IND: Rural Connectivity Investment Program · Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Assam. The Program forms part of the nationally popular program called Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana

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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


16


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


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


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.


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


15


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


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


18


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











MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 20 1 21








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




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


1 1 1

1.5 1 1

2.5 1 1

3 1 1

10 2 2


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


≤ 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


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


5 1 1

PADUMSARA TO KIRKI 4 1 5

2.48 1 1

30


≤ 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


2 1 1

3 1 1

4 1 1

31


≤ 1 %

1% - 2%

2% - 3%

3% - 4%

4% - 5%

5% - 6%

6% - 7%

MORE THAN 10%

Grand Total

9 1 1

10 1 1


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






KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 14 1 4 1 2 2 5 5 1 35






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









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


BATORI TO BELTUKRI

13

13


13

BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 6 7 1 1

15


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



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



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


BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 3 8 2 13

BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 5 7 2 1 15


KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 5 3 2 10


MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 5 3 2 10



MAIN ROAD TO DAMAIDIH ROAD 7 13 1 21





PARSADA TO AAMDI 1 6 1 8


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



BIJURIYA TO URAIHAPARA 13 13

BORTARA TO KHAIRI ROAD 4 1 10 15


KANHERA TO SUKHATAL 10 10

KHUTERA TO KLARJEVRA 1 34 35

MAIN ROAD (KESHTARA) TO BAGLEDI ROAD 10 10


MAIN ROAD BAGHUL TO GOPALBHAINA 15 15






PARSADA TO AAMDI 7 1 8

PATHRAPALI TO KORBI BANKA 12 12



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


Village Wise Details of APs- In case of Agricultural Land Loss

S.No. Name of AP


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



S.No. Name of AP



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


11 SHATRUGHAN AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND

NO VULNERABI 2.5 0.036 1.44

43

LITY

12 CHINTA YADAV AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND


13 MURALI AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND


14 INDU YADAV AMDI AGRICULTURE LAND


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 BALRAM PARSWANI


2 LAKHAN PARSWANI

AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 1.75 0.009 0.51

3 SOMNATH PARSWANI


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


44


S.No. Name of AP




% 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



S.No. Name of AP




% 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



S.No. Name of AP



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


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



S.No. Name of AP



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


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


15 LATEL YADAV BARTORI AGRICULTURE LAND


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 KUSHUAL SAHU URAIHAPARA


2 CHHABI LAL PATEL

URAIHAPARA


3 LAXMAN PATEL URAIHAPARA


4 RAMCHARAN SAHU

URAIHAPARA


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


S.No. Name of AP




% Loss

7 BHUSHAN SAHU

URAIHAPARA

RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL 161.88 17

10.50

8 CHHANNU RAM KEWARI

URAIHAPARA


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



S.No. Name of AP



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


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



S.No. Name of AP




% 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


26 HINCHHARAM KALARJEWRA

RESIDENTIAL LAND E 8649 93 1.08

27 ISHWARI KALARJEWRA


28 KEJRAM KALARJEWRA


29 KHEM SINGH KALARJEWRA


30 RADHEYSHYAM KALARJEWRA


31 RAM LAKHAN KALARJEWRA

RESIDENTIAL LAND


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 RAM SAY YADAV KORBI


2 NIRTAN DAS MANIKPURI KORBI


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


S.No. Name of AP


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


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



S.No. Name of AP



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


5 SANTOSH LODHI KHAIRIY


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


9 RAM NATH LODHI KHAIRIY


