Indira Awas Yojana (IAY)ecostatjk.nic.in/ecosurvey/Evaluation study on IAY(2012...Government of Jammu & Kashmir Evaluation Report On Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) In J & K State (Sample

Government of Jammu & Kashmir

Evaluation Report On

Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) In J & K State

(Sample Districts Ganderbal and Udhampur)

Reference Period (2012-13 to 2014-15)

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, J&K Planning, Development & Monitoring Department

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total

1415

853

608

2876

1150

250 193

1593

265

603 415

1283

Target Achiement Spill over Cases

Physical achievement profile under IAY in sample district Ganderbal during the reference

period(2012-13 to 2014-15)

Ph

ysic

al Targ

ets

/A

ch

ievem

en

ts (in

No,s

)

Years

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total

701

1053

1705

3459

626

43

470

1139

75

1010

1235

2320

Target Achevement Spill over Cases

Physical achievement profile under IAY in sample district Udhampur during the reference period (2012-13 to 2014-15)

Years

Ph

ysic

al Targ

ets

/A

ch

ievem

en

ts (in

No,s

)

Contents

Chapter No Description of Chapter Page Nos

Highlights 1-8

I Introduction 9-14

II Physical & Financial Achievements 15-28

III Field Findings 29-50

IV Response of Implementing Department

51-52

V Summary of Main Findings 53-60

VI Suggestions offered 61-62

Annexure A List of Sample Beneficiaries who have not been covered as on

the date of Survey

63

Annexure B List of Sample Beneficiaries who reported that they were forced to pay bribe to officials for getting financial assistance under the scheme received assistance.

64

Annexure C List of Beneficiaries who had constructed Katcha Type of

Houses after receiving financial assistance under Scheme

65

Annexure D Photographs of some Sample

Houses constructed under IAY in Sample Districts of Ganderbal &

Udhampur

66-72

Evaluation Report on Indira Awas Yojana(2012-15)

Directorate of Economics & Statistics, J&K 1

Highlights of the Study

1) Indira Awas Yojana(IAY), a flagship programme of the Ministry of Rural

Development, was launched primarily to help the construction of

dwelling units for members of SC/STs, freed bonded labourers and also

non- SC/ST rural poor living below the poverty line.

2) The programme is implemented as Centrally Sponsored Scheme on cost

sharing basis between Centre and State. During the reference period of

the study (2012-13 to 2014-15), the Govt. was providing a lump sum

financial assistance of Rs.75,000/- per unit for construction of new

house and Rs.15,000/- for upgradation of dilapidated Kutcha house in

hilly states and difficult areas including J&K.

3) The scheme of IAY has been re-structured into Pradhan Mantri Awaas

Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) w.e.f. 1st April, 2016 by the Govt of India with

the commitment to provide “Housing for All” by 2022. As per revised

guidelines, the unit assistance has been enhanced from Rs.75,000 to

Rs.1.30 lakhs in hilly states, difficult areas and Integrated Action Plan

(IAP) districts.

4) Since the scheme revision took place after the reference period of the

study(2012-13 to 2014-15), therefore, the evaluation study verified the

norms prevailing during that period only.

5) The Allocations and Expenditure figures under the Scheme at the State

level during the reference period (2012-13 to 2014-15) reveals that the

programme has remained less focused by the planners and also by the

implementing agencies.

6) Normally, the progressive programmes claim more and more allocations

year after year but here the case is otherwise as the allocations under

the Scheme were slashed down year after year.

7) Starting with the allocation of Rs.8994.10 lacs in the 1st year (2012-13)

of the reference period, the allocation under the Scheme were slashed

down by 6% to Rs.8452.06 lacs in the 2nd year (2013-14). In the 3rd

year of reference period i.e. 2014-15, the allocation was again slashed

down by 16% to Rs.7097.12 lacs.

8) On the expenditure side, the story is not different, as expenditure

percentage fell down year after year. The expenditure was 87% during

2012-13 and the same also got down by 14 percentage points to just 73%

in 2013-14. In the last year of the reference period i.e. 2014-15, the



expenditure utilization percentage also gone further down to just 66% of

the allocations.

9) The overall allocation for the reference period 2012-13 to 2014-15 was

of the order of Rs.24543.28 lakhs of which the expenditure was of the

magnitude of Rs.18688.10 lakhs, registering an expenditure of 76% for

the State.

10) On the physical front, during the reference period, 41093 IAY houses

were constructed/upgraded against the target of 74238 at the State

level. Thus the achievement on physical front was only 55% against the

financial achievement of 76%. During the first year of reference period

i.e. 2012-13, the physical achievement viz-a-viz targets was 72% which

got down to 49% in the 2nd year and further to just 40% in the 3rd year

of the reference period. This State of affairs shows that the programme

performance is decreasing year after year. The District level

achievements were reflective of the same situation as witnessed at the

State level.

11) At the Sample District level, the situation is no different. The availability

of funds in Sample District Udhampur has declined from Rs.279.80 lacs

in 2012-13 to Rs.57.88 lacs in 2014-15, registering a drop of 79%. In

Sample District Ganderbal, though the allocation has remained almost

constant during the three years of reference period but utilization has

constantly declined with every passing year.

12) The physical performance at Sample District level has also remained

dismal. Achievement of just 43% of the physical targets and mounting

figure of spill over cases over the three years of reference period from

2012-13 to 2014-15 in both the Sample Districts clearly reveal the

unrealistic fixation of targets by the implementing department without

taking into account the available resources, manpower, the capacity to

utilize and other related inputs.

13) There has been dismal physical achievement of cases targeted in both

the sample districts. Ganderbal district has been able to achieve only

55% of cases targeted during the reference period 2012-13 to 2014-15

where as Udhampur District has fallen even below and covered just 33%

cases targeted.

14) It is necessary to ensure linkage between the targets and financial

resources made available for the programme so that the targets are

physically achievable within the resources. This has to be done

realistically by the executing department. Fixation of targets for the

programme and then its dis-aggregation on the basis of geographical

area–District/project, is in fact the starting point for launching a



particular programme. The un-realistic fixation of targets among other

things, makes it difficult for the monitoring agencies to watch

performances in comparison to the targets and thus could mislead in

identifying shortfalls and problem areas. So fixation of targets for the

programme completely compatible with the resources, manpower and

other inputs, is much desirable in the programme implementation.

15) In order to strike a comparison between the official claims of the

Implementing Department regarding achievements made under IAY and

what actually existed on the ground and also to ascertain the impact

and extent of success of the scheme, a field enquiry was launched in

sample Districts of Ganderbal and Udhampur.

16) In the instant Evaluation Study, a field study was launched in 47

sample panchayats of the two Districts, covering 40 villages as per the

stipulated sample size and procedure. 333 beneficiaries had been

selected for coverage under the scheme in the sample villages of twin

Districts of Udhampur and Ganderbal during the reference period

(2012-13 to 2014-15). However, 322 beneficiaries had actually been

covered and were selected as sample. In addition to this, non-

beneficiaries in the surveyed villages, were also contacted to ascertain

the causes of their non-coverage under the scheme. In the sample

villages, a sizeable number of Knowledgeable persons, was also

contacted to ascertain their views on the successes/failures of the

scheme together with the adherence of norms by the Implementing

Department. The views expressed by all of them about the scheme, are

given in the ensuing paras.

17) Out of 333 beneficiaries claimed covered in Sample villages of two

Sample Districts Ganderbal and Udhampur, 322 beneficiaries had

actually been covered under the scheme by the implementing

department. 11 beneficiaries in sample villages of Udhampur District

had not been disbursed any amount of assistance under the scheme as

on the date of survey. During the field verification, all the 322 selected

Sample beneficiaries who had been actually covered were located and

contacted in the field. The response percentage achieved thus is 100%.

18) During the field verification, it was found that 310 (96%) sample

beneficiaries had constructed the huts/houses fully with roof. While as

the construction of houses was still incomplete in respect of 12 (4%)

Sample beneficiaries.

19) The reasons responsible reported for incompletion of houses by most of

sample beneficiaries 4(34%) was the non-release/delayed release of

amount of assistance by the Implementing Department. It is in place to

mention here that the department implementing the scheme had not



been able to cover even a single beneficiary in the sample District

Udhampur during 2014-15. 5(42%) reported that non-availability of

material/workers was the reason for incompletion of their houses.

1(8%) reported that the assistance proved inadequate to complete the

construction of his house. 2(17%) had migrated to other places as such

leaving the construction incomplete.

20) The guidelines that funds under the scheme should be transferred to

beneficiaries accounts and not in cash, has been followed fully as no

sample beneficiary reported to have been paid in cash. All the 322(100%)

sample beneficiaries who were provided financial assistance under the

scheme, reported that they were given cheques which they deposited in

the bank and the money was credited into their account.

21) Had the selection and sanctioning process under the scheme been fair,

an enquiry from the Sample beneficiaries was conducted. Majority of

the Sample beneficiaries 313(97%) reported that the selection and

sanctioning process under the scheme was fair. However, 3%(9) sample

beneficiaries from Ganderbal District reported that it was not fair as they

were forced to pay bribe to officials for getting financial assistance under

the scheme.

22) The field enquiry revealed that due coverage has been given to the

targeted group of population by the implementing department while

selecting beneficiaries for coverage under the scheme. Out of total of

322 sample beneficiaries, 156(49%) have been selected from SC/ST

category. 107(33%) from OBC category and 59(18%) from others falling

Below Poverty Line.

23) During the field enquiry, all the Sample beneficiaries 322 (100%) were

found belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) and were on the rolls of BPL

lists maintained by the Department. The guideline in this regard has

been fully followed.

24) Regarding sanitary situation and availability position of other necessary

facilities to the houses constructed under IAY by Sample beneficiaries,

it was observed that majority of the houses constructed by the Sample

beneficiaries under IAY scheme do not have a latrine facility. Only

52(17%) of sample beneficiaries had constructed sanitary latrines.

Smokeless chullas have not been installed by almost all. As regards other

facilities, 88% reported to have been provided electricity and 71%

reported providing of water supply. When enquired as to why they have

not constructed sanitary latrine/Soakage pit, the Sample beneficiaries

reported that they had not enough money to construct soakage pit. The

absence of drainage system in their areas was the other reason reported

for non construction of sanitary latrines by the sample beneficiaries.



25) The facilities like toilet, smokeless chullas, electricity, water supply,

connectivity etc. as per the guidelines of the scheme were to be provided

to the IAY beneficiaries by the State by putting in place a robust system

of support services. Convergence of other State/Central Programmes for

providing these facilities was the responsibility of the State Govt. as per

the guidelines of the Scheme. The Implementing Department of the

Scheme, however, has taken this part of the guidelines casually and, as

such, not put in place a support services system as envisaged under the

Scheme.

26) As per guidelines governing the scheme, IAY house has to be pucca in

the sense that it should be able to withstand normal wear and tear due

to usage and natural forces including climatic conditions, with

reasonable maintenance for at least 30 years. In contravention to these

scheme guidelines, majority of the sample beneficiaries 203(65%) have

constructed semi-pucca type of houses and most astonishingly 15(5%)

have constructed katcha type of houses. Construction of katcha type of

house after availing assistance under IAY is a brazen violation of the

guidelines. How come the field functionaries of department implementing

the scheme allowed such violations is a matter of concern. It reveals lack

of monitoring/supervision over the scheme by the department concerned.

27) The guideline that houses under IAY should have a built-up area of at

least 20 square meters, was observed to have been followed by the

majority of the Sample beneficiaries. 92% of the sample beneficiaries

have constructed the houses which had a built-up area of 20 square

meters or more. Only 24 (8%) Sample beneficiaries had the houses which

have a built-up area of less than 20 square meters. Dereliction of

guidelines/directions by the Sample beneficiaries, demands strict

supervision of the scheme.

28) On completion of an IAY dwelling unit, the scheme guidelines

prescribes that a display board/nameplate indicating the IAY logo, year

of construction, name of beneficiary etc. should be fixed on each

house. This guideline too was observed not to have been followed as

display board on only 8(3%) completed houses were found fixed by the

evaluation teams during the course of field verification. Majority of

houses 302(97%) constructed under IAY in the Sample Districts had no

display boards fixed on them. Why display boards were not fixed on the

completed houses by the Implementing Department if the funds were

available for this, demands to be looked into.

29) Technical guidance was reported to have been provided by 218(67%)

sample beneficiaries. Details on the housing designs and construction



technologies available and their costs for labour and materials were

reported to have been provided by these Sample beneficiaries.

30) Supervision over the construction of house by the officers/officials of

the Implementing Department, was reported by 322(100%) sample

beneficiaries. Scheme guidelines prescribes that supervision at

Foundation laying and lintel should be conducted at least at these two

stages. The feedback from sample beneficiaries reveal that supervision

at these two stages was not cent percent. Lack of supervision by the

field functionaries of the Implementing Department has resulted in

incomplete construction of houses by a sizable portion of the Sample

beneficiaries. In order to ensure that all the assisted beneficiaries

construct the houses, supervision over the construction of houses

should be intensified.

