHAN KURFLI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E
7 NAROTTAM BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
8 SHATRUHAMS BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
9 DASRATH BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
10 PRADEEP BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
11 PANSH RAM YADAV BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
12 GORELAL KAUSHIK BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E + FHH
13 BODHWA RAM BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E + FHH
14 MAHARAN DASS BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
15 LATEL YADAV BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Bijuria to Uraihapara / Length of Road: 1.75km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 3
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 KUSHUAL SAHU URAIHAPARA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 CHHABI LAL PATEL URAIHAPARA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 LAXMAN PATEL URAIHAPARA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
4 RAMCHARAN SAHU URAIHAPARA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
5 FULSIR SURWANSI URAIHAPARA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + FHH
6 SITA RAM SAHU URAIHAPARA AGRICULTURE LAND SC
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
7 BHUSHAN SAHU URAIHAPARA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
8 CHHANNU RAM KEWARI URAIHAPARA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
9 KULESIWAR PATEL URAIHAPARA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
10 RAM SAHI URAIHAPARA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
11 TULSI SURYWANSHI URAIHAPARA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + FHH
12 CHNDRIKA PATEL URAIHAPARA RESIDENTIAL LAND FHH
13 BHAGHU SAHU URAIHAPARA RESIDENTIAL LAND SC
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Patharia/ Road Name: Khutera to Klarjevra / Length of Road: 2.940km
Total APs: 36/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 KISHUN KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 KA;LI RAM KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 DWARIKA KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E
4 DEWAN SINGH KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
5 RAM RATAN KALARJEWRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
6 GHANSHYAM KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
7 LAL SINGH KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
8 ALAKHRAM KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
9 KUSHAL KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
10 SHIV KUMAR KALARJEWRA AGRICULTURE LAND D + E
11 DEWNARAYAN KALARJEWRA AGRICULTURE LAND E
12 UMEN SINGH KALARJEWRA AGRICULTURE LAND E
13 SUDAMA KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND E
14 MANDODARI KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND E
15 ASHOK KUTERA AGRICULTURE LAND E
16 SANTOSH KALARJEWRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
17 OM PRAKASH KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
18 JANKU KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + D
19 VISH RAM KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
20 BEDURAM KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E
21 SHIVNADAYAN KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E
22 BEDURAM KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
23 BHUNESHWAR KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
24 CHHOARAM KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
25 GOKUL KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
26 HINCHHARAM KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
27 ISHWARI KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
28 KEJRAM KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
29 KHEM SINGH KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
30 RADHEYSHYAM KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND E
31 RAM LAKHAN KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
32 SHIV KUMAR KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL
33 GAUKARAN KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E
34 KUBER KUTERA RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E
35 SOHAN KUTERA RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E
36 NARESH KUMAR KALARJEWRA RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE E
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Pathrapali to Korbi Banka / Length of Road: 9km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 RAM SAY YADAV KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 NIRTAN DAS MANIKPURI KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 ANAND MARVI KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
4 MOHAN BANWOLI KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
5 RAMESWAR KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
6 JATRI KORAM KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
7 MAHESH PRASAD KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D + ST
8 SANTARAM KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND SC
9 FUKU SYAM KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND ST
10 HEERA RAM RAV KORBI AGRICULTURE LAND + TREES BPL + ST
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
.
11 DIWAN DAS MANIKPURI KORBI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
12 SANTOSH DAS MAHANI KORBI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
DISTRICT: DURG
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Bortara to Khairy Road / Length of Road: 3.100km
Total APs: 15/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 DINA LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 HARI NAIE KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 SUNDER LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
4 BHUWAN SINGH KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
5 SANTOSH LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
6 BAHAL LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
7 AMARU LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
8 SANTOSH GHONDU KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
9 RAM NATH LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
10 TEJASVI LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
11 LACHCHU LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
12 SHUKLAL LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
13 NAND LAL LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
14 BISOHA LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
15 HARI GOND KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Dhamdha Gandai Road to Patharikhurd Road / Length of Road: 4.839km
Total APs: 27/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 MAHANT LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 ANJORI LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 DULAR SINGH PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
4 RADHELAL LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
5 MOHAN LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
6 JAGESWAR LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
7 CHHABILAL LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
8 ESWAR LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND E
9 SHITKUMAR LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND E
10 SHIVKUMAR LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
11 JAGDISH LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
12 LEKHU LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
13 DUKHWA LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
14 DAN SINGH PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
15 ALICHAND LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
16 PRATAP LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
17 SAMARU LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
18 HARAN LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
19 REKHA LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
20 BHAWSINGH LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
21 KH. SINGH LODHI PATHARJKHURD AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
22 DULARWA LODHI PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
23 ASWINI LODHI PATHARJKHURD