10 TEJASVI LODHI KHAIRIY AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 3 0.02 0.67

11 LACHCHU LODHI KHAIRIY


12 SHUKLAL LODHI KHAIRIY


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 MAHANT LODHI PATHARJKHURD


2 ANJORI LODHI PATHARJKHURD


3 DULAR SINGH PATHARJKHURD


4 RADHELAL LODHI

PATHARJKHURD


5 MOHAN LODHI PATHARJKHURD


6 JAGESWAR LODHI

PATHARJKHURD


7 CHHABILAL LODHI

PATHARJKHURD


8 ESWAR LODHI PATHARJKHURD


9 SHITKUMAR LODHI

PATHARJKHURD


10 SHIVKUMAR LODHI

PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


11 JAGDISH LODHI PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


12 LEKHU LODHI PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


13 DUKHWA LODHI PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


14 DAN SINGH PATHARJ AGRICULTURE NO 15 0.043 0.29

52

KHURD LAND VULNERABILITY

15 ALICHAND LODHI

PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


16 PRATAP LODHI PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


17 SAMARU LODHI PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


18 HARAN LODHI PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


19 REKHA LODHI PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


20 BHAWSINGH LODHI

PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND


21 KH. SINGH LODHI

PATHARJKHURD

AGRICULTURE LAND



S.No. Name of AP




% Loss

22 DULARWA LODHI

PATHARJKHURD


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


26 ESHWARI LODHI

PATHARJKHURD

RESIDENTIAL LAND

NO VULNERABILITY 560 56

10.00

27 JEDHU LODHI PATHARJKHURD

RESIDENTIAL LAND


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 ANJORI SUKHATAL

AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + D+ E 5 0.011 0.22

2 JHOOLARAM SUKHATAL


3 KHURBAHARA SUKHATAL


4 BENIRAM SUKHATAL


5 BUDHIYA SUKHATAL


6 SHYAMLAL SUKHATAL


7 GANESH SUKHATAL


8 LAKSHMAN SUKHATAL


9 TIHARI SUKHATAL


10 DUKALU SUKHATAL

AGRICULTURE LAND


11 KHAMMAN SUKHATAL

AGRICULTURE LAND



S.No. Name of AP




% 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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 HIRDAY RAM NISHAD BAGLEDI


2 RATI RAM LODHI BAGLEDI


3 RAJ KUMAR PATEL BAGLEDI

AGRICULTURE LAND



S.No. Name of AP




% 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



S.No. Name of AP



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


12 LATEL HARDASS AGRICULTURE LAND


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


56


S.No. Name of AP




% Loss

1 SATRUHAN SAHU

GOPALBHANA


2 SANTARAM SAHU

GOPALBHANA


3 KRIPAL SAHU GOPALBHANA


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


8 DASHRATH SEN GOPALBHANA


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



10.00

14 SURESH THAKUR

GOPALBHANA

RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL ST 300 18 6.00

15 BHAGIRATHI DHARU

GOPALBHANA


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



57

S.No. Name of AP




% Loss

1 HIRAVAN NISHAD DAMADIH


2 RAJESH SEN DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 200 12 6.00

3 GHASHIYA NISHAD DAMADIH


4 KESHAV NISHAD DAMADIH


5 REKHA LAL NISHAD DAMADIH


6 RAMDHAR YADAV DAMADIH


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


11 MANGLU NISHAD DAMADIH


12 MANI CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH


11.00

13 HARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL BPL 250 20 8.00

14 MALIK NIRMALKAR DAMADIH


15.00

15 TIRIT CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH


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


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


11.00

22 TIHARI NISHAD DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL


15.00

23 CHATUR NIRMALKAR DAMADIH



58

24 BHAGWANI CHANDRAKAR DAMADIH



25 SOBHA SAHU DAMADIH RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY WALL


26 GANGA RAM NISHAD DAMADIH


27 JANAK BAISHNAV DAMADIH

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 ARJUN SHIVARE LITIPUR


2 CHANDRIKA MANIKPURI LITIPUR


3 LAXMAN GADRIYA LITIPUR


4 HARENDRA GOND LITIPUR


5 BHOLA RAM SAHU LITIPUR


6 JEEVAN GOND LITIPUR AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST 2 0.003 0.15

7 MARHU GADRIYA LITIPUR


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



S.No. Name of AP




% 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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 KRIPA PADUMSARA


2 MOTI PADUMSARA


3 DAYA RAM PADUMSARA


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


7 CHAKENDRA PADUMSARA

AGRICULTURE LAND


8 LAKSHMAN PADUMSARA

AGRICULTURE LAND


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



S.No. Name of AP



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


4 MELU NILMARKAR PIPERIYA


5 PANCHU NIRMALKAR PIPERIYA


6 LEKHURAM SAHU PIPERIYA


7 RUNGO SAHU PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL 5 0.013 0.26

8 CHOTURAM SAHU PIPERIYA


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 SANTOSH YADAV BOD


2 MAN HARAN SAHU BOD


3 DHAN SINGH SAHU BOD


4 LEKHRAM VERMA BOD



S.No. Name of AP




% Loss

5 GANESH SATNAMI BOD


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



S.No. Name of AP



Land Loss (Acres)