31) The Satisfaction level of the Sample beneficiaries with regard to

different parameters of the scheme was elicited. Almost all the Sample

beneficiaries(99%) were not satisfied with the amount of assistance.

Amount of assistance of Rs.75000/- as per their viewpoint is too low and

difficult to manage. Keeping the market rates of construction material and

labour in view, all the beneficiaries pleaded for enhancement in the

financial assistance. The sample beneficiaries, however, expressed

satisfaction with regard to other parameters of the scheme like mode of

payment, timely payment, selection procedure and technical guidance.

32) All the Sample beneficiaries reported that even after putting-in their

own saving and other resources in addition to amount of assistance

provided under the scheme, they are not able to manage the

construction of house as envisaged under the scheme. They therefore

pleaded that the amount of assistance should be enhanced to somewhere

around Rs.1.50 lakhs. Keeping the market rates of construction

material/labour in view, the beneficiaries demand on this account is

justified and therefore requires consideration by the Govt.

Enhancement in the amount of assistance will enable the beneficiaries

to construct the house as per the stipulations of the scheme without

making too many compromises.

33) After constructing the house under the scheme, majority (77% ) of the

Sample beneficiaries reported feeling comfortable now in their new

houses. They were fully satisfied and were reportedly feeling socially

secure. Only a small portion (4%) of the sample beneficiaries reported,

were feeling still uncomfortable due to multiple reasons like insufficient

space, lack of inner furnishing, non-availability of other facilities like

latrine/water/electricity etc.



34) In order to gather impression about the scheme from those who, though

belonging to targeted group i.e. SC/ST/BPL category but were not

covered under the scheme, a field enquiry in the Sample villages as per

stipulations of the study design was conducted and non-beneficiaries

were also covered.

35) The response of the non-beneficiaries reveals that majority (84%) of

them had BPL ration card and were eligible for coverage under the

Scheme. Almost all (97%) were desirous to get covered under the scheme.

285 (85%) out of them have already applied for coverage under the

Scheme but had not been covered till date.

36) Inefficiency of the Implementing Department to provide coverage under

the Scheme to the eligible , desirous and applying non-beneficiaries, was

quoted as reason by majority (64%) of the non-beneficiaries. Where as

36% reported that they lack influence/approach to get covered under the

scheme.

37) The non-beneficiaries had a very good impression about the Scheme and

100% of them regarded the Scheme beneficial and almost all of them

(97%) were willing to get covered under the scheme. Keeping the high

hopes of the non-beneficiaries in view, the Department implementing the

Scheme should gear-up its machinery and cover all of them in a planned

manner.

38) A good number of knowledgeable persons (200) from the Sample villages

was selected for eliciting their opinion about the scheme. 100% of the

KP’s considered the scheme beneficial and voted for its continuance.

They furthermore confirmed the fact that only eligible persons were

getting benefit under the scheme in their villages. However, some of

them were not satisfied with amount of assistance provided under the

scheme. They reported that it is not enough and therefore suggested

for its enhancement. Enhancement in the amount assistance is a

demand put forth by all the stakeholders viz; beneficiaries, non-

beneficiaries and knowledgeable persons and therefore needs to be

considered by the Government.





Chapter - I

Introduction

The survival of the human being largely depends on fulfillment of

basic needs. So far as the basic necessities of a person are concerned, he

needs food, clothes and shelter to live in. Housing is one of the basic

requirements for survival as well as for a decent life. For a normal citizen,

owning a house provides significant socio-economic security and social

status in society. For a shelter less person, a house brings about a profound

social change in his existence endowing him with an identity, thus

integrating him with his immediate social milieu. In India, a substantial

proportion of the households either do not own house or have inadequate

housing. As the population of the country is increasing rapidly, the number

of houseless families is increasing at an alarming rate.

Public Housing Programmme in the country started with the

rehabilitation of refugees immediately after independence. In 1957, as a part

of the community development movement (CDM) a village housing

programme was introduce providing loans to individuals and cooperatives

up to Rs. 5000 per unit. Another scheme introduced in the 4th plan called

home sites – cum construction assistance scheme (HSCHS) was also

transferred to the State sector from 1974-75. The Indira Awas Yojana (IAY)

is the biggest and most comprehensive rural housing programme ever taken

up in the country. It has its origin in the wage employment programmes of

the National Rural Employment Programmes (NREP) which began in 1980,

and the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) which

was started in 1983, as construction of house was permitted under these

programmes, however, there were no common norms. It was in June 1985

that Indira Awas Yojana was launched as a sub scheme of RLEGP by

earmarking a part of the fund for SCs/STs and freed bounded labourers.

With effect from January 1996 this scheme was made an independent

scheme and is now a flagship programme of the ministry of Rural

Development as part of the large strategy of rural poverty eradication.

The constitution of India places rural housing in the domain of State

Governments and the Panchayati Raj Institutions. Central Govt. has been

implementing IAY as part of the enabling approach to shelter for all, taking

cognizance of the fact that rural housing is one of the major anti-poverty

measures for the marginalized. The house is recognized not merely as a

shelter and a dwelling place but also an asset which supports livelihood,

symbolizes social position and is also a cultural expression. A good home

would be in harmony with the natural environment protecting the



household from extreme weather conditions, has the required connectivity

for mobility and facilities for economic activity.

The main objective of the scheme is to provide a financial aid to the

members of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes, freed bonded labourers and

also to other non scheduled castes/scheduled tribes rural poor below the

poverty line for the construction of their dwelling units by providing them a

lump sum amount as financial assistance.

The IAY scheme is being implemented in all the Districts of Jammu &

Kashmir State through Rural Development Department, J&K on 75:25 cost

sharing basis between centre and State respectively since January, 1996.

During the reference period of the study (2012-13 to 2014-15), the Govt.

was providing a lump sum financial assistance of Rs.75,000/- per unit for

construction of new house and Rs.15,000/- for upgradation of dilapidated

Kutcha house.

However, the scheme of IAY has been re-structured into Pradhan

Mantri Awaas Yojana Gramin (PMAY-G) w.e.f. 1st April, 2016 by the Govt of

India with the commitment to provide “Housing for All” by 2022. As per

revised guidelines, the unit assistance has been enhanced from Rs.70,000 to

Rs.1.20 lakh in plains and from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1.30 lakhs in hilly states,

difficult areas and IAP districts. The cost of unit (house) assistance is to be

shared between central and state governments in the ratio 60:40 in plain

areas and 90:10 for north-eastern and hilly states.

Since the scheme revision took place after the reference period of the

study(2012-13 to 2014-15), therefore, the evaluation study verified the

norms prevailing that period only.

Salient features of the scheme

Indira Awaas Yojana is essentially a public housing scheme for the

houseless poor families and those living in dilapidated and kutcha houses

with a component for providing house sites to the landless poor as well. The

scheme is designed to enable Below Poverty Line (BPL) households identified

by the community through Gram Sabah’s following criteria suggested for

such identification from time to time, to build their houses or get house sites

with financial and technical assistance from the Government.

Components of the scheme:- IAY has the following components:

a) Assistance for construction of a new house:

Assistance for construction of a new house is provided to BPL families

under the scheme. A new house would mean a house constructed with a

minimum built up area of at least 20 sq. mts. excluding the toilet.



b) Upgradation of kutcha or dilapidated houses:

Assistance for upgradation of Kutcha house is also provided to BPL

families under the Scheme. A kutcha house is one in which walls and/or

roof is made of material, such as un-burnt bricks, bamboos, mud, grass,

reeds, thatch, loosely pa cked stones, etc which are not durable due to

inappropriate application of techniques and are not able to withstand

normal wear and tear. A dilapidated house means a pucca house rendered

unserviceable through wear and tear or damaged by any other cause.

c) Provision of house sites:

House sites are also provided under the scheme for the landless poor

who have no land to build a house on. Assistance as per Schedule would be

provided for the purpose of providing house sites. For the house sites

component, the District Collector identifies public lands available in the

habitations and allot them to the eligible landless.

Need for Evaluation

In order to assess the effectiveness of the scheme, the Stale Level

Evaluation Committee (SLEC) in its 6th meeting held at Jammu on 24th of

February 2015, decided to conduct evaluation study on Indira Awas Yojana

(IAY) at the State level through the Directorate of Economics and Statistics

during the year 2015-16. The study, was accordingly, accomplished with the

following terms of reference(TOR):-

Objectives of the Study:-

The objectives of the study were:-

1) To assess the extent to which the objectives of the scheme have been

achieved;

2) To assess whether the identification of beneficiaries was proper and in

accordance with the guidelines of the scheme;

3) To ascertain whether the funds earmarked under the scheme were

utilized for the specific purpose;

4) To assess the extent to which the administrative, technical and

financial discipline was followed in the implementation of the scheme;

5) To assess the impact of the scheme on the quality of life of the

beneficiaries;

6) To see whether the houses under the scheme were actually

constructed on the ground;

7) To ascertain problems/bottlenecks being faced in the implementation

of the scheme, reasons thereof and measures to address them

successfully.



Reference Period:

The reference period of the study was 2012-13 to 2014-15.

Sample Size & Selection Procedure:

Multistage sampling procedure was followed in the selection of

Sample. At the 1st stage, one District from each division of the State was

selected as Sample following simple random selection procedure. The

Districts selected as Sample following simple random selection procedure.

The Districts selected as Sample thus were Ganderbal from Kashmir division

and Udhampur from Jammu division. At the 2nd stage, two blocks one with

maximum financial coverage and another with minimum financial coverage

was selected. At the 3rd stage, 20% villages of each Sample block subject to

a minimum of 10 villages were selected on random basis for detailed field

enquiry. In the selected Sample village, all the IAY beneficiaries were

covered. Besides this, 10 eligible non-beneficiaries (subject to availability)

from each Sample village were also questioned with regard to

their non-coverage under the scheme. This apart, 5 knowledgeable

persons of each Sample selected village were interviewed so as to have their

opinion about worthiness of the implementation of the scheme in their

village. On the basis of above laid down sampling procedure, District

Ganderbal from Kashmir division and District Udhampur from Jammu

division deserved selection as Sample Districts for detailed field enquiry and

were, accordingly selected.

Field Operations:

The collection of information from the selected Districts as per devised

formats was done by concerned District Statistics and Evaluation Officer

(DSEO). On the basis of collected information Sample was drawn as per the

stipulated sampling procedure. The field operations were conducted by the

DSEO Offices and for that purpose, the Statistical Staff placed in the Block

Development Offices of the District remained at their disposal.

Supervision:

The Regional Joint Directors in their respective Districts carried-out

intensive supervision of the field operations. They were required to prepare

observatory/ supervisory notes on the functioning of the scheme in the

Sample area which subsequently were received by the Directorate of

Economics and Statistics and were used as an authentic source of

information for drafting the final report on the study.

Scrutiny and Tabulation:

Scrutiny of schedules was done by a committee of experts constituted

by DSEO of concerned District under the supervision of Assistant Director.



In case discrepancies were noticed, rectifications were done and if necessary

reference back to the field was also done to ensure that the data contained

in the schedules is free from any errors whatsoever. The data was then

displayed on master sheets and condensed as per the requirements of

tabulation plan which was devised by the Directorate of Economics and

Statistics and provided in advance to the concerned DSEO offices.

Report Writing:

The report on the Study was authored at the Directorate level keeping

intact the Sample block/District level information.

Analytical Tools:

All appropriate Statistical and Mathematical tools and techniques

were applied in analyzing data in order to make phenomenon easy to

understand and to enhance the presentation of the report. These included

percentages, averages, ratios, bar charts, pie-diagrams, trend curves etc.

Instruments of Investigation:

For obtaining official data from the implementing Department, seven

formats were devised. For conducting field operations, three different

schedules; Beneficiary Schedule, Non-beneficiary Schedule and

Knowledgeable Person Schedule were devised. All formats and schedules are

annexed with the final report for facilitating future studied on the same and

similar subjects and for other uses by different stakeholders.

Limitations:

The guidelines of the scheme provide that allocation of funds to

Districts, blocks and wherever the States so desire, to the village panchayats

would be on the basis of houseless people from among the BPL population

for each category i.e. SC,ST, minorities and others. To examine whether the

funds allocated to the Districts was as per the guidelines of the scheme,

information on BPL houseless people in respect of all Districts was

requested from the Directors of Rural Development Department Jammu/

Kashmir. However, despite rigorous follow-up in the form of chain of

reminders the requisite information was not furnished by both of them. A

considerable time was lost for getting this piece of information. Evaluation,

as everyone knows, is a time-bound job and cannot afford wastage of

precious time. Completion of evaluation study beyond its scheduled time

defeats the very purpose for which this whole exercise is carried out.

Therefore, in the absence of information on District wise houseless people,

funds allocation to Districts could not be analyzed whether they were as per

guidelines of the scheme or not.