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
24 PALTON GOND PATHARJKHURD RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + ST
25 BHAGBAT LODHI PATHARJKHURD RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
26 ESHWARI LODHI PATHARJKHURD RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
27 JEDHU LODHI PATHARJKHURD RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Kanhera to Sukhatal Road / Length of Road: 3.035km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 ANJORI SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E
2 JHOOLARAM SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
3 KHURBAHARA SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
4 BENIRAM SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
5 BUDHIYA SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
6 SHYAMLAL SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND D + E
7 GANESH SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND D + E
8 LAKSHMAN SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND E
9 TIHARI SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND E
10 DUKALU SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
11 KHAMMAN SUKHATAL AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
12 SHIV KUMSR BETAR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE BPL + E
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Main Road (Keshtara) to Bagledi Road / Length of Road: 2.379km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 HIRDAY RAM NISHAD BAGLEDI AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
2 RATI RAM LODHI BAGLEDI AGRICULTURE LAND E
3 RAJ KUMAR PATEL BAGLEDI AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
4 KAMTA PATEL BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
5 BUDHU NISHAD BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
6 POORU PATEL BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
7 BISHRAM LODHI BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E
8 KHEMU NAI BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E
9 BISHUL NISHAD BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E
10 DWARIKA BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND E
11 KANSHBATI SEN BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + FHH
12 SANTOSH PATEL BAGLEDI RESIDENTIAL LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Hathmudi Road / Length of Road: 3.050km
Total APs: 13/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 SHIV KUMAR GIDHWA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
2 GENDLAL HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
3 BED RAM HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
4 HOLKAR HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND D + E
5 NEM SINGH HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E
6 FAGUA HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E
7 KEJU RAM HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E
8 BINDUBAI HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E
9 AAJU RAM HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E
10 BALDAU HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND E
11 POKESHWAR GIDHWA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
12 LATEL HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
13 NARAD SINGH HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND ST
District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road Baghul to Gopalbhaina Road / Length of Road: 4.030km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 SATRUHAN SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
2 SANTARAM SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
3 KRIPAL SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
4 CHHANU SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
5 JAGDISH SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + D
6 PANCHU SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
7 RATIRAM YADAV GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
8 DASHRATH SEN GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
9 MANGLU SINHA GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E
10 CHANDRAMAN SINGH GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E
11 ADALAT SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E
12 KRISHNA BAJPAYEE GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E + FHH
13 ANUP SAHU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY
14 SURESH THAKUR GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL ST
15 BHAGIRATHI DHARU GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
16 GONDA BAI THAKUR GOPALBHANA RESIDENTIAL LAND E + ST
District: Durg/ Block: Bemetara/ Road Name: Dokerbekla to Damadiah Road / Length of Road: 1.887km
Total APs: 27/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 HIRAVAN NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
2 RAJESH SEN DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
3 GHASHIYA NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
4 KESHAV NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
5 REKHA LAL NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
6 RAMDHAR YADAV DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
7 TULSI SAHU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
8 MUNNA NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
9 KEJAHA SAHU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
10 MANGLU NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
11 MANGLU NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
12 MANI CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
13 HARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
14 MALIK NIRMALKAR DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
15 TIRIT CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL
16 KHILAWAN SEN DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
17 BIRJU NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
18 ANGAT VISWAKARMA DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + E
19 SITA NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + FHH
20 CHAITU DHRU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL + ST
21 BIHARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILIT
Y
22 TIHARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY
23 CHATUR NIRMALKAR DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY
24 BHAGWANI CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY
25 SOBHA SAHU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL
NO VULNERABILITY
26 GANGA RAM NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
27 JANAK BAISHNAV DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road to Jangalpur Road / Length of Road: 2.008km
Total APs: 9/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 ARJUN SHIVARE LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 CHANDRIKA MANIKPURI LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
3 LAXMAN GADRIYA LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
4 HARENDRA GOND LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
5 BHOLA RAM SAHU LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
6 JEEVAN GOND LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
7 MARHU GADRIYA LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND E
8 YASH PAL SINGH THAKUR LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND E + ST
9 BEDIYA GADRIYA LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + FHH
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road / Length of Road: 0.800
Total APs: 3/ Absentees: 2
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 FEKKU SAHU KONGIYA KHURD
RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL E
District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Kirki Road / Length of Road: 3.446km
Total APs: 10/ Absentees: 2
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 KRIPA PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND E
2 MOTI PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND E
3 DAYA RAM PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND E
4 ROOP SINGH PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND E
5 SHANTU VERMA PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND FHH
6 AWAD RAM PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
7 CHAKENDRA PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