% Loss

1 GHANSHYAM SAHU MATRA


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


5 MANNU VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND E 10 0.024 0.24

6 BAHORAN DAS MANIKPURI MATRA

AGRICULTURE LAND


7 VISHRAM VERMA MATRA

AGRICULTURE LAND


8 ROHIT VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND


9 BASANT VERMA MATRA AGRICULTURE LAND


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


Members, PIC

5th week of DPR

Preparation,

after alignment

finalization

Census for Profile of APs APs PIU (AE/JE), GP


Members, PIC

5th to 6

th week of

DPR Preparation

72

Identification of vulnerable

APs

Vulnerable

APs

PIU (AE/JE), GP


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


Members, PIC

7th week of DPR

Preparation

Finalization of

support/assistance

Vulnerable

APs

PIU (AE/JE), GP


Members, DRDA, DoSW,

DoTW, PIC

8th week of DPR

preparation

Marking of Alignment - PIU (AE/JE), GP



(Patwari), PIC

12 th week of

DPR Preparation

Incorporating impact

mitigation measures in

DPR

- PIU (AE/JE), GP


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



(Patwari),

First month of

implementation

after approval of

DPR

Advance notice to farmers

with standing crops

APs PIU (AE/JE), GP


Members,

First month of

implementation

after approval of

DPR

Relocation/Shifting of

structures / Common

Property Resources

Community/ APs PIU (AE/JE), GP



(Patwari),

By the 2nd

month

of

implementation

after approval

Provision of assistance Eligible APs PIU (AE/JE), GP


Members,

Between 3rd

-5th

month of

implementation

after approval of

DPR

73

Enrollment into RD

schemes

Eligible APs PIU (AE/JE), GP


Members, DRDS, DoSW,

DoTW

From 3rd

month

of

implementation

after approval of

DPR

Physical possession of

land by PIU

- PIU (AE/JE), GP



(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



(Patwari),

Throughout

Project cycle

Unforeseen impacts Community PIU (AE/JE), GP



(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



Female headed household: 01 Scheduled Caste: 25 Scheduled Tribe: 10 Disabled: Nil BPL: 17 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 25


From Government:



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.


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:


Width*

Additional Land

Required


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


28. Date; Time: 02 May 2010; 11:15 am to 4:30 pm



Female headed household: Nil Scheduled Caste: 42 Scheduled Tribe: 08 Disabled: 01 BPL: 17 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 15


From Government:

1. Tarun Kumar Sao, S.E. 2. Abhijeet Singh, S.E.


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.


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.



Width*

Additional Land

Required


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


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


(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


30 April 2010; 11:30 am to 4:00 pm





From Government:


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


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.


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.


Chainage Existing Additional Type of Loss Village Remarks/Suggestions

Land Width*

Land Required


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


50. Date; Time: 25th April 2010; 10:30 am to 1:40 pm





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


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.


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.



Width*

Additional Land

Required


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+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+040 6 4.60 4.60 Sloping for cart track to be provided at LHS



Agricultural land


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


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+198 6.5 CC road proposed by community as water overflows the road.


2+285 7 1.50 1.50 End Point

58. Gram Panchayat: Shahada

59. Block: Pallari





Female headed household: 02 Scheduled Caste: 15 Scheduled Tribe: Nil Disabled: Nil BPL: 20 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general: 25


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



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.


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.



Width*

Additional Land

Required



SHAHADA

0+010 12 3.80 3.80 Culvert proposed 0+025 12


67. Name of Road: T07 (km.1) to Khaira

68. Village: Khaira

69. Gram Panchayat: Khaira

70. Block: Pallari






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


Female headed household: 01 Scheduled Caste: 39 Scheduled Tribe: 11 Disabled: Nil BPL: 40 Households losing structure: 01 Women in general: 18


From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 47. Hriday lal, Sarpanch 48. Revati, Panch 49. Urmilla, Panch 50. Maniram Verma, Sachiv 51. Knauji, Sarpanch Pratinidhi



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.


