PROJECT REPORT SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR LAND ACQUISITION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAJGIR BYPASS ROAD IN NALANDA DISTRICT

PROJECT REPORT SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR LAND ACQUISITION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAJGIR BYPASS ROAD IN NALANDA DISTRICT 26 April 2016 CHANDRAGUPT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PATNA

TABLE OF CONTENTS S. No. 1 Chapter Executive Summary 2 Project Description 3 Research Methodology 4 Land Assessment 5 6 7 8 Estimation of Affected Families Socio-economic Profile of Affected Area Social and Psychological Impact Cost-Benefit Analysis & Social Impact Mitigation Plan Contents 1.1 Project and Public Purpose 1.2 Location 1.3 Size and Attributes of Land Acquisition 1.4 Alternatives Considered 1.5 Social Impact 1.6 Mitigation Measures 1.7 Assessment of Costs and Benefits 2.1 Background of the Project 2.2 Rationale for the Project 2.3 Examination of Alternatives 2.4 Core Design Features 2.5 Need for Ancillary Infrastructure 2.6 Workforce Requirements 2.7 Details of SIA/EIA if already conducted 2.8 Applicable Legislations and Policies 3.1 Research Methodology 3.2 Sources of Data 3.3 Method of Primary Data Collection 3.4 Work Plan 3.5 Team Composition 4.1 Total Land Requirement 4.2 Land (if any) already Purchased/Delineated/Leased/Acquired in the Project Area 4.3 Quantity and Proportion of Land Proposed to be Acquired 4.4 Nature, Present Use, and Classification, and Irrigation Coverage of Land Page No. 4-8 9-11 12-15 16-18 5.1 Estimation of the Families Directly and Indirectly Affected 19 6.1 Demographic Details 6.2 Kinship Patterns and Social and Cultural Organizations 6.3 Vulnerable Groups 6.4 Land Use and Livelihood 6.5 Economic Activities 7.1 Quantitative Data through Household Survey 7.2 Qualitative Data through Focus Group Discussions 8.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis (Economic Costs) 8.2 Social and Psychological Costs and Benefits 8.3 Social Impact Mitigation Plan (SIMP) 20-37 38-60 61-68 References 69 Annexure Questionnaire for Household Survey 70-75 1

LIST OF TABLES S. No. Table Page Title No. No. 1 3.1 Distribution of Respondent Households by Nature of Impact 13 2 4.1.1 Total Land Requirement for the Project 16 3 4.3.1 Quantity and Proportion of Land Proposed to be Acquired 17 4 4.4.1 Nature and Classification of Land 18 5 5.1 Distribution of Affected Households by Nature of Impact 19 6 6.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Social Category 21 7 6.1.2 Distribution of Respondents by Religion 21 8 6.2.1 Distribution of Respondents by Type of Family 22 9 6.2.2 Distribution of Respondents by Residence Status in the Village 22 10 6.3.1 Distribution of Respondents by Type of House 23 11 6.3.2 Distribution of Respondents by Number of Rooms in House 24 12 6.3.3 Distribution of Respondents by Condition of House 25 13 6.3.4 Distribution of Respondents by Type of Ration Card Owned 25 14 6.3.5 Distribution of Respondents by Gender of Family Head 26 15 6.3.6 Distribution of Respondents by Family Size 26 16 6.3.7 Distribution of Households by No. of Family Members in 0-6 Years Age 27 Group 17 6.3.8 Distribution of Households by No. of Family Members in 7-18 Years 28 Age Group 18 6.3.9 Distribution of Households by No. of Family Members in 19-40 Years 28 Age Group 19 6.3.10 Distribution of Households by No. of Family Members in 41-60 Years 29 Age Group 20 6.3.11 Distribution of Households by No. of Family Members in 61+ Years Age 30 Group 21 6.3.12 Distribution of Households by Health Status: Normal Health 30 22 6.3.13 Distribution of Households by Health Status: Diseased 31 23 6.3.14 Distribution of Households by Health Status: Physically Challenged 31 24 6.3.15 Distribution of Households by Health Status of Family Members 32 25 6.5.1 Distribution of Households by Occupational Status 33 26 6.5.2 Distribution of Households by Occupational Activity 33 27 6.5.3 Distribution of Households by Sector of Occupation 34 28 6.5.4 Distribution of Households by Nature of Occupation 34 29 6.5.5 Distribution of Households by Professional Skills 34 30 6.5.6 Distribution of Households by No. of Members Migrated 35 31 6.5.7 Distribution of Family Members Migrated (In-Migrants) 35 32 6.5.8 Distribution of Family Members Migrated (Out-Migrants) 36 33 6.5.9 Distribution of Respondents by Migration Status 36 34 6.5.10 Distribution of Respondents by Reason for Migration 36 35 7.1.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Average Area of Land Affected by the 38 Project 36 7.1.1.2 Distribution of Respondents by Average Annual Loss of Income From 39 Land Affected 37 7.1.1.3 Total and Average Area of Land Affected and Annual Loss of Income 40 38 7.1.1.4 Distribution of Land Owners by No. of Trees Affected 41 39 7.1.1.5 Distribution of Respondents by Other Losses to the Household 41 40 7.1.1.6 Total and Average Other Losses to the Household 42 41 7.1.2.1 Expected Social Costs - Loss of Farming Activities 42 42 7.1.2.2 Expected Social Costs - Loss of Business Activities 43 2

S. No. Table Page Title No. No. 43 7.1.2.3 Expected Social Costs - Loss of Daily Wage Earnings 43 44 7.1.2.4 Expected Social Costs - Loss to Share Croppers 43 45 7.1.2.5 Expected Social Costs - Dislocation of Workplace 44 46 7.1.2.6 Expected Social Costs - Environmental Hazards during the Project 44 Period 47 7.1.2.7 Expected Social Costs - Rise in Illicit Activities during the Project Period 44 48 7.1.2.8 Expected Social Costs - Health Hazards during the Project Period 45 49 7.1.2.9 Expected Social Benefits - Increase in Agricultural Yield 45 50 7.1.2.10 Expected Social Benefits - Expansion in Small Business Activities 46 51 7.1.2.11 Expected Social Benefits - Improvement in Mobility 46 52 7.1.2.12 Expected Social Benefits - Improvement in Marketing of Local Produce 46 53 7.1.2.13 Expected Social Benefits - Better Access to Education 47 54 7.1.2.14 Expected Social Benefits - Better Access to Healthcare Facilities 47 55 7.1.2.15 Expected Social Benefits - Better Access to Credit Facilities 47 56 7.1.2.16 Expected Social Benefits Saving of Productive Time 48 57 7.1.2.17 Expected Social Benefits - Shortening of Distance 48 58 7.1.2.18 Expected Social Benefits - Receiving Good Price for the Land 48 59 7.1.2.19 Expected Social Benefits - Receiving a Good Rehabilitation Package 49 60 7.1.1.20 Psychological Costs Feeling Tense 49 61 7.1.1.21 Psychological Costs - Feeling Anxious 50 62 7.1.1.22 Psychological Costs - Feeling Depressed 50 63 7.1.1.23 Psychological Costs - Feeling Fearful 50 64 7.1.1.24 Psychological Costs - Loss of Social Status 50 65 7.1.1.25 Psychological Costs - Loss of Self Esteem 51 66 7.1.1.26 Psychological Costs Possibility of Conflict with Neighbours 51 67 7.1.1.27 Psychological Costs - Obstruction to Cultural Programmes/Festivals 51 68 7.1.1.28 Psychological Costs Hurt to Religious Sentiments 52 69 7.1.1.29 Assistance Required for Rehabilitation 52 70 8.1.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis under Scenario-1 64 71 8.1.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis under Scenario-2 65 S. No. Figure No. Title LIST OF FIGURES 1 3.1 Data Collection Methodology 14 2 6.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Social Category 21 3 6.3.1 Distribution of Respondents by Type of House 24 4 7.1.1.1 5 7.1.1.2 Distribution of Respondents by Average Area of Land Affected by the Project Distribution of Respondents by Average Annual Loss of Income From Land Affected 6 7.2.1 Land Acquisition Plan Pilkhi Village 53 7 7.2.2 FGD at Hasanpur Village 55 8 7.2.3 NH-82 Yatri Shed at Hasanpur Village 55 9 7.2.4 FGD Team with Mukhia at Pathraura Village 57 10 7.2.5 Alang at Pilkhi Village 59 3 Page No. 39 40

CHAPTER I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Project and Public Purpose The proposed Rajgir Bypass Road (from 58 th K.M. Post of SH-71 in Village Niman to Yatri Shed in Village Hasanpur at NH-82) passes through eight villages Barhari, Hasanpur, Miar, Nahub, Nonhi, Panditpur, Pathraura Duhai Suhai, and Pilkhi in the Rajgir block under Nalanda district. The total length of proposed road is 6.1619 km. SH-71, a very important road originating from Jahanabad and terminating at Parwatipur in Nalanda district via Ghosi, Islampur, Rajgir, and Giriyak, is the shortest route to the International University of Nalanda. The proposed Rajgir Bypass Road project is expected to benefit the population in the eight affected villages by way of increase in agricultural yield on account of better access to seeds, fertilisers and other agricultural inputs and farm implements, employment generation during construction and maintenance of the project, expansion in small business activities, which in turn generate employment opportunities, improvement in market value of agricultural produce on account of improved mobility and better access to market, better access to education, healthcare facilities, and credit facilities, saving of productive time due to ease of traffic congestion, and shortening of distance to the nearest town. 1.2 Location The proposed Rajgir Bypass Road (from 58 th K.M. Post of SH-71 in Village Niman to Yatri Shed in Village Hasanpur at NH-82) passes through eight villages Barhari, Hasanpur, Miar, Nahub, Nonhi, Panditpur, Pathraura Duhai Suhai, and Pilkhi in the Rajgir block under Nalanda district. The total length of proposed road is 6.1619 km. 1.3 Size and Attributes of Land Acquisition The land acquisition process in three villages Barhari, Nonhi, and Panditpur is in progress under the old laws. In one village (Miar), the land earmarked for the project belongs to the government. Hence the area of land proposed to be acquired under new laws in the remaining four villages is 34.4625 acres. 4