Secondly, the figures on financial/physical targets/achievements for

the reference years 2012-13 to 2014-15 furnished by the District Rural

Development Agencies of the two Sample Districts viz; Ganderbal and

Udhampur did not match with the figures on financial/physical

achievements furnished by Director Rural Development Department

Kashmir/Jammu in respect of these two Sample Districts. This reveals the

lack of coordination between the divisional level and District level

implementing authorities. The matter regarding this was taken up the

concerned District Rural Development Agencies but no worthwhile reply was

furnished by them. In order avoid contradiction between the State level and

District level figures, it was felt worthwhile to adopt the figures of only one

agency viz. Director Rural Development Department, Jammu/Kashmir for

analysis. However, while comparing the physical achievements of Sample

Districts viz. Ganderbal and Udhampur as reported concerned Directors of

Rural Development Department and Rural Development Agencies, it was

observed that the physical achievements were reported exaggerated by

concerned Directors of Rural Development. Since the Sample of beneficiaries

was to be drawn from the actual physical achievements, therefore the

physical achievements reported by concerned District Rural Development

Agencies were taken into consideration for analysis at Sample District level.



Chapter – II

State Profile of IAY Scheme:

Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) is the biggest and most comprehensive rural

housing programme ever taken up in the country. It has its origin in the

wage employment programmes of National Rural Employment Programme

(NREP), which began in 1980, and the Rural Landless Employment

Guarantee Programme (RLEGP), which was started in 1983. It was in June

1985 that Indira Awas Yojana was launched as a sub–scheme of RLEGP by

earmarking a part of the fund for construction of houses for SC/STs and

freed bonded laborers. The scheme was made independent with effect from

1st January, 1996. It is now a flagship programme of the Ministry of Rural

Development as a part of the larger strategy of rural poverty eradication, in

order to reduce the rigorous of poverty and to provide the dignity of an

address to the poor households to enable them, among other things, to

access different rural development programmes.

The objective of Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) is primarily to help

construction of dwelling units for members of SC/STs, freed bonded

laborers and also non- SC/ST rural poor below the poverty line.

The evaluation process is the input and output analysis of the

scheme and naturally before analyzing the outputs in terms of realization of

objectives, the assessment of inputs of the scheme has to be made. The

basic input of IAY scheme is the financial allocations earmarked for it and,

of course, the efforts of the implementing Department and the co-operation

of all other stakeholders. The instant evaluation study is the State level

study and thus before analyzing the ground level situation of the scheme

implementation in the Sample Districts, the State profile of the work done

needs to be reflected. The scheme is implemented in all the Districts of the

State. As per the scheme guidelines, the allocations to the Districts are to be

made on the basis of houseless people from among the BPL population for

each category i.e., SC, ST, minorities and others on the basis of socio-

economic caste census (SECC). In J&K State the District level allocations

and expenditure in respect of IAY scheme for the reference period 2012-13

to 2014-15 is reflected is the following table.



Table: 1

District wise Allocations and Expenditure during Reference Period.

S.

no

District

Financial Achievements under IAY Scheme (Rs.in lacs)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total Alloca-

tion

%age

Exp

%

age Allocation Exp. Allocation Exp Allocation Exp Allocation Exp.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Anantnag 1275.82 1120.69 1270.89 779.44 777.90 636.86 3324.61 2536.99 13.55 76

2 Bandipora 84.04 83.86 184.13 136.95 70.56 56.35 338.73 277.16 1.38 82

3 Baramulla 1729.73 1343.35 1133.01 556.83 1084.40 295.40 3947.14 2195.58 16.09 56

4 Budgam 725.99 633.00 618.32 408.25 561.38 379.92 1905.69 1421.17 7.77 75

5 Ganderbal 326.17 321.47 320.46 219.43 319.63 124.38 966.26 665.28 3.94 69

6 Kargil 148.28 145.49 323.91 168.31 205.79 137.58 677.98 451.38 2.77 67

7 Kulgam 499.80 470.82 204.67 198.86 266.70 88.81 971.17 758.49 3.96 78

8 Kupwara 904.56 809.70 580.31 450.45 998.08 691.37 2482.95 1951.52 10.11 79

9 Leh 153.66 152.63 219.73 192.49 141.50 73.79 514.89 418.91 2.09 81

10 Pulwama 581.55 437.23 582.81 466.99 442.89 242.11 1607.25 1146.33 6.55 71

11 Shopian 234.00 186.12 300.78 239.64 414.71 193.29 949.49 619.05 3.86 65

12 Srinagar 14.97 12.33 18.70 15.00 15.05 11.30 48.72 38.63 0.19 79

Total 6678.57 5716.69 5757.72 3832.64 5298.59 2931.16 17734.88 12480.49 72.26 70

%age Kashmir - 86% - 67% - 55% - 70% - -

Table continued …..



S.

no

District

Financial Achievements under IAY Scheme (Rs.in lacs)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total Alloca

- tion

%age

Exp%

age Allocation Exp. Allocation Exp Allocation Exp Allocation Exp.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Jammu 799.06 622.28 638.97 700.99 526.06 393.12 1964.09 1716.39 8.00 87

2 Samba 123.30 114.88 130.76 102.68 20.78 34.15 274.84 251.71 1.12 92

3 Udhampur 274.89 269.28 362.70 350.31 41.24 38.12 678.83 657.71 2.77 97

4 Kathua 373.56 351.98 292.03 260.92 377.35 154.23 1042.94 767.13 4.24 74

5 Reasi 76.96 82.94 189.32 190.84 114.46 282.07 380.74 555.85 1.56 146

6 Doda 81.06 86.06 135.45 137.71 138.10 91.75 354.61 315.52 1.45 89

7 Kishtwar 85.94 88.96 182.45 182.45 113.65 243.58 382.04 514.99 1.56 134

8 Poonch 214.73 213.37 290.16 208.35 251.18 87.27 756.07 508.99 3.08 67

9 Rajouri 193.63 195.49 349.67 47.22 47.78 284.76 591.08 527.47 2.40 89

10 Ramban 92.40 94.80 122.83 126.18 167.93 170.87 383.16 391.85 1.56 102

Total Jammu

division 2315.53 2120.04 2694.34 2307.65 1798.53 1779.92 6808.40 6207.61 27.74 91

% Jammu

Division - 92% - 86% - 99% - 91% - -

Grand total

(J&K State) 8994.10 7836.73 8452.06 6140.29 7097.12 4711.08 24543.28

18688.1

0 - 76

%age Exp - 87% - 73% - 66% - 76% - -



Housing is a fundamental human need; it is a basic requirement for

human survival as well as for a decent life. To have a comfortable home is

the fulfillment of a deep and long cherished wish. It is a major factor in

moulding the life and behavior of individuals and contributes significantly to

formation of character for over all development of the family. The importance

which the governments give to this all important programme could very well

be judged from the financial resources which are made available for this

programme in the annual plans.

During the first year of the reference period i.e., 2012-13, an amount

of Rs.8994.10 lakhs were allocated for 22 Districts of the State out of which

an amount of Rs.7836.73 lakhs was utilized registering an expenditure of

87%. During the next year 2013-14, the allocation was of the order of

Rs.8452.06 lakhs and expenditure booked was Rs.6140.29 lakhs at

utilization %age of just 73. Thus the allocation during 2013-14 was less by

Rs.542.04 lakhs as compared to the previous year.

Normally the progressive programmes claim more and more allocations

year after year but here the case is otherwise as the allocations were slashed

down by more than 6%. Again the expenditure was 87% during 2012-13 and

the same also got down by 14 percentage points to just 73%. In the last year

of the reference period i.e. 2014-15, the allocation fixed was Rs.7097.12

lakhs and the expenditure was only of the magnitude of Rs.4711.08 lakhs

giving an expenditure of just 66%. Here again the allocation were slashed

down by 16% as compared to the year 2013-14 and by 21% when compared

to the allocation figures of 2012-13. The utilization during the year has also

gone further down to just 66% of the allocations. Thus from these allocations

and expenditure figures it transpires that the programme has remained less

focused by the planners and also by the implementing agencies. The overall

allocation for the reference period 2012-13 to 2014-15 was of the order of

Rs.24543.28 lakhs of which the expenditure was of the magnitude of

Rs.18688.10 lakhs registering an expenditure of 76% for the State.

Among the Districts, the lowest utilization of allocated financial

resources was reported from District Baramulla to the extent of 56%

followed by District Shopian and Kargil attaining utilization percentage of 65

and 67 respectively. The highest utilization of allocation was reported from

District Reasi to the extent of 146% followed by District Kishtwar and

Ramban utilizing 134% and 102% allocations respectively. In other words

these Districts, all from Jammu division have created liabilities on account of

IAY programme. This scenario need explanation by the implementing

Department as to how these District implementing offices were allowed to go

beyond the allocated financial resources.



0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

16.09%

13.55%

10.11%

8. 00% 7.77%

6.55%

4.24%

3.96% 3.94% 3.86%

3.08% 2.77%

2.77%

2.40% 2.09%

1.56% 1.56% 1.56% 1.45% 1.38% 1.12%

0.19%

Ranking of districts as per Percentage Allocation of Funds under IAY Scheme in J&K State



The guidelines of the scheme provide that allocation of funds to

Districts, blocks and wherever the States so desire, to the village panchayats

would be on the basis of houseless people from among the BPL population

for each category i.e. SC, ST, minorities and others. However, in the absence

of information on houseless BPL people living in various Districts of the

State, the allocation of funds to them could not therefore be examined by

this Evaluation Agency for being as per guidelines or not.

However, during the reference period from 2012-13 to 2014-15

District Baramulla was allocated the maximum funds to the extent of

16.09% followed by Anantnag of the magnitude of 13.55% and Kupwara

claiming 10.11% funds. The minimum allocation was provided to Srinagar

followed by Samba and Bandipora to the extent of 0.19%, 1.12% and 1.38%

respectively of the total allocations at the State level. The two Sample

Districts of Ganderbal and Udhampur have claimed 3.94% and 2.77% of the

total allocations respectively. So far as Regional allocation is concerned, the

Kashmir division including Leh and Kargil was allocated 72.26% funds and

Jammu division to the extent of 27.74% of the total allocations for the State.

Physical Achievements:-

The ultimate end result of IAY scheme is to provide a dwelling unit to

the houseless. The construction is required to be carried-out by the

beneficiary himself/herself. No contractor is allowed to be involved in the

construction of houses under IAY. No type design is mandatory. However, a

Menu of options in respect of use of materials and building technologies as

appropriate locally, may be provided to the beneficiary along with the cost

implications but the choice is left to the beneficiary. The department

implementing the scheme is required to provide technical and managerial

guidance, particularly at foundation laying and lintel level to maintain the

quality of the house. The release of installments is linked to the level of

construction reached. The physical achievements as claimed by the Rural

Development Department are reflected hereunder:- .



Table No-2

Physical Achievements under IAY Scheme during the Reference Period

S.

no District

Year-wise number of Beneficiaries covered under IAY Scheme

%age Ach 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total

Target Ach* Target Ach* Target Ach* Target Ach*

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

1 Anantnag 2929 2698 3481 2239 4016 1234 10426 6171 59%

2 Bandipora 508 205 643 262 803 80 1954 547 28%

3 Baramulla 5813 3470 3142 1823 1344 544 10299 5837 57%

4 Budgam 1448 1447 2209 1282 1323 424 4980 3153 63%

5 Ganderbal 1409 1212 816 790 1134 525 3359 2527 75%

6 Kargil 930 930 479 262 479 317 1888 1509 80%

7 Kulgam 1583 1156 711 368 592 247 2886 1771 61%

8 Kupwara 4584 2652 3109 1336 2924 828 10617 4816 45%

9 Leh 566 330 485 295 531 218 1582 843 53%

10 Pulwama 1550 804 1914 1914 1387 267 4851 2985 62%

11 Shopian 760 377 1073 450 748 511 2581 1338 52%

12 Srinagar 33 33 31 31 31 9 95 73 77%

Total Kashmir div 22113 15314 18093 11052 15312 5204 55518 31570 57%

%age Kashmir - 69% - 61% - 34% - 57% -

Table continued …..



S. no

District

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total % age

Ach. Target Ach* Target Ach* Target Ach* Target Ach*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12

1 Jammu 1768 1122 1834 886 1355 338 4978 2346 47%

2 Samba 263 273 376 34 295 1 870 308 35%

3 Udampur 603 626 1099 43 797 470 2402 1139 47%

4 Kathua 828 886 845 224 635 208 2090 1318 63%

5 Reasi 270 57 600 228 321 514 1203 799 66%

6 Doda 267 197 617 194 389 256 1221 647 53%

7 Kishtiwar 209 229 592 0 334 555 1087 784 72%

8 Poonch 497 523 909 104 434 506 1886 1133 60%

9 Rajouri 714 445 1254 145 709 55 2215 645 29%

10 Ramban 198 194 372 12 198 198 768 404 53%

Total Jammu div. 5617 4552 8498 1870 5467 3101 18720 9523 51%

% Jammu Division - 81% - 22% - 57% - 51% -

Grand total 27730 19866 26591 12922 20779 8305 74238 41093 55%

% age - 72% - 49% - 40% - 55% -



As could be seen from the above depicted tabulated information that

during the reference period, 41093 IAY houses were constructed/upgraded

against the target of 74238 at the State level. Thus the achievement on

physical front was only 55% against the financial achievement of 76%.