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.



Width*

Additional Land

Required



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+718 5.5 4 4.5 Agricultural land

Agricultural land

Culvert proposed

0+766 5 1 1.5 Uncultivated land

Boundary wall


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





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


From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 52. Amrilla Bai Kurre Panch 53. Mogra, Panch 54. Mahaveer, Sarpanch Pratinidhi



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.


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.



Width*

Additional Land

Required


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+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


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


94. Date; Time: 05 May 2010; 10:30 am to 02:00 pm



Female headed household: Nil Scheduled Caste: 10 Scheduled Tribe: 05 Disabled: Nil BPL: 08 Households losing structure: 01 Women in general: 22


From Government:


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


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.


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.



Width*

Additional Land

Required


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


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


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


17) Date; Time: 9 May 2010; 11.30 am to 3:00 pm



Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 10 Scheduled Tribe : 01 Disabled : Nil BPL : 07 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : Nil


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


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



Chainage


Additional Land

Required


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


Residential loss

CC ROAD


Residential loss

CC ROAD


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


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


28) Date; Time: 6 May 2010; 11.00 am to 3 :30 pm



Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 09 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 07 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 02


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


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.


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)


c) District Durg

Chainage


Additional Land

Required



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






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


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


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


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.




Chainage


Additional Land

Required



DARHI PARSWARA

0+098 8.0 1.5 1.5 Residen

tial loss Residenti

al loss


Residential loss

SIGN BOARD RHS


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


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






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


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.



Chainage


Additional Land

Required



JHALAM

SIGN BOARD RHS 0+027 8.0 1.70 1.70

0+073 7.0 1.25 1.25 TREE(1)

Government land


Government land


Government land

ENCROACHMENT ON RHS


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






From Government:


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



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


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.



Chainage


Additional Land

Required


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



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


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



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


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


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



Chainage


Additional Land

Required



GHATIYAKALA

SIGN BOARD LHS 0+101 12.0


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



Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 14 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 11 Households losing structure: Nil


Residential loss


Residential loss


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


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


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


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.


The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.



Chainage


Additional Land

Required



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


Tree(1)


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


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




From Government:


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


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


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.


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.


The road alignment will be finalized with the best efforts to address the above issues.



Chainage


Additional Land

Required



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


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



Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 04 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 03


From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 35. Mahesiya Bai, Sarpanch ,GP Piperiya



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


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.


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


Additional Land

Required


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


Residential loss

SIGN BOARD LHS


Residential loss

CC ROAD START


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





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


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.


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


Additional Land

Required


LHS RHS LHS RHS 0+000 8.0 1.5 1.5 Govern

ment land

Government land

KESHTARA


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


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




Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 03 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 02 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : Nil


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


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 39. Om prakash Verma, Sarpanch ,GP Matra 40. Ramsukh, Vice Sarpanch GP Matra


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


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


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.



Chainage


Additional Land

Required



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




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


From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 41. Manik Sahu, Sarpanch ,GP Bortara 42. Bihari, panch GP Bortara


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


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)


Chainage


Additional Land

Required



ment land

Government land

BORTORA

SIGN BOARD at LHS


Government land


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


150) Total Number of Participants in the Transect walk:

15




From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 43. Parun Bai, Sarpanch ,GP Padumsara 44. Bhuvan Singh, Vice Sarpanch GP Padumsara 45. Dheli Singh, panch GP Padumsara


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


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


Additional Land

Required



PADUMSARA

0+150 8.9 2.10 2.10

0+155 8.9 4.50 4.50 CULVERT


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



Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : 03 Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : 02 Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : Nil


From Government:


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


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


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



166) Name of Road: Tiriyabhat to Sanpandar Road

167) Villages: Tiriyabhat

168) Gram Panchayat: Tiriyabhat

169) Block: Saja

Chainage


Additional Land

Required



MASULGUNDI

SIGN BOARD RHS 0+080 8.4 1.25 1.25 Govern

ment land

Government land


Government land


Government land

KONGIYAKHURD

GUARD WALL ON LHS


Government land

GUARD WALL ON LHS


Boundary Wall

GUARD WALL ON LHS


Boundary wall

GUARD WALL ON LHS


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






From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 50. Girija Tiwary, Sarpanch ,GP Tiriyabhat


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


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.



Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat AE/JE, PIU (name)


177) Name of Road: Kanhera to Sukhtal Road

178) Villages: Betar, and Sukhtal

179) Gram Panchayat: Sukhtal

180) Block: Saja

181) District: Durg

Chainage


Additional Land

Required



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


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






From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 51. Motiram Chandrakar, Sarpanch ,GP Sukhtal 52. Ramkumar, panch GP Sukhtal 53. Luman, panch GP Sukhtal


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.


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.



Chainage


Additional Land Required



BETAR

SIGN BOARD RHS 0+012 9.0 1.50 1.50 CULVERT


Government Land


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


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


ALIGNMENT SHIFT BY 3 MTR ON RHS TO STRAIGHTEN ROAD

1+162 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult


1+207 6.0 4.30 4.30

SUKHTAL

CULVERT

1+327 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult


1+464 5.2 3.0 3.0 Agricult


1+654 6.0 2.5 2.5 Agricult


1+821 8.1 1.5 1.5 Agricult


2+026 8.3 1.35 1.35 Agricult


2+190 8.90 4.10 4.10 CULVERT

2+320 9.5 .75 .75 Agricult


2+520 8.1 1.5 1.5 Agricult


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




From Government:


From Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI): 54. Gajju Verma, Sarpanch ,GP Bod 55. MK Sahu, Vice Sarpanch GP Bod 56. Bholaram, Panch GP Bod


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


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.


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


Additional Land

Required



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)


TREE(1)


Agricultural loss

0+170 5.0 3.0 3.0 TREE(1)

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


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


Additional Land

Required


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


Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : NA Disabled : Nil BPL : Nil Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 02


From Government:



1. Kunti Bai Sahu, Sarpanch, Gopalbhaina GP


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


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.




Chainage

Existing Land

Width*

Additional Land

Required


LHS RHS LHS RHS


Agricultural loss

RISAMLI


Agricultural loss


Agricultural loss

0+130 10.00

0+220 10.00 0+356 10.00 3.40 3.40 CULVERT


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


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


Agricultural loss

3+044 8.00 5.50 5.50 CULVERT

3+160 8.00 5.50 5.50 CULVERT


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



Female headed household : Nil Scheduled Caste : Nil Scheduled Tribe : Nil Disabled : Nil BPL : Nil Households losing structure: Nil Women in general : 14


From Government:

1. Upaddhay , CGRRDA Chattisgarh


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



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


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


Additional Land

Required



JANGALPUR

0+145 9.00

0+265 9.00 3.80 3.80 CULVERT


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



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




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




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




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



8 MANIKPURI PARSWANI RESIDENTIAL LAND BPL + E

District: Raipur/ Block: Pallari/ Road Name: T04 (Km.9) to Shahada / Length of Road: 2.507km




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




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




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




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



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




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



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




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


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




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




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



22 DULARWA LODHI PATHARJKHURD


23 ASWINI LODHI PATHARJKHURD


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




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



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




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



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




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




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




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


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




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




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




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




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



18 SUNDER GOND PIPERIYA AGRICULTURE LAND BPL + ST

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Deorbija to Bod Road / Length of Road: 2.459km




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



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




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


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 Main Structure 8.15 1

Residential Main Structure 6 1



Commercial Structure 1.6 1

Total 5

District: Raipur/ Block: Tilda/ Road Name: Motinpur Kala to Padobhat / Length of Road: 3.298km



BPL + D 1

NO VULNERABILITY 1

Grand Total 2


Agriculture Land 2

Grand Total 2


Title Holder 2

Grand Total 2



Irrigated 2

Grand Total 2



5 ≤1 1

3 ≤1 1

Total 2



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Raipur/ Block: Abhanpur/ Road Name: Parsada to Aamdi / Length of Road: 2.285km