1.4 Alternatives Considered SH-71, a very important road originating from Jahanabad and terminating at Parwatipur in Nalanda district via Ghosi, Islampur, Rajgir, and Giriyak, is the shortest route to the International University of Nalanda. In view of a breach in market portion at Rajgir in the alignment of SH-71, there is a requirement of a link road at either end of the said breach for uninterrupted traffic flow. It is worth noting that the width of road in village Mahadeopur (before Rajgir) is hardly 4 metres, which is a bottleneck for heavy vehicles and causes traffic jam. Further, widening of road is not possible in the said breach because of densely populated village portion. That is why the only viable option is to provide a bypass road in order to secure uninterrupted traffic flow. 1.5 Social Impact The population affected by the proposed Rajgir Bypass Road project is classified into two categories those directly affected (land owners) and those indirectly impacted (share croppers, and agricultural labourers). Out of a total of 336 households, those directly affected (land owners) constitute 76.2%, while those indirectly impacted (share croppers and agricultural labourers put together) account for 23.8%. The loss of land per household is less than 0.5 acre (80.1% of total respondents and 94.5% of land owners are affected by a loss of less than 0.5 acre of land). For the highest percentage of respondents (39.9% of total respondents and 50% of land owners), the annual loss of income ranges from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000. The average loss of annual income for total respondents and land owners is Rs. 8,132 and Rs. 6,491 respectively. There is no land affected in Unirrigated agricultural land, Bari Land and Other lands. While 96.4% of respondents (247 out of 256) are not affected by loss of trees, 1.2% of respondents reported an annual loss of income of Rs. 1,20,000 on account of the highest number of trees (10) affected and 0.8% of respondents reported an annual loss of income of Rs, 1,06,000 on account of 8 trees affected. The total annual loss of income reported by the respondents on account of trees affected is Rs. 2,83,000. The total other losses reported by the respondents is Rs. 1,06,800 and the average is Rs. 2,180. 5

1.6 Mitigation Measures Based on the feedback received from the affected people in the villages through focus group discussions, the following measures are recommended for mitigating the social impact of the project: Land survey may be redone, particularly in Pilkhi, in view of concerns of inaccurate land records expressed by the land owners. The option of using the already existing road (govt. land of approx. 200 ft.) known as Alang, situated between the villages of Pilkhi and Niman, may be explored as it would bring relief to the affected households in Pilkhi in view of the fact that land acquisition has been conducted for six times so far in the village. The Paein in Pilkhi village lying between government land and Niman village may be shifted to some other place. Hasanpur may be treated as an industrial area and compensation be awarded as per industrial land rates. Categorisation of land may be revised to ensure that fertile, three-crop land is not categorised as Bari land; similarly, efforts may be made to ensure that land up to 5 decimals is not categorised as residential ( awasiya ). Compensation may be awarded as per the latest circle rate of land (current market value). Compensation may be awarded by organising camps in the affected villages, preferably before the project commences. A nodal officer may be designated as a single point of contact (SPOC) to look into the grievances of the affected people and address them on a priority basis. 1.7 Assessment of Costs and Benefits 1.7.1 Economic Costs and Benefits The cost-benefit analysis for the project is done for a period of 14 years, which includes three years for the construction and 11 years for maintenance of the road. Costs include: investment cost, maintenance cost, and cost of structures. The total cost in Year 0 is estimated to be 23.03 cr. (investment cost + maintenance cost + cost of structures = 23 cr. + 0.3 cr. = 23.03 cr.). It is worth noting that investment cost in Year 0 is the sum of the land acquisition cost of 17 cr. and 1/3 rd of construction cost i.e. 6 cr. Similarly, the total cost is 6

estimated for all the 14 years and the present value (PV) of the total cost at a discounting rate of 10 per cent (Scenario-1) is estimated for all the 14 years. The total PV of the cost over a 14-year period is thus estimated to be 50.479 cr. The benefits expected to be accrued from the project to the population in the affected villages include: agricultural benefits, better market access benefits, labour employment opportunities, savings in vehicle operating cost, and small business activities. Based on the Gross Cultivable Area (GCA) in the eight affected villages of 1,876 hectares and assuming a 20 per cent increase in yield, the increment in agricultural produce value for paddy, wheat, and vegetables is estimated at 2.16 cr. This benefit to the land owners would start flowing from Year 3 and is expected to steadily increase over the next 11 years. Better market access benefits refer to increase in market value of agricultural produce on account of improved mobility. Assuming a 30 per cent increase in market value, the benefit would amount to 3.25 cr. This benefit too would start flowing from Year 3 and is expected to steadily increase over the next 11 years. Labour employment opportunities include the substantial employment benefit to the local population during the construction period and a little less significant employment benefit during the maintenance period. Labour cost accounts for 30 per cent of the construction cost while material costs accounts for the remaining 70 per cent. Labour cost is thus estimated to be 4.8 cr. distributed uniformly across the construction period. Savings in vehicle operating cost (VOC) is a significant benefit to the local population since the project would help enhance the life of the vehicles used and reduce their maintenance cost. Assuming a traffic density of 1,100 vehicles per day and a saving of 50, the total savings in VOC is estimated to be 2 cr. per annum. Another significant benefit from the project is expansion in small business activities along the bypass road. Assuming 10 small business units per km. of the road, a total of 60 units are expected to be established along the total length of 6.1 km. of the bypass road. Assuming three labourers working per establishment and a MGNREGA wage rate of 162, the total labour value per annum generated by small business activities is estimated to be 1.06 cr. As in the previous section, total benefits and the present value (PV) of the total benefits at a discounting rate of 10 per cent are estimated for the 14-year period. The total PV of benefits is thus estimated to be 258.96 cr. 7

Finally, net cash flows, internal rate of return (IRR), and benefit-cost ratio (BC Ratio) for the project are estimated. IRR is 19 per cent and BC Ratio (at a discounting rate of 10 per cent) is 5.13. The exercise is repeated by using a discounting rate of 6 per cent in order to generate Senario-2 with a BC Ratio of 4.06. 1.7.2 Social and Psychological Costs and Benefits The social costs expected by the respondents from the project include: loss of farming activities (31.3% of respondents), loss of business activities (7.7%), loss of daily wage earnings (6.9%), loss to share croppers (15.8%), dislocation of workplace (7.7%), environmental hazards during the project period (12.2%), rise in illicit activities during the project period (8.9%), and health hazards during the project period (11%). In conclusion, the low-to-extremely low percentages indicate that the social costs of the project for the respondents are minimal. The social benefits expected by the respondents from the project include: increase in agricultural yield (64.5% of respondents), expansion in business/industries (88.7%), improvement in mobility (90.5%), improvement in the marketing of local produce (91.1%), better access to education (88.1%), better access to healthcare facilities (86.3%), better access to credit facilities (88.4%), saving of productive time due to ease of traffic congestion (71.4%), shortening of distance (83.9%), receiving good price for the land (89.3%), and receiving a good rehabilitation package (47.9%). In conclusion, the extremely high percentages indicate that the social benefits of the project for the respondents are extremely high. On balance, it is very clear that the social benefits of the project far exceed its social costs. The psychological costs expected by the respondents from the project: feeling tense (37.2% of respondents), feeling anxious (11.3%), feeling depressed (17%), feeling fearful (11.9%), loss of social status (11.6%), loss of self esteem (9.8%), possibility of conflicts with neighbours (3.9%), obstruction to cultural programmes/festivals (28%), and hurt to religious sentiments (27.7%). On the whole, the low-to-extremely low percentages indicate that the psychological impact of the project on the respondents is minimal. 8

CHAPTER II DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Background of the Project The proposed Rajgir Bypass Road, 6.16 km. long, passes through eight villages Barhari, Hasanpur, Miar, Nahub, Panditpur, Nonhi, Pathraura Duhai Suhai, and Pilkhi in the Rajgir block under Nalanda district. The total length of proposed road is 6.1619 km. The land acquisition process in three villages Barhari, Panditpur, and Nonhi is in progress under the old laws. In one village (Miar), the land earmarked for the project belongs to the government. Hence the area of land proposed to be acquired under new laws in the remaining four villages is 34.4625 acres. 2.2 Rationale for the Project The proposed Rajgir Bypass Road (from 58 th K.M. Post of SH-71 in Village Niman to Yatri Shed in Village Hasanpur at NH-82) passes through eight villages Barhari, Hasanpur, Miar, Nahub, Nonhi, Panditpur, Pathraura Duhai Suhai, and Pilkhi in the Rajgir block under Nalanda district. The total length of proposed road is 6.1619 km. SH-71, a very important road originating from Jahanabad and terminating at Parwatipur in Nalanda district via Ghosi, Islampur, Rajgir, and Giriyak, is the shortest route to the International University of Nalanda. In view of a breach in market portion at Rajgir in the alignment of SH-71, there is a requirement of a link road at either end of the said breach for uninterrupted traffic flow. It is worth noting that the width of road in village Mahadeopur (before Rajgir) is hardly 4 metres, which is a bottleneck for heavy vehicles and causes traffic jam. Further, widening of road is not possible in the said breach because of densely populated village portion. That is why the only viable option is to provide a bypass road in order to secure uninterrupted traffic flow. The proposed bypass road connecting SH-71 approximately 100 m. before Mahadeopur village and NH-82 near railway level crossing in Hasanpur village would also provide easy approach to the Ordnance Factory Road. The proposed Rajgir Bypass Road is expected to benefit the population in the eight affected villages by way of increase in agricultural yield on account of better access to seeds, 9

fertilisers and other agricultural inputs and farm implements, employment generation during construction and maintenance of the project, expansion in small business activities, which in turn generate employment opportunities, improvement in market value of agricultural produce on account of improved mobility and better access to market, better access to education, healthcare facilities, and credit facilities, saving of productive time due to ease of traffic congestion, and shortening of distance to the nearest town. 2.3 Examination of Alternatives It is worth noting that the width of road in village Mahadeopur (before Rajgir) is hardly 4 metres, which is a bottleneck for heavy vehicles and causes traffic jam. Further, widening of road is not possible in the said breach because of densely populated village portion. That is why the only viable option is to provide a bypass road in order to secure uninterrupted traffic flow. 2.4 Core Design Features There is an existing earthen carriage way of 6,494.2 m. length. The proposed formation (road) is 12.0 m. wide and the depth of pavement (specification: road crust) is 690 mm. 2.5 Need for Ancillary Infrastructure Adequate cross drainage (CD) works have been provided. The width of the CD structures is 12.0 m., which would replace the existing CD structures that are in a bad condition. 2.6 Workforce Requirements All categories of skilled as well as unskilled labour force are available in sufficient number. Other facilities such as transport, food, water, and medical care are readily available. 2.7 Details of SIA/EIA if already conducted No SIA/EIA was conducted for the project in the past. 10

2.8 Applicable Legislations and Policies Land acquisition for the project is to be carried out under the RFCTLARR Act (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013). 11

CHAPTER III TEAM COMPOSITION, APPROACH, METHODOLOGY, AND SCHEDUEL OF THE SIA 3.1 Methodology In order to conduct the socio-economic study of the affected households from the Rajgir Bypass Road project, census data and other relevant information regarding the district was accessed through internet, desk research and field visits. Quantitative questionnaires were used to capture the socio-economic status of all directly affected parties (land owners) and a sample of indirectly affected parties (share croppers, agricultural labours and small business men). Sample data for only those indirectly affected parties were collected who were working in the affected lands. Attempts were made to contact all directly affected households. In order to substantiate this study, the qualitative research technique of Focus Group Discussion was also used. Focus Group Discussions were used to elicit as much information as possible. Before conducting FGDs, all affected households were informed through field investigators concerning date, time, place and agenda of the FGDs. FGDs were subsequently held in four villages, viz. Hasanpur, Pathraura, Nahub and Pilkhi in the presence of village heads / Circle officers, Panchayat members etc. FGDs guides were used to drive the discussions on various socio-economic aspects and the consequent benefits/losses accruing from this project. Since a number of households own multiple lands / plots in the affected area, an attempt was made to include them only once to avoid duplication. It was also decided that each owner to be considered as a household in case of joint owners. Finally, after maintaining the above filtering process we have finally collected 256 responses from directly affected parties (land owners). In order to cover the indirectly affected parties, convenience sampling has been used and detailed responses have been collected from 80 indirectly affected parties (share croppers and agricultural labourers). In this study a peculiar aspect was the absence of any form of small business. Thus, our total sample amounts to 336 households (Table 3.1). 12