8 LAKSHMAN PADUMSARA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Piperia to Korway Road / Length of Road: 1.839km
Total APs: 23/ Absentees: 5
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 THANU SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 GHASI SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 JITU NIRMALKAR PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
4 MELU NILMARKAR PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
5 PANCHU NIRMALKAR PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
6 LEKHURAM SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
7 RUNGO SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
8 CHOTURAM SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
9 KALLU SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
10 GANESH SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
11 MOJI SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
12 HIRA SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
13 RAMESH SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
14 BRIJ SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
15 SANJITA PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
16 SANJITA PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
17 SANJITA PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
18 SUNDER GOND PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Deorbija to Bod Road / Length of Road: 2.459km
Total APs: 6/ Absentees: 0
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 SANTOSH YADAV BOD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 MAN HARAN SAHU BOD AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
3 DHAN SINGH SAHU BOD AGRICULTURE LAND E
4 LEKHRAM VERMA BOD AGRICULTURE LAND E
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Other Land/Structure Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
5 GANESH SATNAMI BOD RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
6 HARI MEHER BOD RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road/ Length of Road: 1.550km
Total APs: 11/ Absentees: 2
Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss
S.No. Name of AP Name of Village Type of Loss/s Vulnerability
1 GHANSHYAM SAHU MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL
2 JATI VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
3 YUVRAJ VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + E
4 CHAKAN SINGH VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND E
5 MANNU VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND E
6 BAHORAN DAS MANIKPURI MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
7 VISHRAM VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
8 ROHIT VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
9 BASANT VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND
NO VULNERABILITY
Annexure IV: Stretch-Wise List of Affected Assets
DISTRICT RAIPUR
District: Raipur/ Block: Dharsiva/ Road Name: 07 T 14 (Siltora) to Mandhar Neodh/ Length of Road: 3.140km
Total APs: 8/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 1
BPL + D 2
BPL + E 1
D 1
E 1
BPL + FHH 1
SC 1
Grand Total 8
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 3
Residential Structure 4
Commercial Structure 1
Grand Total 8
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 5
Encroacher 1
User's Right 2
Grand Total 8
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
NA NA
Grand Total 0
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
NA NA NA
Total 0
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 12 1
Residential Boundary Wall 2.5 1
Residential Boundary Wall 3.75 1
Residential Main Structure 8.15 1
Residential Main Structure 6 1
Residential Main Structure 7.5 1
Residential Main Structure 3.7 1
Commercial Structure 1.6 1
Total 5
District: Raipur/ Block: Tilda/ Road Name: Motinpur Kala to Padobhat / Length of Road: 3.298km
Total APs: 2/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL + D 1
NO VULNERABILITY 1
Grand Total 2
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 2
Grand Total 2
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 2
Grand Total 2
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 2
Grand Total 2
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
5 ≤1 1
3 ≤1 1
Total 2
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Raipur/ Block: Abhanpur/ Road Name: Parsada to Aamdi / Length of Road: 2.285km
Total APs: 15/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 4
BPL + D + E 1
BPL + E 2
E 1
NO VULNERABILITY 7
Grand Total 15
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 15
Grand Total 15
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 15
Grand Total 15
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 15
Grand Total 15
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
1.75 2.17 1
0.15 21.33 1
1 4.60 1
1.5 1.80 1
2.5 0.40 1
4 1.08 1
3 1.73 1
2.5 0.40 1
1.15 1.74 1
1.3 4.23 1
2.5 1.44 1
0.5 6.40 1
0.5 2.20 1
0.5 4.20 1
0.5 15.20 1
Total 15
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Raipur/ Block: Sigma/ Road Name: Hirmi (Sigma) to Parswani / Length of Road: 2.240km
Total APs: 9/ Absentees: 1
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 3
BPL + E 3
E 2
Grand Total 8
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 6
Agriculture Land + Trees 1
Residential Land 1
Grand Total 8
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 15
Grand Total 8
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 7
Grand Total 7
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
5 ≤1% 1
1.75 ≤1% 1
3.6 ≤1% 1
3 ≤1% 1
2 2% - 3% 1
2 3% - 4% 1
0.85 3% - 4% 1
Total 7
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Raipur/ Block: Pallari/ Road Name: T04 (Km.9) to Shahada / Length of Road: 2.507km
Total APs: 4/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL + E 1
D + E + FHH 1
NO VULNERABILITY 2
Grand Total 4
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 4
Grand Total 4
Ownership Number of Aps
Encroacher 3
Title Holder 1
Grand Total 4
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
NA NA
Grand Total 0
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
NA NA NA
Total 0
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 56 1
Residential Boundary Wall 72 1
Residential Boundary Wall 10.8 1
Residential Boundary Wall 60 1
Total 4
District: Raipur/ Block: Palari/ Road Name: T07 to Khaira / Length of Road: 1.564km
Total APs: 6/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 2
BPL + D + ST 1
SC 2
NO VULNERABILITY 1
Grand Total 6
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 6
Grand Total 6
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 6
Grand Total 6
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 6
Grand Total 6
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
0.5 3% - 4% 1
3 ≤1% 2
10 ≤1% 1
15 ≤1% 1
4 ≤1% 1
Total 6
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
DISTRICT BILASPUR
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Belha/ Road Name: Batori to Beltukri / Length of Road: 5.020km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 1
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 5
BPL + D + E 1
BPL + E 5
BPL + E + FHH 2
NO VULNERABILITY 2
Grand Total 15
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 15
Grand Total 15
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 15
Grand Total 15
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 15
Grand Total 15
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
3 3% - 4% 1
3 ≤1% 2
10 ≤1% 1
2.5 ≤1% 2
5 ≤1% 4
5 1% - 2% 1
2 ≤1% 1
19 ≤1% 1
12 ≤1% 1
15 ≤1% 1
Total 15
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Bijuria to Uraihapara / Length of Road: 1.75km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 3
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 8
BPL + FHH 2
FHH 1
SC 2
Grand Total 13
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 6
Residential Land 7
Grand Total 15
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 13
Grand Total 13
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 6
Grand Total 6
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
1 6% - 7% 1
10 ≤1% 2
1.5 ≤1% 1
2.5 ≤1% 1
3 ≤1% 1
Total 6
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Patharia/ Road Name: Khutera to Klarjevra / Length of Road: 2.940km
Total APs: 36/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 5
BPL + D 1
BPL + D + E 1
BPL + E 11
BPL + ST 1
D + E 1
E 15
NO VULNERABILITY 1
Grand Total 36
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 16
Residential Land 12
Residential Boundary Wall 3
Residential Structure 5
Grand Total 36
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 15
Encroacher 19
Squatter 1
User's Right 1
Grand Total 36
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 16
Grand Total 16
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
11 ≤1% 1
2 ≤1% 1
3 1% - 2% 2
3 ≤1% 3
1 4% - 5% 2
2.5 1% - 2% 1
21 ≤1% 1
4.5 ≤1% 1
2.75 ≤1% 1
5 ≤1% 1
14 ≤1% 1
9 ≤1% 1
Total 16
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 5 1
Residential Boundary Wall 208 1
Residential Boundary Wall 8.25 1
Residential Structure 3.6 1
Residential Structure 5.9 1
Residential Structure 2.79 1
Residential Structure 9 1
Residential Structure 5.75 1
Total 8
District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Pathrapali to Korbi Banka / Length of Road: 9km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 4
BPL + D + ST 1
BPL + ST 5
SC 1
ST 1
Grand Total 12
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 9
Agriculture Land + Trees 1
Residential Land 2
Grand Total 12
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 12
Grand Total 12
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 10
Grand Total 10
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
0.05 More than 10% 1
4 ≤1% 1
3.5 ≤1% 1
2 ≤1% 3
10 ≤1% 2
0.09 More than 10% 1
5 ≤1% 1
Total 10
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
DISTRICT DURG
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Bortara to Khairy Road / Length of Road: 3.100km
Total APs: 15/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 14
BPL + ST 1
Grand Total 15
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 15
Grand Total 15
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 15
Grand Total 15
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 15
Grand Total 15
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
7 ≤1% 2
1.25 ≤1% 1
2.5 ≤1% 2
5 ≤1% 3
2.25 ≤1% 1
10 ≤1% 1
4 ≤1% 1
3 ≤1% 3
8 ≤1% 1
Total 15
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Dhamdha Gandai Road to Patharikhurd Road / Length of Road: 4.839km
Total APs: 27/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 7
BPL + E 2
BPL + ST 1
E 2
NO VULNERABILITY 15
Grand Total 27
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 21
Residential Land 5
Residential Boundary Wall 1
Grand Total 27
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 27
Grand Total 27
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 21
Grand Total 21
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
5 ≤1% 10
4 ≤1% 1
9 ≤1% 2
4 4% - 5% 1
2 ≤1% 1
12 ≤1% 1
20 ≤1% 1
15 ≤1% 1
3 ≤1% 2
6 ≤1% 1
Total 21
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 29 1
Total 1
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Kanhera to Sukhatal Road / Length of Road: 3.035km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL + D + E 1
BPL + E 5
D + E 2
E 2
NO VULNERABILITY 2
Grand Total 12
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 11
Commercial Structure 1
Grand Total 12
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 12
Grand Total 12
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 11
Grand Total 11
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
5 ≤1% 1
14 ≤1% 1
16 ≤1% 1
20 ≤1% 1
5 5% - 6% 1
12 ≤1% 1
15 ≤1% 1
4 1% - 2% 1
6 ≤1% 1
13 ≤1% 1
18 ≤1% 1
Total 11
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Commercial Structure 1500 1
Total 1
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Main Road (Keshtara) to Bagledi Road / Length of Road: 2.379km
Total APs: 12/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 3
BPL + E 4
BPL + FHH 1
E 2
NO VULNERABILITY 2
Grand Total 12
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 3
Residential Land 9
Grand Total 12
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 12
Grand Total 12
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 3
Grand Total 3
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
2 1% - 2% 1
10 4% - 5% 1
15 ≤1% 1
Total 3
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Hathmudi Road / Length of Road: 3.050km
Total APs: 13/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL + E 2
BPL + ST 1
D + E 1
E 6
ST 1
NO VULNERABILITY 2
Grand Total 13
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 13
Grand Total 13
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 13
Grand Total 13
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 13
Grand Total 13
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
3.2 ≤1% 1
2.37 2% - 3% 1
11.5 ≤1% 1
65 ≤1% 1
17 ≤1% 2
4 ≤1% 1
10 ≤1% 2
72 ≤1% 1
11 ≤1% 1
8 ≤1% 1
2.5 ≤1% 1
Total 13
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road Baghul to Gopalbhaina Road / Length of Road: 4.030km
Total APs: 16/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 5
BPL + D 1
BPL + E 3
E 3
E + FHH 1
E + ST 1
ST 1
NO VULNERABILITY 1
Grand Total 16
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Residential Land 2
Residential Boundary Wall 14
Grand Total 16
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 16
Grand Total 16
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
NA NA
Grand Total 0
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
NA NA NA
Total 0
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 20 1
Residential Boundary Wall 23 1
Residential Boundary Wall 7 1
Residential Boundary Wall 40 3
Residential Boundary Wall 8 1
Residential Boundary Wall 30 2
Residential Boundary Wall 28 1
Residential Boundary Wall 12 1
Residential Boundary Wall 24 1
Residential Boundary Wall 18 2
Total 14
District: Durg/ Block: Bemetara/ Road Name: Dokerbekla to Damadiah Road / Length of Road: 1.887km
Total APs: 27/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 16
BPL + E 3
BPL + FHH 1
BPL + ST 1
NO VULNERABILITY 6
Grand Total 27
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Residential Land 1
Residential Boundary Wall 25
Residential Structure 1
Grand Total 27
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 27
Grand Total 27
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
NA NA
Grand Total 0
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
NA NA NA
Total 0
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 10 4
Residential Boundary Wall 12 2
Residential Boundary Wall 15 3
Residential Boundary Wall 8 2
Residential Boundary Wall 9 1
Residential Boundary Wall 25 1
Residential Boundary Wall 20 5
Residential Boundary Wall 66 2
Residential Boundary Wall 90 1
Residential Boundary Wall 26 1
Residential Boundary Wall 24 1
Residential Boundary Wall 14 1
Residential Boundary Wall 60 1
Residential Structure 15 1
Total 26
District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road to Jangalpur Road / Length of Road: 2.008km
Total APs: 9/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 1
BPL + E 2
BPL + FHH 1
BPL + ST 3
E 1
E + ST 1
Grand Total 9
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 9
Grand Total 9
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 9
Grand Total 9
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 9
Grand Total 9
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
2 ≤1% 2
10 ≤1% 1
1 5% - 6% 1
4 ≤1% 2
4 1% - 2% 1
3 1% - 2% 1
15 ≤1% 1
Total 9
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road / Length of Road: 0.800
Total APs: 3/ Absentees: 2
Vulnerability Number of Aps
E 1
Grand Total 1
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 1
Grand Total 1
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 1
Grand Total 1
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
NA NA
Grand Total 0
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
NA NA NA
Total 0
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
Residential Boundary Wall 50 1
Total 1
District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Kirki Road / Length of Road: 3.446km
Total APs: 10/ Absentees: 2
Vulnerability Number of Aps
E 4
FHH 1
NO VULNERABILITY 3
Grand Total 8
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 8
Grand Total 8
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 8
Grand Total 8