BPL 4

BPL + D + E 1

BPL + E 2

E 1

NO VULNERABILITY 7

Grand Total 15


Agriculture Land 15

Grand Total 15


Title Holder 15

Grand Total 15



Irrigated 15

Grand Total 15



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Raipur/ Block: Sigma/ Road Name: Hirmi (Sigma) to Parswani / Length of Road: 2.240km



BPL 3

BPL + E 3

E 2

Grand Total 8


Agriculture Land 6

Agriculture Land + Trees 1

Residential Land 1

Grand Total 8


Title Holder 15

Grand Total 8



Irrigated 7

Grand Total 7



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Raipur/ Block: Pallari/ Road Name: T04 (Km.9) to Shahada / Length of Road: 2.507km



BPL + E 1

D + E + FHH 1

NO VULNERABILITY 2

Grand Total 4



Grand Total 4


Encroacher 3

Title Holder 1

Grand Total 4



NA NA

Grand Total 0



NA NA NA

Total 0







Total 4

District: Raipur/ Block: Palari/ Road Name: T07 to Khaira / Length of Road: 1.564km



BPL 2

BPL + D + ST 1

SC 2

NO VULNERABILITY 1

Grand Total 6


Agriculture Land 6

Grand Total 6


Title Holder 6

Grand Total 6



Irrigated 6

Grand Total 6



0.5 3% - 4% 1

3 ≤1% 2

10 ≤1% 1

15 ≤1% 1

4 ≤1% 1

Total 6



NA NA NA

Total 0

DISTRICT BILASPUR

District: Bilaspur/ Block: Belha/ Road Name: Batori to Beltukri / Length of Road: 5.020km



BPL 5

BPL + D + E 1

BPL + E 5

BPL + E + FHH 2

NO VULNERABILITY 2

Grand Total 15


Agriculture Land 15

Grand Total 15


Title Holder 15

Grand Total 15



Irrigated 15

Grand Total 15



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Bijuria to Uraihapara / Length of Road: 1.75km



BPL 8

BPL + FHH 2

FHH 1

SC 2

Grand Total 13


Agriculture Land 6

Residential Land 7

Grand Total 15


Title Holder 13

Grand Total 13



Irrigated 6

Grand Total 6



1 6% - 7% 1

10 ≤1% 2

1.5 ≤1% 1

2.5 ≤1% 1

3 ≤1% 1

Total 6



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Bilaspur/ Block: Patharia/ Road Name: Khutera to Klarjevra / Length of Road: 2.940km



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


Agriculture Land 16

Residential Land 12



Grand Total 36


Title Holder 15

Encroacher 19

Squatter 1

User's Right 1

Grand Total 36



Irrigated 16

Grand Total 16



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






Residential Structure 3.6 1



Residential Structure 9 1


Total 8

District: Bilaspur/ Block: Biliha/ Road Name: Pathrapali to Korbi Banka / Length of Road: 9km



BPL 4

BPL + D + ST 1

BPL + ST 5

SC 1

ST 1

Grand Total 12


Agriculture Land 9

Agriculture Land + Trees 1

Residential Land 2

Grand Total 12


Title Holder 12

Grand Total 12



Irrigated 10

Grand Total 10



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

DISTRICT DURG

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Bortara to Khairy Road / Length of Road: 3.100km



BPL 14

BPL + ST 1

Grand Total 15


Agriculture Land 15

Grand Total 15


Title Holder 15

Grand Total 15



Irrigated 15

Grand Total 15



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Dhamdha Gandai Road to Patharikhurd Road / Length of Road: 4.839km



BPL 7

BPL + E 2

BPL + ST 1

E 2

NO VULNERABILITY 15

Grand Total 27


Agriculture Land 21

Residential Land 5


Grand Total 27


Title Holder 27

Grand Total 27



Irrigated 21

Grand Total 21



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




Total 1

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Kanhera to Sukhatal Road / Length of Road: 3.035km



BPL + D + E 1

BPL + E 5

D + E 2

E 2

NO VULNERABILITY 2

Grand Total 12


Agriculture Land 11

Commercial Structure 1

Grand Total 12


Title Holder 12

Grand Total 12



Irrigated 11

Grand Total 11



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



Commercial Structure 1500 1

Total 1

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Main Road (Keshtara) to Bagledi Road / Length of Road: 2.379km