Table 3.1 Distribution of Respondent Households by Nature of Impact Nature of Impact Number Percent Direct Impact (Land Owners) 256 76.2 Indirect Impact (Share Croppers) 10 3.0 Indirect Impact (Agricultural Labour) 70 20.8 Total 336 100.0 3.2 Sources of Data Secondary Data Sources Land Registers and Khatiyans Census 2001 Socio-economic survey Other administrative records Primary Data Sources Questionnaires Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) The assessment used extensive participatory tools to generate data for the report. Orientation meetings, interviews with key stakeholders (officials of State Govt both at District and Block level as well as GPs, NGOs, PRIs, Experts and Policy Makers), focus group discussions, personal interviews, mapping, observations and periodic debriefings were organized to collect data and track progress. 3.3 Method of Collection of Primary Data Data collection was done both through field visits by our field investigators including focus group discussions through structured questionnaires devised for each particular set of stakeholders. This structured questionnaires included both quantitative/objective as well as the qualitative/subjective aspects to capture the impact of land acquisition. The study team has interviewed all directly and a sample of indirectly affected households to measure the impact of land acquisition process. 13

3.4 Work Plan Steps used in the study 1. Discussion with concerned District Level Officials, local Gram Panchayat functionaries and local line department officials on a common platform for sensitization and orientation. 2. Conducted multiple focus group discussions (FGDs) at multiple layers ranging from Gram Panchayat level to hamlet/neighbourhood level, with both directly and indirectly affected people from this project. 3. Preparation of Base Line Socio-Economic conditions from FGD and other secondary data sources 14

4. Identification and survey of every affected household (directly and indirectly) with the help of survey instruments 5. Understanding of the various assorted problems of the different stakeholders either in the form of directly affected or indirectly affected households and individuals and coming to a qualitative and quantitative understanding of the impact of this project 6. Prepared tentative Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan. 3.5 Team Composition The research team comprises the following members: 1. Dr. V. Mukunda Das (Director, CIMP): Project Director 2. Prof. Sayan Banerjee (Fellow of NITIE, Mumbai): Coordinator 3. Prof. Madhulima Sekhar (M.A., JNU): Coordinator 4. Prof. G. K. Murthy (PhD, Berhampur University): Coordinator 15

CHAPTER IV LAND ASSESSMENT 4.1 Total Land Requirement The total area of land required for the project is 65.998 acres as depicted in the following table (Table 4.1.1). Table 4.1.1 Total Land Requirement for the Project LAND REQUIREMENT S. No. Village Area (Acres) 1 Pilkhi 7.09 2 Panditpur 1.0275 3 Barhari 19.47 4 Pathraura Duhai Suhai 16.45 5 Nonhi 9.338 6 Nahub 7.1925 7 Miar 1.7 8 Hasanpur 3.73 TOTAL 65.998 4.2 Land (if any) already Purchased/Delineated/Leased/Acquired in the Project Area 29.8355 acres of land (45.2% of the total land required) located in the villages of Barhari, Panditpur, and Nonhi is already under the process of acquisition under the old laws of land acquisition as depicted in Table 4.3.1 in the following section. 4.3 Quantity and Proportion of Land Proposed to be Acquired 34.4625 acres of land located in the villages of Nahub, Pathraura, Pilkhi, and Hasanpur is proposed to be acquired, which is 52.2% of the total land requirement as depicted in Table 4.3.1 below. 16

Table 4.3.1 Quantity and Proportion of Land Proposed to be Acquired (Acres) S. No. Village Land Already Under Acquisition (as per old laws) LAND REQUIREMENT Govt. Land Land Proposed to be Acquired Total Land Required 1 Pilkhi 7.09 7.09 2 Panditpur 1.0275 1.0275 3 Barhari 19.47 19.47 Pathraura Duhai 4 Suhai 16.45 16.45 5 Nonhi 9.338 9.338 6 Nahub 7.1925 7.1925 7 Miar 1.7 1.7 8 Hasanpur 3.73 3.73 TOTAL 29.8355 1.7 34.4625 65.998 Percent 45.2 2.6 52.2 100 4.4 Nature, Present Use, and Classification, and Irrigation Coverage of Land From Tables 4.4.1 (a) and 4.4.1 (b) below, it can be inferred that out of the total geographical area of 2,471 ha. in the eight affected villages, 75.9% (1,786.3 ha.) is the net sown area (Gross Cultivable Area). 42.4%% of the total geographical area (which is 55.8% of GCA) is irrigated by source while 33.5% (which is 44.2% of GCA) is un-irrigated. Cultivable waste land area is 5.7% and there is no forest area or barren/uncultivable area or grazing area or land under miscellaneous tree crops area. 33.2% of the total geographical area is wells/tube wells area while 9.2% is tanks/lakes area. Current fallows area is 0.45% while there is no fallows land other than current fallows area or canals area (Census 2001). 17

Table 4.4.1 (a) Nature and Classification of Land Table 4.4.1 (b) Nature and Classification of Land 18

CHAPTER V ESTIMATION AND ENUMERATION OF AFFECTED FAMILIES AND ASSETS The population affected by the proposed Rajgir Bypass Road project is classified into two categories those directly affected (land owners) and those indirectly impacted (share croppers, and agricultural labourers). Table 5.1 below captures the distribution of respondents (households) by the nature of impact: the households directly affected (land owners) constitute 76.2% of the total of 336 households, while those indirectly impacted (share croppers and agricultural labourers put together) account for 23.8%. Table 5.1 Distribution of Affected Households by Nature of Impact Nature of Impact Number Percent Direct Impact (Land Owners) 256 76.2 Indirect Impact (Share Croppers) 10 3.0 Indirect Impact (Agricultural Labour) 70 20.8 Total 336 100.0 There are no Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers in the project area. 19

CHAPTER VI SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL PROFILE (OF THE AFFECTED AREA AND RESETTLEMENT SIZE) 6.1 Demographic Details The following sections describe the demographic details of the population of the villages affected by the project, identify vulnerable groups, and detail economic activities, land use and livelihood patterns, kinship patterns, and social and cultural organizations. While the current Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study covers the four villages of Hasanpur, Nahub, Pathraura, and Pilkhi, where land is proposed to be acquired, the Rajgir Bypass Road project affects four additional villages Barhari, Miar, Panditpur, and Nonhi i.e. a total of eight villages under Nalanda district. Land acquisition in three villages Barhari, Panditpur, and Nonhi had already been initiated under the old rules of acquisition while the affected land in Miar belongs to the government. Demographic details of the population in the villages of Hasanpur, Nahub, Pathraura, and Pilkhi were collected through a survey of the affected households while secondary data pulled out from Census 2001 were used to describe the composite demographic profile of the population in all the eight villages. Since the project would affect not only the owners of the land proposed to be acquired, but also, in certain cases, those engaged in share cropping on the said land as well as those landless agricultural labourers working on the said land, it was important to classify the total number of affected households into two categories those directly affected (land owners) and those indirectly impacted (share croppers, and agricultural labourers). As depicted in Table 5.1 in the previous chapter, the households directly affected (land owners) constitute 76.2% of the total of 336 households, while those indirectly impacted (share croppers and agricultural labourers put together) account for 23.8%. Table 6.1.1 below depicts the social class of the respondents; OBCs account for the highest percentage (55.7%) of the total respondents as well as of the land owners (62.1%) while SCs constitute the highest percentage (61.4%) of agricultural labourers. Census data suggest that SCs account for 33.76% of the total population of the eight villages (5,775 out of 17,102); there are no ST persons; EBCs, OBCs, and general category persons constitute the rest. 20

Table 6.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Social Category Social Category Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total No. % No. % No. % No. % EBC 20 7.8 5 50.0 0 0.0 25 7.4 SC 30 11.7 3 30.0 43 61.4 76 22.6 OBC 159 62.1 2 20.0 26 37.1 187 55.7 General 47 18.4 0 0.0 1 1.4 48 14.3 14.3% 7.4% 22.6% 55.7% EBC SC OBC General Fig. 6.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Social Category From Table 6.1.2 below, it is evident that the respondents are mostly Hindus. Table 6.1.2 Distribution of Respondents by Religion Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Religion Hindu 255 99.6 10 100.0 70 100..0 335 99.7 Muslim 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0..0 1 0.3 Grand Total 256 100.0 10 100.0 70 100..0 336 100.0 21

6.2 Kinship Patterns and Social and Cultural Organizations In a reflection of the evolving family structures, nuclear families account for the highest percentage (64.9%) of the total respondents, as can be seen in the following Table 6.2.1. Table 6.2.1 Distribution of Respondents by Type of Family Type of Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Family Nuclear 153 59.8 7 70.0 58 82.9 218 64.9 Joint 97 37.9 3 30.0 10 14.3 110 32.7 Individual 6 2.3 0 0.0 2 2.9 8 2.4 From Table 6.2.2 below, it is evident that only 6% of the families do not reside in the village in which their land proposed to be acquired is located, while 94% do. Census data suggest that social (recreational) and cultural organizations (facilities) such as cinema/video hall, sports club, and stadium/auditorium are not available in any of the eight villages. For most of the villages, such facilities are available at a distance of 5-10 km. or more than 10 km. Table 6.2.2 Distribution of Respondents by Residence Status in the Village Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Residence Labour Total Status Resident 242 94.5 10 100.0 64 91.4 316 94.0 Non-resident 14 5.5 0 0.0 6 8.6 20 6.0 6.3 Vulnerable Groups The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vulnerability as the degree to which a population, individual, or organization, is unable to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover, from the impact of disasters. Poverty, and its common consequences such as malnutrition, homelessness, poor housing, and destitution, is a major contributor to vulnerability. Children, 22

pregnant women, elderly people, malnourished people, and people who are ill or immunocompromised, are particularly vulnerable when a disaster, natural or man-made, strikes (http://www.who.int/environmental_health_emergencies/vulnerable_groups/en/ accessed on 05.03.2016). These factors contributing to vulnerability are equally applicable to the current project. Further, large families, families headed by female members, and those owning Below-Poverty-Line (BPL) and Antyodaya ration cards are considered vulnerable to any changes in livelihood patterns expected to be brought about by the project. The following sections describe the trends in the vulnerability factors that emerge from the survey. While examining the type and condition of house in which the respondents live, it was discovered that 55.4% of the respondents live in pucca houses, 19.9% of the houses have a total of three rooms, and 75% of the houses are in an average condition, followed by 15.5% in good condition and 9.5% dilapidated, as depicted in the following tables: 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3. Table 6.3.1 Distribution of Respondents by Type of House Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Type of Labour Total House Kuchha 3 1.2 2 20.0 20 28.6 25 7.4 Pucca 145 56.6 5 50.0 36 51.4 186 55.4 Mixed 104 40.6 3 30.0 6 8.6 113 33.6 Thatched roof 4 1.6 0 0.0 8 11.4 12 3.6 23