During the first year of reference period i.e. 2012-13 the physical

achievement viz-a-viz targets was 72% which got down to 49% in the 2nd

year and further to just 40% in the 3rd year of the reference period. This

State of affairs shows that the programme performance is decreasing

year after year. The District level achievements were reflective of the

same situation as witnessed at the State level. District Kargil has

managed construction/upgradation of 1509 houses against the target of

1888 registering 80% achievement, the highest in the State followed by

District Srinagar, Ganderbal and Kishtwar at 77%, 75% and 72%

respectively. The Districts at the lowest ebb in terms of physical

achievements were Bandipora, Rajouri and Samba attaining 28%, 29% and

35% level respectively. It could be seen from the tabulated information that

Districts with low targets have shown better percentage of the physical

achievements and those with higher targets have achieved low percentage.

Thus the achievements in absolute terms were low.

The Directorate of Rural Development Department Kashmir/Jammu

were approached by this Evaluation Agency and asked to provide reasons for

low financial and physical achievements viz-a-viz targets so as to justify the

same. In response the Director Rural Development Department Kashmir

reported that the late release of 2nd installment of Central share besides

non-availability of M.T in respective treasuries of Baramulla, Ganderbal,

Kargil, Shopian and Pulwama Districts was the reason for low expenditure

in these Districts. No response, however, was furnished by the Director

Rural Development Department, Jammu on this account despite repeated

reminders.

Financial/physical progress of IAY Scheme at the Sample District level:

The analysis of progress made under the Scheme at the Sample

District level both on financial and physical side is equally important before

commensuration of the same with feedback from the field in the ensuing

chapter. The achievements made under the scheme during the reference

period (2012-13 to 2014-15) in the Sample Districts of Ganderbal and

Udhampur are reproduced hereunder for analysis.

Financial allocations and achievements reported there against by the

District Rural Development Agencies of Udhampur and Ganderbal Districts

is given in table hereunder.



Table No- 3

Financial allocations and expenditure under IAY in Sample Districts of

Ganderbal and Udhampur during the reference period (2012-13 to

2014-15)

S.

no

District Year-wise financial allocations and expenditures under IAY (Rs. in lacs)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total

Tota

l

Avail

abil

ity

Exp

Tota

l

Avail

abil

ity

Exp

Tota

l

Avail

abil

ity

Exp

Tota

l

Avail

abil

ity

Exp

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1.

Gan

derb

al

326.1

7

321.4

7

320.4

6

219.4

3

319.6

3

124.3

8

966.2

6

665.2

8

2.

Udh

am

pu

r

274.8

9

269.2

8

362.7

0

350.3

1

41.2

4

38.1

2

678.8

3

657.7

1

Total

601.0

6

590.7

5

683.1

6

569.7

4

360.8

7

162.5

0

1645.0

9

1322.9

9

%age Exp

98%

83.3

%

45%

80.4

2%

Perusal of utilization profile of funds given in the table above clearly

reveal that implementation of the scheme has been very poor in both the

Sample Districts. Though the availability of funds in Ganderbal District has

almost remained constant during the three years of reference period but

utilization has constantly gone down with every passing year. Declining

trend of utilization of funds from Rs.321.47 lacs in 2012-13 to Rs.124.38

lacs in 2014-15 is aptly depicted by the graph given below at “A”. Under

utilization of available funds is highly unfortunate because there are

thousands of houseless BPL families in the Sample District who are eagerly

waiting for coverage under the scheme. Under utilization of available

funds/non realization of targets set every year is big cause of concern for the

successful implementation of the Scheme and therefore needs to be looked

into by the Department concerned for redressal. The Department concerned



should gear up its machinery and fine tune the implementation mechanism of

the scheme so as to improve the utilization capacity of its District Level

Executing Agencies.

Graph “A”

As regards Udhampur District, the situation is not much different.

The availability of funds in the District has declined from Rs.279.79 lacs in

2012-13 to Rs.41.24 lacs in 2014-15 registering a drop of 85%. Slashing

down of allocations by such a huge margin means that the implementation of

the scheme is neither progressive nor steadfast. If the implementing

department could not increase fund availability under the scheme over the

years but at the same time it should not decrease it so much that even half

number of houseless families could be covered. Realistic earmarking of funds

every year with realistic fixation of physical targets is sine-quo-non for

successful implementation of the scheme. Graph given below at “B” clearly

depicts the drastic drop in funds availability over the years in Udhampur

District.

Graph “ B”

326.17 320.46

319.63

321.47 219.43

124.38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Availability Expenditure

Availability and Utilization Profile of Funds under IAY in Sample District

Gandebal during the Reference Period (2012-13 to 2014-15)

Rupees in

Lacs

274.89

362.70

41.24

269.28

350.31

38.12 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Availability Expenditure

Availability and Utilization Profile of Funds under IAY in Sample

District Udhampur during the Reference Period (2012-13 to 2014-15)

Ru

pee

s in

Lac

s



On the physical side, the achievements made against targets set in the

Sample Districts during the reference period (2012-13 to 2014-15) as

reported by the respective District Implementing Agencies is reflected in the

table given below:-

Table No-4

Yearwise Physical Targets and Achievements under IAY in Sample

Districts during the Reference Period (2012-13 to 2014-15)

S.

no

District

Year-wise Physical Targets and Achievements under IAY in Sample

Districts(No’s)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total

Targ

et

Ach

Spil

l over

Cases

Targ

et

Ach

Spil

l over

Cases

Targ

et

Ach

Spil

l over

Cases

Targ

et

Ach

Spil

l over

Cases

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

1.

Gan

derb

al

1415

1150

265

853

250

603

608

193

415

2876

1593

1283

2.

Udh

am

pu

r

701

626

75

1053

43

1010

1705

470

1235

3459

1139

2320

Total

2116

1776

340

1906

293

1613

2313

663

1650

6335

2732

3603

%age Ach

84%

15%

29%

43%

Achievement of just 43% of the physical targets and mounting figure of

spill over cases over the three years of reference period from 2012-13 to 2014-

15 in both the Sample Districts clearly reveal the unrealistic fixation of targets

by the implementing department without taking into account the available

resources, manpower, the capacity to utilize and other related inputs. There

has been dismal physical achievement of cases targeted in both the Sample



Districts. Ganderbal District has been able to achieve only 55% of cases

targeted during the reference period 2012-13 to 2014-15 whileas Udhampur

District has fallen even below and covered just 33% cases targeted. It is

necessary to ensure linkage between the targets and financial resources

made available for the programme so that the targets are physically

achievable within the resources. This has to be done realistically by the

executing department. Fixation of targets for the programme and then its

dis-aggregation on the basis of geographical area–District/project is, in fact

the starting point for launching a particular programme. The un-realistic

fixation of targets among other things makes it difficult for the monitoring

agencies to watch performances in comparison to the targets and thus could

be misled in identifying shortfalls and problem areas. So fixation of targets

for the programme completely compatible with the resources, manpower and

other inputs is much desirable in the programme implementation.

Physical achievement profile in respect of both the Sample Districts for

easy comprehension has been presented in the graphic form as under:-

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total

1415

853

608

2876

1150

250 193

1593

265

603 415

1283

Target Achiement Spill over Cases

Physical achievement profile under IAY in Ganderbal district during the reference period (2012-13 to 2014-15)

Ph

ysic

al Targ

ets

/

Ach

ievem

en

ts (in

No,s

)

Years



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total

701

1053

1705

3459

626

43

470

1139

75

1010 1235

2320

Target Achevement Spill over Cases

Physical achievement profile under IAY in sample district Udhampur during the reference period (2012-13 to 2014-15)

Years

Physic

al T

arg

ets

/A

chie

vem

ents

(in N

o,s

)



Chapter – III

Field Findings

In order to strike a comparison between the official claims of the


what actually existed on the ground and also to ascertain the impact and

extent of success of the scheme, a field enquiry was launched in Sample

Districts of Ganderbal and Udhampur. The essence of Evaluation Studies

are the field findings based on observations, inspections and interactions

with all the stakeholders and of course, the view of knowledgeable persons

as an independent and unbiased source of assessment. Many inferences

and conclusions are evidently and uncontroversialy drawn from the official

information itself both of positive and negative nature, but the actual status

of the scheme is measured mainly on the yardstick of field operations by

applying all possible and appropriate tools and techniques.

In the instant Evaluation Study, a field study was launched in 47

Sample Panchayats of the two Districts covering 40 villages as per the

stipulated Sample size and procedure. All the beneficiaries covered in the

Sample blocks of the two Sample Districts of Udhampur and Ganderbal

during the reference period (2012-13 to 2014-15) were selected as Sample

for detailed field verification.

However, during examination of official data furnished by the ACD

Udhampur, it transpired that beneficiaries slated for coverage under the

scheme in the District during the 2014-15 were not disbursed any single

installment of financial assistance. As per official data furnished, 60

beneficiaries were targeted to be covered in the Sample villages of the

Udhampur District during 2012-13 to 2014-15. However, 11 beneficiaries

targeted for coverage in the Sample villages during the year 2014-15 were

found actually not covered. Not a single installment of assistance was

released in their favour by the implementing department. These beneficiaries

as such were kept out of ambit of field verification. The detailed particulars

of these Sample beneficiaries is given at the end of the report as Annexure -

“A”.

When enquired why no amount of assistance was released in favour of

the beneficiaries slated for coverage under the scheme in the district during

the 2014-15, the department concerned reported that late release of 1st

installment of Central assistance was the reason due to which 1st

installment of assistance could not be released in their favour.



In addition to this, non-beneficiaries in the surveyed villages were also

contacted to ascertain the causes of their non-coverage under the scheme,

besides arriving at a simple estimation of deserving but uncovered cases

under IAY. In the Sample villages, a sizeable number of Knowledgeable

persons was also contacted to ascertain their views on the success/failures

of the scheme together with the adherence of norms by the Implementing

Department. The ultimate Sample which was finally contacted on the basis

of which inferences and conclusions were drawn with reference to the

objectives of the study is reflected below:-

Table No – 5

Sample Selected

S

.

n

o

Sampl

e

Distri

ct

Num

ber

of

CD

Bloc

ks

in

the

Dist

rict

Num

ber

of

CD

Bloc

ks

selec

ted

as

Sam

ple

Number of

Panchayats/

villages in

the Sample

Blocks

Number

selected as

Sample

Number of beneficiaries

covered under IAY in the

Sample Villages

Panch

ayats

Villa

ges

Panch

ayats

Villa

ges

Benefic

iaries

targete

d for

coverag

e

Benefic

iaries

actually

covered

Benefic

iaries

Selecte

d as

Sample

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

1

.

Gande

rbal

7 2 56 68 27 20 273 273 273

2

.

Udha

mpur

7 2 66 138 20 20 60 49 49

Total 14 4 122 206 47 40 333 322 322

A comprehensive field survey was conducted in the selected Sample

villages of the two Districts to contact the Sample beneficiaries and elicit

their opinion about different parameters of the scheme. The beneficiaries

contacted and response percentage achieved is reflected in the table given

below:-

Table No -6

Number of Sample beneficiaries located & response percentage

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Sample IAY

beneficiaries

No of Sample beneficiaries

located & contacted

Response %age

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Ganderbal 273 273 100%

2. Udhampur 49 49 100%

Total 322 322 100%



As is evident from the table given above, all the 322 selected Sample

beneficiaries were located and contacted in the field. The response

percentage achieved thus is 100%.

Physical Status of Houses of Sample Beneficiaries:

It is envisaged under the Scheme that the beneficiary will construct a

hut/house after getting financial assistance under the scheme. The

beneficiary has to construct hut/house himself of course under due

guidance and supervision of IAY authorities. Whether the Sample

beneficiaries have constructed the huts/houses after getting financial

assistance under the scheme has been ascertained in the field. Table given

below depicts the physical status of houses/huts constructed by the Sample

beneficiaries under the scheme.

Table No – 7

Status of Houses of Sample IAY Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Sample

IAY

beneficiaries

contacted

Completion Status of houses of IAY beneficiaries

House

Complete

with roof

In-Complete

Plinth

level

Lintel

level

Roof

level

Total

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderbal 273 263 - 10 - 10

2. Udhampur 49 47 - 1 1 2

Total 322 310 - 11 1 12

%age 96% - - - 4%

The table given above clearly reveal that 96% of the Sample

beneficiaries had constructed the huts/houses fully with roof. While as the

construction of house was still incomplete in respect of 4% Sample

beneficiaries. Reasons reported for incompletion/non-start of work of

huts/houses by the Sample beneficiaries are reflected in the table

hereunder:-



Table No - 8

Reasons for Incompletion of Huts/Houses reported by Defaulting

Beneficiaries

S

.

n

o

Sample

District

No of

Sample

IAY

beneficia

ries

Number

of

beneficia

ries

whose

huts

were in-

complete

Reasons reported for incompletion of Huts/houses by

Sample beneficiaries

Non

release

of full

installm

ents

Delayed

release

of

installm

ents

Insufficie

ncy of

required

fund

Non-

availability

of

material/w

orker

Migrat

ed to

other

places

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1

.

Gander

bal 273 10 1 1 1 5 2

2

.

Udham

pur 60 2 1 1 - - -

Total 322 12 2 2 1 5 2

%age 17% 17% 8% 42% 17%

The reasons responsible for incompletion of houses in respect of most

of Sample beneficiaries 4(34%) as per table given above is the non-

release/delayed release of amount of assistance by the Implementing

Department. 5(42%) reported that non-availability of material/workers was

the reason for incompletion of their houses. 1(8%) reported that the

assistance proved inadequate to complete the construction of his house.

2(17%) had migrated to other places as such leaving the construction in-

complete.

Amount of Assistance received as reported by Sample Beneficiaries:

The guidelines governing the release of installments under the scheme

state that number of installments should be fixed at three. The release of

installments should be linked to the level of construction reached. The first

installment should be given on Awas Divas and should not be more than

25% of unit cost. 2nd installment should be released on the reaching lintel

level and should not be more than 60% of the unit cost. The 3rd installment

of 15% of unit cost should be given only after the house including the

sanitary latrine is constructed. Table given below depicts the details about

the number of installments of assistance received by the Sample

beneficiaries.



Table No – 9

Number of Installments of Assistance received as reported by the

Sample Beneficiaries

S.

n

o

Sample

District

No of

Sample

IAY

beneficiari

es

No of Sample beneficiaries who reported to had

received

The

number of

Sample

beneficiari

es who

received

full

payment of

Rs.75000

from

among

those have

received all

three

installmen

ts

No

Installme

nt at all

One

Installme

nt

Two

Installmen

ts

All Three

installmen

ts

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderb

al 273 0 6 160 107

107

2. Udhamp

ur 49 0 2 44 3

3

Total 322 0 8 204 110 110

%age - 3% 63% 34%

Only 34% (110) Sample beneficiaries as per table given above had

received all the three installments of assistance. 63% Sample beneficiaries

reported to had received two installments, 3% only one installment. All the

110 Sample Beneficiaries who had received all the three installments

reported that they received full amount of Rs.75000/- as envisaged under

the scheme.

Mode of Payment of Assistance to Sample Beneficiaries:

As per scheme guidelines, the funds should be transferred into the

Bank/Post Office account of each beneficiary. Release of installments in

cash to the beneficiaries is not permissible under IAY. How funds have been

transferred to the Sample beneficiaries is reflected in the table hereunder:-



Table No –10

Fund transfer mode as reported by the Sample beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of

Sample

beneficiaries who

have received

financial assistance

Mode of payment of installments of assistance as

reported by Sample beneficiaries

Payees Account

Cheque

Bank draft Cash

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. Ganderbal 273 273

2. Udhampur 49 49 0 0

Total 322 322 0 0

%age 100%

From the table given above, it is clear that guideline with regard to the

transfer of funds to beneficiaries has been followed fully, as no Sample

beneficiary reported to have been paid in cash. All the 322(100%) Sample

beneficiaries who were provided financial assistance under the scheme

reported that they were given cheques which they deposited in the bank and

the money was credited into their account.

Fairness in Selection procedure:

How fair the selection and sanctioning process under the scheme is,

an enquiry from the Sample beneficiaries was conducted. It was enquired

from them despite being eligible for coverage under the scheme whether or

not they were asked to pay any bribe. The response reported on this account

is reproduced as under:-

Table No –11

Fairness in Selection Procedure as reported by the Sample Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Sample

IAY beneficiaries

enquired

No of Sample beneficiaries reporting

(Fair)

No Bribe demanded

Not Fair

(Bribe demanded)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Ganderbal 273 264 9

2. Udhampur 49 49 0

Total 322 313 9

%age 97% 3%

Majority of the Sample beneficiaries (97%) as per table given above

reported that the selection and sanctioning process under the scheme was

fair and they were not forced to pay any bribe. However, 3% (9) Sample

beneficiaries from Ganderbal District reported that they were forced to pay

bribe to officials for getting financial assistance under the scheme. The list of

these Sample beneficiaries is given at the end of the report as Annexure-

“B”.



Coverage of SC/ST and other BPL families:

The IAY Scheme as per guidelines is for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled

Tribes, OBCs and Other Socially Backward Classes living Below Poverty

Line. How far have been these guidelines been followed by the Implementing

Department in selecting the beneficiaries under the scheme in Sample

Districts is reflected in the table hereunder:-

Table No - 12

Social Category of Sample Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Sample

IAY Beneficiaries

Category to which Sample IAY Beneficiaries

belong to

SC ST OBC Others

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. Ganderbal 273 - 118 102 53

2. Udhampur 49 27 11 5 6

Total 322 27 129 107 59

%age 9% 40% 33% 18%

Table given above reveals that due coverage has been given to the


selecting beneficiaries for coverage under the scheme. Out of total of 322

Sample beneficiaries, 156(49%) have been selected from SC/ST category.

107(33%) from OBC category and 59(18%) from others falling below poverty

line.

Scheduled Caste (9%)

Scheduled Trible (40%)

OBC (33%)

Others( BPL) (18%)

Selection profile of beneficaries under IAY in sample districts



BPL Status of Sample Beneficiaries:

The beneficiaries to be covered under the scheme as per the guidelines

of the scheme must necessarily belong to Below Poverty Line (BLP) category.

How far have this guidelines been taken into consideration by the

implementing agency while selecting the beneficiaries under the scheme is

reflected in the table given below:-

Table No – 13

BPL Status of Sample Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Sample

IAY beneficiaries

BPL status of Sample IAY beneficiaries

BPL APL

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Ganderbal 273 273 -

2. Udhampur 49 49 -

Total 322 322 -

%age 100%

The guidelines of the scheme with regard to the selection of

beneficiaries from only BPL category appears to have been fully followed by

the implementing department as is evident from the above table. All the

Sample beneficiaries (100%) were found belonging to Below Poverty Line

(BPL) and were on the rolls of BPL lists maintained by the Department.

Economic Status of Sample beneficiaries:

The economic status of the Sample beneficiaries is reflected in the

table given below:-

Table No – 14

Economic status of Sample Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Sample

IAY

beneficiaries

Monthly income of Sample IAY Beneficiaries from all

Sources

Below

Rs.

3000/-

Rs. 3000-

4000/-

Rs. 4000-

5000/-

Rs. 5000-

6000/-

Above Rs.

6000/-

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderbal 273 245 28 - - -

2. Udhampur 49 28 11 5 4 1

Total 322 273 39 9 4 1

%age 85% 12% 3% 1% -

The monthly income of the majority of the Sample beneficiaries (85%)

was less than Rs. 3000/-. 12% reported monthly income in the range of

Rs.3000-4000/, 3% in the range of Rs. 4000-5000/- and 1% in the range of

Rs. 5000-6000/- .



Land possessed by Sample beneficiaries:

Land reported in possession by the Sample beneficiaries is reflected in

the table given below:-

Table No – 15

Land possessed by Sample Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Sample

IAY

Beneficiaries

Land Holdings as reported by Sample Beneficiaries

Below 5

Kanals

5-7

Kanals

7-10

Kanals

10-15

Kanals

Above 15

Kanals

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderbal 273 253 18 02 - -

2. Udhampur 49 34 5 4 5 1

Total 322 287 23 6 5 1

%age 89% 8% 2% 1% -

Perusal of table given above reveals that all the Sample beneficiaries

were in possession of some land holding. None of the Sample beneficiary

was landless. Though majority of them (89%) were having a land holding of

less than 5 kanals. 8% of them were having a land holding in the range of 5-

7 kanals, 2% in the range of 7-10 kanals and 1% in the range of 10-15

kanals.

Sanitary Status and Availability of other facilities to the Houses of Sample

Beneficiaries:

The sanitary situation and availability position of other necessary

facilities to the houses constructed under IAY by Sample beneficiaries is

presented in the table given below:-

Table No – 16

Sanitary status of huts/houses constructed by Sample beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of Sample

IAY

Beneficiaries who have fully

constructed the

Houses

No. of IAY Beneficiaries who

have

No, of Completed

Houses provided

Constructed Sanitary

Latrine/Soakage

pit

Installed Smokeless

Chulla

Electricity Water Supply

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1. Ganderbal 263 42 - 231 200

2. Udhampur 47 10 1 42 20

Total 310 52 1 273 220

%age 17% - 88% 71%

The above table reveals that majority of the houses constructed by the

Sample beneficiaries under IAY scheme does not have a latrine facility. Only

52 (17%) of Sample beneficiaries had constructed sanitary latrines.

Smokeless chullas has not been installed by almost all. As regards other



facilities, 88% reported to had been provided electricity and 71% reported

provided water supply. When enquired why they have not constructed

sanitary latrine/Soakage pit, the Sample beneficiaries reported that they

had not enough money to construct soakage pit. The absence of drainage

system in their areas was the other reason reported for non construction of

sanitary latrines by the Sample beneficiaries.

The facilities like toilet, smokeless chullas, electricity, water supply,

connectivity etc. were as per the guidelines of the scheme to be provided to

the IAY beneficiaries by the State by putting in place a robust system of

support services. Convergence of other State/Central Programmes for

providing these facilities was the responsibility of the State Govt. as per the

guidelines of the State. In order to bring about convergence, the guidelines

of the scheme clearly, spell out that a State level meeting may be held

exclusively for the purpose by the Chief Secretary of the State by January

every year in all State level departments/agencies responsible for different

schemes may be called and action plan for convergence prepared to ensure

that there is automatic and simultaneous convergence in favour of IAY

beneficiaries, as they belong to the families in real need. The implementing

department of the scheme, however, has taken this part of the guidelines

casually and, as such, not put in place a support services system as

envisaged under the Scheme.

Nature of Houses Constructed by Sample Beneficiaries:

As per guidelines governing the scheme, IAY house has to be pucca in

the sense that it should be able to withstand normal wear and tear due to

usage and natural forces including climatic conditions, with reasonable

maintenance for at least 30 years. It should have roof of permanent material

and its walls should be capable of withstanding local climatic conditions and

need to be plastered only the outer surface of the walls is erodible. Have the

houses been constructed by the Sample beneficiaries as per standing

guidelines was also ascertained in the field. Table given below reflects the

type of houses constructed by the Sample IAY beneficiaries:-

Table No – 17

Type of Houses Constructed by the Sample Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of Sample IAY

Beneficiaries who have fully Constructed the

Houses

Type of Houses Constructed by Sample

Beneficiaries

Pucca house Semi-Pucca Katcha

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. Ganderbal 263 85 177 1

2. Udhampur 47 7 26 14

Total 310 92 203 15

%age 30% 65% 5%



In contravention to the scheme guidelines, majority of the Sample

beneficiaries 203(65%) have constructed semi-pucca type of houses and

most astonishingly 15(5%) have constructed katcha type of houses.

Construction of katcha type of house after availing assistance under IAY is

a brazen violation of the guidelines. How come the field functionaries of

department implementing the scheme allowed such violations is a matter of

concern. It reveals lack of monitoring/supervision over the scheme by the

department concerned. The detailed particulars of the 15 Sample

beneficiaries who have constructed katcha type of houses is given at

Annexure “C” of the report.

Built-up Area of Houses constructed by Sample Beneficiaries:

The houses to be constructed under IAY Scheme should have a built-

up area of at least 20 square meters as per the guidelines of the scheme.

Have the Sample beneficiaries constructed their houses keeping this

guideline in view will be clear from the table give below:-

Table No – 18

Built-up Area of Huts/Houses Constructed by Sample Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of Sample IAY

Beneficiaries who have

fully Constructed the

Houses

Built-up Area of Huts/Houses of Sample

Beneficiaries

10 Sq.

mtrs

15 Sq

.mtrs

20 Sq

mtrs

25 Sq

mtrs

More than

25 Sq mtrs

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderbal 263 0 22 5 13

223

2. Udhampur 47 0 2 9 19

17

Total 310 0 24 14 32 240

%age 8% 5% 10% 77%

As envisaged in the guideline that houses under IAY should have a

built-up area of at least 20 square meters, has been followed by the majority

of the Sample beneficiaries as is evident from the table above. 92% of the

Sample beneficiaries have constructed the houses which had a built-up area

of 20 square meters or more. Only 24(8%) Sample beneficiaries had the

houses which have a built-up area of less than 20 square meters.

Dereliction of guidelines/directions by the Sample beneficiaries demands

strict supervision of the scheme.



Display of Sign Board indicating the Houses Constructed under IAY:

On completion of an IAY dwelling unit, the scheme guidelines

prescribe that a display board/nameplate indicating the IAY logo, year of

construction, name of beneficiary etc. should be fixed on each house. The

expenditure on this account can be met from the funds available under the

scheme. Table No. 19 reflects whether this guideline has been followed

by the implementing department of the scheme:-

Table No – 19

IAY Logo/Nameplate fixed on Huts/Houses constructed by Sample

Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of Sample

IAY Beneficiaries

No. Sample IAY Beneficiaries who have Displayed

IAY Logo/Nameplate huts/houses

Yes

No

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


2. Udhampur 47 7 40

Total 310 8 302

%age 3% 97%

This guideline too has not been followed as display board on only

8(3%) completed houses were found fixed by the evaluation teams during

the course of field verification. Majority of houses 302 (97%) constructed

under IAY in the Sample Districts had no display boards fixed on them. Why

display boards were not fixed on the completed houses by the implementing

department if the funds were available for this, demands an in-depth

departmental enquiry.

Technical and Managerial Guidance provided to the Sample

Beneficiaries:

Scheme guidelines provide that technical support in the form of

technical and managerial guidance should be provided to the beneficiary for

construction of house. Foundation laying and lintel support should be

provided at least at these two stages. The feedback from the Sample

beneficiaries about the technical support provided is reflected in the table

hereunder:-



Table No –20

Technical Support provided & Supervision made by Field Functionaries

S.

n

o

Sample

District

No. of

Sample

IAY

Beneficiarie

s

Number of

Beneficiaries reported

Level at which Supervision made

by Field Functionaries

Technica

l inputs

provided

Supervisio

n Made

Demarcatio

n Level

Plint

h

Level

Lenti

l

Level

Roof

Leve

l

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1. Ganderbal 273 191 273 21 214 204 188

2. Udhampu

r

49 27 49 9 44 19 35

Total 322 218 322 30 258 223 223

%age 67% 100% 9% 80% 69% 69%

Technical guidance was reported provided by 218(67%) Sample

beneficiaries. Details on the housing designs and construction technologies

which are available and their costs for labour and materials were reported

provided by these Sample beneficiaries.

Supervision over the construction of house by the officers/officials of

the implementing department was reported by 322(100%) Sample

beneficiaries. Scheme guidelines prescribe that supervision at Foundation

laying and lintel should be conducted at least at these two stages. The

feedback from Sample beneficiaries given in the table above reveal that

supervision at these two stages was not cent percent. Supervision at

foundation/plinth level was reported conducted by 80% Sample

beneficiaries whereas at lintel level it was reported by 69% Sample

beneficiaries. Lack of supervision by the field functionaries of the

implementing department has resulted in incompletion of construction of

houses by a sizable portion of the Sample beneficiaries. In order to ensure

that all the assisted beneficiaries construct the houses, supervision over the

construction of houses should be intensified.

Satisfaction Level of Beneficiaries:

In order to gauge the satisfaction level of the Sample beneficiaries with

regard to different parameters of the scheme, a field enquiry was conducted

and the response reported against each parameter by the beneficiaries has

been presented in the tabular form below:-



Table No – 21

Satisfaction level of Sample beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of

Sample

IAY

Beneficiaries

Enquired

No. of Sample Beneficiaries Reporting Satisfied with

Amount of

Assistance

Mode of

Payment

Timely

Payment

Selection

Procedure

Technical

Guidance

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderbal 273 0 268 265 271 220

2. Udhampur 49 2 39 25 36 29

Total 322 2 307 290 307 249

%age 1% 95% 87% 90% 77%

It is clear from table above that almost all the Sample beneficiaries

(99%) were not satisfied with the amount of assistance. Amount of

assistance of Rs.75000/- as per their viewpoint is too low and difficult to

manage. Keeping the market rates for construction material and labour in

view, all the beneficiaries pleaded for enhancement in the financial

assistance. The Sample beneficiaries, however, expressed satisfaction with

regard to other parameters of the scheme like mode of payment, timely

payment, selection procedure and technical guidance.

Enhancement in Amount of Assistance Proposed by Sample Beneficiaries:

Since all the Sample beneficiaries were not satisfied with the amount

of assistance under the scheme, their opinion about how much it should be

was elicited. The amount of assistance proposed by the Sample beneficiaries

is presented in table given below:-

Table No – 22

Enhancement in Amount of Assistance Proposed by Sample

Beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of Sample

IAY Beneficiaries

enquired

No. of Sample Beneficiaries proposed for

Enhancement in the Amount of Assistance

Rs. 1 Lakh Rs. 1.25

Lakh

Rs. 1.50

Lakh

Above Rs.

1.50 Lakh

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1. Ganderbal 273 4 3 85 165

2. Udhampur 49 2 3 29 15

Total 322 6 6 114 178

%age 2% 2% 35% 55%

All the Sample beneficiaries reported that even after putting-in their

own savings and other resources in addition to amount of assistance

provided under the scheme, they are not able to manage the construction of

house as envisaged under the scheme. They, therefore, pleaded that the



amount of assistance should be enhanced considerably. Majority of them

55% proposed that the amount of assistance should be somewhere around

Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Keeping the market rates of construction material/labour in

view, the beneficiaries demand on this account is justified and therefore

requires consideration by the Govt. Enhancement in the amount of

assistance will enable the beneficiaries to construct the house as per the

stipulations of the scheme without making too many compromises.

Upgradation Cases Sanctioned:

Apart from new constructions, the upgradation cases were also

sanctioned in the Sample villages of Ganderbal and Udhampur Districts.

The upgradation cases sanctioned and their status observed in the field is

reflected in the table given below:-

Table No – 23

Upgradation Cases taken in Sample Districts and Status thereof.

S.

no

Sample

District

Number of

Upgradation

Cases

Sanctioned

Status of Upgradation Cases observed during Field

Verification

Upgradation Complete

Upgradation in-

Complete

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


2. Udhampur 0 0 0

Total 25 24 1

%age 96% 4%

The table given above reveals that 25 upgradation cases were

sanctioned in the Sample villages of Ganderbal District and no upgradation

case was sanctioned in the Sample villages of Udhampur District. During

the field verification, all the upgradation cases except one were observed

complete.

Opinion of Sample Beneficiaries after constructing house under the

scheme:

Different feelings were expressed by the Sample beneficiaries after

constructing the houses under the scheme and they have summarized in

the table give below:-



Table No – 24

Opinion of Sample Beneficiaries after Constructing house under the

Scheme

S.

n

o

Sample

District

No. of

Sample

IAY

Beneficiari

es

Enquired

No Sample Beneficiaries Expressed Different Feelings

Comforta

ble

Comforta

ble &

Satisfied

Comforta

ble and

Socially

Secure

Comforta

ble to

Some

Extent

Uncomforta

ble

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderb

al

263 97 61 51 45 9

2. Udhamp

ur

47 21 5 5 15 3

Total 310 116 66 56 60 12

%age 38% 21% 18% 19% 4%

After constructing the house under the scheme, majority (77%) of the

Sample beneficiaries reported feeling comfortable now in their new houses.

They were fully satisfied and were reportedly feeling socially secure. Only a

small portion (4%) of the Sample beneficiaries reported were feeling still

uncomfortable due to multiple reasons like insufficient space, lack of inner

furnishing, availability of other facilities like water/electricity etc.

Non-beneficiary Feedback:

In order to gather impression about the scheme from those who

though belonging to targeted group i.e. SC/ST/BPL Category but were not


stipulations of the study design was conducted and non-beneficiaries were

Comfortable 38%

Comfortable & satisfied

21%

Comfortable and socially secure

18%

Comfortable to some extent

19%

Uncomfortable

4%

Feeling expressed by sample beneficaires after constructing house under the Scheme



also covered. Non-beneficiaries selected for field enquiry from the two

Sample Districts is depicted in the table hereunder:

Table No- 25

Number of Non-beneficiaries Enquired

S.

no

Sample District

No. of Non-beneficiaries Contacted

SC ST OBC Others Total

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1. Ganderbal - 43 75 54 172

2. Udhampur 56 8 11 89 164

Total 56 51 86 143 336

%age 17% 15% 26% 42%

From the table given above, it is very clear that non-beneficiaries from

all the targeted groups have been selected in order to have their response

about the scheme.

Awareness of Non-beneficiaries about Scheme:

Whether the non-beneficiaries belonged to targeted group and were

aware about the scheme and whether they were desirous to get covered

under the scheme and finally whether they applied for the same, an enquiry

from them conducted and the response reported by them is reproduced in

the table hereunder:-

Table No- 26

Number of Non-beneficiaries Reporting Awareness and Desire for

Coverage under the Scheme

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of Non-

beneficiaries

Contacted

Number of non-beneficiaries reported

Having

BPL

Card

ST

Aware of

IAY

Scheme

OBC

Desirous to get

covered under

the Scheme

Others

Applied for

coverage

under the

Scheme

Total

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1. Ganderbal 172 165 172 172 170

2. Udhampur 164 116 157 155 115

Total 336 281 329 327 285

%age 84% 98% 97% 85%

The response of the non-beneficiaries given above in the table reveals

that majority (84%) had BPL ration card and were eligible for coverage under

the Scheme. Though, almost all (97%) were desirous to get covered under

the scheme but not all of them (as only 85%) have applied for coverage

under the scheme.



Reasons Reported for not applying and though applied but not covered

by the Implementing Department:

The reasons reported by the non-beneficiaries who though eligible and

desirous to get covered under the scheme and had applied for the same are

given in the table hereunder:-

Table No- 27

Reasons for Non- coverage under the Scheme reported by Non-

beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No. of Non-

beneficiaries

who applied

for Coverage under the

Scheme

Number of non-beneficiaries reporting reasons for

non-coverage

Deptt

Inefficiency

Lack of

Approach

Bribe Demanded

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. Ganderbal 170 99 71 -

2. Udhampur 115 83 32 -

Total 285 182 103

%age 64% 36%

Inefficiency of the implementing department to provide coverage under

the scheme to the eligible, desirous and applying non-beneficiaries was

quoted as reason by majority (64%) of the non-beneficiaries. Whereas 36%

reported that they lack influence/approach to get covered under the

scheme. In order to cover these deserving non-beneficiaries, the

implementing department should gear-up its machinery and mobilize

resources available under the scheme judiciously so that all the available

funds are utilized and all the expected are benefited.

Reasons for Non- coverage under the Scheme:-

Reasons reported by the non-beneficiaries who did not applied for

coverage under the same are reproduced in the table hereunder:-

Table No- 28

Reasons for not applying for Coverage under the Scheme reported by

Non-beneficiaries

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Non-

beneficiaries

who did not

apply

Reasons for not applying for Coverage under the

Scheme

Lengthy

Procedure

Lack of

Guidance

Apprehension of

Bribe

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. Ganderbal 02 - 2 -

2. Udhampur 49 10 39 -

Total 51 10 41 -

%age 20% 80% 0%



Lack of guidance was reported as main reason for not applying under

the scheme by 80% of the non-beneficiaries. Lengthy procedure was

reported as reason for 20% of the non-beneficiaries.

Impression of Non-beneficiaries about the Scheme:

What was impression of the non-beneficiaries about the scheme and

whether they would like to get covered under the scheme was also elicited

from them. Response reported by them have been reflected in the table given

below:-

Table No- 29

Impression of Non-beneficiaries about the Scheme and their Willingness

for getting Coverage under the Scheme

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Non-

beneficiaries

contacted

Number of non-beneficiaries

Reported the Scheme

Beneficial

Willing to get covered

under the Scheme

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Ganderbal 172 172 172

2. Udhampur 164 164 155

Total 336 336 327

%age 100% 97%

From the table given above, it is clear that the non-beneficiaries had a

very good impression about the scheme and 100% of them regarded the

scheme beneficial and almost all of them (97%) were willing to get covered

under the scheme. Keeping the high hopes of the non-beneficiaries in view,

the department implementing the scheme should gear-up its machinery and

cover all of them in a planned manner.

Knowledgeable Persons(KPS) Feedback:

In Evaluation exercise, the basics for drawing of inferences and

conclusions with regard to the success or failure of the scheme are the

observations, inspections, interviews and interactions with the stakeholders.

The stakeholders may possess an element of bias which sometimes could

affect drawing of inferences and conclusions positively or negatively. To

overcome this deficiency and substantiate the findings though an unbiased

source, knowledgeable persons are tapped in the Evaluation Studies. The

feedback provided by them could help in determining the shortcomings of

the Scheme and appropriate measures could be suggested to the

Department to do away with these shortcomings.

In the instant study, knowledgeable persons were also enquired to

express their views in respect of various components and implementation

aspects of the scheme as observed by them in their vicinity. The number of



knowledgeable persons contacted across the Sample Villages along with the

educational and occupational status is reflected below:-

Table No- 30

Number of Knowledgeable Persons(KPs) Enquired

S.

no

Sample District

No. of

Knowledgeable

Persons(KPs)

Contacted

Educational Qualification of Knowledgeable

Persons(KPs) Contacted

Below

Middle

Matric Graduate Above

Graduate

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1. Ganderbal 100 50 42 6 2

2. Udhampur 100 27 32 19 22

Total 200 77 74 25 24

%age 38% 37% 13% 12%

A good number of knowledgeable persons from the Sample villages

was selected for eliciting their opinion about the scheme. Majority (62%) of

them by qualification were Matric and above. 25% of them were Graduate

and above. Being qualified, it is but natural that these KP’s will have a more

knowledge and better understanding of the Scheme.

Awareness of Knowledgeable Persons(KPs) about the Scheme:

Awareness of the knowledgeable persons about the scheme was

elicited and their source of awareness was also enquired from them. The

response reported by them is given in the tabular form below:-

Table No-31

Awareness of Knowledgeable Persons(KPs) about the Scheme

S.

no

Sample

District

No of

Knowledgeable

Persons(KPs)

contacted

No of

KP’S

aware

of IAY

Scheme

Source of awareness of Knowledgeable

Persons(KPs)

Radio TV Rural Dev

Deptt.

Others

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1. Ganderbal 100 100 11 4 93 1

2. Udhampur 100 100 11 4 93 1

Total 200 200 18 15 167 2

%age 100% 9% 7% 83% 1%

All the Knowledgeable persons were reported aware about the scheme.

The main source of their awareness about the scheme was the implementing

department and its field functionaries. Radio/TV and other media was



reported other sources of awareness about the scheme by 16% of the KP’s.

Friends & neighbours were reported as source of awareness by 4% of KP’s.

Impression of Knowledgeable Persons (KPs) about the Scheme:-

The knowledgeable persons when enquired about the scheme and its

different aspects reported as under:

Table No-32

Impression of Knowledgeable Persons(KPs) about the Scheme

S.

no

Sample

District

No of Non-

beneficiaries

Contacted

Number of Knowledgeable Persons(KPs) Reported

Considered

the Scheme

Beneficial

Coverage of only

Eligible Beneficiaries

under the Scheme

Assistance

under Scheme

not enough

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. Ganderbal 100 100 100 1

2. Udhampur 100 100 100 2

Total 200 200 200 3

%age 100% 100% 2%

100% of the KP’s, as is evident from the table above considered the

scheme beneficial and voted for its continuance. They furthermore

confirmed the fact that only eligible persons were getting benefit under the

scheme in their villages. However, some of them were not satisfied amount

of assistance provided under the scheme. They reported that it is not

enough and therefore suggested for its enhancement. Enhancement in the

amount assistance is a demand put forth by all the stakeholders viz.

beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and knowledgeable persons and therefore

needs to be considered by the Govt.





Chapter – IV

Response of Implementing department on the findings of the evaluation

study:

The draft evaluation report as per standing State Level Evaluation

Committee(SLEC) instructions was submitted to the Concerned

implementing department(Director Rural Development Department

Jammu/Kashmir) for their response on the findings of the evaluation report

vide this letter No: DES/Evl/6th SLEC/IAY/State level/2016-17/123-26

dated: 22-12-2016.

In response, the Director Rural Development Department Jammu vide

letter No:DRDJ/P&S/6th SLEC/IAY/State level/15162-64 dated:04-02-2017

furnished his comments. However, no comments were received from the

Director Rural Development Department Kashmir despite repeated

reminders and long wait.

Rather than furnishing comments on the findings of the evaluation

study, a note on revisions which have taken place in the Scheme from time

to time have been furnished by Director Rural Development Department

Jammu. However, the same have been incorporated in the revised report.





Chapter – V

Summary of Main findings:

1) Indira Awas Yojana(IAY) is a flagship programme of the Ministry of

Rural Development launched primarily to help the construction of

dwelling units for members of SC/STs, freed bonded laborers and also

non- SC/ST rural poor below the poverty line.

2) During the reference period 2011-12 to 2014-15, the programme was

being implemented as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme on cost sharing

basis between Centre and State in the ratio of 75:25. The Government

was providing financial assistance of Rs.75000/- for new construction

and Rs.15000/- for upgradation during the period under reference.

3) The scheme of IAY has been re-structured into Pradhan Mantri Awaas

Yojana Gramin (PMAY-G) w.e.f. 1st April, 2016 by the Govt of India with

the commitment to provide “Housing for All” by 2022. As per revised

guidelines, the unit assistance has been enhanced from Rs.70,000 to

Rs.1.20 lakh in plains and from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1.30 lakhs in hilly

states, difficult areas and IAP districts. The cost of unit (house)

assistance is to be shared between central and state governments in the

ratio 60:40 in plain areas and 90:10 for north-eastern and hilly states.

4) Since the scheme revision took place after the reference period of the

study(2012-13 to 2014-15), therefore, the evaluation study had nothing

to do with the revised norms and had to concentrate on what was

prevailing during that time period. The rates and the norms prevailing

during that period only were verified in the field .

5) The allocations and expenditure figures under the scheme at the State

level during the reference period (2012-13 to 2014-15) reveal that the

programme has remained less focused by the planners and also by the

implementing agencies.

6) Normally the progressive programmes claim more and more allocations

year after year but here the case is otherwise as the allocations under

the Scheme were slashed down year after year.

7) Starting with the allocation of Rs.8994.10 lacs in the 1st year (2012-13)

of the reference period, the allocation under the scheme were slashed

down by 6% to Rs.8452.06 lacs in the 2nd year (2013-14). In the 3rd year

of reference period i.e. 2014-15, the allocation was again slashed down

by 16% to Rs.7097.12 lacs.



8) On the expenditure side, the story in no different as expenditure

percentage fell down year after year. The expenditure was 87% during

2012-13 and the same also got down by 14 percentage points to just

73% in 2013-14. In the last year of the reference period i.e. 2014-15,

the expenditure utilization percentage also gone further down to just

66% of the allocations.

9) The overall allocation for the reference period 2012-13 to 2014-15 was

of the order of Rs.24543.28 lakhs of which the expenditure was of the

magnitude of Rs.18688.10 lakhs registering an expenditure of 76% for

the State.

10) On the physical front, during the reference period 41093 IAY houses

were constructed/upgraded against the target of 74238 at the State

level. Thus the achievement on physical front was only 55% against the

financial achievement of 76%. During the first year of reference period

i.e, 2012-13 the physical achievement viz-a-viz targets was 72% which

got down to 49% in the 2nd year and further to just 40% in the 3rd year

of the reference period. This State of affairs shows that the programme

performance is decreasing year after year. The District level

achievements were reflective of the same situation as witnessed at the

State level.

11) At the Sample District level, the situation is no different. The availability

of funds in Sample District Udhampur has declined from Rs.279.80

lacs in 2012-13 to Rs.57.88 lacs in 2014-15 registering a drop of 79%.

In Sample District Ganderbal, though the allocation has remained

almost constant during the three years of reference period but

utilization has constantly declined with every passing year.

12) The physical performance at Sample District level has also remained

dismal. Achievement of just 43% of the physical targets and mounting

figure of spill over cases over the three years of reference period from

2012-13 to 2014-15 in both the Sample Districts clearly reveal the

unrealistic fixation of targets by the implementing department without

taking into account the available resources, manpower, the capacity to

utilize and other related inputs.

13) There has been dismal physical achievement of cases targeted in both

the Sample Districts. Ganderbal District has been able to achieve only

55% of cases targeted during the reference period 2012-13 to 2014-15

while as Udhampur District has fallen even below and covered just 33%

cases targeted.

14) It is necessary to ensure linkage between the targets and financial

resources made available for the programme so that the targets are



physically achievable within the resources. This has to be done



area–District/project is, in fact the starting point for launching a

particular programme. The un-realistic fixation of targets among other

things makes it difficult for the monitoring agencies to watch

performance in comparison to the targets and thus could mislead in

identifying shortfall and problem areas. So, fixation of targets for the

programme completely compatible with the resources, manpower and

other inputs is much desirable in the programme implementation.

15) In order to strike a comparison between the official claims of the


what actually existed on the ground and also to ascertain the impact

and extent of success of the scheme, a field enquiry was launched in

Sample Districts of Ganderbal and Udhampur.

16) In the Instant Evaluation Study, a field study was launched in 47

Sample panchayats of the two Districts covering 40 villages as per the

stipulated sample size and selection procedure. 333 beneficiaries had

been slated for coverage under the scheme in the Sample villages of

twin Districts of Udhampur and Ganderbal during the reference period

(2012-13 to 2014-15). However, 322 beneficiaries had actually been

covered and were selected as Sample. In addition to this, non-

beneficiaries in the surveyed villages were also contacted to ascertain

the causes of their non-coverage under the scheme. In the Sample

villages, a sizeable number of Knowledgeable persons was also

contacted to ascertain their views on the success/failure of the scheme

together with the adherence of norms by the Implementing Department.

The views expressed by all of them about the scheme are given in the

ensuing paras.

17) Out of 333 beneficiaries claimed covered in Sample villages, 322

cases/beneficiaries had actually been covered under the scheme by the

Implementing Department. 11 beneficiaries in Sample villages of

Udhampur District had not disbursed any amount of assistance under

the scheme as on the date of survey. During the field verification, all the

covered 322 selected Sample beneficiaries were located and contacted in

the field. The response percentage achieved thus is 100%.

18) During the field verification, it was found that 96% (310) Sample

beneficiaries had constructed the huts/houses fully with roof. While as

the construction of house was still incomplete in respect of 4% (12)

Sample beneficiaries..



19) The reasons responsible reported for incompletion of houses by most of

Sample beneficiaries 4(34%) was the non-release/delayed release of

amount of assistance by the implementing department. It is in place to

mention here that the department implementing the scheme had not

been able to cover even a single beneficiary in the Sample District

Udhampur during 2014-15. 5 (42%) reported that non-availability of

material/workers was the reason for incompletion of their houses.

8(3%) reported that the assistance proved inadequate to complete the

construction of his house. 2(17%) had migrated to other places as such

leaving the construction in-complete.

20) The guidelines that funds under the scheme should be transferred to

beneficiaries accounts and not in cash has been followed fully as no

Sample beneficiary reported to have been paid in cash. All the

322(100%) Sample beneficiaries who were provided financial assistance

under the scheme reported that they were given cheques which they

deposited in the bank and the money was credited into their account.

21) Was the selection and sanctioning process under the scheme fair, an

enquiry from the Sample beneficiaries was conducted. Majority of the

Sample beneficiaries 313(97%) reported that the selection and

sanctioning process under the scheme was fair. However, 3%(9) Sample

beneficiaries from Ganderbal District reported that it was not fair as they

were forced to pay bribe to officials for getting financial assistance under

the scheme.

22) The field enquiry revealed that due coverage has been given to the


selecting beneficiaries for coverage under the scheme. Out of total of

322 Sample beneficiaries, 156(49%) have been selected from SC/ST

category. 107(33%) from OBC category and 59(18%) from others falling

below poverty line.

23) During the field enquiry, all the Sample beneficiaries 322 (100%) were

found belonging to Below Poverty Line(BPL) and were on the rolls of BPL

lists maintained by the Department. The guideline in this regard has

been fully followed.

24) Regarding sanitary situation and availability position of other necessary

facilities to the houses constructed under IAY by Sample beneficiaries,

it was observed that majority of the houses constructed by the Sample

beneficiaries under IAY scheme does not have a latrine facility. Only

52(17%) of Sample beneficiaries had constructed sanitary latrines.



provided water supply. When enquired why they have not constructed



sanitary latrine/Soakage pit, the Sample beneficiaries reported that

they had not enough money to construct soakage pit. The absence of

drainage system in their areas was the other reason reported for non

construction of sanitary latrines by the Sample beneficiaries.


connectivity etc. were as per the guidelines of the scheme to be provided


of support services. Convergence of other State/Central programmes for

providing these facilities was the responsibility of the State Govt. as per

the guidelines of the State. In order to bring about convergence, the

guidelines of the scheme clearly, spells out that a State level meeting may

be held exclusively for the purpose by the Chief Secretary of the State by

January every year in all State level departments/agencies responsible

for different schemes may be called and action plan for convergence

prepared to ensure that there is automatic and simultaneous convergence

in favour of IAY beneficiaries, as they belong to the families in real need.

The Implementing Department of the scheme, however, has taken this

part of the guidelines casually and, as such, not put in place a support

services system as envisaged under the Scheme.

26) As per guidelines governing the scheme, IAY house has to be pucca in

the sense that it should be able to withstand normal wear and tear due

to usage and natural forces including climatic conditions, with

reasonable maintenance for at least 30 years. In contravention to these

scheme guidelines, majority of the Sample beneficiaries 203(65%) have

constructed semi-pucca type of houses and most astonishingly 15(5%)

have constructed katcha type of houses. Construction of katcha type of

house after availing assistance under IAY is a brazen violation of the

guidelines. How come the field functionaries of department implementing

the scheme allowed such violations is a matter of concern. It reveals lack

of monitoring/supervision over the scheme by the department concerned.

27) As envisaged in the guidelines that houses under IAY should have a

built-up area of at least 20 square meters was observed followed by the

majority of the Sample beneficiaries. 92% of the Sample beneficiaries

have constructed the houses which had a built-up area of 20 square

meters or more. Only 24(8%) Sample beneficiaries had the houses which

have a built-up area of less than 20 square meters. Dereliction of

guidelines/directions by the Sample beneficiaries demands strict

supervision of the scheme.

28) On completion of an IAY dwelling unit, the scheme guidelines prescribes

that a display board/nameplate indicating the IAY logo, year of

construction, name of beneficiary etc. should be fixed on each house.



This guideline too was observed not followed as display board on only

8(3%) completed houses were found fixed by the evaluation teams during

the course of field verification. Majority of houses 302(97%) constructed

under IAY in the Sample Districts had no display boards fixed on them.

Why display boards were not fixed on the completed houses by the

implementing department if the funds were available for this demands an

indepth departmental enquiry.

29) Technical guidance was reported provided by 218(67%) Sample

beneficiaries. Details on the housing designs and construction

technologies available and their costs for labour and materials were

reported provided by these Sample beneficiaries.

30) Supervision over the construction of house by the officers/officials of

the implementing department was reported by 322(100%) Sample

beneficiaries. Scheme guidelines prescribes that supervision at

Foundation laying and lintel should be conducted at least at these two

stages. The feedback from Sample beneficiaries reveal that supervision

at these two stages was not cent percent. Supervision at

foundation/plinth level was reported conducted by 80% Sample

beneficiaries whereas at lintel level it was reported by 69% Sample

beneficiaries. Lack of supervision by the field functionaries of the

implementing department has resulted in incompletion of construction

of houses by a sizable portion of the Sample beneficiaries. In order to

ensure that all the assisted beneficiaries construct the houses,

supervision over the construction of houses should be intensified.

31) The satisfaction level of the Sample beneficiaries with regard to different

parameters of the scheme was elicited. Almost all the Sample

beneficiaries(99%) were not satisfied with the amount of assistance.

Amount of assistance of `.75000/- as per their viewpoint is too low and

difficult to manage. Keeping the market rates for construction material

and labour in view, all the beneficiaries pleaded for enhancement in the

financial assistance. The Sample beneficiaries, however, expressed

satisfaction with regard to other parameters of the scheme like mode of

payment, timely payment, selection procedure and technical guidance.

32) All the Sample beneficiaries reported that even after putting-in their

own saving and other resources in addition to amount of assistance

provided under the scheme, they are not able to manage the

construction of house as envisaged under the scheme. They therefore

pleaded that the amount of assistance should be enhanced to somewhere

around Rs.1.50 lakhs. Keeping the market rates of construction

material/labour in view, the beneficiaries demand on this account is

justified and therefore requires consideration by the Govt.



Enhancement in the amount of assistance by the Govt as per revision

in guidelines in 2016 Rs.70,000 to Rs.1.20 lakh in plains and from

Rs.75,000 to Rs.1.30 lakhs in hilly states, difficult areas and IAP districts

is a step in right direction. This will enable the beneficiaries to construct

the house as per the stipulations of the scheme without making too

many compromises.

33) After constructing the house under the scheme, majority (77% ) of the

Sample beneficiaries reported feeling comfortable now in their new

houses. They were fully satisfied and were reportedly feeling socially

secure. Only a small portion(4%) of the Sample beneficiaries reported

were feeling still uncomfortable due to multiple reasons like insufficient

space, lack of inner furnishing, non-availability of other facilities like

latrine/water/electricity etc.

34) In order to gather impression about the scheme from those who though

belonging to targeted group i.e. SC/ST/BPL category but were not


stipulations of the study design was conducted and non-beneficiaries

were also covered.

35) The response of the non-beneficiaries reveals that majority (84%) of

them had BPL ration card and were eligible for coverage under the

Scheme. Almost all (97%) were desirous to get covered under the scheme.

285(85%) have already applied for coverage under the scheme but were

not covered till date.

36) Inefficiency of the implementing department to provide coverage under

the scheme to the eligible , desirous and applying non-beneficiaries was

quoted as reason by majority(64%) of the non-beneficiaries. Whereas 36%

reported that they lack influence/approach to get covered under the

scheme.

37) The non-beneficiaries had a very good impression about the scheme and

100% of them regarded the scheme beneficial and almost all of them(97%)

were willing to get covered under the scheme. Keeping the high hopes of

the non-beneficiaries in view, the department implementing the scheme

should gear-up its machinery and cover all of them in a planned manner.

38) A good number of knowledgeable persons (200) from the Sample villages

was selected for eliciting their opinion about the scheme. 100% of the

KP’s considered the scheme beneficial and voted for its continuance.

They furthermore confirmed the fact that only eligible persons were

getting benefit under the scheme in their villages. However, some of

them were not satisfied amount of assistance provided under the

scheme. They reported that it is not enough and therefore suggested



for its enhancement. Enhancement in the amount assistance is a

demand put forth by all the stakeholders viz. beneficiaries, non-

beneficiaries and knowledgeable persons and therefore needs to be

considered by the Govt.



Chapter – VI

Suggestions Offered:

1) Like a progressive scheme, the funds allocation/utilization under IAY

over the years should increase rather than decline as has been

witnessed during the instant evaluation study. Every possible effort right

from the administrative level to the execution level should be made to

make the scheme a progressive one. Not only the allocations under the

scheme over the years should increase but the fund utilization should

also improve.

2) Regarding non-achievement of physical targets and mounting figure of

spillover cases, it is suggested to ensure linkage between the targets and

financial resources made available for the programme so that the targets

are physically achievable within the resources. This has to be done



area, in fact, the starting point for launching a particular programme. The

un-realistic fixation of targets among other things makes it difficult for the

monitoring agencies to watch performance in comparison to the targets

and thus could mislead in identifying shortfall and problem areas. So,

fixation of targets for the programme completely compatible with the

resources, manpower and other inputs is much desirable in the

programme implementation.

3) Installments due under the scheme should be released in favour of the

beneficiaries on time so that they could complete the construction of

houses/huts. This is because in the field it was found that 4 Sample

beneficiaries could not complete the construction of house due to non-

release/delayed release of amount of assistance by the implementing

department.

4) Beneficiaries slated for coverage under the scheme during the year

should necessarily be covered and all the necessary arrangements like

arrangement of funds etc should be made with due seriousness. This is

because the department implementing the scheme had not been able to

cover even a single beneficiary in the Sample District Udhampur during

2014-15 citing the reason that funds were not released on time.

5) Sanitary situation and availability position of other necessary facilities

to the houses constructed under IAY by Sample beneficiaries was

observed very poor as majority of the houses constructed by the Sample



beneficiaries under the scheme does not have a latrine facility. Only

52(17%) of Sample beneficiaries had constructed sanitary latrines.



provided water supply.


connectivity etc. were, as per the guidelines of the scheme, to be provided


of support services. Convergence of other State/Central programmes for

providing these facilities is the responsibility of the State Govt. as per the

guidelines of the State. Every possible effort should be made by the

department implementing the scheme to bring about such convergence.

7) Supervision over the scheme was observed poor as dereliction with

regard to the size of house, fixing of IAY logo/nameplate and construction

of houses by the sample beneficiaries was observed in the field. The

department implementing the scheme should therefore gear-up it

machinery and improve the supervision over the scheme.

8) Amount of assistance of Rs.75000/- was reported too low and difficult to

manage by almost all the sample beneficiaries. Keeping the market rates

for construction material and labour in view, all the beneficiaries pleaded

for enhancement in the financial assistance. Therefore it is proposed that

the amount of assistance should be enhanced to somewhere around

Rs1.50 lakhs.

9) Due publicity to the scheme should be given so that all the eligible and

desirous candidate could apply for coverage under the scheme. This is

because reason for not applying by majority(64%) non-beneficiaries was

quoted as lack of awareness about the scheme.

10) The non-beneficiaries had a very good impression about the scheme and

100% of them regarded the scheme beneficial and almost all of them(97%)

were willing to get covered under the scheme. Keeping the high hopes of

the non-beneficiaries in view, the department implementing the scheme

should gear-up its machinery and cover all of them in a planned manner.



Annexure “A”

List of 11 beneficiaries falling in the Sample villages of Udhampur District

who had been slated for coverage under the scheme during 2014-15 but had

not been paid 1st installment of assistance as on the date of Survey

S.no Name of Sample

beneficiary

Parentage Address

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Smt. Shaya Devi W/O Badri Nath Khoon (Amara)

2 Sh. Kaka Ram S/O Romilla Ram Khoon (Amara)

3 Sh. Junait Ali S/O Mir Ali Khoon (Amara)

4 Sh. Pritam lal S/O Tillu Ram Jakhanoo

5 Sh. Uttam Chand S/O Tara Chand Dhamma

6 Smt. Kamlesh W/O Raj Kumar Baryalta

7 Smt. Savitri W/O Tara Chand Baryalta

8 Smt. Kanta Devi W/O Nek Ram Karkrai

9 Smt. Surya Bibi W/O Gulab Din Sarail Chowla

10 Sh. Shallo Ram S/O Sant Ram Jugwal

11 Sh. Sohan Lal Sarju Ram Kail



Annexure “B”

Detailed particulars of 9 Sample beneficiaries who reported that they were

forced to pay bribe to officials for getting financial assistance under the

scheme

S.n

o

Name of Sample

beneficiary

Parentage Address

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Abdul

Rehman

Youngoora village, Wakoora

block, District Ganderbal.

2

Irfan Ahmad Chopan Abdul Karim

Chopan

Zazna village, wakoora block,

District Ganderbal.

3 Mohammad Altaf

Parra

Ab Rashid

Parra


District Ganderbal.

4

Moahmmad Amin

Parray

Ab Salam

Parray


District Ganderbal.

5

Ab. Ahad Kumar Habib Ullah

Kumar

Barwalla village, Kangan block,

District Ganderbal.

6

Mohammad Shafi

Gania

Gh Mohi din

Ganie


District Ganderbal.

7

Aijaz Ahmad Gania Mohd

Abdullah


District Ganderbal.

8

Farooq Ahmad Mir Gh Ahmad

Mir


District Ganderbal.

9

Mohammad Kamal

Kumar

Gh Mohd

kumar


District Ganderbal.



Annexure “C”

Detailed particulars of 15 Sample beneficiaries who have constructed

Katcha Type of Houses after receiving financial assistance under IAY

Scheme

S.no Name of Sample

beneficiary

Parentage, W/O Address

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1

Smt. Vidhya Devi W/O Sh. Gian

Singh

Chapper Barta,

Udhampur.

2

Smt. Sheela Devi W/o Sh. Kapoor

Singh

Chapper Barta,

Udhampur.

3

Smt. Masooma W/o Sh Rahid

Ahmad

Jaganoo, Udhampur.

4

Smt. Pukhru Devi Wd/O Lt. Sh.

Mansa Ram

Bhagpur, Jaganoo,

Udampur.

5

Smt. Babir Devi W/O Sh. Kumar

Chand

Laddan Kotibala,

Udampur

6

Smt Arif Bibi W/O Gammi Kotibala, Udhampur.

7

Smt. Sandlo Devi W/O Sh

Khajoor Singh

Kuh, Udhampur.

8

Smt. Chana Devi Wd/o Sh Sarnoo Kuh, Udhampur.

9

Sh. Sukar Din S/O Sh Gulab

Din

Thad Rathian West,

Udhampur.

10. Smt. Bal Krishan S/O Sh Hari

Ram

W NO 4 Rathina West,

Udhampur.

11. Smt. Makhana Devi Wd/O Sh Bhir

Singh

Ritti, Udhampur.

12. Smt. Banto Devi Wd/O Sh

Shnaku Ram

Kuperla Ritti,

Udhampur.

13. Smt. Koshalya Devi W/O Sh Munshi

Ram

Ritti, Udhampur.

14. Sh Gani S/O Sh. Attal

Din

Channi Mohd Satani,

Udhampur.

15. Ab Gani Sangoo Mohandia

Sangoo

Margund village, Kangan

Ganderbal.



Annexure – D

Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Yangoora Village, District Ganderbal.



Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Wangath, Khanan&CheerwanVillages, District Ganderbal



Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Wakura Villages, District Ganderbal

Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Margund Villages, District Ganderbal



Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Kangan Villages, District

Ganderbal

Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Dab Villages, District

Ganderbal



Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Akhal Villages, District

Ganderbal



Photographs of houses of Sample beneficiaries of Sample Villages of District

Udhampur



Directorate of Economics and Statistics, J&K SDA Colony, Bemina, Srinagar/ Ashok Vihar Janipur, Jammu

Tele/Fax: 0194-2490092/01912538907 ecostatjk.nic.in

Documents

Indira Awas Yojana (IAY)ecostatjk.nic.in/ecosurvey/Evaluation study on IAY(2012...Government of Jammu & Kashmir Evaluation Report On Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) In J & K State (Sample