BPL 3

BPL + E 4

BPL + FHH 1

E 2

NO VULNERABILITY 2

Grand Total 12


Agriculture Land 3

Residential Land 9

Grand Total 12


Title Holder 12

Grand Total 12



Irrigated 3

Grand Total 3



2 1% - 2% 1

10 4% - 5% 1

15 ≤1% 1

Total 3



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Hathmudi Road / Length of Road: 3.050km



BPL + E 2

BPL + ST 1

D + E 1

E 6

ST 1

NO VULNERABILITY 2

Grand Total 13


Agriculture Land 13

Grand Total 13


Title Holder 13

Grand Total 13



Irrigated 13

Grand Total 13



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road Baghul to Gopalbhaina Road / Length of Road: 4.030km



BPL 5

BPL + D 1

BPL + E 3

E 3

E + FHH 1

E + ST 1

ST 1

NO VULNERABILITY 1

Grand Total 16


Residential Land 2


Grand Total 16


Title Holder 16

Grand Total 16



NA NA

Grand Total 0



NA NA NA

Total 0













Total 14

District: Durg/ Block: Bemetara/ Road Name: Dokerbekla to Damadiah Road / Length of Road: 1.887km



BPL 16

BPL + E 3

BPL + FHH 1

BPL + ST 1

NO VULNERABILITY 6

Grand Total 27


Residential Land 1



Grand Total 27


Title Holder 27

Grand Total 27



NA NA

Grand Total 0



NA NA NA

Total 0
















Residential Structure 15 1

Total 26

District: Durg/ Block: Nawagar/ Road Name: Main Road to Jangalpur Road / Length of Road: 2.008km



BPL 1

BPL + E 2

BPL + FHH 1

BPL + ST 3

E 1

E + ST 1

Grand Total 9


Agriculture Land 9

Grand Total 9


Title Holder 9

Grand Total 9



Irrigated 9

Grand Total 9



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Masulgondi to Kongiyakhurd Road / Length of Road: 0.800



E 1

Grand Total 1



Grand Total 1


Title Holder 1

Grand Total 1



NA NA

Grand Total 0



NA NA NA

Total 0




Total 1

District: Durg/ Block: Saja & Thankhamnarna/ Road Name: Padumsara to Kirki Road / Length of Road: 3.446km



E 4

FHH 1

NO VULNERABILITY 3

Grand Total 8


Agriculture Land 8

Grand Total 8


Title Holder 8

Grand Total 8



Irrigated 8

Grand Total 8



5 1% - 2% 1

10 ≤1% 2

17 ≤1% 1

2.48 ≤1% 1

4 ≤1% 2

140 ≤1% 1

Total 8



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Piperia to Korway Road / Length of Road: 1.839km



BPL 17

BPL + ST 1

Grand Total 18


Agriculture Land 18

Grand Total 18


Title Holder 18

Grand Total 18



Irrigated 18

Grand Total 18



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



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Deorbija to Bod Road / Length of Road: 2.459km



BPL 4

E 2

Grand Total 6


Agriculture Land 4

Residential Land 2

Grand Total 6


Title Holder 6

Grand Total 6



Irrigated 4

Grand Total 4



5 1% - 2% 1

3 4% - 5% 1

3 ≤1% 1

15 1% - 2% 1

Total 4



NA NA NA

Total 0

District: Durg/ Block: Saja/ Road Name: Saja Kotwa Road to Matra Road/ Length of Road: 1.550km



BPL 1

BPL + E 2

E 2

NO VULNERABILITY 4

Grand Total 9


Agriculture Land 9

Grand Total 9


Title Holder 9

Grand Total 9



Irrigated 9

Grand Total 9



3 ≤1% 1

4 ≤1% 1

2 ≤1% 2

9 ≤1% 1

10 ≤1% 2

5 ≤1% 1

6.5 ≤1% 1

Total 9



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))



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)




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)




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

Documents

IND: Rural Connectivity Investment Program · Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Assam. The Program forms part of the nationally popular program called Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana