Model Land Use Plan - UP

6

District Model Land Use Plan District – Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh

Final Report

By

Bimal Kumar

Sponsored By State Land Use Board, Uttar Pradesh

Department of Planning, Government of U. P. Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow – 226 001

G. B. Pant Social Science Institute Jhusi, Allahabad – 211 019

Phone: (0532) 667214, 667206, Fax: (0532) 667206, E-mail: [email protected]

7

Study Team Project Director Sri Bimal Kumar Research Assistants Mohd. Israil Sri Gyan Nath Jha Research Investigators Sri Atul Mishra Sri Sandeep Srivastava Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Computer Assistant Sri Sandip Kumar Jaiswal

8

Contents

Study Team i

Contents ii-iv List of Tables v-xi Preface xii Location Map xiii Chapter - 1

Introduction 1-5

1.1 Relevance of Study 3 1.2 Objectives 4 1.3 Methodology 4 1.4 Data Source 4-5

SECTION – I

Chapter - 2

Population and Land Resources 6-18

2.1 Demographic Profile 6 2.1.1 Settlement 6 2.1.2 Urbanisation 7 2.2 Population 7-8 2.3 Occupational Structure 8-15 2.3.1 Block-wise Analysis of Occupational Structure 10-15 2.4 Distribution of Landholdings 15-18 Chapter - 3

PART-A: Land Use Related to Agriculture 19-44

3.1 Net Sown Area 19 3.2 Cropping Intensity 20 3.3 Irrigation 20-21 3.4 Gross Irrigated Area as Percentage of Net Irrigated Area 21-22 3.5 Source of Irrigation 22-26 3.6 Cropping Pattern 26-37 3.7 Fertilizer Use 37-40 3.8 Extent of Mechanisation 40-42 3.9 Livestock 42-44 PART-B: Land Use Plan Related to Agricultural Land 45-49 3.10 Agricultural Production System and Framework for Land Use Plan 47 3.11 Factors Inhibiting Growth 47 3.12 Framework of Agricultural Work 47-49 3.13 Collective Farming Society 49 3.14 Confederation of Collective Farming Societies 49 Chapter - 4 Land Use Plan (Other than Agricultural Land) 50-100

9

PART–A

4.1 District Level Analysis of Land Use Pattern and Land Use Plan 50-55 4.1.1 Forest 50-51 4.1.2 Land Put to Non-agricultural Uses 51-53 4.1.3 Barren and Unculturable Land 53 4.1.4 Culturable Waste 53-54 4.1.5 Land under Miscellaneous Trees, Crops, and Groves not

included in Net Sown Area 54-55

4.2 Some General Suggestions 56-61 4.2.1 District Level 56 4.2.2 Block Level 56-60 4.2.3 Village Level 60-61

PART–B 4.3 Block-wise Analysis of Land Use Pattern and Land Use Plan 62-100 4.3.1 Block – Pali 62-64 4.3.2 Block – Sahjanwa 65-66 4.3.3 Block – Piprauli 67-68 4.3.4 Block – Jangal Kauriya 69-70 4.3.5 Block – Chargawan 71-72 4.3.6 Block – Bhathat 73-74 4.3.7 Block – Pipraich 75-76 4.3.8 Block – Sardarnagar 77-78 4.3.9 Block – Khorabar 79-80 4.3.10 Block – Brahampur 81-82 4.3.11 Block – Kauriram 83-84 4.3.12 Block – Bansgaon 85-86 4.3.13 Block – Uroowa 87-88 4.3.14 Block – Gagaha 89-90 4.3.15 Block – Khajani 91-92 4.3.16 Block – Belghat 93-94 4.3.17 Block – Gola 95-96 4.3.18 Block – Badalganj 97-98 4.3.19 Block – Kampairganj 99-100

SECTION – II Chapter - 5 Village Level Plan (Based on Village Level Survey) 101-171 5.1 Village Study – I (Village-Jangal Ayodhya Prasad, Block-Khorabar) 102-119 (A) Village Profile 102-107 5.1.1 Land Use Pattern 102 5.1.2 Demographic Profile 103 5.1.3 Land Ownership 104 5.1.4 Occupational Structure 105-106 5.1.5 Livestock 106 5.1.6 Housing Condition 107

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad 108-118

5.1.7 Change in Size of Land Holding 108-109 5.1.8 Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes 110 5.1.9 Land Reclamation 111 5.1.10 Water Harvesting 112-113

10

5.1.11 Orchards 114-115 5.1.12 Livestock 116 5.1.13 Agriculture 117-118

(C) Land Use Plan for Jangal Ayodhya Prasad Village 119

5.2 Village Study – II (Village-Shivpur, Block-Khorabar) 120-136 (A) Village Profile 120-125 5.2.1 Land Use Pattern 120 5.2.2 Demographic Profile 120-121 5.2.3 Land Ownership 122 5.2.4 Occupational Structure 123-124 5.2.5 Livestock 124 5.2.6 Housing Condition 125

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Village Shivpur 126-135

5.2.7 Change in Size of Land Holding 126-127 5.2.8 Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes 128 5.2.9 Land Reclamation 129 5.2.10 Water Harvesting 130 5.2.11 Orchards 131-132 5.2.12 Livestock 133 5.2.13 Agriculture 134-135

(C) Land Use Plan for Shivpur Village 136

5.3 Village Study – III (Village - Titanpar, Block – Sahjanwa) 137-154 (A) Village Profile 137-142 5.3.1 Land Use Pattern 137 5.3.2 Demographic Profile 138 5.3.3 Land Ownership 139 5.3.4 Occupational Structure 140-141 5.3.5 Livestock 142 5.3.6 Housing Condition 142

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Village Titanpar 143-153

5.3.7 Change in Size of Land Holding 143-144 5.3.8 Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes 145 5.3.9 Land Reclamation 146 5.3.10 Water Harvesting 147-148 5.3.11 Orchards 149-150 5.3.12 Livestock 151 5.3.13 Agriculture 152-153

(C) Land Use Plan for Titanpar Village 154

5.4 Village Study – IV (Village – Kasraul, Block – Sahjanwa) 155-171 (A) Village Profile 155-159 5.4.1 Land Use Pattern 155 5.4.2 Demographic Profile 156 5.4.3 Land Ownership 157 5.4.4 Occupational Structure 158 5.4.5 Livestock 159 5.4.6 Housing Condition 159

11

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Village Kasraul

160-170

5.4.7 Change in Size of Land Holding 160-161 5.4.8 Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes 162 5.4.9 Land Reclamation 163 5.4.10 Water Harvesting 164-165 5.4.11 Orchards 166-167 5.4.12 Livestock 168 5.4.13 Agriculture 169-170

(C) Land Use Plan for Kasraul Village 171

Chapter - 6 Conclusion and Recommendations

172-208

6.1 Land Use Plan Related to Agricultural Land 173-177 6.2 District Level Analysis of Land Use Pattern and Land Use Plan (Other

than Agricultural Land) 178-182

6.3 Some General Suggestions 182-188 6.3.1 District Level 182 6.3.2 Block Level 182-186 6.3.3 Village Level 186-188 6.4 Block Level Plan for Year 2010 188-206 6.5 Village Level Plan for Selected Villages 207-208 6.5.1 Land Use Plan for Jangal Ayodhya Prasad Village 207 6.5.2 Land Use Plan for Shivpur Village 207 6.5.3 Land Use Plan for Titanpar Village 207 6.5.4 Land Use Plan for Kasraul Village 208 Appendix-1 List of Harbal Plants 209-217Appendix-2 xzg u{k= okfVdkvksa dk jksi.k 218-219

12

List of Tables

Tables Title Page. No.

2.1.1 Settlement Profile of the District Gorakhpur 62.2.1 Growth Rate of Population in District Gorakhpur 72.2.2 Demographic Profile of the District Gorakhpur 82.3 Classification of Workers in the District Gorakhpur (In percent) 92.3.1 Block-wise Distribution of Workers by Economic Category in Gorakhpur

District, (in percent) 14-15

2.4.1 Block-wise Distribution of Landholding (Size & Area) in Gorakhpur District (In percent)

17

2.4.2 Block-wise Distribution of Landholding (Size & Area) in Gorakhpur District (In percent)

18

3.1

Block-wise Net Sown Area as % of Total Reporting Area in Gorakhpur District

19

3.2 Block-wise Cropping Intensity in Gorakhpur District 203.3 Block-wise Irrigation Intensity in Gorakhpur District 213.4 Block-wise Gross Irrigated Area as % of Net Irrigated Area 223.5.1 Year-wise Irrigated Area by Different Sources in Gorakhpur District, (in

Percent) 23

3.5.2 Block-wise Irrigated Area by Different Sources in Gorakhpur District (in Percent)

24-26

3.6(a) Block-wise Cropping Pattern in Gorakhpur District, (in Percent) 30-333.6(b) Block-wise Cropping Pattern in Gorakhpur District, (in Percent) 34-373.7 Block-wise Use of Fertiliser in Gorakhpur District (in MT) 37-403.8.1 Agriculture Machines and Equipments in Gorakhpur District 413.8.2 Block-wise Agriculture Machines and Equipments in Gorakhpur District 41-423.9.1 Details of Livestock in Gorakhpur District 433.9.2 Block-wise Details of Livestock in Gorakhpur District 43-444.1 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Gorakhpur District, (in

percent) 55

4.3.1 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Pali Block, (in percent) 634.3.2 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Sahajanwa Block, (in

percent) 66

4.3.3 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Piprauli Block, (in percent)

68

4.3.4 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Jangal Kauriya Block, (in percent)

70

4.3.5 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Chargawan Block, (in percent)

72

4.3.6 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Bhathat Block, (in percent)

73

4.3.7 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Pipraich Block, (in percent)

76

4.3.8 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Sardarnagar Block, (in percent)

78

4.3.9 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Khorabar Block, (in percent)

80

4.3.10 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Brahampur Block, (in percent)

82

13

4.3.11 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Kauriram Block, (in percent)

83

4.3.12 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Bansgaon Block, (in

percent) 86

4.3.13 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Uroowa Block, (in percent)

87

4.3.14 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Gagaha Block, (in percent)

89

4.3.15 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Khanji Block, (in percent)

92

4.3.16 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Belghat Block, (in percent)

94

4.3.17 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Gola Block, (in percent) 964.3.18 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Badhalganj Block, (in

percent) 98

4.3.19 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Kampairganj Block, (in percent)

100

5.1.1 Land Use Pattern in the Jangal Ayodhya Prasad Village of the Gorakhpur District

102

5.1.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

103

5.1.2.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

103

5.1.3.1 Distribution of Per Family/Per Adult Size of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

104

5.1.3.2 Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

104

5.1.4.1 Present and Past Occupations of Households in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

105

5.1.4.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village Gollahaiya

106

5.1.5 Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Size Groups Households in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

106

5.1.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

107

5.1.7.1 Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

105

5.1.7.2 Reason of Changes in Total Land Owned During the Last 20 years in Selected Households

108

5.1.7.3 Number of Households Whose Landholding Increased 1095.1.7.4 Number of Households Whose Landholding Decrease 1095.1.8.1 Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of

Owned Land by Selected Households 110

5.1.8.2 Reasons of Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes in the Village (As Suggested by Respondents)

110

5.1.8.3 Distribution of Respondents on the Basis of Responses to Query "Reasons for not cultivating the agriculture land"

110

5.1.9.1 Distribution of Responses to the query "Barren land could be put to which uses"

111

5.1.9.2 Distribution of Responses to the question "Are you aware of the Government Programmes to recalm Usar Land"

111

5.1.9.3 Distribution of Responses to the Query "Reasons for Not-availing the Facilities of Schemes for Land Reclamation"

111

5.1.10.1 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What measures could be adopted to avoid water logging due to rain water"

112

5.1.10.2 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What could be done to Conserve 112

14

rain water in the village" 5.1.10.3 Distribution of Responses to Query "If more water could be conserved in the

village then, it could be put to what uses? 112

5.1.10.4 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What is the present use of land of those ponds, which have totally or partially disappeared"

113

5.1.10.5 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What efforts could be made for renovation of ponds"

113

5.1.10.6 Distribution of Responses to query "In what way the renovation of Ponds will help villagers"

113

5.1.10.7 Distribution of Responses to query "What is the Present Use of Existing Ponds"

113

5.1.11.1 Distribution of Responses to query "Whether the area under orchards has increased/decreased"

114

5.1.11.2 Distribution of Perception of Respondent about Reason of Decrease of Orchard

114

5.1.11.3 Perception of Respondent about Reason of Increase of Orchard 1145.1.11.4 Distribution of Responses to query "Why the potential of growth of orchards

is low" 114

5.1.11.5 Distribution of Responses to query "On which type of land area under orchards could be increased

115

5.1.11.6 Distribution of Responses to query "What kind of facilities would be required to increase area under orchard"

115

5.1.12.1 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for decrease in livestock" 1165.1.12.2 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for increase in livestock" 1165.1.12.3 Distribution of Responses to query "Number of which type of livestock has

decreased" 116

5.1.12.4 Distribution of Responses to query "What type of livestock will improve your economic condition"

116

5.1.12.5 Distribution of Responses to query "What are the main constraints in increasing livestock"

116

5.1.13.1 Cropping Pattern of Selected Household, Average Production and Use of Fertilizer

117

5.1.13.2 Distribution of Responses to query "Reason for lower productivity of respondents farm from other farms"

117

5.1.13.3 Distribution of Responses to query "What are the main constraints in better utilisation of agricultural land"

117

5.1.13.4 Distribution of Responses to query "How above mentioned constraints could be removed"

118

5.1.13.5 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing out the land" 1185.1.13.6 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing in by tenants" 1185.2.1 Land Use Pattern in the Shivpur Village of the Gorakhpur District 1205.2.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Shivpur 1215.2.2.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Shivpur 1215.2.3.1 Landholding Size : Per Family/Per Adult in the Village Shivpur 1225.2.3.2 Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings Size in the Village Shivpur 1225.2.4.1 Present and Past Occupation of Households in the Village Shivpur 1235.2.4.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village

Shivpur 124

5.2.5 Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Households in the Village Shivpur

124

5.2.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Shivpur 1255.2.7.1 Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages

Shivpur 126

5.2.7.2 Reason of Changes in Total Land Owned During the Last 20 years in 126

15

Selected Households 5.2.7.3 Number of Households Whose Landholding Increased 127 5.2.7.4 Number of Households Whose Landholding Decrease 1275.2.7.5 Number of Households Whose Land was Acquired 1275.2.8.1 Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of


5.2.8.2 Other Reasons of Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purpose in the Village (As Suggested by Respondents)

128


128


129


129


130

5.2.10.2 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What could be done to Conserve rain water in the village"

130

5.2.10.3 Distribution of Responses to Query "If more water could be conserved in the village then, it could be put to what uses?

130


131


131

5.2.11.3 Perception of Respondent about Reason of Increase of Orchard 1315.2.11.4 Distribution of Responses to query "Why the potential of growth of orchards

is low" 132


132


132


decreased" 133


133


133


134


134


134


135

5.2.13.5 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing out the land" 1355.2.13.6 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing in by tenants" 1355.3.1 Land Use Pattern in the Titanpar Village of the Gorakhpur District 1375.3.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Titanpar 1385.3.2.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Titanpar 1385.3.3.1 Distribution of Per Family/Per Adult Size of Landholdings in Different Size

Groups in the Village Titanpar 139

5.3.3.2 Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in the 139

16

Village Titanpar 5.3.4.1 Present and Past Occupations of Households in the Village Titanpar 1405.3.4.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village

Titanpar 140

5.3.5 Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Size Groups Households in the Village Titanpar

142

5.3.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Titanpar 1425.3.7.1 Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages

Titanpar 143


143

5.3.7.3 Number of Households Whose Landholding Increased 1445.3.7.4 Number of Households Whose Landholding Decrease 1445.3.7.5 Number of Households Whose Land was Acquired 1445.3.8.1 Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of



145


145


146


146


147


147


147


148


148


148

5.3.10.7 Distribution of Responses to query "What is the Present Use of Existing Ponds"

148


149


149

5.3.11.3 Distribution of Responses to query "Why the potential of growth of orchards is low"

149


150


150


decreased" 151


151

17

5.3.12.5 Distribution of Responses to query "What are the main constraints in

increasing livestock" 151


152


152


152


153

5.3.13.5 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing in by tenants" 1535.4.1 Land Use Pattern in the Kasraul Village of the Gorakhpur District 1555.4.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Kasraul 1565.4.2.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Kasraul 1565.4.3.1 Distribution of Per Family/Per Adult Size of Landholdings in Different Size

Groups in the Village Kasraul 157

5.4.3.2 Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in the Village Kasraul

157

5.4.4.1 Present and Past Occupations of Households in the Village Kasraul 1585.4.4.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village

Kasraul 158

5.4.5 Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Size Groups Households in the Village Kasraul

159

5.4.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Kasraul 1595.4.7.1 Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages

Kasraul 160


160

5.4.7.3 Number of Households Whose Landholding Increased 1615.4.7.4 Number of Households Whose Landholding Decrease 1615.4.7.5 Number of Households Whose Land was Acquired 1615.4.8.1 Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of



162


162


163


163


164


164


164


165


165


165

18

5.4.10.7 Distribution of Responses to query "What is the Present Use of Existing

Ponds" 165


166


166

5.4.11.3 Distribution of Responses to query "Why the potential of growth of orchards is low"

166


167


167


decreased" 168


168


168


169


169


169


170

19

Preface

Preparation of a separate land use plan for a district has its own

importance because of growing population and limited land resource. The

carrying capacity of land is under stress due to environmental pollution and

land degradation.

We, therefore, focus not only on quantification of required land for

each land use category but also on quality land use.

Secondly, we have tried to emphasize that there is need for block

level and village level land use planning as well. Hence an attempt has been

made to prepare land use plans for each block of the district and four

selected villages of the district. We have also suggested for

formation/revamping of institutions for this purpose.

The plans also include policy framework, besides general suggestions

and specific tasks. These are based on informations collected from primary

and secondary sources, discussions with villagers and observations made by

members of the survey team.

We gratefully acknowledge our thanks to State Land Use Board for

sponsoring the study. We are specially obliged to Mrs. Mridula Singh,

Additional Director, State Land Use Board for constant interaction and help in

course of this study. We are also thankful to DSTO in particular and other

district level functionaries in general who supported us in collection of data

and also provided important insights to the problem of land use.

I am also indebted to Prof. R.C. Tripathi, Director, G.B. Pant Social

Science Institute, Jhusi, Allahabad, for reposing faith on me to conduct the

study and for providing facilities, without which this study would not have

completed.

I am also thankful to members of the research team viz. Mohd. Israil,

Sri. Gyan Nath Jha, Sri Ashok Dwivedi, Sri Atul Mishra, Sri Sandeep

Srivastava and Sri Sandip Kumar Jaiswal for their dedicated work in

collecting data and helping me in analysis. Special thanks are due to Sri

20

Sandip Kumar Jaiswal, who also worked as Computer Assistant, for his

painstaking effort in typing and formatting of this report despite many odds.

– Bimal Kumar

21

Chapter – 1

Introduction The undivided district of Gorakhpur lies between Lat. 26o13'N. and 27o29'N. and Long.

83o05'E. and 83o56'E. The district occupied the north-eastern corner of the State along with the

district of Deoria, and comprises a large stretch of country lying to the north of the river Ghaghra,

the deep stream of which forms its southern boundary with district Azamgarh. On the west, the

boundary marches along Basti and on the east adjoins Deoria and the Choti Gandak Nadi and in

further south the Jharna Nala forms partly the dividing line. In the north lies the territory of Nepal.

The plains form a level tract which slopes gently from west to south-east. The height

above sea-level ranges from 107 metres in north-west to 93 metres in the south-east. Throughout

its length Gandak is bordered by a chain of depressions and Jhils and in several places pebbles

and boulders have been encountered in sinking shafts for wells. In contradistinction to the high

ridge are the low and often broad valleys of rivers knows as Kachhar. The valleys of the larger

rivers are not only depressed well below the general level of the country but are of considerable

breadth. Thus there is a wide area of low land which is inundated in years of heavy rainfall.

The main system known as the Rapti system is confined to the west side of the

Gorakhpur city. The valleys of the Ghaghra, the Rapti, the Rohini, and the Ami at any rate in their

lower reaches, are at places broad and sufficiently depressed below the ordinary level of the

district and confined their floods within the limits of the high banks on either side.

The drainage of the entire district, excepting the carried off by the Great Gandak, is

discharged into Ghaghra, In many places in drainage is imperfect especially in the basin of the

Rapti and its affluents.

Lakes- Gorakhpur has a number of large perennial lakes, formed in most cases in the

abandoned channels of rivers, which have become blocked by the accumulation of silt, or by the

accumulation of water in deep natural depression. The important once are being mentioned here.

The mineral products are few and unimportant. The minerals of commercial value are the

nodular limestone conglomerate know as Kankar, brick earth and saltpetre.

The soil in the district is light sandy or dense clay of yellowish brown colour. The sand

found in the rivers is medium to coarse grained, greyish white to brownish in colour and is

suitable for construction purposes.

22

The forests are generally found in the northern portion of the district though in the past

they extended as far as to the south of Gorakhpur and along the Rapti in south-eastern part of the

district.

The sal is the principal tree of the forests found in the district. The undergrowth in sal

areas is very dense in the strips along the banks of nalas and streams, and is a evergreen shrubs

and small trees.

The proximity of Nepal and the wide extent of forests and responsible for hte presence of

large number of wild animals in the districts. The peculiar situation of the forests where they are

nowhere more than 10 km. away from the village habitation makes the wild life prone to

destruction.

Situated on the basin of rivers Rapti and Rohini the geographical shape of the Gorakhpur

City is of bowl. The west of the city is guarded by cool Rapti river while the east is associated with

excel Sal Forest, giving the divine sense of peace with cool breeze every moment. The south is

showered with the power of excellence, in shape of greenish Ramgarh Tal and north is the plinth

of city's advancement.

General Information

Total Area 3483.8 Sq. Km.

Total Population 30,66,002

Urban Population 18.76%

Rural Population 81.24%

Sex Ratio 924

Literacy 43.3%

Male Literacy 60.6%

Female Literacy 24.4%

Main Rivers Rapti(134 Km.) and Ghaghra(77 Km.)

Main Lake Ramgarh Tal

Main Road National Highway- 28

Main Crops Paddy, wheat, Pulses and Sugarcane

Main Industries Sugar Mills, Handloom & Textiles

Main Language Hindi and Bhojpuri

Main Fair Khicheri Mela(14th Jan.), Syed Salaar Mela, Tarkulha Mela(Chaitra Ram Navami)

Handicrafts Terracota ( Of National & International fame)

News Paper Publications Dainik Jagran, Aaj, Rashtriya Sahara and Swatantra Chetna

Tourist Places Chauri Chaura, Kushinagar, Kapilvastu, Lumbini

U.P. Tourism Information Counter, Railway Station Tourist Information

Regional Tourism Office, Gorakhpur

23

1.1 Relevance of Study

With growing population and limited land resources the relevance of land use planning is

obvious. Land has limited carrying capacity beyond which there will be degradation and loss in

productivity due to excessive use. In order to meet various demands of the growing population

the land degrading trend needs to be checked.

We should also attach due important to problem of rural communities, specially those

below poverty line in whose hands this resource has to be efficiently utilized and whose minimum

needs the efficient use of such resources is meant to serve.

The revenue department classifies land uses in following categories: (i) Land put to non-

agricultural uses, (ii) Barren and uncultivable land, (iii) Pastures and grazing land, (iv) Land

under trees and groves, (v) culturable waste land, (vi) current fallow, (vii) Fallow other than

current fallow, (viii) Net Sown area, (ix) Forest.

The study also focusses on waste lands. Wastelands are such degraded lands which can

be brought under vegetative cover, with reasonable effort, and which are currently under-utilized,

and lands which are deteriorating due to lack of appropriate water and soil management or on

account of natural causes.

A model land use plan for a district has been sought to be prepared on the basis of its

land capability and feasibility to change present land use pattern, development and urbanisation

have their own pressure on land use pattern. There are some major areas of concern as well.

Forest area is being reduced by pushing the frontier of agriculture. On the other side good

agricultural land is being usurped by urban sprawls, industrial establishments and expansion of

human settlements and infra-structural facilities.

We have also investigated into the reasons of land degradation and the reasons for

conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. And also how area under fallow land,

culturable waste and barren/uncultivable land could be reduced.

A new strategy is needed to protect grazing land, land under trees, bushes etc. as well as

protection of land for chak road and drainage system is also necessary. Common resource

property should be brought under communal ownership which should become non transferable

and any activity that leads to their destruction should become unlawful.

The role of common resource property and its allocation systems becomes crucial in

management of these natural resources. It must be emphasised that management of such

resources be vested with the local communities who will take a longer view. Outside commercial

interest will come and go with narrow economic interest only.

24

Effective communal property rights and resource management systems could be

developed by empowering panchayats to develop modes of their use in their respective

panchayats and by providing them technical and managerial skill as well as needed capital

resources.

1.2 Objectives

The major objectives of preparing Model Land Use Plan for District are as follows:

(i) To review the existing land use patterns and preparation of data base.

(ii) Projection of desirable and attainable optimal land use Plan.

(iii) Suggestion of Action Plan including institutional changes and resource

management policies to achieve optimal land use Plan.

(iv) Identify areas under different types of wasteland and make suggestions for their

reclamation.

1.3 Methodology

The present report is based on a three tier study of the districts.

(i) District level

(ii) Block level

(iii) Village level

In order to select villages two blocks namely Khorabar and Sahajanwa were selected

from the district. The two villages were selected randomly from each of the selected blocks. Thus

the villages selected are:

(i) Jangal Ayodhya Prasad (Block – Khorabar)

(ii) Shivpur (Block – Khorabar)

(iii) Titanpar (Block – Sahajanwa)

(iv) Kasraul (Block – Sahajanwa)

1.4 Data Source

The data for preparing district and block level plans was collected from secondary

sources, while village level plans are based on primary data. Three types of schedules were

canvassed to elicit required information. These are (i) Village Schedule and (ii) Household

Schedule, and (iii) Listing Schedule.

The information for village schedule was gathered from Gram Pradhan, Ex-gram

Pradhan, Lekhpal, Village level functionary and also from well informed citizens of the village.

The household schedule was canvassed among 20 farmers of the village. The care was

taken that these farmers represent all categories and communities of the village.

25

The listing schedule was canvassed to collect critical information about all households of

the village such as demography, land use pattern, land ownership, occupational structure,

literacy, livestock, housing condition etc. If also found the sample frame from which sample was

drawn for detailed study of households.

Besides generating the primary data, information was also gathered from secondary

sources. These included both published data and unpublished data (generated by various line

departments). Different line departments were also approached to provide information, which has

a bearing on land use pattern of the district.

26

Chapter – 2

Population and Land Resources 2.1 Demographic Profile 2.1.1 Settlement

The total area of Gorakhpur district reduced from 6314.00 sq. km. In 1971 to 3397.00 sq.

km. in 1981 due to carving out of new districts. Official figures also show slight changes in the

area of district during the year 1991 (3483.8 sq.km.) and year 2001 (3321 sq.km.). This could be

due to change in the course of rivers, which demarcates the boundaries of the district.

There had also been obvious changes in the number of residential houses and number of

households during the last 40 years.

The number of residential houses increased from 392824 in 1961 to 456911 in 1971

which shows an increase of 16.3 per cent during the decade. The trend in the increase of

residential houses remained similar during the decade 1981-91 which recorded and increase of

11.53 per cent during 1981-91.

Thus the number of residential houses have been increasing at the rate of more than 10

per cent per decade. Though this is an obvious off shoot of increase in population, it will have

serious implication for land use planning during the coming decades. These implications would

have two aspects. One, more and more land would be brought under the category 'land put to

non-agricultural purposes'. Secondly, planning for housing in both urban and rural areas will have

to be given serious thought such as:

(i) how land saving devices could be adopted;

(ii) how civic amenities could be provided;

(iii) what kind of infra-structural facilities will be needed to be developed; and

(iv) what kind of common use facilities will be required to be developed.

Table – 2.1.1 Settlement Profile of the District Gorakhpur

Particular Area 2001 1991 1981 1971 1961

Total 3321 3483.8 3397.0 6316.0 6375.3Rural NA 3288.7 6189.2 6273.5 6332.8

Area in Sq.Km.

Urban NA 195.1 82.8 42.5 42.5Total NA 422713 379017 456911 392824Rural NA 340677 518019 419921 359247

Number of Residential Houses Urban NA 82036 61034 36990 33577

Total NA 476074 1408778 536014 NARural NA 389351 578296 490327 NA

Number of Households

Urban NA 86723 64753 45687 NA

27

2.1.2 Urbanisation

Another feature of settlement and area is related to urbanisation. In urban area the

number of residential houses have been increasing and the share of urban population has also

been increasing because of migration. But even more importantly, the area under urban limits

have also been increasing. The urban area of undivided Gorakhpur was 82.8 sq.km. in 1981,

while the urban area under divided Gorakhpur is 195.1 sq.km. That is area under urban limits had

increased by more than 135 per cent during the decade 1981-91.

2.2 Population The population of the district had been steadily increasing during the last one hundred

years. At the same time decennial growth rate of the population of the district as per the census

has also been increasing (See table 2.2.1 & 2.2.2). The decinnial growth rate had been very high

during the last three decades. This has resulted in the pressure of population on land.

The density of population of the district was as high as 750 persons per squire kilometre

in 1991, which increase to 1140 persons per square kilometre in 2001.

The literacy rate increased from 19.8 per cent in 1971 to 43.3 per cent in 1991.

Table – 2.2.1 Growth Rate of Population in District Gorakhpur

Year Decadal Variation

1901-1911 8.97 1911-1921 2.02 1921-1931 11.69 1931-1941 10.67 1941-1951 12.29 1951-1961 14.59 1961-1971 18.44 1971-1981 24.93 1981-1991 22.75 1991-2001 23.45

28

Table – 2.2.2 Demographic Profile of the District Gorakhpur

2001 1991 1981 Area

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Total NA NA 3785000 1593355 1472647 3066002 1956466 1839241 3795701 Rural NA NA 3044000 1283614 1207112 2490726 1738576 1655183 3393759

Total Pop.

Urban NA NA 741000 309741 265535 575276 217884 184058 401942 Total NA NA NA 347517 328145 675662 413194 402990 816184 Rural NA NA NA 307881 293865 601746 389824 382707 772531

SC Pop.

Urban NA NA NA 39636 34280 73916 23370 20283 43653 Total NA NA NA 310 181 491 1230 1073 2363 Rural NA NA NA 172 106 278 1098 987 2085

ST Pop.

Urban NA NA NA 138 75 213 132 86 218 Total NA NA NA 769464 286118 1055582 717247 190587 907834 Rural NA NA NA 568255 164242 732497 575444 110648 686092

Literate Person

Urban NA NA NA 201209 121876 323085 141803 79939 221742 Total NA NA 1140 NA NA 750 NA NA 605 Rural NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 548

Den. Per sq.km.

Urban NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4854

Area 1971 1961 Male Female Total Male Female Total Total 1580590 1457587 3038177 1297297 1267885 2565182 Rural 1447399 1350620 2798019 1191052 1186787 2377839

Total Pop.

Urban 133191 106967 240158 166245 81098 187343 Total 330710 317442 648152 NA NA NA Rural 320066 308653 628719 NA NA NA

SC Pop.

Urban 10644 8789 19433 NA NA NA Total 900 815 1715 NA NA NA Rural 878 795 1673 NA NA NA

ST Pop.

Urban 22 20 42 NA NA NA Total 480965 119549 600514 NA NA NA Rural 399171 76878 476049 NA NA NA

Literate Person

Urban 81794 42671 124465 NA NA NA Total NA NA NA NA NA NA Rural NA NA NA NA NA NA

Den. per sq.km.

Urban NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.3 Occupational Structure

The pressure on land in Gorakhpur has remained very high because the work-force on

agriculture remains high.

As per the 1991 census 41.08 per cent workers were cultivators and 30.01 per cent

workers were engaged as agricultural labourers. The high proportion of agricultural labourers

shows that wage-workers were not able to get employment in secondary and tertiary sector. This

is evident from the fact that number of workers engaged in households industry was 1.63 per cent

while those engaged in other than households industry was 3.26 per cent. The number of workers

engaged in trade and commerce and other services was 6.37 per cent and 13.37 per cent

respectively.

The number of workers depending on agriculture has declined from 81.02 per cent in

1981 to 68.1 per cent in 1991. But it is not sufficient enough to reduce it to viable levels.

Another feature of dependency on land is that while the share of cultivators among total

workers has declined from 54.54 per cent in 1981 to 41.08 per cent in 1991, the proportion of

agricultural labourers has increased from 26.48 per cent in 1981 to 30.01 per cent in 1991.

30

Table – 2.3 Classification of Workers in the District Gorakhpur (In percent)

1991 1981 1971 1961 Sl.