3.6% 7.4% 33.6% 55.4% Kuccha Pucca Mixed Thatched roof Fig. 6.3.1 Distribution of Respondents by Type of House Table 6.3.2 Distribution of Respondents by Number of Rooms in House Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper No. of Rooms Labour Total 1 6 2.3 0 0.0 12 17.11 18 5.4 2 33 12.9 3 30.0 22 31.4 58 17.3 3 49 19.1 2 20.0 16 22.9 67 19.9 4 37 14.5 0 0.0 11 15.7 48 14.3 5 32 12.5 2 20.0 5 7.1 39 11.6 6 32 12.5 3 30.0 0 0.00 35 10.4 7 23 9.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 25 7.4 8 14 5.5 0 0.0 1 1.4 15 4.5 9 10 3.9 0 0.0 1 1.4 11 3.3 10 7 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.00 7 2.1 24

Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper No. of Rooms Labour Total 11 4 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.2 12 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 13 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 18 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 19 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 No Response 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 Table 6.3.3 Distribution of Respondents by Condition of House Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Condition of House Labour Total Good 46 18.0 0 0.0 6 8.6 52 15.5 Average 198 77.3 6 60.0 48 68.6 252 75.0 Dilapidated 12 4.7 4 40.0 16 22.9 32 9.5 More than half (56%) of the respondent families had APL cards while the rest had BPL (36.9%) and Antyodaya (1.2%) cards, as depicted in the following Table 6.3.4. Table 6.3.4 Distribution of Respondents by Type of Ration Card Owned Share Agricultural Type of Ration Land Owner Total Cropper Labour Card Owned BPL Card 80 31.3 7 70.0 37 52.9 124 36.9 APL Card 159 62.1 2 20.0 27 38.6 188 56.0 Antyodaya Card 1 0.4 1 10.0 2 2.9 4 1.2 Others 2 0.8 0 0.0 1 1.4 3 0.9 25

Share Agricultural Type of Ration Land Owner Total Cropper Labour Card Owned No Card/ No Response 14 5.5 0 0.0 3 4.3 17 5.1 The following tables 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 depict the percentage of respondent families headed by males (89.6%) and females (10.4%) and size of family respectively (70.5% of families have up to six members). Table 6.3.5 Distribution of Respondents by Gender of Family Head Share Agricultural Land Owner Head of Family Cropper Labour Total Male family head 226 88.3 9 90.0 66 94.3 301 89.6 Female family head 30 11.7 1 10.0 4 5.7 35 10.4 Table 6.3.6 Distribution of Respondents by Family Size Family Size Share Agricultural Land Owner (No. of Cropper Labour Total Members) 1 7 2.7 0 0.0 1 1.4 8 2.4 2 8 3.1 0 0.0 2 2.9 10 3.0 3 20 7.8 0 0.0 6 8.6 26 7.7 4 58 22.7 1 10.0 14 20.0 73 21.7 5 50 19.5 2 20.0 23 32.9 75 22.3 6 33 12.9 3 30.0 9 12.9 45 13.4 7 24 9.4 1 10.0 6 8.6 31 9.2 8 10 3.9 1 10.0 3 4.3 14 4.2 26

Family Size Share Agricultural Land Owner (No. of Cropper Labour Total Members) 9 16 6.3 0 0.0 3 4.3 19 5.7 10 5 2.0 1 10.0 1 1.4 7 2.1 11 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 1.4 2 0.6 12 6 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 1.8 13 3 1.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 4 1.2 14 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 15 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 16 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 17 2 0.8 1 10.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 18 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 19 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 21 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 25 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Table 6.3.7 below describes the percentage of households with members in the vulnerable age group (0-6 years of age). While 54.8% of the households have no children in the 0-6 age group, 42.9% have up to three children in the said age group. Tables 6.3.7 to 6.3.11 depict the percentage of respondent households with members in the working-age population (typically described as 19-60 years of age). 46.1% of households in the 19-40 years age group (Table 8.1.14) and 49.4% of households in the 41-60 years age group (Table 8.1.15) have two members. Table 6.3.7 Distribution of Households by Number of Family Members In The Age Group of 0-6 Years No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total 0 149 58.2 3 30.0 32 45.7 184 54.8 1 48 18.8 3 30.0 9 12.9 60 17.9 27

No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total 2 39 15.2 2 20.0 20 28.6 61 18.2 3 16 6.3 1 10.0 6 8.6 23 6.8 4 3 1.2 1 10.0 3 4.3 7 2.1 5 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Table 6.3.8 Distribution of Households by Number of Family Members In The Age Group of 7-18 Years Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper No. of Persons Labour Total 0 78 30.5 1 10.0 27 38.6 106 31.5 1 61 23.8 0 0.0 11 15.7 72 21.4 2 64 25.0 4 40.0 20 28.6 88 26.2 3 27 10.5 4 40.0 7 10.0 38 11.3 4 14 5.5 1 10.0 4 5.7 19 5.7 5 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 6 6 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4 7 2.1 7 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 13 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Table 6.3.9 Distribution of Households by Number of Family Members in The Age Group of 19-40 Years Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper No. of Persons Labour Total 0 45 17.6 0 0.0 7 10.0 52 15.5 1 42 16.4 0 0.0 9 12.9 51 15.2 2 103 40.2 7 70.0 45 64.3 155 46.1 28

Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper No. of Persons Labour Total 3 24 9.4 1 10.0 7 10.0 32 9.5 4 25 9.8 1 10.0 0 0.0 26 7.7 5 5 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.5 6 4 1.6 0 0.0 2 2.9 6 1.8 7 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 8 5 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.5 10 1 0.4 1 10.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 Table 6.3.10 Distribution of Households by Number of Family Members In The Age Group of 41-60 Years No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total 0 80 31.3 7 70.0 35 50.0 122 36.3 1 27 10.5 1 10.0 7 10.0 35 10.4 2 137 53.5 2 20.0 27 38.6 166 49.4 3 4 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.4 5 1.5 4 4 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.2 5 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 6 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 8 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 29

Table 6.3.11 Distribution of Households by Number of Family Members In The Age Group of 61 & Above Years No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total 0 194 75.8 10 100.0 66 94.3 270 80.4 1 30 11.7 0 0.0 2 2.9 32 9.5 2 31 12.1 0 0.0 2 2.9 33 9.8 3 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Tables 6.3.12 6.3.15 below depict the percentage of respondents under each of the three health status categories normal health, diseased, and physically challenged. 98.3% of the total number of members of the respondent households (total number of 336 households have a total of 2,028 members at an average family size of 6) are in a normal health condition. Table 6.3.12 Distribution of Households by Health Status: No. of Family Members Normal Health No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total 1 7 2.7 0 0.0 1 1.4 8 2.4 2 8 3.1 0 0.0 3 4.3 11 3.3 3 22 8.6 0 0.0 5 7.1 27 8.0 4 61 23.8 1 10.0 15 21.4 77 22.9 5 50 19.5 2 20.0 22 31.4 74 22.0 6 30 11.7 3 30.0 10 14.3 43 12.8 7 26 10.2 1 10.0 6 8.6 33 9.8 8 12 4.7 1 10.0 2 2.9 15 4.5 9 11 4.3 0 0.0 3 4.3 14 4.2 10 4 1.6 1 10.0 1 1.4 6 1.8 11 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 1.4 2 0.6 12 6 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.4 7 2.1 13 4 1.6 0 0.0 0.0 4 1.2 30

No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total 14 2 0.8 0 0.0 0.0 2 0.6 15 3 1.2 0 0.0 0.0 3 0.9 16 4 1.6 0 0.0 0.0 4 1.2 17 2 0.8 1 10.0 0.0 3 0.9 18 1 0.4 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.3 21 1 0.4 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.3 25 1 0.4 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.3 Table 6.3.13 Distribution of Households by Health Status: No. of Family Members Diseased Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper No. of Persons Labour Total 0 238 93.0 10 100.0 68 97.1 316 94.0 1 14 5.5 0 0.0 2 2.9 16 4.8 2 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 3 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Table 6.3.14 Distribution of Households by Health Status: No. of Family Members Physically Challenged Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper No. of Persons Labour Total 0 251 98.0 10 100.0 67 95.7 328 97.6 1 4 1.6 0 0.0 3 4.3 7 2.1 2 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 31

Table 6.3.15 Distribution of Households by Health Status of Family Members Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Health Status Labour Total Normal 1550 98.2 74 100.0 370 98.7 1994 98.3 Disease 23 1.5 0 0.0 2 0.5 25 1.2 Physically challenged 6 0.4 0 0.0 3 0.8 9 0.4 Grand Total 1579 100.0 74 100.0 375 100.0 2028 100.0 In sum, Tables 6.3.1 to 6.3.15 indicate that vulnerability among the affected households is low on account of the low-to-very-low percentages of households meeting the vulnerability criteria: kuchha, mixed, and thatched-roof houses (44.6%), dilapidated houses (9.5%), BPL and Antyodaya card holders (38.1%), female-headed families (10.4%), average family size (6), households with children of 1-3 years of age (42.9%), and households with diseased and physically challenged members (1.6%). 6.4 Land Use and Livelihood It may be recalled that Tables 4.6.1 (a) and 4.6.1 (b) in Chapter 4 depict the data pulled out from Census 2001 on the total geographical area, net sown area, total irrigated area, total unirrigated area, forest area, canals area, wells/tube wells area, and lakes/tanks area in the eight affected villages. Net area sown (Gross Cultivable Area) is 1,876 hectares, which is 75.9% of the total geographical area of 2,471 ha. while 17.9% of the area is under non-agricultural use. 42.4% of the area is irrigated by source and 33.5% is un-irrigated. Wells/tube wells area is 33.1%, tanks/lakes area is 9.2%, and there is no canals area or forest area or barren/uncultivable area. 6.5 Economic Activities Tables 6.5.1 6.5.5 below depict the occupational details of the respondents occupational status, type of occupational activity, sector and nature of occupation, and professional skills. Table 6.5.1 indicates that students constitute the highest percentage (39.3%) of respondents, 32

followed by those currently working (25.7%). 91.7% of the respondents have no professional skills (Table 6.5.5). Table 6.5.1 Distribution of Households by Occupational Status Share Agricultural Occupational Land Owner Total Cropper Labour Status Working Now 396 25.1 17 23.0 108 28.8 521 25.7 Seeking first job 115 7.3 14 18.9 67 17.9 196 9.7 Housewife 381 24.1 17 23.0 45 12.0 443 21.8 Student 624 39.5 26 35.1 148 39.5 798 39.3 Retiree 22 1.4 0 0.0 3 0.8 25 1.2 Not working 41 2.6 0 0.0 4 1.1 45 2.2 Grand Total 1579 100.0 74 100.0 375 100.0 2028 100.0 Table 6.5.2 Distribution of Households by Occupational Activity Occupational Activity Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Landless Agri. Labour 3 0.2 5 6.8 86 22.9 94 4.6 Marginal farmer 128 8.1 7 9.5 0 0.0 135 6.7 Small farmer 119 7.5 4 5.4 37 9.9 160 7.9 Big farmer 18 1.1 3 4.1 0 0.0 21 1.0 Casual Labour 12 0.8 0 0.0 2 0.5 14 0.7 Artisan 19 1.2 2 2.7 8 2.1 29 1.4 Small & Micro Enterprise 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Business 9 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.4 Govt. Service 61 3.9 1 1.4 2 0.5 64 3.2 Private Service 44 2.8 1 1.4 1 0.3 46 2.3 Small shop 20 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 1.0 Others 17 1.1 0 0.0 1 0.3 18 0.9 No Response 1129 71.5 51 68.9 238 63.5 1418 69.9 Grand Total 1579 100.0 74 100.0 375 100.0 2028 100.0 33