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 8
Grand Total 8
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
5 1% - 2% 1
10 ≤1% 2
17 ≤1% 1
2.48 ≤1% 1
4 ≤1% 2
140 ≤1% 1
Total 8
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Piperia to Korway Road / Length of Road: 1.839km
Total APs: 23/ Absentees: 5
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 17
BPL + ST 1
Grand Total 18
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 18
Grand Total 18
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 18
Grand Total 18
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 18
Grand Total 18
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
3 1% - 2% 1
17 ≤1% 1
2.5 6% - 7% 1
2.5 ≤1% 1
7 ≤1% 1
10 2% - 3% 1
5 ≤1% 1
2 ≤1% 2
10 ≤1% 1
3 ≤1% 1
2.5 More than 10% 1
2.5 ≤1% 1
3.5 2% - 3% 1
3.5 ≤1% 1
8 ≤1% 2
6 ≤1% 1
Total 18
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Deorbija to Bod Road / Length of Road: 2.459km
Total APs: 6/ Absentees: 0
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 4
E 2
Grand Total 6
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 4
Residential Land 2
Grand Total 6
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 6
Grand Total 6
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 4
Grand Total 4
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
5 1% - 2% 1
3 4% - 5% 1
3 ≤1% 1
15 1% - 2% 1
Total 4
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road/ Length of Road: 1.550km
Total APs: 11/ Absentees: 2
Vulnerability Number of Aps
BPL 1
BPL + E 2
E 2
NO VULNERABILITY 4
Grand Total 9
Type of Loss Number of Aps
Agriculture Land 9
Grand Total 9
Ownership Number of Aps
Title Holder 9
Grand Total 9
In Case of Agricultural Loss
Agriculture Land-Type of Land Number of Aps
Irrigated 9
Grand Total 9
In Case of Agriculture Loss
Total Land Owned (Acres) Extent of Loss in % Number of APs
3 ≤1% 1
4 ≤1% 1
2 ≤1% 2
9 ≤1% 1
10 ≤1% 2
5 ≤1% 1
6.5 ≤1% 1
Total 9
In Case of Structural Loss
Category Extent of Loss in sq.m Number of Aps
NA NA NA
Total 0
Annexure V: List of Some Rural Development Schemes in Chhattisgarh
(A) Employment Oriented Schemes
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA): The Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act aims at enhancing the livelihood security of people in
rural areas by guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial year to a
rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. NREGA is
the first ever law internationally, that guarantees wage employment at an unprecedented
scale. The primary objective of the Act is augmenting wage employment. Its auxiliary
objective is strengthening natural resource management through works that address
causes of chronic poverty like drought, deforestation and soil erosion and so encourage
sustainable development. The process outcomes include strengthening grassroots
processes of democracy and infusing transparency and accountability in governance.
Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY): The basic objective of the scheme is
to bring the assisted poor families (swarozgaris) above the poverty line by providing them
income generating assets through a mix of bank credit and government subsidy. Credit is
the critical component of the scheme whereas the subsidy is an enabling element. The
scheme involves organisation of the poor into Self Help Groups (SHGs) build their
capacities through a process of social mobilization, their training, selection of key
activities, planning of activity clusters, creation of infrastructure, provision of technology
and marketing support, etc. Under the scheme focus is on the group approach. However,
individual Swarozgaris are also assisted. The SGSY is being implemented by the District
Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) with the active involvement of Panchayati Raj
Institutions (PRIs), banks, line Departments and the Non-Government Organisations
(NGOs). the scheme is implemented in two phases, (a) At the District and Intermediate
Panchayat along with the Zila Parishad and (b) At the village Panchayat and Gram
Panchayats through DRDAs/Zila Parishads.
Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY): The scheme provides wage employment
in rural areas along with the food security, creation of durable community, social and
economic assets and infrastructure developments. It includes the rural poor (BPL and
APL) who are in need of wage employment and are willing to take up manual or unskilled
work. Preference is given to the poorest among the poor, Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled
tribes, and parents of child labour, withdrawn from hazardous occupation. This scheme
includes the earlier initiated Employment Assurance Scheme for assured wage
employment during the lean agriculture season.
Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY): The programme is directed to provide wage
employment to the rural poor during the lean agricultural season. It also aims to provided
employment and create rural infrastructure through the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).
The National Rural Employment Programme (NERP) and Rural Landless Employment
Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) are also merged with the scheme. Safeguards for
weaker sections (Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, freed bonded laborers and
parents of child laborers withdrawn from hazardous / non – hazardous occupation for
employment, women) of the community are covered under the scheme.
(B) Rural Housing Schemes
Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY): The IAY is being implemented as an independent scheme
since 1996. It aims to provide assistance for construction / upgradation of dwelling units
to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) rural households, with special emphasis on SCs, STs
and freed bonded labor categories. A maximum assistance of Rs 35,000 per unit is
provided for construction in plain areas and Rs 38,500 per unit for hilly/difficult areas.
Rs15000 is given for upgradation of a dwelling unit for all areas. The funding of IAY is
shared between the Centre and State in the ratio of 75:25. District Rural Development
Agencies (DRDAs)/ Zilla Parishads on the basis of allocations made and targets fixed
decide Panchayat-wise number of houses to be constructed under IAY, during a
particular financial year and intimate the same to the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the
Gram Sabha selects the beneficiaries restricting its number to the target allotted, from the
list of eligible households, according to IAY guidelines and as per ascertained priorities.
Credit-cum Subsidy Scheme for Rural Housing: Covers households (below the
poverty line and above it) who could not be covered under Indira Awas Yojana, as either
they do not fall within the range of eligibility or due to the limits imposed by the available
budget. The target group covered under the scheme is rural households having an annual
income of up to Rs 32000/- only. However, Below Poverty line Rural Households shall be
given preference. 60% of the funds allocated under this Scheme as subsidy to each
State, is utilized in financing the construction of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
freed bonded laborers. Identification of beneficiaries under the scheme is the sole
prerogative of the States. The Implementation Agency may be the State Housing Board,
State Housing Corporation, specified Scheduled Commercial Bank, Housing Finance
Institution or the DRDA/ ZPs and shall be left to the State Government.
National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP): NSAP was launched with the aim to
provide social assistance benefit to poor households in the case of old age, death of
primary breadwinner and maternity. The programme supplements the efforts of the State
Governments with the objective of ensuring minimum national levels of well being and the
Central assistance is an addition to the benefit that the States are already providing on
Social Protection Schemes. It provides opportunities for linking the social assistance
package to schemes for poverty alleviation and the provision of basic needs. The scheme
is implemented by the Panchayats so as to make it responsive and cost-effective.
Panchayats are encouraged to involve voluntary agencies to the extent possible in taking
these benefits to the poor households for whom they are intended.
(C) Land Related Schemes
Land Reforms: It covers the landless poor and involves restructuring agrarian relations
to achieve an egalitarian social structure, elimination of exploitation in land relations;
realizing the age-old goal of land to the tiller; increasing agricultural productivity and
production and infusing equality in local institutions. Abolition of intermediary tenures;
Tenancy reforms; Ceiling on agriculture holdings and re-distribution of surplus land; and
Updating and maintenance of land records are the main objectives. These include the
main legal provisions enacted in protecting the ownership and tenurial rights of the
population.
Drought Prone Areas Programme: The scheme has been initiated to tackle the
problems in areas that are constantly affected by severe drought conditions. The basic
objective of the programme is to minimize the adverse effects of drought on the
production of crops and livestock and productivity of land, water and human resources
there by ultimately leading to the drought proofing of the affected areas. The programme
also aims at promoting the overall economic development and improving the socio-
economic condition of the resources poor and disadvantaged sections inhabiting the
programme areas. DRDA/ Zila Panchayat are the nodal Government agencies at the
district level to act as facilitator and provider of finances technical mechanism for effective
participation of the local people and the Panchayati Raj Institutions at all stage of project
management is covered.
(d) Schemes for Tribal Development
Integrated Tribal Development Project: The main objective of ITDP is socio-
economic development of tribal communities through income generating schemes allied
with Infrastructure Development programmes and protection of the tribal communities
against exploitation. The ITDA project areas are generally contiguous areas of the size of
a Tehsil or Block or more in which the ST population is 50% or more of the total. The
Project recognizes that the tribals are relatively less endowed, compared to their non-
tribal counterparts in terms of technical, financial and institutional capabilities. (Ref:
Integrated Tribal Development Agency)
Special Central Assistance & Grants Under Article 275 (I) of the Constitution: It aims
to supplement efforts by the Government in tribal development through Tribal Sub-Plan
through family-oriented income-generating schemes in the sector of agriculture,
horticulture, minor irrigation, soil conservation, animal husbandry, residential schools,
hostels, roads, culverts, minor irrigation, forests, education, cooperatives, fisheries,
village and small scale industries and for minimum needs programme. Grants are also
given to meet the costs of projects for tribal development and for raising the level of
administration of Scheduled Area.(Ref: Ministry of Tribal Affairs)
Scheme of Development of Primitive Tribal Group: A scheme for overall development
of primitive tribal groups under which financial assistance is made available to integrated
Tribal Development Projects, Tribal Research Institutes and Non-Governmental
Organisations for undertaking projects/ activities not covered by any of the existing
schemes. The funds under the Central Sector Scheme for the development of Primitive
Tribal Groups (PTGs) would be available only for those items/activities which though very
crucial for the survival, protection and development of Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs), are
not specifically catered to by any existing schemes, State or Central or by Guidelines
governing the utilization of funds under Special Central Assistance to Tribal Sub-Plan and
Article 275(1) of the Constitution. (Ref: Ministry of Tribal Affairs)
Vocational Training in Tribal Areas: Developing the skills of the tribal youth in order to
gain employment / self-employment opportunities by setting up of Vocational Training
Centers (VTCs) is the main objective of the scheme and implemented through State
governments and NGOs. (Ref: Ministry of Tribal Affairs)
Technical Training through Training cum Production centers (TCPC): The less
educated tribal youth are trained in different trades of production like carpentry,
blacksmith, pottery, etc. and also produced such articles on supply orders, which increase
their earning while also getting trained.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Finance and Development Corporations:
The scheme for assistance to the scheduled Castes Finance and Development
Corporation and the establishment for the National Scheduled castes/ Scheduled Tribes
Finance and Development Corporation (NSFDC) are important measures for economic
development of SC & ST. These Corporations function not only as guarantors and
promoters but also play a very important role in the context of attracting credit from
financial institutions. These Corporations identify the target families and motivate them to
undertake economic development schemes besides sponsoring the cases of financial
institutions for credit support. These Corporations also extend margin money loan to the
beneficiaries at concessional rates of interest out of share capital assistance as also
subsidy from the Special Central Assistance.
SCHEMES UNDER MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
The Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD) offers assistance on
a sustained basis for poor and needy women in rural areas. The main emphasis of the
programme is on income generating activities with the aim of achieving self-reliance on
sustained basis. The department of Women and Child Development would provide
financial assistance for the stipend that will be given to the trainees with an attendance
record of 75 percent and above.
Support to Training and Employment Programme For Women (STEP): A scheme
ensuring security of women in the traditional informal sector with an objective of
extending training for up gradation of skills & sustainable employment. The Scheme
covers 8 traditional sectors of employment, viz Agriculture, Small Animal Husbandry,
Dairying, Fisheries, Handlooms, Handi – crafts, Khadi and Village Industries and
Sericulture, Social Forestry and Waste Land Development. Employment will be provided
on a project basis by mobilizing women in viable groups, improving skills, arranging for
support services, providing access to credit, awareness generation, gender
sensitization, nutrition education, sensitization of project functionaries.
The target group covered includes the marginalized, asset less rural women including
wage laborers, unpaid daily workers, female-headed households, migrant laborers, tribal
and other dispossessed groups. The beneficiaries under the projects will be poor or asset
less maginalised women with special focus on SC/ST households, women headed
households and families below the poverty line. The Scheme implemented through Public
Sector Organisations, District Rural Development Agencies, Federations, Co-operatives
and Voluntary Organizations – Non-Governmental Voluntary Organizations working in
rural areas.