Table 6.5.3 Distribution of Households by Sector of Occupation Sector Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Organized 174 11.0 2 2.7 8 2.1 184 9.1 Unorganized 338 21.4 23 31.1 134 35.7 495 24.4 No Response 1067 67.6 49 66.2 233 62.1 1349 66.5 Grand Total 1579 100.0 74 100.0 375 100.0 2028 100.0 Table 6.5.4 Distribution of Households by Nature of Occupation Sector Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Permanent 295 18.7 10 13.5 5 1.3 310 15.3 Temporary 144 9.1 15 20.3 130 34.7 289 14.3 No Response 1140 72.2 49 66.2 240 64.0 1429 70.5 Grand Total 1579 100.0 74 100.0 375 100.0 2028 100.0 Table 6.5.5 Distribution of Households by Professional Skills Sector Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Computer 126 8.0 0 0.0 21 5.6 147 7.2 Typing 3 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.1 Construction 5 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.2 Mechanic 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Carpentry 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Driving 14 0.95 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 0.7 Others 0 0.05 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 No Skills/ No Response 1431 90.6 74 100.0 354 94.4 1859 91.7 Grand Total 1579 100.0 74 100.0 375 100.0 2028 100.0 34

The following tables from 6.5.6 to 6.5.10 depict the migration details of the respondents: percentage of in-migrants and out-migrants and reasons for migration. It can be inferred from Table 6.5.9 that a total of 221 members (out of a total of 2028, or 10.89%) have migrated. For land owners, the percentage is 11.58% (183 out of 1579). Table 6.5.10 indicates that education (36.2%) and job (23.1%) are the primary reasons for migration among the respondents. Table 6.5.6 Distribution of Households by Number of Members Migrated No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total in Family 0 183 71.5 8 80.0 61 87.1 252 75.0 1 30 11.7 2 20.0 1 1.4 33 9.8 2 17 6.6 0 0.0 3 4.3 20 6.0 3 5 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.5 4 8 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 2.4 5 8 3.1 0 0.0 2 2.9 10 3.0 6 3 1.2 0 0.0 2 2.9 5 1.5 7 2 0.8 0 0.0 1 1.4 3 0.9 Table 6.5.7 Distribution of Family Members Migrated (In-Migrants) No. of persons in Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total a family 0 249 97.3 10 100.0 62 88.6 321 95.5 1 2 0.8 0 0.0 1 1.4 3 0.9 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 4 3 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 5 1 0.4 0 0.0 2 2.9 3 0.9 6 1 0.4 0 0.0 2 2.9 3 0.9 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 1 0.3 35

Table 6.5.8 Distribution of Family Members Migrated (Out-Migrants) No. of Persons Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total in Family 0 190 74.2 8 80.0 69 98.6 267 79.5 1 28 10.9 2 20.0 0 0.0 30 8.9 2 17 6.6 0 0.0 1 1.4 18 5.4 3 5 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.5 4 5 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.5 5 7 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 2.1 6 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 7 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 Table 6.5.9 Distribution of Respondents by Migration Status Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Total In migrated persons 25 0 34 59 Total Out migrated persons 158 2 2 162 Total Seasonal migrated 0 0 1 1 Total Permanent migrated 162 3 1 166 Total migrated persons 183 2 36 221 Percentage 11.58 2.7 9.6 10.89 Table 6.5.10 Distribution of Respondents by Reason for Migration Share Agricultural Reason for Land Owner Total Cropper Labour Migration Job 50 27.3 1 50.0 0 0.0 51 23.1 Education 78 42.6 0 0.0 2 5.6 80 36.2 Business 3 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.4 36

Share Agricultural Reason for Land Owner Total Cropper Labour Migration Bought land 14 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 6.35 Married there 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.8 1 0.5 Others 2 1.1 1 50.0 0 0.0 3 1.4 No Response 36 19.7 0 0.0 33 91.7 69 31.2 Grand Total 183 100.0 2 100.0 36 100.0 221 100.0 37

CHAPTER VII SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT In order to assess the social and psychological impact and the costs and benefits associated with the project, primary data quantitative (through household survey) and qualitative (through focus group discussions) were collected from all the individuals affected, which included land owners, share croppers, and agricultural labourers from the four villages in the project area, viz. Pathraura, Nahub, Pilkhi, and Hasanpur. The following sections describe the analysis of and conclusions drawn from the data so collected. 7.1 Quantitative Data through Household Survey 7.1.1 Loss of Income from the Project Tables 7.1.1.1 to 7.1.1.3 below depict the quantum of expected annual loss of income as reported by the respondents on account of land affected by the project. From Table 7.1.1.1, it is evident that 80.1% of total respondents and 94.5% of land owners are affected by a loss of less than 0.5 acre of land. Table 7.1.1.2 indicates that for the highest percentage of respondents (39.9% of total respondents and 50% of land owners), the annual loss of income ranges from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000. The average loss of annual income for total respondents and land owners is Rs. 8,132 and Rs. 6,491 respectively. There is no land affected in Unirrigated agricultural land, Bari Land and Other lands. Table 7.1.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Average Area of Land Affected by the Project Land in Acres Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Less than 0.5 Acre 242 94.5 4 40.0 23 32.9 269 80.1 0.5 to 1 Acre 11 4.3 1 10.0 0.0 12 3.6 More than 1 Acre 3 1.2 0.0 3 4.3 6 1.8 No Land 0.0 5 50.0 44 62.9 49 14.6 38

1.80% 3.60% 14.60% 80.10% Less than 0.5 Acre 0.5 to 1 Acre More than 1 Acre No Land Fig. 7.1.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Average Area of Land Affected by the Project Table 7.1.1.2 Distribution of Respondents by Average Annual Loss of Income from Land Affected Share Agricultural Land Owner Annual Loss Cropper Labour Total Up to Rs. 1,000 33 12.9 1 10.0 0.0 34 10.1 Rs. 1000 to 5,000 128 50.0 3 30.0 3 4.3 134 39.9 Rs. 5000 to 10,000 58 22.7 0.0 1 1.4 59 17.6 Rs. 10000 to 20,000 27 10.5 1 10.0 2 2.9 30 8.9 More than Rs. 20,000 8 3.1 0.0 13 18.6 21 6.3 Amount not calculated 2 0.8 0.0 7 10.0 9 2.7 No Land Grand Total 256 0.0 100.0 5 10 50.0 100.0 44 70 62.9 100.0 49 336 14.6 100.0 39

2.70% 6.30% 14.60% 10.10% 8.90% 39.90% 17.60% Upto Rs. 1000 Rs. 1000 to 5000 Rs. 5000 to 100000 Rs. 10000 to 20000 More than Rs. 20000 Amount not calculated No Land Fig. 7.1.1.2. Distribution of Respondents by Average Annual Loss of Income from Land Affected Table 7.1.1.3 Total and Averagee Area of Land Affected & Annual Loss of Income Land Affected/ Loss of Income Total Land affected (in Acres) Average Land affected (in Acres) Total Annual Loss of Income (In Rs.) Average Annual Loss of Income (In Rs.) Land Owner 34.31 0.13 16,48,600 6,491 Share Cropper 0.79 0.16 25,000 5,000 Agricultural Labour 69.79 2..68 5,87,000 30,,895 Grand Total 104.88 0.37 22,60,600 8,132 Tables 7.1.1.4 to 7.1.1.6 below depict the annual loss of income reported by the land owner respondents on account of trees affected and other losses expected to be incurred as a result of the project. While 96.4% of respondents (247 out of 256) are not affected by loss of trees, 1.2% of respondents reported an annual loss of income of Rs. 1,20,0000 on account of the highest number of trees (10) affected and 0.8% of respondents reported an annual loss of income of Rs, 1,06,000 on account of 8 trees affected. The total annual loss of income 40

reported by the respondents on account of trees affected is Rs. 2,83,000. The total other losses reported by the respondents is Rs. 1,06,800 and the average is Rs. 2,180. Table 7.1.1.4 Distribution of Land Owners by Number of Trees Affected No. of Trees Affected Number Percent Total Loss (Trees) 1 1 0.4 20,000 3 1 0.4 1,000 4 1 0.4 16,000 8 2 0.8 1,06,000 9 1 0.4 20,000 10 3 1.2 1,20,000 Not Applicable 247 96.5 0 Grand Total 256 100.0 2,83,000 Table 7.1.1.5 Distribution of Respondents by Other Losses to the Household Share Agricultural Land Owner Annual Loss Cropper Labour Total Less than Rs. 1,000 0.0 0.0 35 50.0 35 10.4 Rs. 1,000 to 5,000 0.0 2 20.0 8 11.4 10 3.0 More than Rs. 5,000 0.0 3 30.0 1 1.4 4 1.2 No loss 256 100.0 5 50.0 26 37.1 287 85.4 41

Table 7.1.1.6 Total and Average Other Losses to the Household Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Grand Total Total Loss (in Rs.) 0 71,400 35,400 1,06,800 Average Loss (in Rs.) 0 14,280 805 2,180 7.1.2 Social and Psychological Costs and Benefits from the Project (a) Social Costs The following tables from 7.1.2.1 to 7.1.2.8 depict the social costs expected by the respondents from the project: loss of farming activities (31.3% of respondents), loss of business activities (7.7%), loss of daily wage earnings (6.9%), loss to share croppers (15.8%), dislocation of workplace (7.7%), environmental hazards during the project period (12.2%), rise in illicit activities during the project period (8.9%), and health hazards during the project period (11%). In sum, the low-to-extremely low percentages indicate that the social costs of the project for the respondents are minimal. Table 7.1.2.1 Expected Social Costs - Loss of Farming Activities Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Disagree 70 27.3 2 20.0 30 42.9 102 30.4 Neutral 112 43.8 0 0.0 17 24.3 129 38.4 Agree 71 27.7 5 50.0 23 32.9 99 29.5 Strongly Agree 3 1.2 3 30.0 0 0.0 6 1.8 42

Table 7.1.2.2 Expected Social Costs - Loss of Business Activities Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Disagree 73 28.5 2 20.0 37 52.9 112 33.3 Neutral 164 64.1 5 50.0 29 41.4 198 58.9 Agree 18 7.0 1 10.0 4 5.7 23 6.8 Strongly Agree 1 0.4 2 20.0 0 0.0 3 0.9 Table 7.1.2.3 Expected Social Costs - Loss of Daily Wage Earnings Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total No % No. % No. % No. % Strongly Disagree 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 1.4 2 0.6 Disagree 74 28.9 2 20.0 35 50.0 111 33.0 Neutral 167 65.2 7 70.0 26 37.1 200 59.5 Agree 12 4.7 1 10.0 8 11.4 21 6.3 Strongly Agree 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 Table 7.1.2.4 Expected Social Costs - Loss to Share Croppers Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 74 28.9 2 20.0 34 48.6 110 32.7 Neutral 143 55.9 2 20.0 26 37.1 171 50.9 Agree 37 14.5 4 40.0 7 10.0 48 14.3 Strongly Agree 2 0.8 2 20.0 1 1.4 5 1.5 43

Table 7.1.2.5 Expected Social Costs - Dislocation of Workplace Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 70 27.3 1 10.0 35 50.0 106 31.5 Neutral 163 63.7 9 90.0 30 42.9 202 60.1 Agree 21 8.2 0 0.0 2 2.9 23 6.8 Strongly Agree 2 0.8 0 0.0 1 1.4 3 0.9 Table 7.1.2.6 Expected Social Costs - Environmental Hazards during the Project Period Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 5.7 4 1.2 Disagree 77 30.1 1 10.0 35 50.0 113 33.6 Neutral 146 57.0 7 70.0 25 35.7 178 53.0 Agree 30 11.7 2 20.0 5 7.1 37 11.0 Strongly Agree 3 1.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 4 1.2 Table 7.1.2.7 Expected Social Costs - Rise in Illicit Activities during the Project Period Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 1 0.4 0 0.0 3 4.3 4 1.2 Disagree 74 28.9 0 0.0 36 51.4 110 32.7 Neutral 155 60.5 9 90.0 28 40.0 192 57.1 Agree 24 9.4 1 10.0 3 4.3 28 8.3 Strongly Agree 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 44

Table 7.1.2.8 Expected Social Costs - Health Hazards during the Project Period Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 1.4 2 0.6 Disagree 110 43.0 1 10.0 49 70.0 160 47.6 Neutral 117 45.7 7 70.0 13 18.6 137 40.8 Agree 26 10.2 2 20.0 7 10.0 35 10.4 Strongly Agree 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 (b) Social Benefits Tables from 7.1.2.9 to 7.1.2.19 below depict the social benefits expected by the respondents from the project: increase in agricultural yield (64.5% of respondents), expansion in small business activities (88.7%), improvement in mobility (90.5%), improvement in the marketing of local produce (91.1%), better access to education (88.1%), better access to healthcare facilities (86.3%), better access to credit facilities (88.4%), saving of productive time due to ease of traffic congestion (71.4%), shortening of distance (83.9%), receiving good price for the land (89.3%), and receiving a good rehabilitation package (47.9%). In sum, the extremely high percentages indicate that the social benefits of the project for the respondents are extremely high. On balance, it is very clear that the social benefits of the project far exceed its social costs. Table 7.1.2.9 Expected Social Benefits - Increase in Agricultural Yield Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 14 5.5 0 0.0 20 28.6 34 10.1 Neutral 69 27.0 6 60.0 8 11.4 83 24.7 Agree 112 43.8 2 20.0 34 48.6 148 44.0 Strongly Agree 61 23.8 2 20.0 6 8.6 69 20.5 45

Table 7.1.2.10 Expected Social Benefits - Expansion in Small Business Activities Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 1 0.4 1 10.0 21 30.0 23 6.8 Neutral 12 4.7 0 0.0 1 1.4 13 3.9 Agree 187 73.0 7 70.0 37 52.9 231 68.8 Strongly Agree 56 21.9 2 20.0 9 12.9 67 19.9 Table 7.1.2.11 Expected Social Benefits - Improvement in Mobility Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 0 0.0 1 10.0 21 30.0 22 6.5 Neutral 6 2.3 0 0.0 2 2.9 8 2.4 Agree 194 75.8 8 80.0 39 55.7 241 71.7 Strongly Agree 56 21.9 1 10.0 6 8.6 63 18.8 Table 7.1.2.12 Expected Social Benefits - Improvement in Marketing of Local Produce Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 0 0.0 1 10.0 19 27.1 20 6.0 Neutral 6 2.3 0 0.0 2 2.9 8 2.4 Agree 200 78.1 6 60.0 42 60.0 248 73.8 Strongly Agree 50 19.5 3 30.0 5 7.1 58 17.3 46

Table 7.1.2.13 Expected Social Benefits - Better Access to Education Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 0 0.0 1 10.0 18 25.7 19 5.7 Neutral 8 3.1 3 30.0 8 11.4 19 5.7 Agree 208 81.3 5 50.0 39 55.7 252 75.0 Strongly Agree 40 15.6 1 10.0 3 4.3 44 13.1 Table 7.1.2.14 Expected Social Benefits - Better Access to Healthcare Facilities Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 0 0.0 1 10.0 18 25.7 19 5.7 Neutral 12 4.7 4 40.0 9 12.9 25 7.4 Agree 222 86.7 4 40.0 37 52.9 263 78.3 Strongly Agree 22 8.6 1 10.0 4 5.7 27 8.0 Table 7.1.2.15 Expected Social Benefits - Better Access to Credit Facilities Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 4.3 3 0.9 Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 24.3 17 5.1 Neutral 10 3.9 2 20.0 7 10.0 19 5.7 Agree 202 78.9 6 60.0 40 57.1 248 73.8 Strongly Agree 44 17.2 2 20.0 3 4.3 49 14.6 47

Table 7.1.2.16 Expected Social Benefits Saving of Productive Time due to Ease of Traffic Congestion Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 24.3 17 5.1 Neutral 69 27.0 3 30.0 5 7.1 77 22.9 Agree 164 64.1 6 60.0 44 62.9 214 63.7 Strongly Agree 23 9.0 1 10.0 2 2.9 26 7.7 Table 7.1.2.17 Expected Social Benefits - Shortening of Distance Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Response Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9 2 0.6 Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 24.3 17 5.1 Neutral 26 10.2 4 40.0 5 7.1 35 10.4 Agree 188 73.4 6 60.0 38 54.3 232 69.0 Strongly Agree 42 16.4 0 0.0 8 11.4 50 14.9 Table 7.1.2.18 Expected Social Benefits - Receiving Good Price for the Land Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 4.3 3 0.9 Disagree 0 0.0 1 10.0 16 22.9 17 5.1 Neutral 9 3.5 3 30.0 4 5.7 16 4.8 Agree 172 67.2 3 30.0 38 54.3 213 63.4 48

Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Response Strongly Agree 75 29.3 3 30.0 9 12.9 87 25.9 Table 7.1.2.19 Expected Social Benefits - Receiving a Good Rehabilitation Package Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Strongly Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 4.3 3 0.9 Disagree 1 0.4 0 0.0 17 24.3 18 5.4 Neutral 123 48.0 8 80.0 23 32.9 154 45.8 Agree 110 43.0 2 20.0 25 35.7 137 40.8 Strongly Agree 22 8.6 0 0.0 2 2.9 24 7.1 (c) Psychological Costs The following tables from 7.1.2.20 to 7.1.2.29 depict the psychological costs expected by the respondents from the project: feeling tense (37.2% of respondents), feeling anxious (11.3%), feeling depressed (17%), feeling fearful (11.9%), loss of social status (11.6%), loss of self esteem (9.8%), possibility of conflict with neighbours (3.9%), obstruction to cultural programmes/festivals (28%), and hurt to religious sentiments (27.7%). On the whole, the low-to-extremely low percentages indicate that the psychological impact of the project on the respondents is minimal. Table 7.1.2.20 Psychological Costs Feeling Tense Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 179 69.9 4 40.0 28 40.0 211 62.8 Sometimes/partial 9 3.5 1 10.0 1 1.4 11 3.3 Always 68 26.6 5 50.0 41 58.6 114 33.9 49

Table 7.1.2.21 Psychological Costs - Feeling Anxious Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 242 94.5 7 70.0 49 70.0 298 88.7 Sometimes/partial 12 4.7 3 30.0 14 20.0 29 8.6 Always 2 0.8 0 0.0 7 10.0 9 2.7 Table 7.1.2.22 Psychological Costs - Feeling Depressed Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 225 87.9 7 70.0 47 67.1 279 83.0 Sometimes/partial 17 6.6 3 30.0 17 24.3 37 11.0 Always 14 5.5 0 0.0 6 8.6 20 6.0 Table 7.1.2.23 Psychological Costs - Feeling Fearful Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 241 94.1 5 50.0 50 71.4 296 88.1 Sometimes/partial 15 5.9 5 50.0 19 27.1 39 11.6 Always 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 1 0.3 Table 7.1.2.24 Psychological Costs - Loss of Social Status Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 238 93.0 6 60.0 53 75.7 297 88.4 Sometimes/partial 18 7.0 4 40.0 17 24.3 39 11.6 50

Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Response Always 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Table 7.1.2.25 Psychological Costs - Loss of Self Esteem Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 238 93.0 8 80.0 57 81.4 303 90.2 Sometimes/partial 18 7.0 2 20.0 13 18.6 33 9.8 Always 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Table 7.1.2.26 Psychological Costs Possibility of Conflict with Neighbours Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 250 97.7 9 90.0 64 91.4 323 96.1 Sometimes/partial 6 2.3 1 10.0 6 8.6 13 3.9 Always 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Table 7.1.2.27 Psychological Costs - Obstruction to Cultural Programmes/Festivals Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 201 78.5 5 50.0 36 51.4 242 72.0 Sometimes/partial 3 1.2 1 10.0 1 1.4 5 1.5 Always 52 20.3 4 40.0 33 47.1 89 26.5 51

Table 7.1.2.28 Psychological Costs Hurt to Religious Sentiments Response Land Owner Share Cropper Agricultural Labour Total Not at all 202 78.9 5 50.0 36 51.4 243 72.3 Sometimes/partial 3 1.2 1 10.0 1 1.4 5 1.5 Always 51 19.9 4 40.0 33 47.1 88 26.2 Finally, when it comes to the kind of assistance required for rehabilitation, 20.5% of the total respondents expressed a desire for a rehabilitation package, as can be seen from Table 8.1.65 below. Table 7.1.2.29 Assistance Required for Rehabilitation Agricultural Land Owner Share Cropper Assistance Required Labour Total Rehabilitation Package 69 27.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 69 20.5 NA 131 51.2 5 50.0 36 51.4 172 51.2 No Response 56 21.9 5 50.0 34 48.6 95 28.3 7.2 Qualitative Data through Focus Group Discussions In the process of primary data collection a team of CIMP visited all the four villages (Hasanpur, Pathraura, Pilkhi and Nahub) of Rajgir district on 16th and 17 th Feb. 2016. People were informed in advance about this visit as field investigators were already doing the data collection in their areas and notice from land acquisition department, Nalanda were already pasted at all public places like Panchayat Bhawan, School etc. People gathered in huge numbers at public places like Panchayat Bhawan, School, and Anganwadi Centre and shared their views. Government officials like DCLR, Rajgir, CO, Rajgir, CI, Rajgir, Assistant Engineer, and Road Construction Department were also present and participated in the discussion. An attempt was made to invite all the people who were directly or indirectly 52

being affected by the construction of Rajgir Bypass Road. All the Focus Group Discussions were video-recorded and the same are enclosed with the report. In all the four villages except Pilkhi, people are mainly concerned about the compensation rate they are going to receive from the government. They are not against the construction of the road but want the compensation at the current market value rate. The lands to be acquired in all these villages are fertile three-crop lands. People have no other source of livelihood except farming. Pilkhi is the most affected village as this will be the seventh time their land is going to be acquired by the government. The entire population dependent on agriculture will be deprived of their only means of livelihood. People of Pilkhi village want that the government redo the land survey for this project and explore the option of acquiring the already existing road (govt. land of approx. 200 ft.) known as Alang, situated between Pilkhi village and Niman Village. Fig. 7.2.1 Land Acquisition Plan Pilkhi Village Details of discussions in all the four villages are mentioned below: Name of the Village: Hasanpur Venue of FGD: Panchayat Bhawan, Nahub Date of FGD: 16 th February, 2016 No. of Participants: 23 53

Officials Present Name and Designation: Mr. Sadhu Sharan, Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Nalanda, Mukhia, Prof. Sayan Banerjee, CIMP, Prof. Madhulima Shekhar, CIMP Benefits from the Project: Distance from Hasanpur to major cities and locations like Gaya, Islampur (approx.3-4 km), Jahanabad and Nalanda University will be shortened. Opportunities for jobs to the local people will increase as more hotels, factories and markets will be opened. Occurrence of crime and illicit activities, especially from the perspective of women s safety, will decrease in this area. Costs/Loss: No change in access to Banking/Credit facilities/post Office. Road construction may affect the crops of nearby fields. What kind of assistance is required? Compensation rate and Land registration rate should be the same. Compensation should be given as per the new circle rate. Hasanpur should be considered as an Industrial area and the people should get compensation as per Industrial rate. People should get compensation before the road construction starts. Government officials should ensure that compensation sum is distributed at a camp in the village. Any other feedback Categorisation of land should be revised and updated. Land up to five decimals is considered as Awasiya, which is not accurate. As the quality of land is very fertile and people do farming throughout the year and grow multiple crops, it cannot be considered as Bari Land. 54

Fig. 7.2.2 FGD at Hasanpur Village Fig. 7.2.3 NH-82 Yatri Shed at Hasanpur Name of the Village: Pathraura Venue of FGD: MadhyaVidyalaya, Pathraura Date of FGD: 16 th February, 2016 No. of Participants: 33 55

Officials Present Name and Designation: Mr. Sadhu Sharan, Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Nalanda, Shri Anuj Kumar, Mukhia, Pathraura, Prof. Sayan Banerjee,CIMP, Prof. Madhulima Shekhar, CIMP Benefits from the Project: Transportation will become easy. People can easily sell their produce in the market. It will bring prosperity to the village. It will help in the development of the village in respect to health, education and business. Costs/Loss: People who do farming on other fields (share cropping) fear that they will not get land for farming after the land acquisition. What kind of assistance is required? Compensation should be given at the current market value rate. Affected people should get the compensation directly. No middleman should be involved in the distribution of compensation money. People should get the money before the construction of the road begins. Any other feedback The construction of the road should start soon. 56

Fig. 7.2.4 FGD Team with Mukhia at Pathraura Village Name of the Village: Pilkhi Venue of FGD: Anganwadi Centre Date of FGD: 17 th February, 2016 No. of Participants: 23 Officials Present Name and Designation: Mr. Satish Kumar, Circle Officer, Rajgir, Mr. Anand Kumar, Circle Inspector, Rajgir and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, DCLR, Rajgir, Prof. Sayan Banerjee,CIMP, Prof. Madhulima Shekhar, CIMP Benefits from the Project: Costs/Loss: This will be the seventh time that land in Pilkhi is being acquired by the Government. More than 65 percent of agricultural land has already been acquired for different projects. Another acquisition will result in landlessness of a large number of peasants. Most of the people are left with very little agricultural land. As their main occupation is farming, they want that government should consider using govt. land (200 ft. lying between Pilkhi and Niman village) for the project instead of acquiring their agricultural land. 57

Agricultural workers will be the worst hit, as they will be losing their employment. Many small farmers migrated to Delhi and other big cities to work as a daily wage labourers for livelihood after losing their land. Some farmers purchased land with their compensation money at a higher market value rate. Now again they are losing their land in this project. What kind of assistance is required? As people of Pilkhi village are left with very little agricultural land, they want that government should acquire 200 ft. government land instead of their fertile land which lies between Niman village and Pilkhi Village. People would not mind parting with their land in the event of the government land falling short of the project requirement. This would also minimise the government s cost of land acquisition by way of reduced number of people requiring compensation. Paein can also be shifted which is lying between govt. land and Niman village. People want that government officials should visit Pilkhi village again and restructure the land acquisition plan of Rajgir Bypass Road. Earlier people received very little compensation (based on old Land survey report of 1907) as their land was classified as Bhit (less fertile). But now with the new technology, people grow crops throughout the year. They want that they should get the compensation as per the rate fixed for developing land. People do not want any delay in getting the compensation money. Any other feedback The land to be acquired for Rajgir Bypass Road is fertile three-crop land where apart from wheat and rice, commercial crops like potato, onion, mustard, sunflower, garlic and other spices are grown. People want the compensation as per the current market rate. 58

Government should offer a job to one member of each of the family being affected by this project. Fig. 7.2.5 Alang at Pilkhi Village Name of the Village: Nahub Venue of FGD: Panchayat Bhawan, Nahub Date of FGD: 17 th February, 2016 No. of Participants: 43 Officials Present Name and Designation: Mr. Satish Kumar, Circle Officer, Rajgir, Mukhia, Prof. Sayan Banerjee, CIMP, Prof. Madhulima Shekhar, CIMP Benefits from the Project: Costs/Loss: What kind of assistance is required? Local people should get employment during road construction under MGNREGA. The list of affected households should be reviewed and revised as there are many discrepancies like duplication of entries (names), missing names, and wrong names. 59

Seventy percent of the names are either missing or wrong names are entered in the list. The compensation should be six times the registered sales deed value. Government should offer a job to one member of each of the family being affected by this project as people do not have any other source of livelihood. Any other feedback The land to be acquired for Rajgir Bypass Road is fertile three-crop land where apart from wheat and rice, commercial crops like potato, onion, mustard, sunflower, garlic and other spices are grown. People want the compensation as per the current market rate. Categorisation of land should be revised and updated. Land up to five decimals is considered as Awasiya, which is not accurate as the land is very fertile and people do farming throughout the year and grow multiple crops. Government officials should camp in the village and distribute the compensation to the affected people. Road construction should begin only after distributing the compensation to the affected people. TDS should not be deducted from the amount received as compensation. Details of compensation amount should be mentioned in the AWARD. 60

CHAPTER VIII ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS AND RECOMMENDATION ON ACQUISITION 8.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis (Economic Costs) 8.1.1 Costs As per the information received from the Road Construction Department (Central Circle, RCD, Patna), the estimated total cost of the Rajgir Bypass Road project is `34.16 crores, which includes the cost of land acquisition of `17.31 cr. The costs to be considered for the analysis include: Investment cost Maintenance cost Cost of structures The cost-benefit analysis is done for a period of 14 years, which includes three years for the construction and 11 years for maintenance of the road. 8.1.1.1 Investment Cost For Year 0, the investment cost is `23 cr., arrived at as follows: Investment Cost = Cost of Land Acquisition + (Cost of Construction/3) = `17.31 cr. + (`16.84 cr. /3) = `22.92 cr. `23 cr. Investment cost for Years 1-2 is taken as `6 cr. and `5 cr. respectively by distributing the total construction cost more or less uniformly across the construction period of three years. 8.1.1.2 Maintenance Cost Maintenance cost for the next 11 years (Years 3-13) is estimated at a rate of 2 per cent of the project cost i.e. `0.6 cr. 61

8.1.1.3 Cost of structures Cost of structures to be affected in Year 0 (trees in this case) is estimated to be `0.283 cr. ( `0.3 cr.) as depicted in Table 7.1.1.4 in Chapter 7. Therefore, the total cost in Year 0 is 23.03 cr. Similarly, the total cost is estimated for all the 14 years and the present value (PV) of the total cost at a discounting rate of 10 per cent (Scenario-1) is estimated for all the 14 years. The total PV of the cost over a 14-year period is thus estimated to be 50.479 cr. 8.1.2 Benefits The benefits expected to be accrued from the project to the population in the affected villages include: Agricultural benefits Better market access benefits Labour employment opportunities Savings in vehicle operating cost Small business activities 8.1.2.1 Agricultural Benefits Agricultural benefits include increase in agricultural yield on account of better access to seeds, fertilisers and other agricultural inputs and farm implements. The Gross Cultivable Area (GCA) in the eight affected villages is 1,876 hectares as depicted in Table 6.4.1(b) in Chapter 6. Since the land in the affected villages is fertile, three-crop-per-year land, the GCA for paddy and wheat considered for the analysis is 1,876 ha. each and 375 ha. (20% of GCA) for vegetables. Nalanda district falls under the category of low productivity districts with an average yield of 1 1.5 tons per hectare (Source: http://drd.dacnet.nic.in/pa-table-04-bihar.htm accessed on 08.03.2016). Assuming a yield per annum of 1.5 tons, 1.2 tons, and 10 tons for paddy, wheat, and vegetables respectively, the gross production per annum is estimated at 2,814 tons, 2,251 tons, and 3,752 tons respectively. At a price per ton of 14,000, 14,000, and 10,000 respectively, the total produce value for the three crops is 3.93 cr., 3.15 cr., and 3.75 cr. respectively. The total produce value per annum for all the three crops put together is 10.84 cr. Assuming a 20 per cent increase in yield on account of better access to seeds, fertilisers 62

and other agricultural inputs and farm implements as a result of the project, the increment in agricultural produce value is estimated at 2.16 cr. This benefit to the land owners would start flowing from Year 3 and is expected to steadily increase over the next 11 years. 8.1.2.2 Better Market Access Benefits Better market access benefits refer to increase in market value of agricultural produce on account of improved mobility. Assuming a 30 per cent increase in market value, the benefit would amount to 3.25 cr. This benefit too would start flowing from Year 3 and is expected to steadily increase over the next 11 years. 8.1.2.3 Labour Employment Opportunities Labour employment opportunities include the substantial employment benefit to the local population during the construction period and a little less significant employment benefit during the maintenance period. Labour cost accounts for 30 per cent of the construction cost while material costs accounts for the remaining 70 per cent. Labour cost is thus estimated to be 4.8 cr. distributed uniformly across the construction period. 8.1.2.4 Savings in Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) Savings in vehicle operating cost (VOC) is a significant benefit to the local population since the project would help enhance the life of the vehicles used and reduce their maintenance cost. Assuming a traffic density of 1,100 vehicles per day and a saving of 50, the total savings in VOC is estimated to be 2 cr. per annum. 8.1.2.5 Small Business Activities Another significant benefit from the project is expansion in small business activities along the bypass road. Assuming 10 small business units per km. of the road, a total of 60 units are expected to be established along the total length of 6.1 km. of the bypass road. Assuming three labourers working per establishment and a MGNREGA wage rate of 162, the total labour value per annum generated by small business activities is estimated to be 1.06 cr. As in the previous section, total benefits and the present value (PV) of the total benefits at a discounting rate of 10 per cent are estimated for the 14-year period. The total PV of benefits is thus estimated to be 258.96 cr. 63

Finally, net cash flows, internal rate of return (IRR), and benefit-cost ratio (BC Ratio) for the project are estimated. IRR is 19 per cent and BC Ratio is 5.13. The exercise is repeated by using a discounting rate of 6 per cent in order to generate Senario-2 with a BC Ratio of 4.06. The following Tables 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 depict the cost-benefit analysis under Scenario-1 and Scenario-2 respectively. Table 8.1.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis under Scenario-1 Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Costs Investment Cost 23 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Cost 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Cost of Structures 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cost 23.03 6 5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 PV of Cost 23.03 6.6 6.05 0.7986 0.87846 0.96631 1.06294 1.16923 1.28615 1.41477 1.55625 1.71187 1.88306 2.07136 Total PV of Cost 50.479 Benefits Agricultural Benefits 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 Better Market Access Benefits 0 0 0 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.4 Labor Employment Opportunities 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Savings in Vehicle Operating Cost 0 0 0 2 2 2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.9 Small Business Activities 0 0 0 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.7 Total Benefits 1.2 1.2 1.2 8.61 8.61 8.61 9.4 9.4 9.4 10.7 10.7 10.7 11.9 11.9 PV of Benefits 1.2 1.32 1.452 11.4599 12.6059 13.8665 16.6527 18.3179 20.1497 25.23 27.753 30.5283 37.3473 41.082 Total PV of Benefits 258.965 Net Cash Flows -21.83-4.8-3.8 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.8 8.8 8.8 10.1 10.1 10.1 11.3 11.3 IRR 19% BC Ratio 5.13016 64

Table 8.1.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis under Scenario-2 Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Costs Investment Cost 23 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Cost 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Cost of Structures 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cost 23.03 6 5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 PV of Cost 23.03 6.36 5.618 0.71461 0.757486 0.802935 0.851111 0.902178 0.956309 1.013687 1.074509 1.138979 1.207318 1.279757 Total PV of Cost 45.70688 Benefits Agricultural Benefits 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 Better Market Access Benefits 0 0 0 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.4 Labor Employment Opportunities 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Savings in Vehicle Operating Cost 0 0 0 2 2 2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.9 Small Business Activities 0 0 0 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.7 Total Benefits 1.2 1.2 1.2 8.61 8.61 8.61 9.4 9.4 9.4 10.7 10.7 10.7 11.9 11.9 PV of Benefits 1.2 1.272 1.34832 10.25465 10.86993 11.52212 13.33408 14.13412 14.98217 18.07742 19.16207 20.31179 23.94514 25.38185 Total PV of Benefits 185.7957 Net Cash Flows -21.83-4.8-3.8 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.8 8.8 8.8 10.1 10.1 10.1 11.3 11.3 IRR 19% BC Ratio 4.064939 65

8.2 Social and Psychological Costs and Benefits The following sections summarise the analysis of data collected from a survey of the affected households in the four villages of Hasanpur, Nahub, Pathraura, and Pilkhi in the Rajgir block under Nalanda district presented Chapter 7 as well as secondary data culled from Census 2001 on the vulnerability of the population in all the eight villages affected by the Rajgir Bypass Road project presented in Chapter 6. The following factors contributing to vulnerability of the population in the affected area were examined: poor housing, large family size, families with children, female-headed families, and families owning Below-Poverty-Line (BPL) and Antyodaya ration cards. From the analysis in Chapter 6, it can be inferred that vulnerability among the affected households is low on account of the low-to-very-low percentages of households meeting the vulnerability criteria: kuchha, mixed, and thatched-roof houses (44.6%), dilapidated houses (9.5%), BPL and Antyodaya card holders (38.1%), female-headed families (10.4%), average family size (6), households with children of 1-3 years of age (42.9%), and households with diseased and physically challenged members (1.6%). From the analysis in Chapter 6, it can be inferred that the loss of land per household is less than 0.5 acre (80.1% of total respondents and 94.5% of land owners are affected by a loss of less than 0.5 acre of land). For the highest percentage of respondents (39.9% of total respondents and 50% of land owners), the annual loss of income ranges from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000. The average loss of annual income for total respondents and land owners is Rs. 8,132 and Rs. 6,491 respectively. There is no land affected in Un-irrigated agricultural land, Bari Land and Other lands. While 96.4% of respondents (247 out of 256) are not affected by loss of trees, 1.2% of respondents reported an annual loss of income of Rs. 1,20,000 on account of the highest number of trees (10) affected and 0.8% of respondents reported an annual loss of income of Rs, 1,06,000 on account of 8 trees affected. The total annual loss of income reported by the respondents on account of trees affected is Rs. 2,83,000. The total other losses reported by the respondents is Rs. 1,06,800 and the average is Rs. 2,180. The social costs expected by the respondents from the project include: loss of farming activities (31.3% of respondents), loss of business activities (7.7%), loss of daily wage earnings (6.9%), loss to share croppers (15.8%), dislocation of workplace (7.7%), environmental hazards during the project period (12.2%), rise in illicit activities during the 66

project period (8.9%), and health hazards during the project period (11%). In conclusion, the low-to-extremely low percentages indicate that the social costs of the project for the respondents are minimal. The social benefits expected by the respondents from the project include: increase in agricultural yield (64.5% of respondents), expansion in business/industries (88.7%), improvement in mobility (90.5%), improvement in the marketing of local produce (91.1%), better access to education (88.1%), better access to healthcare facilities (86.3%), better access to credit facilities (88.4%), saving of productive time due to ease of traffic congestion (71.4%), shortening of distance (83.9%), receiving good price for the land (89.3%), and receiving a good rehabilitation package (47.9%). In conclusion, the extremely high percentages indicate that the social benefits of the project for the respondents are extremely high. On balance, it is very clear that the social benefits of the project far exceed its social costs. The psychological costs expected by the respondents from the project: feeling tense (37.2% of respondents), feeling anxious (11.3%), feeling depressed (17%), feeling fearful (11.9%), loss of social status (11.6%), loss of self esteem (9.8%), possibility of conflicts with neighbours (3.9%), obstruction to cultural programmes/festivals (28%), and hurt to religious sentiments (27.7%). On the whole, the low-to-extremely low percentages indicate that the psychological impact of the project on the respondents is minimal. In all the four villages except Pilkhi, people are mainly concerned about the compensation rate they are going to receive from the government. They are not against the construction of the road but want the compensation at the current market value rate. The lands to be acquired in all these villages are fertile three-crop lands. People have no other source of livelihood except farming. Pilkhi is the most affected village as this will be the seventh time their land is going to be acquired by the government. The entire population dependent on agriculture will be deprived of their only means of livelihood. People of Pilkhi village want that the government redo the land survey for this project and explore the option of acquiring the already existing road (govt. land of approx. 200 ft.) known as Alang, situated between Pilkhi village and Niman Village. Finally, while the project is expected to contribute significantly to public good by way of improving mobility, access to education, health care and marketing facilities, expanding business activities, and generating employment opportunities for the local populace, one less- 67

displacing alternative clearly emerges the option of using the government land (existing kuchha road of approx. 200 ft.) situated between the villages of Pilkhi and Niman which would bring relief to the affected households in Pilkhi. 8.3 Social Impact Mitigation Plan (SIMP) Based on the feedback received from the affected people in the villages through focus group discussions, the following measures are recommended for mitigating the social impact of the project: Land survey may be redone, particularly in Pilkhi, in view of concerns of inaccurate land records expressed by the land owners. The option of using the already existing road (govt. land of approx. 200 ft.) known as Alang, situated between the villages of Pilkhi and Niman, may be explored as it would bring relief to the affected households in Pilkhi in view of the fact that land acquisition has been conducted for six times so far in the village. The Paeen in Pilkhi village lying between government land and Niman village may be shifted to some other place. Hasanpur may be treated as an industrial area and compensation be awarded as per industrial land rates. Categorisation of land may be revised to ensure that fertile, three-crop land is not categorised as Bari land; similarly, efforts may be made to ensure that land up to 5 decimals is not categorised as residential ( awasiya ). Compensation may be awarded as per the latest circle rate of land (current market value). Compensation may be awarded by organising camps in the affected villages, preferably before the project commences. A nodal officer may be designated as a single point of contact (SPOC) to look into the grievances of the affected people and address them on a priority basis. 68

REFERENCES Census 2001 http://www.who.int/environmental_health_emergencies/vulnerable_groups/en/ accessed on Mar. 5, 2016 http://drd.dacnet.nic.in/pa-table-04-bihar.htm accessed on Mar. 8, 2016 69

ANNEXURE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1 Name of the respondent: 1.2 Father s/husband s Name: 1.3 Village: 1.4 Tola: 1.5 GP: 1.6 Caste: (EBC=1, ST =2, SC=3, OBC =4, General=5) 1.7 Religion: (Hindu = 1, Muslim = 2, Christian= 3, Sikh = 4, Others = 5) 1.8 Mobile no. 2. HOUSEHOLD/FAMILY INFORMATION 2.1 Type of family: (Nuclear = 1, Joint = 2, Individual = 3) 2.2 Does your family reside in this area? (Yes = 1, No = 2) 2.3 If yes, for how many years? 2.4 If no, where does your family normally stay? 2.5 Type of House: (Kachcha = 1, Pukka = 2, Mixed = 3, Thatched roof = 4) 2.5.1 No. of rooms: 2.5.2 Condition of house: (Good = 1, Average = 2, Dilapidated = 3) 70