Swawlamban (NORAD) Scheme implemented by the Department of Women and Child
Development with partial assistance from Norway. Its basic objective is to provide training
and skill to women to facilitate them obtain employment or self-employment on a
sustained basis. The target group under the scheme are the poor and needy women,
women from weaker sections of the society, such as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, etc. Financial assistance is provided to undertake training programmes for women
in both traditional as well as non-traditional trades. The State Women Corporations
(WDCs) are the nodal agencies for the implementation of the scheme mostly through the
voluntary organizations of the State. Financial assistance is provided to Women
Development Corporations/Public Sector Corporations/ Autonomous bodies and
registered voluntary organizations. Wherever the State Women Development
Corporations do not exist the scheme is implemented through the State Social Welfare
Advisory Board.
SWAYAMSIDHA aims at holistic empowerment of women through awareness
generation, economic empowerment and convergence of various schemes:
Indira Mahila Yojana (IMY)
Balika Samriddhi Yojana (MSY)
An integrated scheme for women’s empowerment
Based on the formation of women into Self-Help Groups (SHGs)
The main implementing district/intermediary level panchayat institutions along with NGOs
or Government departments/ organizations.
Swadhar, Scheme of women in difficult circumstances: The scheme addresses the
specific vulnerability of each of group of women in difficult circumstances through a
Home-based holistic and integrated approach. It is aims to support the women socially
and economically through provision of shelter, food, clothing and education to rehabilitate
them. Awareness, skill up gradation and personality development through behavioral
training are also ingrained components of the scheme. The main target groups included
widows deserted by families, women survivors of natural disasters, mentally challenged
or handicapped women etc. the main implementing agency is Social Welfare/ Women
and Child Welfare Department, NGOs, Women Development Corporations.
Political Representations of Women by People’s Rural Education Movement has
promoted rural women to represent their villages in the Panchayat (village council) and
currently more than 30% of the seats in the Panchayat are filled by. It also conducts
different activities as money saving, adult literacy etc. which helps tribal women to come
out from their cocoon. It will also help tribal women in that area to become aware of and
accept different activities as money saving, adult literacy etc. which helps tribal women to
come out from their cocoon. It will also help tribal women in that area to become aware of
and accept different health practices for their improvement.
Self-help groups (SHGs) as an alternative employment model have been set covering
BPL persons have found employment under the self-employment schemes. The SHG
experiment has taken off largely among women. The SHGs provide inter-loaning for small
economic activities to the members of the group. These SHGs are also eligible for loans
from institutions such as NABARD, Rashtriya Mahila Kosh and the nationalized banks. A
related project has established marketing linkages for the SHGs. Rural markets or
grameen haats are sought to be created in this project. Some of the SHGs were also in
charge of preparation of the mid-day meals in schools across the State, which helps them
earn an additional income.
Rashtriya Mahila Kosh: The main objective of RMK is to facilitate credit support or
micro-finance to poor women, as an instrument of socio-economic change and
development. RMK mainly channelises its support through Non-Governmental
Organizations, Women Development Corporations, Women Cooperative Societies, Indira
Mahila Block Samities under the Indira Mahila Block Samities under the Indira Mahila
Yojana and suitable State Govt. agencies. It encompasses several other in built and
ongoing schemes under MoRD to provide easy access to credit for women.
OTHER SOCIAL WELFARE SCHEMES
Annapurna: A MoRD scheme covering the old age people under the National Old Age
Pension Scheme, for distribution of food for the poor pensioners who will be eligible for
10kg of rice every month. The district administration will issue separate ration cards in
distinct colors to the Annapurna scheme beneficiaries. The Principal Commissioner for
Revenue Administration oversees the implementation. In villages, panchayats will
distribute free rice. The names and addresses of all beneficiaries will be displayed at the
panchayat offices.
The center is to introduce a comprehensive insurance scheme for people living below the
poverty (BPL) line, i.e., poorest of poor to be covered by insurance through LIC in the
country.
Jan Shri Bhima Yojana: A comprehensive social security scheme for sub-poverty line
families at subsidized premium (50 per cent) rates.
Annexure VI: Monitoring Formats
Form Title Frequency Preparation Audit/Verification
Summary Monitoring
Sheet
(Form M-1)
Monthly PIU TSC
Verification of Ownership
of Land and Assets
(Form M-2)
Once for each
project road
before start
collecting
MOU
Information collected
and verified by PRI
and Revenue
Department, and
compiled into the form
by PIU
TSC
MOU Collection and
Grievance Redressal
(Form M-3)
Monthly Information to be
collected and verified
by PRI and Revenue
Department and
compiled into the form
by PIU
TSC
Progress of Distribution of
Support/Assistance
(Form M-4)
Monthly Progress monitored
by PRI and compiled
into the form by PIU
TSC
External Monitoring and
Evaluation
(Form M-5)
Every six
months
TSC -
PIC: Project Implementation Consultant, PIU: Programme Implementation Unit, PRI:
Panchayati Raj Institution, TSC: Technical Support Consultant.
Form M-1: Summary Monitoring Sheet (monthly)
(as of end (month, year))
State: District: Block: Village:
Name of Subproject Road: Road No.:
Project stage Task Time Frame Completed
(Date)
Outstanding
tasks
Time frame for
completion
Road
Selection
stage
Dissemination of PMGSY
road under Core network
After approval of
Core Network
Selection of Roads
Pro
ject
Pla
nn
ing
& D
esig
n S
tag
e
DP
R P
rep
ara
tio
n S
tag
e
Dissemination of Project
Information
First week of DPR
preparation
Sensitization of community First week of DPR
preparation
Finalization of alignment
(Transect Walk, alignment
shifts & incorporation of
community suggestion)
First month of DPR
Preparation
Consultations with
Community/APs
First month of DPR
Preparation, after
alignment
finalization
Survey for Profile of APs 5th to 6
th week of
DPR Preparation
Identification of vulnerable
APs
6th week of the DPR
preparation
Dissemination of process of
voluntary donation,
support/assistance options &
grievance procedures
7th week of DPR
Preparation
Finalization of
support/assistance
8th week of DPR
preparation
Marking of Alignment 12 th week of DPR
Preparation
Incorporating impact
mitigation measures in DPR
End of fourth month
of DPR preparation
Scrutiny and approval of DPR
Sit
e P
rep
ara
tio
n
Sta
ge
Po
st
DP
R S
tag
e Collection of MoU First month of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Advance notice to farmers First month of
implementation
with standing crops after approval of
DPR
Relocation/Shifting of
structures / Common
Property Resources
By the 2nd
month of
implementation
after approval
Provision of
support/assistance
Between 3rd-5
th
month of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Enrollment into RD schemes From 3rd month of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Physical possession of land
by PIU
From 3rd month of
implementation
after approval of
DPR
Co
ns
tru
cti
on
sta
ge
Redressal of grievances Throughout Project
cycle
Unforeseen impacts From 4th month of
project
implementation , till
completion of
construction work
Tree Plantation
Note: This form will be prepared monthly by the PIU for each village.
Form M-2: Verification of Ownership of Land and Assets
(as on (date, month, year))
State: District: Block: Village:
Name of Subproject Road: Road No.:
S.No. Name
of the
AP
Category of
AP
(Titleholder,
Tenant,
squatter,
Encroacher
and others)
Vulnerable
AP
Khasra
No.
Type of
Land
affected
(sq m)
Type of
Structure
affected
(Residential,
Commercial,
and Resi +
Comm) (sq
m)
Trees,
wells,
CPR and
other
losses
Livelihood
losses
Verified (Y/N) Remarks
Note: This form will be first prepared during Transect Walk and further refined during consultation with affecter persons/households.
Ownership will be verified during consultation and census survey. Information on ownership will be collected by PRI and Patwari, and
compiled by PIU.
Form M-3: MOU Collection and Grievance Redressal (monthly)
(as of end (month, year))
State: District: Block: Village:
Name of Subproject Road: Road No.:
S.No. Name of the Eligible
APs / community
Verification and Collection of MOUs Grievance Redress
Ownership verified
by Revenue official
(Date) and PIU
MOU
signed
prior to
date of
contract
award
MOU Signed
and collected
by PIU (Date)
Remarks Any
Grievance
reported
Reason for
the
grievance
Grievance
resolved /
unresolved
by LMC
Grievance
resolved /
unresolved by
GRC
Time taken
to resolve
the
grievance
Remarks
Note: Information for this form will be provided by PRI. This form will be filled out by the PIU.
Form M-4: Progress of Distribution of Support/Assistance (monthly)
(as of end (month, year))
State: District: Block: Village:
Name of Subproject Road: Road No.:
S.No. Name of
the Eligible
APs /
community
Support/Assistance for Vulnerable APs
Alternate land Site Cash
assistance
for land or
structure,
trees,
wells and
other
assets
Inclusion
in
housing
/ RD
schemes
for IR
Provision
of
alternate
plot and
structure
Cash
assistance
for
livelihood
losses /
linkage to
RD
schemes
Material &
labor for
rebuilding
structures
Alternate
rental
arrangements
for tenants
Replacement
and
Relocation
of CPR
Advance
notice
for
crops
Remarks
Note: Distribution of support/assistance is monitored by PRI. This format will be prepared by PRI and compiled by PIU.
Form M-5: External Monitoring and Evaluation (bi-annually)
(for the period covering the six months from (month, year) to (month, year))
State: District: Block: Number and Name of Sample Villages:
Name of Subproject Road Road No.: Total Number of Sample Households (APs and Non-AP
households):
Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators Description
A. Adequacy of Budget
(i) enrollment of APs in RD schemes
(ii) Funds allocated for cash assistance, relocation, legal process of land transfer and other
support costs
B. Severity of Impacts
(i) % of APs losing less than 5% and more land, % of vulnerable APs losing less than 5%
and more
(ii) % of APs having residual land below district average
(iii) No. of structures and CPRs affected.
(iv) No. of affected structures and CPRs relocated.
(v) Variations in the number of APs and that in DPR
C. Social Infrastructure Development Indicators
(i) Increased ownership of production assets (agricultural implements, tractors etc)
(ii) Increased asset ownership such as two-wheelers, bicycle etc
(iii) Reduction in travel time and cost to basic services such as educational, medical facility
etc (iv) Frequency of bus services (v) Number of children born in PHCs; (vi) Enrollment in
schools; (vii) Improved road safety; (viii) Role of Women in decision-making
D. Economic Indicators
(i) Source of income, (ii) Number of earners per household; (iii) Average number of days of
employment in month/year; (iv) Increase in wage rates (Rs/day); (v) Alteration in agricultural
practices (Method and intensity of cropping, use of HYV etc); (vi) Number & frequency of
migration of work
E. Adequacy Of Mitigation Measures
(i) percentage of APs actually enrolled in RD and government housing schemes; (ii)
percentage of AP continuing with schemes; (iii) Percentage of APs who perceive to have
benefited from the schemes; (iv) percentage of APs receiving alternate land and assistance
for relocating and rebuilding structure or assistance for land and structure; (v) percentage of
APs receiving assistance for rebuilding structure on existing land not requiring relocation; (vi)
others
E. Adequacy Of Mitigation Measures
(i) percentage of APs actually enrolled in RD and government housing schemes; (ii)
percentage of AP continuing with schemes; (iii) Percentage of APs who perceive to have
benefited from the schemes; (iv) percentage of APs receiving alternate land and assistance
for relocating and rebuilding structure or assistance for land and structure; (v) percentage of
APs receiving assistance for rebuilding structure on existing land not requiring relocation; (vi)
others
F. Adequacy Of Land Transfer Documentation
(i) percentage of plots identified for land donation ; (ii) percentage of cases where
deeds/mutation has been done
G. Grievance Redressal
(i) No. of grievances per APs in each corridor; (ii) Percentage of grievances redressed; (iii)
any time for redressal of grievance existence and effectiveness of GR mechanism
H. Realism Of Work Schedule
(i) No. of activities which has exceeded time limit; (ii) Any time spell over
Note: This report will be prepared by TSC for each district based on a sample assessment of affected and non-affected households