No. Particular

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Rural 81.93 92.02 83.45 90.13 96.03 90.84 92.82 97.82 93.59 92.87 98.46 94.75

1 Main Workers

Urban 18.07 7.98 16.55 9.87 3.97 9.16 7.18 2.18 6.41 7.13 1.54 5.25 Total 43.41 27.85 41.08 57.74 31.32 54.54 51.85 18.36 46.65 67.31 61.14 65.24 Rural 51.78 29.86 48.16 63.43 32.45 59.47 55.73 18.75 49.72 72.34 62.05 68.75

2 Cultivators

Urban 5.45 4.64 5.39 5.77 4.07 5.68 1.76 1.02 1.72 1.72 3.04 1.85 Total 24.69 60.18 30.01 21.91 59.60 26.48 30.91 75.58 37.85 14.53 29.47 19.55 Rural 28.69 63.87 34.50 23.84 61.66 28.68 33.09 77.14 40.25 15.60 29.90 20.59

3 Agricultural Labour

Urban 6.56 17.62 7.36 4.33 9.76 4.61 2.71 5.63 2.86 0.62 2.22 0.78 Total 0.65 0.26 0.59 - - - 0.40 0.30 0.39 0.30 0.03 0.21 Rural 0.38 0.18 0.35 - - - 0.40 0.31 0.38 0.24 0.02 0.16

4 Livestock, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, Plantation, Orchards & Allied Activities Urban 1.88 1.17 1.83 - - - 0.44 0.06 0.42 1.05 0.85 1.03

Total 0.05 0.00 0.05 - - - 0.03 0.02 0.03 - - - Rural 0.05 0.00 0.04 - - - 0.03 0.02 0.02 - - -

5 Mining and Quarrying

Urban 0.06 0.01 0.05 - - - 0.03 0.06 0.03 - - - Total 1.55 2.11 1.63 2.47 2.67 2.50 2.16 1.76 2.10 3.40 5.14 3.98 Rural 1.22 1.44 1.26 1.78 2.26 1.84 1.81 1.51 1.76 2.93 4.74 3.56

6 Manufacturing, Processing, Servicing, Repairs in Households Industry Urban 3.03 9.85 3.52 8.76 12.65 8.97 6.73 13.37 7.08 9.47 30.93 11.58

Total 3.68 0.85 3.26 - - - 3.04 0.66 2.67 3.15 0.11 2.13 Rural 0.40 0.38 1.27 - - - 2.36 0.58 2.07 1.97 0.08 1.31

7 Manufacturing, Processing, Servicing, Repairs in other than Households Industry Urban 13.84 6.18 13.28 - - - 11.86 4.26 11.45 18.55 2.46 16.97

Total 1.26 0.19 1.10 - - - 0.35 0.04 0.30 0.47 0.01 0.32 Rural 0.81 0.16 0.70 - - - 0.27 0.04 0.23 0.34 - 0.22

8 Construction

Urban 3.27 0.50 3.08 - - - 1.38 0.15 1.32 2.18 0.82 2.05 Total 7.21 1.60 6.37 - - - 3.19 0.56 2.78 2.89 0.74 2.17 Rural 3.09 0.85 2.72 - - - 1.95 0.35 1.69 0.20 0.56 0.32

9 Trade and Commerce

Urban 25.88 10.31 24.76 - - - 19.25 10.13 18.77 12.23 12.02 12.21 Total 2.96 0.25 2.56 - - - 2.75 0.12 2.34 2.19 0.02 1.47 Rural 1.28 0.05 1.08 - - - 0.88 0.02 0.74 0.63 0.01 0.41

10 Transport, Storage Commerce

Urban 10.59 2.62 10.02 - - - 26.89 4.67 25.71 22.59 0.80 20.45 Total 14.54 6.71 13.37 17.88 6.41 16.49 5.31 2.59 4.89 5.76 3.32 4.94 Rural 11.26 3.21 9.93 10.95 3.63 10.01 3.48 1.29 3.13 4.07 2.64 3.57

11 Other Services

Urban 29.44 47.09 30.71 81.13 73.52 80.73 28.95 60.65 30.62 27.86 46.84 29.73

31

2.3.1 Block-wise Analysis of Occupational Structure

In Pali block proportion of cultivators increased from 46.62 per cent in 1971 to 46.96

per cent in 1981 but further declined to 41.47 per cent in 1991, while the proportion of

agricultural labourers declined from 44.76 per cent in 1971 to 33.54 per cent in 1981 but then

again increased to 39.77 per cent in 1991. On the other hand the percentage of number of

workers in household industry declined continuously changed very little from 4.68 per cent in

1971 to 1.11 per cent in 1991. Another important feature of the block was that it has large

proportion of other workers (13.01 per cent) in 1981, but their share has also declined to

11.91 per cent in 1991.

This shows that whereas land's capability to absorb increasing work force has

saturated, workers are also not getting jobs outside agriculture.

In Sahajanwa block the percentage of cultivators increased from 28.04 per cent in

1971 to 43.92 per cent in 1981, but thereafter increased very slowly to 44.97 per cent in 1991.

On the other hand the proportion of agricultural labourers decreased from 59.30 per cent in

1971 to 28.75 per cent in 1981, but then increased to 31.05 per cent in 1991. Another feature

of occupational structure of Sahajanwa block was that proportion of other workers increased

from 1.29 per cent in 1971 to 19.76 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 13.28 per cent

in 1991. This shows that rate of absorption of workers in non-agricultural sector was slower in

this block also.

In Piparauli block, number of cultivators increased from 41.92 per cent in 1971 to

47.48 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 39.05 per cent in 1991. On the other hand

the proportion of agricultural labourers decreased from 44.68 per cent in 1971 to 27.24 per

cent in 1981 but thereafter increased to 31.83 per cent in 1991. The proportion of workers in

the household industry in this also block decreased from 6.26 per cent in 1971 to 3.64 per

cent in 1981 and further to 1.72 per cent in 1991, showing that rate of absorption of workers

outside agriculture was slower in this block also.

In Jangal Kauria block, the proportion of cultivators decreased from 48.31 per cent in

1971 to 47.34 per cent in 1981, and further declined to 43.91 per cent in 1991. The proportion

of agricultural labourers also decreased from 38.85 per cent in 1971 to 31.49 per cent in 1981

and then further slightly declined to 30.75 per cent in 1991. Showing that proportion of

workers engaged in agricultural work has declined during the last 30 years. Jangal Kauria

also shows that percentage of workers engaged in other works slightly increased. The

proportion of workers even in household and non-household industry also declined in this

block. And the proportion of marginal workers increased from 5.68 per cent in 1981 to 7.63

per cent in 1991.

In Chargawan block also proportion of cultivators increased form 34.69 per cent in

1971 to 42.15 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 33.06 per cent in 1991. But the

proportion of agricultural labourers showed the changing trend i.e. decreased from 53.68 per

cent in 1971 to 29.55 per cent in 1981 but then increased to 32.75 per cent in 1991. The

32

proportion of workers in the household industry declined from 4.12 per cent in 1981 to 1.04

per cent in 1991. The proportion of workers in non-household industry was also very small in

this block. The proportion of other workers declined from 19.68 per cent in 1981 to 10.09 per

cent in 1991. The proportion of marginal workers was also higher in this block as compared to

many other blocks, showing an increase from 4.5 per cent in 1981 to 14.23 per cent in 1991.

In Bhat Hat block, number of cultivators as percentage of total workers increased

from 44.42 per cent in 1971 to 58.83 per cent in 1981 but then declined to 49.23 per cent in

1991. Similarly the proportion of agricultural labourers decreased from 42.39 per cent in 1971

to 25.43 per cent in 1981 and then increased to 26.02 per cent in 1991. Another distinctive

feature of this block is that it has very small proportion of workers in household and non-

household industry. The proportion of other workers decreased form 10.91 per cent in 1981 to

4.77 per cent in 1991. The proportion of marginal workers was also very high (14 per cent) in

this block.

In block Piparaich also the proportion of cultivators increased from 47.54 per cent in

1971 to 57.55 per cent in 1981 but then declined to 49.69 per cent in 1991. But the proportion

of agricultural labourers decreasing from 34.01 per cent in 1971 to 18.36 per cent in 1981, but

thereafter increased to 25.53 per cent in 1991. In Piparaich the proportion of other workers

had declined from 11.65 per cent in 1981 to 8.36 per cent in 1991.

In the block Sardarnagar also the proportion of cultivators increased from 39.51 per

cent in 1971 to 50.74 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 45.8 per cent in 1991. But in

case of agricultural labourers the trend was different. The proportion of agricultural labourers

decreased from 41.76 per cent in 1971 to 29.36 per cent in 1981, but again increased to

31.01 per cent in 1991. Another distinctive feature of was that it has low proportion of workers

both in household industry and non-household industry. The number of other workers as

proportion of total workers decreased from 14.79 in 1981 to 13.07 per cent in 1991.

In Khorabar block proportion of cultivators changed little. It increased from 43.09 per

cent in 1971 to 44.15 per cent in 1981 but then declined to 41.31 per cent in 1991, while the

proportion of agricultural labourers declined continuously from 42.81 per cent in 1971 to 33.27

per cent in 1981 and further to 32.59 per cent in 1991. On the other hand the percentage of

number of workers in household industry changed very little from 2.42 per cent in 1981 to

1.39 per cent in 1991. Another important feature of the block was that the proportion of other

workers also declined from 16.54 per cent in 1981 to 8.28 per cent in 1991.

In Brahmpur block the percentage of cultivators increased from 51.93 per cent in

1971 to 54.95 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 50.63 per cent in 1991. On the other

hand the proportion of agricultural labourers decreased from 40.26 per cent in 1971 to 32.38

per cent in 1981, but then increased slightly to 33.45 per cent in 1991. Another feature of

occupational structure of Brahampur block was that proportion of workers in household and

non-household industry was very small and even number of other workers was small (7 per

cent in 1991). This shows that rate of absorption of workers in non-agricultural sector was

slower in this block.

33

In Kauriram block, number of cultivators had decreased continuously from 53.61 per

cent in 1971 to 46.06 per cent in 1981, and then it declined to 40.69 per cent in 1991. The

proportion of agricultural labourers decreased from 43.87 per cent in 1971 to 28.82 per cent in

1981 and then slightly increased to 29.76 per cent in 1991. The proportion of workers in the

household industry in this block declined from 2.31 per cent in 1981 to 1.67 per cent in 1991

and that of other workers from 14.95 per cent in 1981 to 11.76 in 1991, showing that rate of

absorption of workers outside agriculture was slower in this block.

In Bansgaon block, the proportion of cultivators increased from 39.56 per cent in

1971 to 45.83 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 39.7 per cent in 1991. The

proportion of agricultural labourers on the other hand decreased only from 50.77 per cent in

1971 to 35.97 per cent in 1981 and then increased to 40.85 per cent in 1991. Showing that

proportion of agricultural labourers has lately being increasing. Bansgaon also shows

relatively low percentage of workers engaged in household and non-household industry. The

proportion of other workers also decreased form 11.31 per cent in 1981 to 9.77 per cent in

1991.

In Uroowa block also proportion of cultivators increased form 42.08 per cent in 1971

to 49.37 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 43.62 per cent in 1991. But the proportion

of agricultural labourers showed the trend, different it decreased from 48.8 per cent in 1971 to

30.29 per cent in 1981 and then increased 39.5 to per cent in 1991. The proportion of workers

in the household and non-household industry was very small in the block. The proportion of

other workers had also declined from 10.54 per cent in 1981 to 8.41 per cent in 1991.

In Gagaha block, the number of cultivators as percentage of total workers decreased

from 50.03 per cent in 1971 to 47.39 per cent in 1981 and further declined to 42.83 per cent in

1991. But the proportion of agricultural labourers decreased from 40.48 per cent in 1971 to

33.54 per cent in 1981 and then increased to 38.78 per cent in 1991. Another feature of

Gagaha block is that it has very small proportion of workers in household and non-household

industry. The proportion of other workers also slightly decreased form 5.59 per cent in 1981 to

7.97 per cent, in 1991.

In block Khajni also the proportion of cultivators decreased from 60.33 per cent in

1971 to 58.84 per cent in 1981 and further declined to 51.94 per cent in 1991. The proportion

of agricultural labourers also declined, but the much less extent i.e. from 29.01 per cent 1971

to 28.69 per cent in 1981 and further to 25.51 per cent in 1991. In khajni the proportion of

workers in household and non-household industry had been also very small and the number

of other workers increased from 7.88 per cent in 1981 to 12.0 per cent in 1991.

In the block Belghat also the proportion of cultivators increased from 44.5 per cent in

1971 to 61.64 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 52.38 per cent in 1991. In case of

agricultural labourers the trend was different. The proportion of agricultural labourers

decreased from 47.99 per cent in 1971 to 24.19 per cent in 1981, but again increased to

32.79 per cent in 1991. Another feature of Belghat block was that it has high proportion of

workers in household industry declined from 6.53 per cent in 1971 to 3.12 per cent in 1981

34

and further to 1.05 per cent in 1991. The proportion of workers in non-household industry in

the block was also very low i.e. 0.73 per cent in 1991.

In Gola block proportion of cultivators steadily decreased from 53.75 per cent in 1971

to 46.86 per cent in 1981 and further declined to 41.77 per cent in 1991, while the proportion

of agricultural labourers declined from 36.88 per cent in 1971 to 33.93 per cent in 1981 and

then increased to 38.83 per cent in 1991. The percentage of number of workers in household

and non-household industry was found to be very little. Another important feature of the block

was that the proportion of other workers (14.67 per cent) increased from 8.75 per cent in 1981

to 9.36 per cent in 1991.

In Badhalganj block the percentage of cultivators increased from 33.04 per cent in

1971 to 46.06 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 37.3 per cent in 1991. Similarly the


1981, but then increased to 46.46 per cent in 1991. Another feature of occupational structure

of Badhalganj block was that proportion of workers in household industry declined from 1.43

per cent in 1981 to 0.75 per cent in 1991. This shows that rate of absorption of workers in

non-agricultural sector was slower in this block.

In Kampairganj block, number of cultivators slightly increased from 65.16 per cent in

1971 to 66.49 per cent in 1981, but thereafter declined to 57.9 per cent in 1991. Similarly the


1981 and then increased to 20.08 per cent in 1991. The proportion of workers in the

household and non-household industry in this block indeed remained very low at around 2.0

per cent in 1991 and the proportion of other workers declined from 10.23 in 1981 to 5.97 in

1991, showing that rate of absorption of workers outside agriculture was also low in this block.

35

Table 2.3.1

Block-wise Distribution of Workers by Economic Category in Gorakhpur District, (In percent)

Blocks Years Cultivat

ors Agricul

ture Labour

Livestock,

Forestry

Plantation etc.

Mining &

Quarrying

Household

Industry

Other than

Household

Industry

Construction

Trade &

Commerce

Transport,

Storage &

Communicati

on

Other Worker

s

Total Main

Worker

Marginal

Worker

Total Worker

1971 46.62 44.76 0.40 - 4.68 0.78 0.19 1.16 1.12 0.29 100.0 1981 46.96 33.54 NA - 1.64 NA NA NA NA 13.01 95.15 4.85 100.0

Pali

1991 41.47 39.77 0.19 0.03 1.11 0.67 0.31 1.87 0.29 11.91 97.62 2.38 100.01971 28.04 59.30 0.03 0.04 3.03 3.52 1.20 1.74 1.46 1.29 100.0 1981 43.92 28.75 NA - 3.20 NA NA NA NA 19.96 95.83 4.17 100.0

Sahajanwa

1991 44.97 31.05 0.16 0.03 1.94 1.33 0.34 1.88 0.60 13.28 95.59 4.41 100.01971 41.92 44.68 0.03 0.04 6.26 0.79 0.18 1.48 0.92 3.71 100.0 1981 47.48 27.24 NA - 3.64 NA NA NA NA 15.19 93.55 6.45 100.0

Piprauli

1991 39.05 31.83 0.37 0.03 1.72 1.94 1.05 4.50 1.48 13.95 95.92 4.08 100.01971 48.31 38.85 0.01 0.09 2.57 3.78 0.57 1.51 0.77 3.23 100.0 1981 47.34 31.49 NA - 1.71 NA NA NA NA 6.20 94.32 5.68 100.0

Jangal Kauria

1991 43.91 30.75 0.56 0.06 1.08 1.15 0.97 2.58 3.40 7.91 92.37 7.63 100.01971 34.69 53.68 0.06 0.06 3.22 9.72 1.30 2.22 1.35 1.10 100.0 1981 42.15 29.55 NA - 4.12 NA NA NA NA 19.68 95.50 4.50 100.0

Chargawan

1991 33.06 32.75 0.36 0.03 1.04 1.61 1.84 2.57 2.42 10.09 85.77 14.23 100.01971 44.42 42.39 0.04 0.04 1.59 0.56 0.10 1.45 0.57 5.52 100.0 1981 58.83 25.43 NA - 1.40 NA NA NA NA 10.91 93.60 6.40 100.0

Bhat Hat

1991 49.23 26.02 0.25 0.08 0.77 1.12 0.85 1.96 0.96 4.77 86.01 13.99 100.01971 47.54 34.01 0.12 0.01 2.98 4.38 0.39 2.16 1.17 5.09 100.0 1981 57.55 18.36 NA - 1.62 NA NA NA NA 11.65 89.18 10.82 100.0

Pipraich

1991 49.69 25.53 0.47 0.15 1.39 1.68 0.83 2.45 1.07 8.36 91.63 8.37 100.01971 39.51 41.76 0.23 0.07 3.81 7.66 0.27 2.90 1.53 2.19 100.0 1981 50.74 29.36 NA - 1.62 NA NA NA NA 14.79 96.51 3.49 100.0

Sardanagar

1991 45.82 31.01 0.13 0.06 1.29 1.34 0.61 2.27 0.40 13.07 96.01 3.99 100.01971 43.09 42.81 0.11 0.03 3.77 1.52 1.20 1.68 0.50 5.29 100.0 1981 44.15 33.27 NA - 2.42 NA NA NA NA 16.54 96.37 3.63 100.0

Korabar

1991 41.31 32.59 0.71 0.03 1.39 2.67 1.47 3.82 2.42 8.28 94.70 5.30 100.01971 51.93 40.26 0.17 - 2.71 0.57 0.14 0.37 0.35 2.82 100.0 1981 54.95 32.38 NA - 1.41 NA NA NA NA 5.43 91.11 5.83 100.0

Brahmapur

1991 50.63 33.45 0.27 0.02 1.04 0.38 0.29 1.35 0.18 6.99 94.61 5.39 100.01971 53.61 43.87 0.06 0.04 7.62 1.11 0.28 2.63 0.45 2.35 100.0 1981 46.06 28.82 NA - 2.31 NA NA NA NA 14.95 92.14 7.86 100.0

Kauriram

1991 40.69 29.76 0.65 0.01 1.67 0.95 0.53 3.94 0.59 11.76 90.56 9.44 100.01971 39.56 50.77 0.04 0.04 3.07 0.41 0.01 1.86 0.43 0.39 100.0 1981 45.83 35.97 NA - 2.66 NA NA NA NA 11.31 95.77 4.23 100.0

Bansgaon

1991 39.70 40.85 0.44 0.02 1.05 0.84 0.33 1.48 0.23 9.77 94.71 5.29 100.01971 42.08 48.80 0.09 0.04 4.87 0.86 0.22 1.46 0.38 1.20 100.0 1981 49.37 30.29 NA - 1.81 NA NA NA NA 10.54 92.0 8.0 100.0

Uroowa

1991 43.62 39.50 0.08 0.02 0.82 0.65 0.21 3.01 0.30 8.41 96.63 3.37 100.0Contd…

36

Blocks Years Cultivat

ors Agricul

ture Labour

Livestock,

Forestry

Plantation etc.

Mining &

Quarrying

Household

Industry

Other than

Household

Industry

Construction

Trade &

Commerce

Transport,

Storage &

Communicati

on

Other Worker

s

Total Main

Worker

Marginal

Worker

Total Worker

1971 50.03 40.48 0.05 0.02 6.27 0.74 0.22 1.67 0.56 8.57 100.0 1981 47.39 33.54 NA - 1.68 NA NA NA NA 8.59 91.20 8.80 100.0

Gagaha

1991 42.83 38.78 0.18 0.02 0.94 0.71 0.31 2.13 0.31 7.97 94.17 5.83 100.01971 60.33 29.01 0.04 0.02 4.64 0.95 0.34 1.13 0.61 2.91 100.0 1981 58.84 28.69 NA - 1.94 NA NA NA NA 7.88 96.27 3.73 100.0

Khajni

1991 51.94 25.51 0.09 0.01 1.28 0.86 0.29 2.47 0.38 12.00 94.83 5.17 100.01971 44.50 47.99 0.02 0.05 6.53 0.55 0.06 1.53 0.24 2.17 100.0 1981 61.64 24.19 NA - 3.12 NA NA NA NA 6.55 95.49 4.51 100.0

Belghat

1991 52.38 32.79 0.17 0.02 1.05 0.73 0.25 2.17 0.19 6.55 96.29 3.71 100.01971 53.75 36.88 0.06 0.01 5.36 0.80 0.32 2.32 0.33 0.14 100.0 1981 46.86 33.93 NA - 1.65 NA NA NA NA 8.75 91.19 8.81 100.0

Gola

1991 41.77 38.83 0.15 0.01 0.64 0.94 0.53 2.37 0.33 9.36 94.92 5.08 100.01971 33.04 54.52 0.03 0.04 5.84 0.62 0.12 3.90 0.49 1.38 100.0 1981 46.06 38.82 NA - 1.43 NA NA NA NA 8.01 94.33 5.67 100.0

Badhalganj

1991 37.30 46.46 0.04 0.02 0.75 0.41 0.21 2.00 0.31 8.32 95.81 4.19 100.01971 65.16 27.33 0.21 - 2.27 0.64 0.19 2.02 1.04 1.15 100.0 1981 66.49 14.56 NA - 1.80 NA NA NA NA 10.23 93.08 6.92 100.0

Kampiarganj

1991 57.90 20.08 0.52 0.07 1.09 1.06 0.53 2.43 1.18 5.97 90.82 9.18 100.0Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years).

2.4 Size of Landholdings It could be seen from table 2.4.1 and table 2.4.2 that, the average size of land

holdings decreased from 0.72 hectares in 1985-86 to 0.58 hectares in 1995-96.

Block-wise analysis of distribution of land holdings in Gorakhpur district shows that

there was inter block variation in average size of holdings as per 1995-96 records.

It was also found that in four blocks average size of holdings increased duirng the

decade 1985-86 to 1995-96. These blocks include Sahjanwa (from 0.53 ha to 0.71 ha),

Brahampur (from 0.85 ha to 1.17 ha), Bansgaon (from 0.75 ha to 0.85 ha) and Badhalganj

(from 0.68 ha to 0.72 ha). One plausible explanation for increase in average isze of

operational holdings is that some part of block might have been submerged in rivers during

1985-86, but was not so during 1995-96. In any case it needs further probing.

172

Table 2.4.1 Block-wise Distribution of Landholding (Size & Area) in Gorakhpur District, 1985-86

(Percent) Bellow 1.0 Hect. 1.0 to 2.0 Hect 2.0 to 3.0 Hect. 3.0 to 5.0 Hect. Above 5.0 Hect. Total s Number Area Number Area Number Area Number Area Number Area Number Area

82.49 44.87 11.19 20.92 3.12 10.21 1.80 9.61 1.40 14.39 100.00 100.00a 84.83 45.26 10.01 23.26 2.85 12.74 1.56 11.21 0.75 7.53 100.00 100.00

82.80 43.50 11.98 24.38 2.57 9.96 1.71 10.77 0.94 11.40 100.00 100.00uria 79.10 39.98 12.98 22.82 4.58 13.89 2.67 13.36 0.66 9.95 100.00 100.00n 78.13 38.16 14.68 28.05 4.17 13.46 1.87 9.59 1.14 10.74 100.00 100.00

72.56 31.61 18.23 28.49 5.08 14.03 2.44 10.67 1.69 15.19 100.00 100.0076.07 31.87 13.67 28.07 5.77 14.86 2.86 10.04 1.63 15.15 100.00 100.00

ar 75.75 30.32 14.91 24.63 5.06 14.51 2.64 13.28 1.37 17.26 100.00 100.0079.64 37.01 13.67 25.75 3.71 12.39 2.05 10.97 0.93 13.88 100.00 100.00

ur 74.95 32.81 15.38 23.56 4.59 12.95 3.10 13.44 1.99 17.24 100.00 100.0083.03 43.19 10.45 25.48 3.29 10.17 2.18 10.22 1.05 10.95 100.00 100.00

82.19 43.77 11.07 24.70 2.89 9.64 2.19 10.77 1.21 11.12 100.00 100.0082.84 41.59 11.00 26.85 3.44 11.37 2.37 10.46 0.87 9.72 100.00 100.0083.68 46.02 11.06 26.31 2.58 8.88 1.90 11.02 0.78 7.77 100.00 100.0081.65 44.49 12.12 26.90 3.60 10.48 1.86 10.64 0.76 7.48 100.00 100.0083.33 42.86 10.32 26.26 3.59 12.99 2.15 10.18 0.62 7.72 100.00 100.0082.81 43.17 10.14 23.76 3.86 13.50 2.22 10.99 0.96 8.58 100.00 100.00

nj 84.72 47.81 9.61 24.78 3.31 10.59 1.70 9.67 0.66 7.14 100.00 100.00anj 78.95 35.50 13.68 24.92 3.74 12.45 2.41 12.59 1.22 14.54 100.00 100.00

80.65 39.64 12.38 24.92 3.68 12.13 2.24 11.48 1.05 11.82 100.00 100.0085.00 38.95 8.92 20.86 3.03 12.41 - - 1.66 17.35 100.00 100.00

rict 80.69 39.64 12.35 24.90 3.68 12.14 2.24 11.47 1.05 11.86 100.00 100.00Source: District Statistical Handbook 1987.

173

Table 2.4.2

Block-wise Distribution of Landholding (Size & Area) in Gorakhpur District, 1995-96 (Percent)

Bellow 0.5 Hect. 0.5 to 1.0 Hect 1.0 to 2.0 Hect. 2.0 to 4.0 Hect. 4.0 to 10.0 Hect. 10 Hect. & Above Total

Number

Area Number Area Number Area Number Area Number Area Number Area Number Are

65.41 27.40 22.49 23.92 8.17 22.98 3.09 16.70 0.82 8.41 0.02 0.59 100.00 10052.60 42.69 34.33 15.11 9.24 24.16 2.71 13.29 1.07 3.65 0.05 1.09 100.00 10072.33 25.19 16.18 23.28 8.07 22.10 2.87 20.07 0.49 6.60 0.05 2.77 100.00 10069.17 24.07 19.68 18.90 6.88 24.42 3.74 24.13 0.49 6.49 0.04 1.99 100.00 10065.70 28.35 20.10 24.91 10.94 24.65 2.64 13.66 0.62 7.61 0.01 0.81 100.00 10065.31 21.41 19.85 20.69 10.91 28.10 3.17 15.44 0.68 12.47 0.09 1.89 100.00 10066.89 16.01 19.15 30.56 9.77 21.51 3.15 17.37 0.97 12.06 0.08 2.49 100.00 10064.68 18.57 19.96 14.34 10.86 26.55 3.34 22.99 1.09 16.29 0.07 1.25 100.00 10063.18 25.38 21.23 27.16 10.36 18.03 3.96 23.39 1.20 4.96 0.07 1.09 100.00 10016.51 20.52 57.46 40.48 16.85 19.90 6.88 14.74 2.25 3.90 0.05 0.47 100.00 10058.69 20.94 18.88 25.57 17.55 24.81 4.13 10.18 0.70 17.56 0.04 0.97 100.00 10057.80 39.91 26.14 18.10 12.68 20.10 2.36 15.00 1.00 6.62 0.02 0.27 100.00 10053.66 22.55 27.31 24.06 7.33 17.90 10.38 28.77 1.26 5.48 0.06 1.25 100.00 10072.61 21.53 14.62 16.54 9.32 25.90 2.89 24.87 0.51 10.36 0.04 0.80 100.00 10068.92 26.26 18.53 37.67 7.10 19.42 4.06 17.46 1.36 4.78 0.03 1.01 100.00 10059.36 13.22 19.57 15.97 9.67 33.31 3.26 20.90 0.62 15.39 0.05 1.21 100.00 10067.09 18.27 16.35 50.36 9.08 14.91 6.23 10.25 1.21 5.47 0.04 0.74 100.00 10064.85 11.45 19.98 13.23 8.77 26.78 5.44 42.07 0.90 5.38 0.06 1.08 100.00 10058.10 23.56 22.35 28.14 11.04 20.55 7.41 16.53 1.04 9.89 0.06 1.33 100.00 10063.42 24.12 21.65 24.41 9.79 22.81 4.19 19.12 0.91 8.39 0.05 1.16 100.00 10062.85 22.13 22.83 28.37 11.41 29.39 2.42 10.82 0.43 3.86 0.06 5.42 100.00 10063.41 24.09 21.66 24.47 9.82 22.90 4.16 19.00 0.90 8.33 0.05 1.22 100.00 100

Source: District Statistical Handbook 2001.

174

Chapter – 3

PART – A Land Use Related to Agriculture

3.1 Net Sown Area When we discuss about land use, agriculture finds the dominant place in various

categories of land use. This is true of Gorakhpur district as well. The proportion of net sown

area in the district varied around 75 per cent to 78 per cent during 1980-81 to 1999-2K. But

the net sown area as percentage of total reporting area had hovered around 77 per cent after

1996-97 (See table 3.1).

But the analysis of block-wise net sown area shows that in most of the blocks the

proportion of net sown area had almost remained same and fluctuated within the range of two

to three per cent during the last twenty years, i.e. Since 1980-81, barring some exceptional

years (See table 3.1). There were also some blocks where the net sown area as percentage

of total reporting area had been steadily increasing (barring some exceptional period). These

include Pali, Chargaon, Badhalganj and Kampairganj. There were only two blocks where net

sown area as percentage of total reporting area was less than 75 per cent. These were

Khorabar and Belghat.

Table 3.1 Block-wise Net Sown Area as % of Total Reporting Area in Gorakhpur

District

Blocks 1975-76 1980-81 1985-86 1989-90 1996-97 1999-2K

Pali 78.97 70.50 74.76 73.71 78.39 80.86Sahajanwa 83.30 81.68 78.64 76.99 78.77 80.00Piprauli 80.83 81.24 78.34 74.20 77.15 79.70Jangal Kauria 78.04 80.91 79.96 76.72 80.09 80.42Chargawan 60.21 70.05 70.77 76.34 72.78 76.11Bhat Hat 85.83 80.58 81.76 77.80 83.08 77.96Pipraich 84.41 85.33 79.53 78.20 85.55 83.71Sardanagar 82.20 83.06 80.58 78.42 83.37 81.17Korabar 71.91 68.64 67.69 66.72 71.45 70.69Brahmapur 84.95 83.62 81.93 80.30 84.35 83.49Kauriram 81.83 81.24 78.70 76.14 83.48 80.02Bansgaon 86.49 84.23 79.82 69.45 80.48 80.34Uroowa 86.25 81.70 79.21 71.95 76.79 79.73Gagaha 86.98 75.52 75.29 72.73 82.65 81.25Khajni 74.27 83.51 80.63 77.50 82.67 78.95Belghat 76.13 78.60 72.26 60.79 71.35 72.00Gola 84.58 79.55 72.25 72.60 78.24 78.03Badhalganj 70.58 70.19 71.10 65.78 76.75 78.97

175

Kampiarganj 65.19 67.80 62.17 76.38 78.24Rural 75.92 72.52 78.96 79.01Urban 12.00 15.34 11.76 35.65 31.21Total District 74.94 76.39 72.07 77.60 77.46

Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years). 3.2 Cropping Intensity In agriculture, the land use has another characteristic also. The same land could be

cultivated more than once in a year. The cropping intensity thus shows the proportion of gross

sown area as percentage of net sown area. The cropping intensity of the Gorakhpur district

had almost remained constant around 150 since 1980-81, with mild fluctuations during certain

periods (See table 3.2).

Block-wise analysis of cropping intensity shows that it had declined following blocks –

Pali, Piparauli, Jangal Kauria, Khorabar and Kauriram during the last twenty years. These are

also such blocks where cropping intensity was found to be on the lower side The cropping

intensity in these blocks could be increased to high levels i.e. around 180 and above only if

some efforts are made in this context.

The most important factor which has affected cropping intensity is increase in gross

irrigation area as percentage of not irrigated area.

Table 3.2 Block-wise Cropping Intensity in Gorakhpur District

Blocks 1975-76 1980-81 1985-86 1989-90 1996-97 1999-2K

Pali 134.62 151.16 161.84 160.02 145.77 143.03Sahajanwa 126.37 152.72 157.16 157.98 162.69 166.70Piprauli 149.95 153.59 152.29 149.33 144.74 140.46Jangal Kauria 136.38 138.54 142.65 136.80 153.92 127.33Chargawan 148.27 162.16 156.43 161.16 155.88 156.03Bhat Hat 159.11 187.88 180.75 173.79 183.53 176.86Pipraich 163.51 156.36 176.68 139.00 142.20 140.45Sardanagar 158.40 172.14 173.13 169.71 187.34 169.91Korabar 145.32 148.39 149.89 146.07 162.85 137.06Brahmapur 142.55 152.82 153.90 145.66 154.88 148.63Kauriram 105.72 148.07 129.45 123.80 124.76 109.74Bansgaon 112.21 126.19 133.58 144.03 140.25 167.32Uroowa 101.91 132.08 121.73 132.32 146.71 160.30Gagaha 112.16 168.30 151.01 160.73 147.31 159.30Khajni 115.47 148.90 145.18 120.14 189.15 176.28Belghat 102.05 123.04 119.90 123.91 148.20 153.11Gola 108.77 119.88 136.31 136.75 144.70 148.93Badhalganj 152.24 127.13 122.77 114.38 126.01 130.87Kampiarganj 144.79 150.78 121.49 176.02 157.63 145.32Rural 149.07 144.77 152.52 149.19Urban 135.71 139.74 141.36 155.29 116.47Total District 100.00 152.28 149.06 144.76 152.56 148.77

Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years).

3.3 Irrigation

176

Gorakhpur district had long back shifted from rain-fed farming to irrigation farming.

The irrigation intensity i.e. net irrigated area as percentage of net sown area has increased

from 62.78 per cent in 1980-81 to 74.89 per cent in 1999-2K. This trend was discernible in all

the blocks of the district as well. The irrigation intensity was reported to be very high in three

blocks namely Chargawan (89.88 per cent), Pipraich (85.22 per cent) and Sardanagar (97.29

per cent) during 199-2K, The irrigation intensity was less than 60 per cent in 3 blocks namely

Kauriram (53.7 per cent), Uroowa (56.01 per cent) and Kampairganj (57.67 per cent) (See

table 3.3).

Table 3.1.3

Block-wise Irrigation Intensity in Gorakhpur District

Blocks 1975-76 1980-81 1985-86 1989-90 1996-97 1999-2K

Pali 44.18 59.11 62.63 59.73 69.96 70.61 Sahajanwa 62.08 72.61 81.01 70.76 79.43 80.27 Piprauli 53.49 63.18 67.36 73.14 73.32 70.83 Jangal Kauria 45.86 53.87 63.77 57.75 69.69 82.08 Chargawan 68.85 70.08 76.44 74.78 79.56 89.88 Bhat Hat 81.20 91.85 89.76 71.58 85.42 83.68 Pipraich 86.87 74.25 96.06 73.79 79.57 85.22 Sardanagar 82.15 88.03 92.28 89.77 98.40 97.29 Korabar 51.96 63.94 79.75 56.41 80.80 72.29 Brahmapur 53.25 61.52 67.32 70.19 76.57 75.28 Kauriram 42.41 52.39 63.42 77.25 64.76 53.70 Bansgaon 75.52 65.93 71.43 69.03 72.82 74.54 Uroowa 51.53 69.18 68.83 77.45 65.68 56.01 Gagaha 51.10 72.79 69.38 83.77 65.86 70.43 Khajni 69.29 71.41 75.74 95.78 93.30 75.51 Belghat 39.38 53.98 58.62 60.38 65.58 67.90 Gola 50.15 60.12 75.48 81.43 74.89 74.92 Badhalganj 24.54 34.69 35.68 65.34 67.54 70.17 Kampiarganj 57.77 65.18 58.92 80.28 73.70 57.67 Rural 66.01 71.32 75.62 75.17 Urban 68.85 65.71 69.49 83.76 53.59 Total District 62.78 66.01 71.32 75.74 74.89 Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years).

3.4 Gross Irrigated Area as Percentage of Net Irrigated Area Furthermore, gross irrigated area as percentage of net irrigated area has increased

very slowly during the last twenty years from around 105 in 1980-81 to around 110 in 1999-2K

(See table 3.4).

Block-wise analysis of gross irrigated area as percentage of net irrigated area shows

that it was above 120 per cent only in three blocks namely Sardanagar (128.34 per cent),

Uroowa (134.53 per cent) and Kampairganj (132.37 per cent), while it was below 110 per cent

in nine blocks namely, Pali (106.81 per cent), Sahajanwa (105.64 per cent) Piparauli (108.17

per cent), Jangal Kauria (108.74 per cent), Piparaich (107.9 per cent), Brahampur (104.13 per

cent), Gagaha (107.84 per cent), Gola (102.62 per cent) and Badhalganj (108.27 per cent).

177

Thus we find that gross irrigated area as percentage of net irrigated area was low in

almost all the blocks of Gorakhpur district. We can infer that cropping intensity could not

increase because gross irrigated area as percentage of net irrigated area did not increase.

However increase in irrigation intensity has led to changes in cropping pattern.

178

Table 3.4

Block-wise Gross Irrigated Area as % of Net Irrigated Area in Gorakhpur District

Blocks 1975-76 1980-81 1985-86 1989-90 1996-97 1999-2K Pali 102.67 100.11 102.21 104.92 100.00 106.81Sahajanwa 102.24 103.63 100.98 104.86 106.40 105.64Piprauli 100.24 107.07 101.54 104.86 104.73 108.17Jangal Kauria 100.00 111.18 100.93 104.77 103.15 108.74Chargawan 100.54 106.27 100.88 104.84 103.86 110.77Bhat Hat 100.60 104.27 101.45 104.86 108.53 117.10Pipraich 100.04 102.25 120.69 104.84 107.55 107.90Sardanagar 100.48 104.29 102.49 104.85 135.94 128.34Korabar 100.42 108.94 100.16 104.85 112.06 112.48Brahmapur 100.13 110.44 101.39 104.83 119.15 104.13Kauriram 103.99 113.24 100.34 85.52 103.49 115.27Bansgaon 111.79 101.33 101.29 104.89 103.32 113.72Uroowa 100.09 100.24 100.28 104.85 113.64 134.53Gagaha 103.24 113.02 101.74 104.86 110.25 107.84Khajni 100.77 112.70 100.11 104.87 116.48 117.04Belghat 100.35 79.74 100.19 104.84 107.54 111.83Gola 108.92 111.97 100.18 104.83 101.14 102.62Badhalganj 100.90 120.83 119.10 104.83 104.92 108.27Kampiarganj 100.00 101.24 100.28 104.89 103.83 132.37Rural 100.74 101.46 104.85 108.26 110.22Urban 109.80 117.00 129.76 103.35 100.00Total District 104.63 101.47 104.88 108.19 110.12Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years).

3.5 Source of Irrigation If we analyse the sources of irrigation in Gorakhpur district, we can witness three

distinct phases during the period of year 1960-61 to year 2000-01.

The first phase covers the period 1960-61 to 1969-70 This is the phase when traditional

sources of irrigation continued to be significant, and canals and tubewells together covered

around only 25 per cent of net irrigated area till 1968-69. But the fact that other wells,

tanks/ponds and other sources accounted for irrigation of more than 70 per cent of net

irrigated area during this phase showed continuing importance of traditional sources of

irrigation during this phase.

The next phase covers a long period of 1970-71 to around 1988-89. In this phase,

area irrigated through traditional sources declined very fast. The area irrigated through canals

increased to around 25 per cent by 1976-77 and remained constant around 43 per cent to 45

per cent, around 24 per cent to 26 per cent till around 1988-89. The area irrigated through

tubewells increased from 6.19 per cent in 1969-70 to around 54 per cent in 1982-83 and

hovered around this ratio till 1988-89.

The third phase could be said to have started since 1990-91. In this phase, the

contribution of even canals has declined significantly. Tubewell is now the dominant source of

irrigation in Gorakhpur district, and accounts for more than 90 per cent of net irrigated area

(See table 3.5.1).

179

Table – 3.5.1

Year-wise Irrigated Area by Different Sources in Gorakhpur District, (in Percent)

Years Net irrigated

area Canal Tube wells

(Govt.+Pvt)Other wells Tanks,

Lakes, Ponds

Other sources

1960-61 37.42 4.05 7.48 40.97 26.25 21.25 1961-62 36.73 6.04 8.06 36.32 30.74 18.82 1962-63 38.19 5.40 8.23 39.45 27.84 19.08 1963-64 38.81 5.72 8.06 38.45 29.11 18.66 1964-65 40.35 5.94 12.16 35.17 28.38 18.35 1965-66 39.44 6.04 13.41 35.17 24.51 20.87 1966-67 38.00 6.38 16.10 41.27 20.33 15.93 1967-68 38.00 6.38 16.10 41.27 20.33 15.93 1968-69 39.10 5.55 19.77 39.36 19.99 15.33 1969-70 39.72 6.19 25.50 32.89 18.18 17.23 1970-71 49.42 11.99 30.55 15.75 19.01 22.70 1971-72 49.36 11.99 30.55 15.75 19.01 22.70 1972-73 49.67 16.77 31.56 14.55 15.68 21.44 1973-74 52.52 21.20 32.48 13.45 12.60 20.27 1974-75 53.46 21.20 32.48 13.45 12.60 20.27 1975-76 55.12 22.89 33.64 12.91 14.74 15.82 1976-77 54.63 25.61 31.99 12.11 13.76 15.76 1977-78 56.38 26.39 45.06 8.12 8.74 11.70 1978-79 64.03 26.68 46.22 8.40 7.94 10.76 1979-80 57.79 24.77 50.08 8.22 7.68 9.25 1980-81 62.78 27.02 48.84 8.77 6.37 8.99 1981-82 65.84 26.54 51.67 6.90 6.67 8.23 1982-83 62.82 26.64 53.95 5.02 6.63 7.77 1983-84 63.35 26.48 52.99 5.20 6.96 8.37 1984-85 66.01 25.27 55.56 7.27 5.22 6.68 1985-86 61.69 26.61 53.41 8.00 5.67 6.00 1986-87 60.94 24.62 55.82 7.98 5.45 6.13 1987-88 63.60 24.06 54.85 11.85 4.96 4.28 1988-89 64.51 24.53 56.96 8.56 5.68 4.27 1989-90 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1990-91 71.80 6.42 78.46 2.71 6.36 6.05 1991-92 75.59 6.00 81.14 3.65 2.87 6.35 1992-93 70.21 6.61 81.06 3.83 3.16 5.34 1993-94 72.09 6.09 88.30 1.28 1.81 2.52 1994-95 71.24 6.10 75.57 12.83 1.73 3.77 1995-96 74.59 5.60 89.66 1.11 1.80 1.83 1996-97 75.74 6.57 88.19 1.16 1.39 2.69 1997-98 71.56 4.55 92.25 0.29 1.04 1.86 1998-99 76.05 5.19 89.35 1.81 2.81 0.83 1999-2K 74.89 5.01 91.57 0.19 1.16 2.08 2000-01 77.63 4.82 91.20 2.08 1.10 0.79

Block-wise analysis of sources of irrigation shows that there were only two blocks

where canal still accounted for more than 20 per cent of net irrigated area in 2000-01 (See

table 3.5.2). These are Bhat Hat and Sardanagar where area irrigated through canal was

30.16 per cent, and 23.57 per cent respectively of the net irrigated area in these blocks. In

Chargawan and Pipraich blocks area irrigated through canals was 10.88 per cent 11.99 per

cent respectively.

There is another aspect of analysis of sources of irrigation. Though tubewells have

become dominant source of irrigation, the role of public sector investment would become

180

important in future. Since private tubewells are the most important source of irrigation, gross

irrigated area in most of the blocks continues to be low. That means, public investment in

irrigation will continue to play an important role in increasing gross irrigated area, which in turn

would help in increasing the cropping intensity in these blocks.

Table 3.5.2 Block-wise Irrigated Area by Different Sources in Gorakhpur District (in Percent)

Blocks Years Net

irrigated area

Canal Govt. tube wells

Pvt. tube wells

Other wells

Tanks, Lakes, Ponds

Other sources

1975-76 44.18 0.15 0.18 5.37 2.24 2.24 89.801980-81 59.11 13.77 54.82 4.17 14.00 13.231985-86 62.63 18.74 52.08 2.76 9.75 16.661989-90 59.73 11.62 14.02 58.13 1.88 10.48 3.871996-97 69.96 5.10 12.32 75.09 0.23 3.74 3.521998-99 64.72 3.76 1.07 85.89 0.07 1.58 7.63

Pali

1999-2K 70.61 1.67 3.62 92.42 - 1.82 0.461975-76 62.08 0.06 0.17 5.56 12.83 2.12 79.241980-81 72.61 15.76 58.25 9.36 12.09 4.531985-86 81.01 14.64 60.20 11.13 6.04 7.991989-90 70.76 16.78 5.80 55.70 4.13 9.56 4.471996-97 79.43 12.23 13.57 71.72 - 1.67 0.811998-99 58.26 4.35 8.66 83.73 0.37 1.78 1.12

Sahajanwa

1999-2K 80.27 6.11 10.11 82.19 - 1.25 0.341975-76 53.49 - 0.09 7.23 8.76 0.53 83.391980-81 63.18 0.69 75.17 7.49 10.51 6.141985-86 67.36 - 73.67 2.81 6.78 16.751989-90 73.14 - 6.65 66.03 3.58 18.88 4.841996-97 73.32 - 18.57 75.85 0.09 2.80 2.691998-99 91.06 0.01 10.50 84.67 0.06 3.94 0.82

Piprauli

1999-2K 70.83 - 11.08 86.24 - 1.64 1.041975-76 45.86 - 0.30 10.42 8.28 0.37 80.631980-81 53.87 5.05 60.17 8.87 7.28 18.631985-86 63.77 - 79.02 2.37 4.09 14.711989-90 57.75 - 8.71 79.70 1.74 6.41 3.451996-97 69.69 3.22 15.79 70.55 0.02 1.01 9.411998-99 114.21 0.17 20.17 70.17 3.59 5.62 0.28

Jangal Kauria

1999-2K 82.08 5.41 17.45 71.55 0.01 1.27 4.301975-76 68.85 0.86 0.23 7.28 15.93 0.09 75.611980-81 70.08 11.47 83.32 4.59 0.61 -1985-86 43.78 9.28 85.54 3.24 1.44 0.501989-90 74.78 7.02 2.45 85.15 2.51 1.87 1.001996-97 79.56 5.65 6.97 80.70 2.70 3.14 0.851998-99 52.98 2.93 9.31 87.75 - 0.01 -

Chargawan

1999-2K 89.88 10.88 8.46 76.51 - 1.52 2.631975-76 81.20 0.81 0.20 6.63 11.20 0.06 81.101980-81 91.85 45.69 42.06 7.82 2.23 2.201985-86 89.76 49.68 43.97 3.81 2.01 0.531989-90 71.58 48.77 4.39 38.12 2.25 3.74 2.741996-97 85.42 46.44 1.26 50.61 0.23 0.13 1.331998-99 54.53 44.67 0.12 54.79 - 0.42 -

Bhat Hat

1999-2K 83.68 30.16 0.13 69.35 - 0.07 0.29Contd…

181

Blocks Years Net irrigated

area Canal Govt. tube

wells Pvt. tube

wells Other wells Tanks,

Lakes, Ponds

Other sources

1975-76 86.87 0.60 0.24 7.77 15.31 0.04 76.051980-81 74.25 30.10 57.84 6.80 2.94 2.331985-86 96.06 25.29 69.79 2.98 1.03 0.911989-90 73.79 15.32 6.99 72.94 2.23 1.62 0.911996-97 79.57 26.02 8.28 60.37 0.78 0.12 4.431998-99 67.64 16.83 8.46 73.59 0.08 0.58 0.47

Pipraich

1999-2K 85.22 11.99 7.01 77.10 - 0.71 3.141975-76 82.15 0.41 0.26 8.80 10.95 0.06 79.521980-81 88.03 18.35 79.63 1.28 0.68 0.061985-86 92.28 20.39 77.93 0.62 0.37 0.701989-90 89.77 16.12 6.95 73.10 2.99 0.52 0.321996-97 98.40 16.09 12.26 70.98 0.18 0.02 0.471998-99 133.10 30.01 10.17 54.41 5.41 - -

Sardanagar

1999-2K 97.29 23.57 14.05 61.99 - - 0.401975-76 51.96 0.09 0.15 5.87 2.15 0.10 91.651980-81 63.94 8.41 81.62 4.53 2.96 2.421985-86 79.75 4.04 45.30 38.90 4.70 7.061989-90 56.41 3.72 2.05 56.27 31.83 2.95 3.171996-97 80.80 1.86 7.47 83.46 1.23 2.24 3.741998-99 76.01 1.89 14.33 82.76 - 1.01 -

Korabar

1999-2K 72.29 1.61 16.79 78.53 0.02 0.73 2.311975-76 53.25 - 0.32 4.07 7.04 0.02 88.551980-81 61.52 - 88.52 7.83 1.72 1.941985-86 67.32 - 94.64 0.92 2.23 3.121989-90 70.19 - 7.34 88.51 - 2.70 1.451996-97 76.57 - 11.03 86.83 - 0.12 2.031998-99 101.27 - 23.16 73.32 3.51 - 0.01

Brahmapur

1999-2K 75.28 - 12.93 81.35 0.25 2.95 2.521975-76 42.41 - 0.28 10.34 5.13 2.83 81.421980-81 52.39 - 86.80 2.15 6.72 4.321985-86 63.42 - 91.70 4.20 1.64 2.461989-90 77.25 - 4.21 40.69 1.06 4.11 0.711996-97 64.76 - 9.70 87.95 0.52 1.20 0.631998-99 75.16 - 29.88 60.56 0.69 4.53 4.34

Kauriram

1999-2K 53.70 - 16.15 71.57 1.87 0.85 9.571975-76 75.52 - 0.11 4.41 11.26 3.05 81.181980-81 65.93 - 63.40 11.81 10.81 13.981985-86 71.43 - 82.07 2.73 7.78 7.401989-90 69.03 - 6.83 64.87 5.71 13.47 9.131996-97 72.82 - 15.76 79.82 0.41 1.86 2.111998-99 85.30 - 14.87 83.64 0.27 0.77 0.45

Bansgaon

1999-2K 74.54 - 14.49 83.09 0.12 0.53 1.761975-76 51.53 - 0.30 5.99 23.78 2.96 66.981980-81 69.18 - 74.84 12.09 9.50 3.571985-86 68.83 - 89.13 3.22 5.38 2.261989-90 77.45 - 7.07 80.88 2.87 7.59 7.531996-97 65.68 - 28.10 66.79 0.41 2.82 1.881998-99 107.22 - 10.03 77.90 2.03 8.17 1.87

Uroowa

1999-2K 56.01 - 17.22 79.38 0.17 1.45 1.78Contd…

182

Blocks Years Net

irrigated area

Canal Govt. tube wells

Pvt. tube wells

Other wells

Tanks, Lakes, Ponds

Other sources

1975-76 51.10 - 0.34 4.98 13.29 1.58 79.811980-81 72.79 - 87.10 3.99 3.78 5.131985-86 69.38 - 91.30 3.84 2.21 2.661989-90 83.77 - 7.30 88.86 0.83 1.76 1.261996-97 65.86 - 40.54 53.67 4.00 1.06 0.721998-99 82.29 - 36.56 61.44 0.62 0.97 0.37

Gagaha

1999-2K 70.43 - 12.93 86.90 0.09 - 0.091975-76 69.29 - 0.20 4.80 15.93 1.23 77.851980-81 71.41 4.45 56.97 20.89 7.89 9.391985-86 75.74 5.42 67.85 17.15 5.75 3.841989-90 95.78 3.25 22.40 56.41 8.24 6.30 3.411996-97 93.30 1.28 14.06 78.44 0.92 2.83 2.461998-99 28.96 1.06 4.06 182.00 2.30 2.67 0.07

Khajni

1999-2K 75.51 1.53 13.09 80.81 - 1.38 3.181975-76 39.38 - 0.03 6.83 34.66 0.81 57.671980-81 53.98 0.39 68.83 15.89 9.49 5.401985-86 58.62 0.34 80.76 13.34 2.29 3.271989-90 60.38 2.38 0.36 85.87 5.00 5.01 1.381996-97 65.58 4.71 9.08 82.84 0.78 1.46 1.121998-99 70.71 - 15.59 83.11 - 1.31 -

Belghat

1999-2K 67.90 0.33 15.85 80.99 0.03 1.69 1.121975-76 50.15 - 0.53 10.69 25.15 4.01 59.611980-81 60.12 - 92.94 0.46 4.71 1.891985-86 75.48 - 89.97 6.28 2.72 1.031989-90 81.43 - 2.20 91.02 1.16 5.07 0.541996-97 74.89 - 22.13 77.87 - - -1998-99 63.85 - 1.10 96.36 1.94 0.49 0.11

Gola

1999-2K 74.92 0.93 8.52 88.73 1.32 0.22 0.291975-76 24.54 - 0.32 8.80 19.02 0.16 71.711980-81 34.69 - 72.90 8.08 6.31 12.711985-86 35.68 - 88.48 3.14 4.38 4.001989-90 65.34 - 1.05 98.66 - 0.11 0.191996-97 67.54 - 27.95 70.37 1.62 0.04 0.021998-99 54.48 - 35.26 63.39 1.22 0.10 0.03

Badhalganj

1999-2K 70.17 0.11 6.76 91.92 - 1.19 0.031975-76 57.77 - 0.33 4.92 13.48 0.43 80.851980-81 65.18 - 52.48 24.74 6.78 16.011985-86 58.92 - 73.94 15.28 2.99 7.791989-90 80.28 - 26.23 66.72 3.32 0.47 3.261996-97 73.70 1.09 32.14 52.62 6.62 1.52 6.011998-99 74.43 - 24.81 54.50 6.70 13.91 0.08

Kampiarganj

1999-2K 57.67 - 16.64 101.70 0.41 2.61 5.15Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years). 3.6 Cropping Pattern Cropping pattern in the district has not significantly changed during the last 20 years

(See table 3.6a & 3.6b). The only crop which continues to be important during all these years

is paddy. Area under paddy cultivation had hovered around 60 per cent of net sown area,

barring some exceptional periods since 1980-81. It slightly declined to 49.26 per cent in 1989-

90, and to 53.07 per cent in 1998-99. Area under wheat cultivation increased from 58.39 per

cent in 1980-81 to 68.66 per cent in 1999-2K of net sown area. But area under barley

183

declined from 3.21 per cent to 1.09 per cent, during 1980-81 to 1999-2K. Area under pulses

fluctuated between 8 per cent to 10 per cent of net sown area similarly area under oilseeds

hovered around 2 per cent to 3 per cent. Paddy and pulses are more or less rain fed crops,

while what, barley sugarcane and potato are highly irrigated crops in the district.

We need to make efforts to increase production of more pluses, oilseeds and spices.

Cropping rotation also needs to be changed. Following steps are imperative to achieve it.

(a) More thrust be given for developing high yielding varieties for these crops.

(b) Rain fed areas should be encouraged to cultivate these crops.

(c) Orchards, fallow land and land under social forestry could be used for growing

such crops.

(d) Processing industries of oilseeds and spices be promoted at local level with

support for technology up gradation, packaging and market access facilities.

Block wise analysis confirms this trend.

In Pali block major changes in cropping pattern took place during 1975-76 to 1980-

81. Changes in cropping pattern had been very slow after that except in case of pulses, the

area of following crops as percentage of net sown area increased. Paddy from 18.43 per cent

in 1975-76 to 45.5 per cent in 1980-81 and then to 61.04 per cent 1999-2K. The area under

pulses slightly increased from 12.27 per cent in 1980-81 to 19.27 per cent in 1985-86 but then

declined to 9.99 per cent in 1999-2K. Area under barley declined from 6.53 per cent in 1980-

81 to 0.47 per cent in 1999-2K

In Sahjanwa block, while the area of crops (as percentage of net sown area) like

paddy increased from 57.07 per cent in 1980-81 to 72.34 per cent in 1999-2K, area under

cultivation in case of other major crops i.e. wheat remained almost at the same level such as

wheat at around 68 per cent. The area under pulses cultivation declined from 11.11 per cent

in 1980-81 to 8.23 per cent in 1999-2K.

In Piparauli block proportion of cultivated area under paddy increased from 42.09 per

cent in 1980-81 to 58.1 per cent in 1998-99 but declined to 45.29 per cent in 1999-2K, while

that of wheat increased from 65.0 per cent during the same period. Area under pulses

cultivation increased from 8.14 per cent in 1980-81 to 11.64 per cent in 1999-2K, while that

barley decreased from 5.58 per cent to 0.87 per cent and sugarcane from 1.79 per cent to

zero per cent during the same period.

In Jangal Kauria block the proportion of area under paddy increased from 38.84 per

cent in 1980-81 to 59.10 per cent in 1998-9 but then declined to 45.94 per cent in 1999-2K,

and that of wheat from remained constant around 62.0 during the same period. The area

under pulses varied between 8.0 per cent to 10.0 per cent during 1980-81 to 1998-99, but

then declined to 4.92 per cent in 1999-2K. The proportion of barley declined form 5.14 to 2.39

per cent, of oilseeds from 7.05 per cent to 4.22 per cent during the period 1980-81 to 1999-

2K.

In Chargawan block the area under paddy cultivation fluctuated between 60.0 per

cent of net sown area to 40.0 per cent of net sown area, while that of wheat between 50.0 per

184

cent to 80.0 per cent during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. The area under pulses also

fluctuated between 4.0 per cent to 10.0 per cent during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. Area

under other crops also fluctuated but was very small as well.

In Bhat Hat block, area of cultivation of paddy as percentage of net sown area varied

between 73.0 per cent to 83.0 per cent during 1980-81 to 1999-2K and that of wheat between

67.0 per cent to 80.0 per cent during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. The area under pluses

increased from 3.88 per cent to 6.68 per cent during the same period. Area under other crops

was small and almost remained at the same level.

In Piparich block, area under paddy cultivation fluctuated between 56.0 per cent to

73.0 per cent during 1980-81 and 1999-2K. In case of wheat it fluctuated between 53.0 to

73.0 per cent during this period. The cropping pattern in Piparich block almost remained same

during the last 20 years. Only the area under sugarcane fluctuated between 1.0 per cent to

18.0 per cent during 1980-81 to 1999-2K.

In Sardanagar block, area under paddy and wheat remained almost same during the

period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. The area under paddy hovered around 70.0 per cent and that of

wheat around 72 to 73 per cent during this period. The area under sugarcane declined from

16.95 per cent in 1985-86 to 6.95 per cent 1999-2K. Area under other crops was small and

almost remained at the same level, except some exceptions during some periods.

In Khorabar block, the area of following crops as percentage of net sown area

increased. Paddy from 44.17 per cent in 1968-81 to 54.59 per cent in 1999-2K and wheat

from 61.89 per cent in 1980-81 to 59.38 per cent in 1999-2K. The area under pulses

fluctuated around 8.0 per cent to 10.0 per cent, while area under oilseeds and potato

decreased only marginally during this period.

In Brahampur block, while the area of crops (as percentage of net sown area) like

paddy increased from 41.18 per cent in 1980-81 to 59.13 per cent in 1999-2K, area under

wheat cultivation increased from 60.64 per cent in 1980-81 to 68.16 per cent in 1999-2K. And

area under barley decreased from 11.71 per cent in 1980-81 to 1.56 per cent in 1999-2K. The

area under pulses cultivation hovered around 7.0 per cent to 9.0 per cent during 1980-81 to

1999-2K and that of potato declined from 3.49 per cent in 1980-81 to 1.05 per cent in 1999-

2K.

In Kauriram block proportion of cultivated area under paddy increased from around

30.0 per cent in 1980-81 to 38.83 per cent in 1996-97 but thereafter declined to 27.72 per

cent in 1999-2K, while that of wheat increased from 59.01 per cent to 63.55 per cent during

the same period. Area under pulses cultivation decrease from 20.19 per cent in 1980-81 to

11.25 per cent in 1999-2K, while that of barley from 10.63 per cent to 1.45 per cent and

sugarcane from 1.31 per cent to 0.41 per cent during the same period. Area under other

crops remained more or less at the same level and were very small.

In Bansgaon block the proportion of area under paddy increased from 41.58 per cent

in 1980-81 to 50.94 per cent in 1999-2K and that of wheat from 59.86 per cent to 62.55 per

cent during the same period. The area under pulses declined form 13.1 per cent to 7.15 per

185

cent, of barley form 4.36 to 0.90 per cent, of sugarcane from 1.43 per cent to 0.68 per cent

respectively during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K.

In Uroowa block the area under paddy cultivation increased from 47.05 per cent of

net sown area to 67.88 per cent of net sown area, while that of wheat from 54.58 per cent to

71.78 per cent during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. The area under pulses remained

constant around 11.0 per cent till 1998-99, then declined to 8.07 per cent in 1999-2K, while

that of barley declined from 1.79 per cent to 0.84 during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. Area

under other crops was very small and fluctuated within a narrow range.

In Gagaha block, area of cultivation as percentage of net sown area increased in

case of paddy and wheat from 51.17 per cent to 54.83 per cent and from 66.45 per cent to

68.06 per cent respectively during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. The area under pluses and

barley declined from 12.96 per cent to 10.85 per cent and from 7.28 per cent to 1.42 per cent

respectively during the same period. Area under other crops was small and fluctuated within a

very narrow range.

In Khajni block, area under paddy cultivation increased from 36.75 per cent in 1980-

81 to 77.6 per cent in 1999-2K. In case of wheat it increased from 64.15 per cent in 1980-81

to 79.23 per cent in 1999-2K The area under pulses declined from 11.8 per cent in 1980-81 to

7.96 per cent in 1999-2K.

In Belghat block, area under paddy and wheat increased significantly during the

period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. The area under paddy increased from 36.89 per cent to 61.56 per

cent and that of wheat from 48.46 per cent to 70.26 per cent during this period. The area

under pulses declined from 8.56 per cent to 6.89 per cent and that of barley from 5.1 per cent

to 0.79 per cent during 1980-81 to 1999-2K. Area under other crops was small and fluctuated

within a very narrow range.

In Gola block, area of cultivation as percentage of net sown area increased in case of

paddy and wheat from 32.29 per cent to 90.91 per cent and from 51.69 per cent to 66.21 per

cent respectively during the period 1980-81 to 1999-2K. The area under pluses increased

from 8.11 per cent to 10.51 per cent and the area under barley cultivation declined from 4.41

per cent to 0.94 per cent during the same period. Area under other crops was small and

almost remained at the same level.

In Badhalganj block, area under paddy cultivation increased from 34.51 per cent in

1980-81 to 45.15 per cent in 1999-2K. In case of wheat it increased from 49.84 per cent in

1980-81 to 66.32 per cent in 1999-2K The area under pulses declined from 11.43 per cent in

1980-81 to 9.51 per cent in 1999-2K and that of barley from 14.3 per cent to 3.49 per cent

during this period.

In Kampariganj block, the area under paddy increased from 60.35 per cent to 62.92

per cent and that of wheat from 53.05 per cent to 66.07 per cent during the period 1980-81 to

1999-2K. The area under pulses increased from 5.12 per cent to 8.46 per cent and that of

oilseeds declined from 10.14 per cent to 4.21 per cent during 1980-81 to 1999-2K. Area under

barley and sugarcane was small and declined during this period.

186

Table – 3.6(a) Block-wise Cropping Pattern in Gorakhpur District, (in Percent)

Paddy Wheat Barley Pulse Blocks Years

Total Irrigated Total Irrigated Total Irrigated Total Irrigated1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1975-76 18.43 0.15 33.50 87.92 NA NA NA NA1980-81 45.50 0.35 63.04 79.99 6.53 22.55 12.27 34.411985-86 52.60 0.07 68.01 82.55 3.88 25.83 19.27 23.211989-90 52.12 0.37 55.74 83.79 4.28 17.46 16.07 23.911996-97 54.24 0.24 61.56 96.03 1.16 91.11 15.25 22.471998-99 52.19 - 64.44 98.51 0.64 92.68 9.58 29.34

Pali

1999-2K 61.04 - 65.68 99.64 0.47 83.02 9.99 19.661975-76 12.94 1.32 33.34 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 57.07 0.55 66.29 95.70 2.39 47.19 11.11 51.531985-86 56.99 0.62 68.99 98.52 0.95 85.83 13.69 42.291989-90 57.57 0.04 63.60 98.34 0.61 79.45 15.14 47.901996-97 64.22 4.11 71.38 99.90 0.36 93.18 13.88 28.181998-99 50.53 - 60.75 96.73 0.32 100.00 6.60 36.24

Sahajanwa

1999-2K 72.34 - 68.42 100.00 0.61 97.33 8.23 32.781975-76 16.84 0.18 37.19 93.24 NA NA NA NA1980-81 42.09 1.98 65.24 88.89 5.58 41.70 8.14 38.101985-86 43.32 1.40 68.18 91.60 4.26 37.68 9.83 22.581989-90 52.49 0.02 63.91 100.00 3.60 70.00 13.71 25.721996-97 49.43 0.68 66.33 99.15 0.99 92.74 14.46 29.341998-99 58.10 - 87.83 99.24 0.79 100.00 11.64 26.67

Piprauli

1999-2K 45.29 - 71.33 100.00 0.87 66.36 9.20 19.911975-76 6.99 11.88 31.57 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 38.84 0.06 62.50 82.39 5.14 47.22 8.52 35.351985-86 41.71 0.13 63.34 88.28 3.92 50.27 9.53 42.481989-90 44.76 - 56.22 93.77 3.16 32.66 7.74 55.811996-97 60.53 0.94 62.24 97.40 1.69 76.33 12.30 32.431998-99 59.10 - 66.12 96.24 2.39 49.22 9.45 32.88

Jangal Kauria

1999-2K 45.94 2.96 61.65 99.91 2.21 67.61 4.92 30.801975-76 23.94 1.18 56.10 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 63.28 1.44 73.19 89.53 1.95 28.11 8.30 29.921985-86 35.20 0.02 39.86 91.59 0.79 23.24 3.87 32.641989-90 63.82 0.24 76.56 97.84 1.30 119.25 7.76 32.261996-97 61.70 0.26 74.05 100.00 0.86 100.00 5.68 44.081998-99 40.24 2.45 50.56 99.80 0.26 100.00 2.71 46.60

Chargawan

1999-2K 57.87 0.32 80.25 99.93 0.63 98.46 10.15 26.431975-76 32.17 - 64.86 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 82.39 - 74.70 99.98 0.28 100.00 3.88 89.101985-86 76.27 - 79.50 100.00 0.16 95.24 4.05 89.121989-90 73.20 0.29 80.80 100.00 0.19 100.00 5.16 88.911996-97 83.51 0.35 80.15 100.00 0.17 100.00 3.91 83.401998-99 38.67 - 67.57 100.00 0.07 100.00 2.56 75.59

Bhat Hat

1999-2K 79.69 0.32 80.99 99.98 0.20 100.00 6.68 33.58Contd…

187

Paddy Wheat Barley Pulse Blocks Years Total Irrigated Total Irrigated Total Irrigated Total Irrigated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1975-76 42.13 0.25 63.05 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 73.68 0.29 53.90 99.97 0.16 94.74 4.78 83.251985-86 68.85 0.31 72.11 100.00 0.07 100.00 6.13 63.321989-90 56.16 0.92 58.02 100.00 0.06 100.00 4.36 74.121996-97 59.75 12.46 60.46 100.00 0.10 100.00 3.79 73.631998-99 63.94 12.85 62.92 100.00 0.07 100.00 3.37 60.14

Pipraich

1999-2K 66.96 11.59 64.64 99.93 0.51 88.24 6.32 28.501975-76 39.56 - 56.14 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 70.99 0.92 71.31 100.00 0.58 100.00 5.71 82.831985-86 68.41 5.86 71.41 100.00 0.25 100.00 4.57 77.891989-90 68.75 0.35 73.05 100.00 0.51 100.00 4.38 77.551996-97 68.70 54.51 73.60 100.00 0.39 100.00 8.80 34.251998-99 69.62 76.81 73.67 100.00 0.37 100.00 5.24 69.44

Sardanagar

1999-2K 75.94 72.45 73.93 100.00 0.25 100.00 6.78 36.631975-76 17.70 0.90 11.53 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 44.17 0.26 61.89 93.77 3.13 43.70 8.93 51.121985-86 47.61 4.67 63.13 95.98 2.85 56.91 7.91 44.301989-90 52.27 0.58 59.55 90.22 2.92 38.61 8.28 46.841996-97 58.47 8.50 74.38 99.35 2.30 68.56 10.35 40.391998-99 46.18 9.05 62.93 98.24 2.67 75.32 7.26 34.81

Korabar

1999-2K 54.59 9.03 68.38 99.81 0.69 89.74 7.39 28.841975-76 18.71 0.64 35.62 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 41.18 5.55 60.64 88.17 11.71 22.20 9.27 45.851985-86 48.30 2.12 63.86 94.29 5.46 47.70 7.12 54.001989-90 46.29 1.25 66.31 90.98 6.32 36.97 7.33 55.161996-97 58.89 23.74 64.31 97.52 4.18 57.60 9.13 41.471998-99 56.30 43.29 65.46 99.53 3.83 68.40 8.18 41.35

Brahmapur

1999-2K 59.13 44.62 68.16 99.71 1.56 86.97 7.49 24.321975-76 16.42 0.09 16.55 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 30.71 - 59.01 81.34 10.63 35.06 20.19 23.871985-86 30.45 1.87 56.48 86.97 6.98 54.77 15.01 23.401989-90 37.74 0.48 63.19 94.86 6.24 46.12 14.36 25.501996-97 38.83 - 61.01 98.28 2.63 51.09 14.87 13.231998-99 29.10 0.20 68.88 98.30 2.38 70.06 7.80 30.28

Kauriram

1999-2K 27.72 - 63.55 99.63 1.45 82.18 11.25 17.881975-76 27.01 0.05 36.71 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 41.58 - 59.86 90.34 4.36 62.13 13.10 46.681985-86 39.33 0.58 62.90 97.34 1.39 98.35 15.13 32.141989-90 41.07 0.64 80.28 93.13 1.52 74.85 13.59 32.331996-97 49.63 0.02 42.36 154.99 0.70 100.00 10.71 21.231998-99 50.73 - 76.06 99.99 1.94 52.48 8.25 26.58

Bansgaon

1999-2K 50.94 - 62.55 10.65 0.90 93.10 7.15 24.10Contd…

188



1975-76 13.97 - NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 47.05 0.22 54.58 99.74 1.79 97.74 10.91 75.621985-86 42.09 0.08 53.05 99.65 1.24 97.83 10.78 52.401989-90 42.63 - 65.02 96.40 0.35 100.00 9.85 68.951996-97 58.50 0.62 64.25 99.97 0.45 98.41 11.02 29.341998-99 82.31 2.37 91.68 100.00 0.85 81.32 11.42 39.51

Uroowa

1999-2K 67.88 - 71.78 100.00 0.84 99.15 8.07 34.821975-76 17.45 - 28.07 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 51.17 - 66.45 97.81 7.28 70.11 12.96 56.671985-86 51.20 - 60.21 98.46 4.91 70.80 11.90 51.151989-90 55.43 0.88 75.22 99.50 1.90 86.90 9.99 56.051996-97 57.08 0.36 62.03 99.72 1.01 70.45 15.03 22.401998-99 59.08 - 77.47 97.00 1.48 92.49 12.93 32.01

Gagaha

1999-2K 54.83 - 68.06 93.82 1.42 84.49 10.85 26.801975-76 26.81 0.11 51.60 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 56.75 0.03 64.15 99.89 1.67 99.12 11.80 86.701985-86 58.66 - 56.08 100.00 0.92 92.80 11.69 82.491989-90 28.88 - 67.16 99.72 0.59 98.65 9.44 83.181996-97 67.54 0.68 97.97 99.96 0.33 97.78 7.45 41.801998-99 62.18 - 68.05 100.00 0.32 100.00 6.63 32.70

Khajni

1999-2K 77.60 - 79.23 100.00 0.45 88.14 7.97 43.641975-76 17.38 - 24.64 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 36.89 0.79 48.46 90.65 5.10 48.27 8.56 48.191985-86 37.30 - 49.21 94.23 2.96 84.56 7.69 42.771989-90 31.25 - 69.81 93.31 0.90 65.45 7.77 47.791996-97 57.74 - 67.50 94.63 0.06 822.22 10.63 31.041998-99 52.67 - 63.30 99.50 0.53 96.34 5.34 33.90

Belghat

1999-2K 61.56 0.12 70.26 93.14 0.79 84.96 6.89 26.141975-76 21.33 - 31.85 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 32.29 - 51.69 99.65 4.41 97.35 8.11 90.131985-86 43.50 - 56.56 99.81 3.58 91.73 9.13 72.071989-90 45.06 1.86 65.91 95.50 1.95 100.00 11.28 45.191996-97 55.28 - 65.38 99.97 0.85 96.81 11.28 27.671998-99 52.27 0.12 61.57 99.94 4.07 100.00 7.95 40.24

Gola

1999-2K 60.91 0.46 66.21 100.00 0.94 100.00 10.51 37.731975-76 14.26 - 16.56 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 34.51 0.21 49.84 68.97 14.30 21.48 11.43 22.111985-86 34.33 1.78 45.65 77.42 9.39 20.31 11.01 27.331989-90 26.92 0.60 66.29 88.80 8.03 39.97 12.17 29.101996-97 45.72 2.56 57.85 100.00 1.75 100.00 9.88 44.191998-99 30.90 9.34 53.09 99.21 3.76 51.06 9.45 38.04

Badhalganj

1999-2K 45.15 7.89 66.32 96.37 3.49 36.89 9.51 26.181975-76 22.04 - 39.48 100.00 NA NA NA NA1980-81 60.35 1.38 53.05 97.58 1.41 47.74 5.12 61.361985-86 48.44 0.79 44.63 97.51 0.47 67.06 5.77 69.001989-90 66.32 3.13 66.08 92.36 0.63 25.68 6.06 52.791996-97 64.22 0.69 63.19 98.53 0.99 45.64 8.43 32.491998-99 51.91 3.55 90.29 99.80 0.79 60.76 7.36 36.71

Kampiarganj

1999-2K 62.92 0.16 66.07 95.88 0.99 26.67 8.46 30.52Contd…

189



1975-76 24.22 99.48 NA NA NA NA1980-81 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1985-86 60.80 1.26 58.24 94.63 1.95 50.20 9.55 35.821989-90 49.28 0.73 66.17 95.28 2.47 48.36 9.60 45.611996-97 58.45 6.60 67.52 98.94 1.19 73.66 10.36 31.971998-99 53.29 9.12 68.59 99.12 1.48 71.86 7.41 36.96

Rural

1999-2K 58.73 8.46 68.89 98.68 1.10 70.30 8.24 28.361975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 39.09 9.14 43.06 96.31 0.40 - 5.56 14.291985-86 34.29 - 47.27 91.76 3.38 7.69 8.83 NA1989-90 34.92 - 56.61 100.00 0.34 100.00 NA NA1996-97 46.16 - 78.15 100.00 0.32 58.33 5.34 20.791998-99 33.13 - 83.84 100.00 0.07 100.00 4.01 35.09

Urban

1999-2K 23.90 0.74 50.74 99.48 0.06 100.00 1.30 36.361975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 62.36 0.92 58.39 92.46 3.21 41.83 8.90 42.761985-86 60.78 1.26 58.23 94.63 1.95 50.14 9.55 35.801989-90 49.26 0.73 66.16 95.28 2.47 48.36 9.59 45.611996-97 58.27 6.53 67.67 98.95 1.18 73.60 10.29 31.881998-99 53.07 9.05 68.75 99.13 1.46 71.88 7.38 36.95

Total District

1999-2K 58.28 8.42 68.66 98.69 1.09 70.32 8.15 28.38Source: District Statistical Handbook (of difference years).

190

Table – 3.6(b)

Block-wise Cropping Pattern in Gorakhpur District, (in Percent)

Oil Seed Sugarcane Potato Fodder Blocks Years

Total Irrigated Total Irrigated Total Irrigated Total Irrigated

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 1.42 38.46 1.14 97.79 0.61 95.83 NA NA1985-86 2.04 39.08 1.33 95.51 1.15 98.51 NA NA1989-90 1.68 59.34 1.07 100.00 1.21 99.24 NA NA1996-97 3.40 72.66 0.49 100.00 1.82 100.00 1.23 58.741998-99 2.21 85.41 0.27 42.86 1.48 99.47 0.82 64.42

Pali

1999-2K 1.93 89.04 0.16 100.00 2.20 100.00 0.79 64.441975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 0.94 24.37 1.54 100.00 1.70 100.00 NA NA1985-86 0.66 39.76 2.50 99.68 1.61 100.00 NA NA1989-90 0.67 61.25 1.71 100.00 1.73 99.03 NA NA1996-97 1.87 88.74 1.12 100.00 2.07 100.00 1.69 50.241998-99 1.35 92.82 0.63 97.96 1.82 100.00 1.55 43.75

Sahajanwa


Piprauli

1999-2K 0.99 95.87 - 2.22 100.00 0.88 76.851975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 7.05 3.51 1.61 99.66 0.44 63.75 NA NA1985-86 7.22 6.99 0.88 90.24 1.27 99.16 NA NA1989-90 3.85 9.34 0.33 84.21 1.21 96.17 NA NA1996-97 4.81 32.83 0.40 100.00 1.90 99.41 0.99 57.391998-99 5.38 38.66 0.31 100.00 2.76 99.00 1.01 77.98

Jangal Kauria


Chargawan


Bhat Hat

1999-2K 3.59 35.19 4.82 100.00 2.61 100.00 0.42 72.00Contd…

191




Pipraich


Sardanagar


Korabar


Brahmapur


Kauriram


Bansgaon

1999-2K 0.92 88.14 0.68 100.00 1.75 100.00 2.20 75.35Contd…

192




Uroowa


Gagaha


Khajni


Belghat


Gola


Badhalganj


Kampiarganj

1999-2K 4.21 43.95 2.26 100.00 3.37 90.92 1.72 45.40Contd…

193



1975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 NA NA NA 75.31 96.99 NA NA1985-86 2.88 33.22 4.67 76.47 1.29 97.74 NA NA1989-90 1.72 23.53 2.46 97.02 1.60 91.34 NA NA1996-97 2.23 43.97 2.78 97.93 2.02 99.87 1.26 51.381998-99 1.99 56.53 2.19 97.74 1.93 99.78 1.17 62.36

Rural

1999-2K 2.17 52.16 2.03 96.95 2.02 99.90 1.12 58.531975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 NA NA NA NA 0.99 100.00 NA NA1985-86 NA NA NA NA 0.78 100.00 NA NA1989-90 NA NA NA NA 1.02 100.00 NA NA1996-97 1.59 20.00 2.80 100.00 1.16 100.00 0.63 29.171998-99 0.67 100.00 - - 0.95 100.00 0.70 50.00

Urban

1999-2K 0.12 100.00 - - 0.50 100.00 0.47 37.501975-76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1980-81 2.71 26.94 4.21 75.31 1.30 96.99 NA NA1985-86 2.87 33.22 4.66 76.47 1.29 97.74 NA NA1989-90 1.72 23.53 2.46 97.02 1.59 91.35 NA NA1996-97 2.22 43.72 2.78 97.96 2.01 98.73 1.25 51.221998-99 1.98 56.69 2.17 97.74 1.92 99.78 1.17 62.28

Total District

1999-2K 2.14 52.20 2.00 96.95 2.00 99.90 1.11 58.41Source: District Statistical Handbook (of difference years).

3.7 Fertilizer Use Use of fertilizer had been increasing in all the blocks. But their balanced and

proportionate application has not been reported (See table 3.7).

There is need to adopt following strategy to combat this menace:

(a) Lay guidelines for each gram-panchayat-on the basis of soil-testing – the

proportion of fertilizer which is required to be applied.

(b) Farmers meetings be organised at village level before every cropping season to

make them aware about such guidelines.

(c) Farmers be also informed about hazardous impact of non-proportionate

application of urea.

(d) Government functionaries, specially at the gram-panchayat level be sensitized

regarding these aspects.

Table 3.7

Block-wise Use of Fertiliser in Gorakhpur District (in MT)

194

Blocks Years Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Total Fertilizer

1975-76 317 80 36 4341980-81 598 118 23 7391984-85 1139 266 91 14961989-90 1011 246 51 13081996-97 2093 682 205 2980

Pali

1999-2K 2337 1138 122 3597Contd...


1975-76 537 156 136 8311980-81 669 103 32 8041984-85 1558 502 129 21891989-90 1564 330 76 19701996-97 2285 508 196 2989

Sahajanwa

1999-2K 2336 1326 160 38221975-76 370 97 56 5261980-81 501 122 50 6731984-85 1316 280 87 16831989-90 1776 312 56 21441996-97 1926 564 148 2638

Piprauli

1999-2K 2337 1086 125 35481975-76 358 87 69 5181980-81 623 162 36 8211984-85 434 53 21 5081989-90 1300 419 52 17711996-97 2615 607 193 3415

Jangal Kauria

1999-2K 2336 1744 122 42021975-76 576 79 90 7501980-81 1230 266 86 15821984-85 436 48 15 4991989-90 1280 353 45 16781996-97 2008 770 139 2917

Chargawan

1999-2K 2205 1660 115 39801975-76 762 216 113 10701980-81 1163 279 72 15141984-85 1607 401 100 21081989-90 1340 463 70 18731996-97 2286 672 192 3156

Bhat Hat

1999-2K 2336 830 134 33001975-76 643 118 151 9191980-81 1437 301 82 18201984-85 2617 511 126 32541989-90 1426 358 54 18381996-97 2406 719 143 3268

Pipraich

1999-2K 2456 715 113 32841975-76 826 233 165 12321980-81 1121 247 82 14501984-85 2194 509 176 28791989-90 945 273 68 12861996-97 2676 676 144 3496

Sardanagar

1999-2K 2192 615 132 2939Korabar 1975-76 337 85 54 485

195

1980-81 743 145 45 9331984-85 1071 295 74 74401989-90 1782 580 69 24311996-97 2198 722 214 3134

1999-2K 2337 875 127 33391975-76 329 95 25 4591980-81 981 107 31 11191984-85 717 240 82 10391989-90 2427 834 97 33581996-97 2631 810 145 3586

Brahmapur

1999-2K 2337 715 115 3167Contd…

Blocks Years Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Total Fertilizer 1975-76 589 152 44 7961980-81 713 126 37 8761984-85 422 48 21 4911989-90 1106 181 68 13551996-97 2122 640 153 2915

Kauriram

1999-2K 2336 710 118 31641975-76 475 63 52 6021980-81 673 142 36 8511984-85 427 104 31 5621989-90 1016 318 67 14011996-97 2296 707 149 3152

Bansgaon

1999-2K 2305 775 115 31951975-76 428 101 45 5871980-81 684 114 39 8371984-85 595 228 57 8801989-90 1197 206 51 14541996-97 2272 537 207 3016

Uroowa

1999-2K 2336 750 132 32181975-76 323 82 22 4271980-81 845 168 73 10861984-85 551 203 93 8471989-90 1106 288 45 14391996-97 1945 554 181 2680

Gagaha

1999-2K 2336 765 132 32331975-76 404 141 31 5911980-81 772 138 57 9671984-85 1395 326 57 17781989-90 1167 362 57 15861996-97 2324 548 153 3025

Khajni

1999-2K 2350 715 125 31901975-76 359 87 38 5001980-81 602 141 27 7701984-85 526 180 35 7411989-90 670 205 57 9321996-97 2422 597 154 3173

Belghat

1999-2K 2137 612 124 28731975-76 385 87 24 5131980-81 667 177 32 8761984-85 1669 235 76 19801989-90 666 157 52 8751996-97 2024 550 150 2724

Gola

1999-2K 2664 619 129 3412

196

1975-76 393 93 40 5441980-81 673 139 75 8871984-85 980 263 76 13191989-90 804 373 57 12341996-97 2269 543 200 3012

Badhalganj

1999-2K 1961 640 128 27291975-76 507 94 83 7031980-81 887 167 76 11301984-85 1321 363 100 17841989-90 1430 484 55 19691996-97 2398 897 207 3502

Kampiarganj

1999-2K 2360 612 140 3112Contd…


1975-76 15497 3354 2138 210091980-81 27646 6336 1942 359211984-85 37446 9837 2599 498821989-90 24341 6856 1152 323491996-97 43196 12303 3273 58772

Rural

1999-2K 43994 16902 2408 633041975-76 1980-81 27646 6336 1942 359211984-85 37446 9837 2599 498821989-90 24341 6856 1152 323491996-97 43196 12303 3273 58772

Total District

1999-2K 43994 16902 2408 63304Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years).

3.8 Extent of Mechanization The extent of mechanization has increased in the district. The number of tractors,

sowing machine, sprayers, Threshing machine etc. have increased, while the number of wood

plough have decreased during the last 20 years. The number of wood plough decreased from

around 5 laks in 1972 to around 55 thousand during 1997 in the district while the number of

iron plough increased from 61 thousand in 1972 to 92 thousand in 1982, but thereafter

declined to 44 thousand in 1997. The number of threshers increased by around 200 per cent,

sprayer by 560 per cent, sowing machine by around 100 per cent, sprayer by 1900 per cent

and tractor by 700 per cent during 1972 to 1997 (See table 3.8.1). The trend of increasing

mechanization despite the fact that average size of landholdings has been decreasing

indicates a new type of resource sharing in rural areas. Those who cannot afford to purchase

the machine, hire its services. Be it irrigation water, tractor, thresher or any other machine,

their services are being hired by those who cannot afford to purchase or maintain them. Very

poor farmers do not keep draught animals and hire services of new machines because they

cannot afford to feed draught animals throughout the year.

Block wise analysis shows that, while mechanization has increased at a significant

pace in all the blocks, the number of even wood plough had increased during 1982-1993

period in many blocks. These are Pali, Sahjanwa and Basgaon. But the number of wood

plough decreased in these blocks during the period 1993 to 1997 (See table 3.8.2). Similar

197

trend was witnessed in case of iron plough also in many blocks. But the most peculiar trend

was found in case of tractors. In many blocks, the number of tractors were found to increase

during 1982-1993, but then declined during the period 1993-1997. Following blocks showed

this trend: Pali, Sahjanwa, Piparauli, Jangal Kauria, Chargawan, Bhat Hat, Sardanagar,

Khorabar, Kauriram, Badhalganj adn Kampairganj. This shows that demand of tractors was

reaching at saturation point of demand in many blocks.

Tenancy and share cropping was found in our survey in selected villages of the

district. Thus sharing of land resource as well as services of machines indicates emergence

of a new type of land-labour-capital relations.

Table – 3.8.1 Agricultural Machines and Equipments in Gorakhpur District

Years Wood

Plough Iron

Plough Harrow & Cultivator

Threshing Machine

Sprayer Sowing Machine

Tractor

1972 506411 60998 63015 5442 332 450 7261978 263437 58591 1383 9190 950 369 16041982 292871 91720 43168 24594 2097 422 37021988 151384 85002 44430 24055 2320 941 32601993 120845 78259 40233 10830 6076 392 46541997 54858 44289 28346 35939 6661 896 5789

Table – 3.8.2

Block-wise Agricultural Machines and Equipments in Gorakhpur District

Blocks Years Wood

Plough Iron


Threshing Machine


Tractor

1982 6749 3286 1344 397 69 - 781993 7308 4227 4469 844 198 - 129

Pali

1997 3642 3135 1077 1476 72 3 511982 7387 2942 598 361 80 2 601993 11555 6044 3068 775 137 - 306

Sahajanwa

1997 3557 6716 1104 1580 161 - 2461982 10312 10512 527 6393 60 - 5931993 7558 8772 5044 658 225 - 187

Piprauli

1997 1770 1177 1027 1872 911 66 1591982 6517 2067 3475 379 55 19 661993 5659 2749 2150 369 130 41 170

Jangal Kauria

1997 1700 828 2658 1049 1634 - 1651982 7541 994 246 523 52 - 601993 1875 1722 636 56 794 21 152

Chargawan

1997 9 127 547 1852 136 - 781982 8067 1567 1444 686 84 64 1121993 5939 3196 1593 683 308 11 308

Bhat Hat

1997 2424 1686 1141 1872 160 32 2491982 8234 1674 740 962 65 - 1221993 4172 3618 1697 440 480 47 285

Pipraich

1997 1834 1302 1109 1750 287 33 3951982 6526 2899 1176 745 85 68 1921993 6482 3114 1512 457 462 187 332

Sardanagar

1997 1429 1735 825 1353 193 132 317Korabar 1982 6590 2129 175 736 72 1 42

198

1993 4745 3301 2162 383 372 - 164 1997 305 359 1610 1204 464 2 1251982 9699 3337 290 725 64 3 9111993 4088 7664 4139 315 563 - 190

Brahmapur

1997 4366 4214 4370 1652 327 24 1851982 8600 2813 130 480 25 6 1991993 5427 3676 2152 500 137 - 294

Kauriram

1997 1823 1452 531 1538 250 2 2701982 8616 3218 323 640 29 1 301993 9683 4424 1013 870 374 2 392

Bansgaon

1997 4780 4293 1358 2245 333 127 5851982 8856 3650 130 820 19 - 401993 2258 1119 78 447 57 2 126

Uroowa

1997 1509 1032 484 2018 197 46 751Contd...

Blocks

Years Wood

Plough Iron


Threshing Machine


Tractor

1982 8530 3213 130 676 24 3 501993 7517 4349 980 606 200 - 345

Gagaha

1997 3219 2290 1845 2200 445 36 5111982 6880 3802 145 540 26 1 801993 5844 3021 617 402 22 - 123

Khajni

1997 3860 2519 1046 1960 114 21 3611982 10435 3610 309 841 18 45 501993 6227 2637 439 400 10 - 125

Belghat

1997 4276 1980 433 1477 227 89 4201982 8685 3440 140 530 27 - 901993 5139 3596 864 494 148 9 261

Gola

1997 3098 2758 1200 2616 119 95 3011982 8648 4210 268 696 28 2 1101993 4845 2991 919 503 64 - 322

Badhalganj

1997 3157 2732 780 3218 111 86 371982 11251 1620 2058 347 44 6 361993 10631 6927 5029 1063 1131 - 207

Kampiarganj

1997 7805 3507 5151 2598 397 38 164Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years). 3.9 Livestock Livestock plays two types of roles in rural economy. One it provides draught animals

or for pulling carts. Secondly it generates income through animal products, which has serious

implications for diversification of rural economy.

But the size of livestock has also a serious bearing on land use. The increase in

livestock would mean that more land under pasture will be required, as well as more fodder

will be required. The analysis of livestock during 1978-1997 shows interesting trends.

There was a general trend of decrease in the number of bovine animals during the

period 1978 to 1997. The number of cattles (cows and cow family animals) and buffaloes

declined in the district.

Another fall-out of growing urbanization and increase in extent of mechanization has

been drastic decline in the number of livestock in Gorakhpur district. It is evident from table

3.9.1 that number of all animals in the district have declined after 1993 poultry.

199

Block-wise analysis reveals almost similar trends with some variations. For example

number of cattles have decreased in almost all blocks after 1993, except Pali, Kauriram,

Uroowa, Gagaha and Khajni, In these blocks number of cattles decreased during 1982-83 but

then increased during 1993-97. On the other hand there were some blocks where number of

cattles increased during 1982-93, but then declined during 1993-97. These include Sahjanwa,

Bhat Hat, Pipraich, Sardanagar, Korabar, Brahampur and Bansgaon. There are also third

types of blocks where number of cattles have continuously been decreasing since 1982.

These include piparauli, Jangal Kauria, Chargawan, Belghat, Gola and Badhalganj.

Similarly in most of the blocks, the number of buffaloes have declined during 1993-97

except Uroowa, Khanji and Belghat.

Table 3.9.1 Details of Livestock in Gorakhpur District

Years Total

Cattles (Cows &

Oxen)

Total Buffaloes

Sheep Goats Pig Horse & Tattoos

Other Livestock

Total Livestock

Total Poultry

1972 793953 213454 22864 175582 52804 3538 8864 1271059 1021978 828230 228552 28137 240157 74305 2147 7833 1409361 1447101982 423106 169805 38050 160066 77775 2163 10757 881722 1095671988 369678 172076 12347 189386 79058 435 4256 797236 1777911993 361215 185675 22669 214256 67726 808 90836 943185 2418571997 244215 146121 12866 154982 46141 1127 5119 610571 193720

Table 3.9.2

Block-wise Details of Livestock in Gorakhpur District

Blocks Years Total

Cattles (Cows &

Oxen)

Total Buffaloes


Other Livestock

Total Livestock

Total Poultry

1982 18612 7556 604 5434 1651 6 300 342 36801993 6024 9057 469 9232 31309 3 5206 31300 3770

Pali

1997 10431 7820 69 5403 1072 - 84 24879 119951982 20764 6896 487 5211 1367 8 315 35048 33151993 33230 15895 786 8805 2748 5 6014 67483 8086

Sahajanwa

1997 12020 6293 224 5045 1096 37 155 24870 59911982 25891 18117 12396 14401 10349 839 2430 84423 35731993 20688 12749 2061 17406 2782 2 2394 58082 31699

Piprauli

1997 10922 4257 602 5703 1574 44 452 23554 156451982 23333 10999 1688 8016 4876 71 502 48685 31371993 15836 7142 1213 6210 4228 67 1827 36523 6166

Jangal Kauria

1997 5484 3445 343 4147 1471 13 553 15456 85881982 27319 7849 90 - 1697 - 1402 38357 28311993 11298 2395 272 1897 3231 18 479 19590 16359

Chargawan

1997 3076 2134 - 2078 369 - 128 7785 100001982 18814 9176 59 8742 2618 6 296 39911 70831993 19731 9620 152 11908 5261 11 6950 53633 12281

Bhat Hat

1997 10391 8785 620 10844 3661 2 76 34379 87961982 17463 10263 644 9298 1526 74 75 39343 32201993 18153 8676 691 12482 4694 - 3971 48667 13676

Pipraich

1997 9783 7686 149 10725 3138 - 191 31672 13544Sardanagar 1982 17899 9417 1084 10263 1873 540 203 41279 4084

200

1993 19450 8575 736 14990 3279 7 5115 52152 20510 1997 7958 8089 1022 9329 1887 - 74 28359 86081982 15771 7289 884 8311 1945 10 515 34725 42961993 15821 9436 1056 9563 5954 5 1650 43485 9533

Korabar

1997 3895 2736 540 5277 1388 20 755 14611 126661982 21494 7537 1486 10359 2361 24 386 43647 33911993 21553 11440 397 16311 4337 22 5612 59672 10822

Brahmapur

1997 15748 10084 245 7880 3210 - 190 37357 41461982 18155 6690 1646 5969 1382 28 437 34307 60091993 13524 8038 1036 7567 2754 59 4733 37711 10112

Kauriram

1997 14410 7793 1132 7478 4256 436 195 35700 76881982 18875 6895 1668 6170 3561 29 458 37656 45411993 32704 16342 2647 15508 4943 67 8375 80586 12971

Bansgaon

1997 27622 10074 2552 11683 7489 8 157 62585 134561982 32566 12721 2387 11948 1696 57 561 61936 55911993 10922 5058 1294 6529 1575 40 1802 27220 4324

Uroowa

1997 11216 8236 1455 6839 2669 50 297 30762 7900Contd...

201

Blocks Years Total

Cattles (Cows &

Oxen)

Total Buffaloes


Other Livestock

Total Livestock

Total Poultry

1982 19890 7437 1733 6713 1604 29 459 37866 32911993 13487 8550 2275 13267 2622 41 4706 44948 13113

Gagaha

1997 16675 7712 382 7083 3515 115 585 36067 95601982 21043 7883 1794 7156 1254 33 461 39624 45961993 17189 7982 482 5959 822 33 2533 35000 4946

Khajni

1997 18685 11981 142 8435 2736 3 145 42127 67381982 22220 8359 1854 7632 862 33 460 41420 31611993 17337 8252 312 5507 802 22 2883 35115 4088

Belghat

1997 16784 10510 150 12914 1162 37 188 41745 157861982 19266 7144 1705 6442 1511 28 499 36615 43531993 15566 8146 1734 9708 3451 1 6129 44735 10907

Gola

1997 14392 5962 765 6568 1203 - 300 29190 60241982 18193 6619 1632 5898 1371 29 451 34193 37431993 15570 8499 2127 10445 3957 16 4979 45593 10566

Badhalganj

1997 14628 8467 642 8331 2263 23 290 34644 107501982 26730 6506 1084 9401 1350 20 42 46933 48161993 34426 17360 2093 22458 5134 233 8326 90030 11161

Kampiarganj

1997 15687 8862 1765 15402 1266 324 164 43470 8002Source: District Statistical Handbook (of various years).

202

PART – B

Land Use Plan Related to Agricultural Land

In Gorakhpur district the average size of landholding was 0.58 hectare as per the

1995-96 agricultural census, 93.04 per cent holdings belonged to the small and marginal

farmers, while they accounted for only 64.54 per cent of total area under all landholdings.

The net sown area of the district as percentage of total reporting area hovered around

77 per cent after 1996-97.




years.

The cropping intensity of the Gorakhpur district had almost remained constant around

150 since 1980-81.

The most important factor which has effected cropping intensity is irrigation.

The irrigation intensity i.e. net irrigated area as percentage of net sown area has

increased from 62.78 per cent in 1980-81 to 74.89 per cent in 1999-2K. This trend was

discernible in all the blocks of the district as well.

Furthermore, gross irrigated area as percentage of net irrigated area has increased


with fluctuating trends during intervening periods.

Tubewell is now the dominant source of irrigation in Gorakhpur district, and

accounts for more than 90 per cent of net irrigated area.


become dominant source of irrigation, the role of public sources continues to be very

important. Because canals and government tubewells together account for more than 50 per

cent net irrigated area in most of the blocks. That means, public investment in irrigation will

continue to play an important role in increasing gross irrigated area, which in turn would help

in increasing the cropping intensity in these blocks.

The cropping pattern in the district has vastly changed during the last 30 years.

The main crops viz. paddy, wheat, potato and sugarcane have witnessed very large

increases in their productivity also during the period 1960-61 to 1998-99.

Thus farmers have shifted to crops, which are highly irrigated, fertilizer use is higher

on them and whose productivity is also comparatively very high.





203

(c) Orchards, fallow land and land under social forestry could be used for growing such

crops.

(d) Processing industries of oilseeds and spices be promoted at local level with support

for technology up gradation, packaging and market access facilities.

Use of fertilizer had been increasing in all the blocks. But their balanced and

proportionate application has not been reported.


(a) Lay guidelines for each gram-panchayat-on the basis of soil-testing – the proportion

of fertilizer which is required to be applied.

(b) Farmers meeting be organised at village level before every cropping season to make

them aware about such guidelines.

(c) Farmers be also informed about hazardous impact of non-proportionate application of

urea.

(d) Government functionaries, specially at the gram-panchayat level be sensitised


The extent of mechanisation has increased in the district. The number of tractors,

plough machine, sprayers, Threshing machine etc. have increased, while the number of

Wood Plough have decreased during the last 20 years.

The trend of increasing mechanisation despite the fact that average size of

landholdings has been decreasing indicates a new type of resource sharing in rural area.

Those who cannot afford to purchase the machine, hire its services. Be it irrigation water,

tractor, thresher or any other machine, their services are being hired by those who cannot

afford to purchase or maintain them. Very poor farmers do not keep draught animals and hire

services of new machines because they cannot afford to feed draught animals throughout the

year.




Livestock plays two types of roles in rural economy. One it provides drought animals

or for pulling carts. Secondly it generates income through animals products, which has

serious implications for diversification of rural economy.



will be required.

Another fall-out of growing urbanisation and increase in extent of mechanisation has

been drastic decline in the number of livestock in Gorakhpur district. That number of all

animals in the district have declined excepting those of pig and poultry.

204

3.10 Agricultural Production System and Framework for Land Reforms It was found that except for Bundelkhand region, the majority of land owners who

leased out their land belonged to medium, small or marginal farmers. The fact that even small

and marginal farmers were leasing out their land, revealed two trends - one, in case of

uneconomic holdings farmers want to search other opportunities and will be content to get the

market rent for their land yet they would prefer to retain the land instead of selling it out right.

Moreover, the new generation, if educated seeks jobs in cities, and prefers to lease out the

land. The other aspect was in regard to changing relationship. The exploitative relationship

between tenant/share cropper and the land lord is fast changing. It is now purely an economic

arrangement of mutual interests. Small and marginal farmers also lease-out land to other

small and marginal farmers. Thus enterprising farmers are continuing agricultural activities by

pooling resources from fellow farmers, while some other farmers are trying to make efforts in

non-agricultural activities also.

Thus the new form of economic arrangement under tenancy was giving way to

emergence of new enterprising farmers who were seeking ways to pool resources for higher

productivity and application of new technology.

Dependency relationship based tenancy was declining because not many cultivators

wanted to be tied up for the whole of year with some small parcel of land which they did not

own, and further depend on the landlord for resources and credit. Landless or near landless

people also now want to keep options open for seeking job elsewhere as well. So they

preferred to work as casual agricultural labour during peak periods rather than working as an

attached labour or as a tenant.

On the other hand leasing-out by small farmers was on the increase because many

small farmers wanted to get job outside agriculture and at the same time wanted some

income from their land also. This was possible only by leasing-out land to fellow farmers at

mutually agreed terms. This kind of tenancy was free from both the dependency and

exploitative relationship.

Sharing of machines and equipments was also found to be widely prevalent among

farmers of this district. It was found that almost all farmers owning agricultural machines and

equipments hired out or shared their services with other farmers. many agricultural tools were

also found to be shared among farmers on the exchange basis.

3.11 Factors Inhibiting Growth The immediate factors which inhibited growth among small and marginal farmers

were: lack of resources, capital deficiency and lack of facility to sell at remunerative prices.

The other factors included the problems of water logging, floods, drying of canals during

summer, etc.

3.12 Framework for Agricultural Growth Among small and marginal farmers, agricultural productivity is hampered by poor

logistical support and weak infrastructure. If food production is to be increased in a

205

sustainable way, these deficiencies must be corrected and favourable economic framework

for agriculture should be evolved. Such actions need to be backed up by practices aimed at

maintaining or enhancing fertility and productivity.

The first step is to protect the best land for agriculture. In view of the scarcity of high

quality arable land and the rising demand for food and other agricultural products, the land

that is most suitable for crops should be reserved for agriculture. Government should map

and monitor the more productive areas of farm land and adopt planning and zoning policies to

prevent the loss of prime land to urban settlements. Village Land Management Committee

and local authorities should be entrusted with responsibility to ensure that these policies are

implemented in their areas.

We have found that the number of small and marginal farmers in the district is

predominant. It was also found that the immediate factors which inhibited growth among small

and marginal farmers were lack of resources, capital deficiency and lack of facility to sell at

remunerative prices. The most important factor which could become basis for future

restructuring of agricultural production system related to tenancy. It was found the majority of

land owners who leased out their land (without entering into any written or formal contract)

belonged to the category of medium, small or marginal farmers. This was for two reasons –

one in case of uneconomic holdings, farmers wanted to search other opportunities and would

be content to get the market rent for their land. Yet they would prefer to retain the land instead

of selling it outright. The other aspect was in regard to non-exploitative nature of relationship

between the lessor and the lessess. It is now purely an economic arrangement in which small

and marginal farmers are also leasing out land to other small and marginal farmers. Thus

enterprising farmers are continuing agricultural activities by pooling resources from fellow

farmers, while some other farmers are seeking opportunities in non-agricultural activities also.

Thus the new form of economic arrangement was giving way to pooling of resources by

enterprising farmers, while other farmers who were leasing out their land were treating their

land as a share capital for which they will receive the rent as well as the share in profit. The

process of pooling of resources was further strengthened by a simultaneous process of

sharing of machines and equipments. it was found that almost all farmers owning agricultural

machines and equipments hired out or shared their services with other farmers.

It seems to us that a limited restructuring of the production process in agriculture can

be such that it serves the interests of small and marginal farmers and at the same time

protects wider interests of the farming community.

One major step in this direction would be to allow formation of Collective Farming

Society and Confederation of Farming Societies. In the collective farming society framework,

tenancy to such farming societies could be permitted under specified conditions. In particular

such societies may be formed of small and marginal farmers for a complete package of

inputs, and it may then be permissible for any member of such a society to lease out land to

the society or to any other member of the society.

206

At the next level, a confederation of such Collective Farming Societies could be

formed which will work as service societies. These confederations would provide high cost

machinery and equipments to Collective Farming Societies on hire. The idea essentially is

that it should be possible to increase number of viable farms by permitting some of the non-

viable farmers to go out of agricultural business and seek other jobs and economic

opportunities. This should on the one hand, improve productivity of labour on the expanded

farms and on the other aid in much needed shift of labour away from agriculture.

3.13 Collective Farming Society 1. Collective farming units be allowed to be registered under a separate Collective

Farming Society Registration Act.

2. Only small and marginal farmers be allowed to become members of such a

society.

3. The number of members of a society should not be above twenty and below five.

4. Those who become members of such a collective farming society will be allowed to

lease out their land to the society for a minimum of ten years on a fixed annual rent.

5. A collective farming society will not bring under its purview more than ten hectares of

irrigated land.

6. A collective farming society will be allowed to pool its resources on hire or through

raising capital from its members.

7. The produce will be shared among members in proportion to the share amount of

each member.

8. The share amount of each member will be the weighted sum of (a) money

invested under capital raising scheme plus, (b) the amount fixed as annual

rent for the land leased out to the society, (c) operational holdings of actual

cultivators.

3.14 Confederation of Collective Farming Societies For storage facilities, providing transportation facilities and to work as marketing

syndicates of farming societies, a confederation of ten to twenty corporate farming societies

be allowed to be formed.

These confederations will work in the following areas:

1. Marketing of agricultural goods at national and international level.

2. Provide transportation and storage facilities to Collective Farming Societies against

such stored goods.

3. Function as cushions against speculative prices.

4. The confederation will also act as counselling centre for farmers projecting the

production and demands of each agricultural commodity for the next two years.

5. Provide high costing tools and machines to Collective Farming Societies for land

levelling, soil testing, land reclamation and other activities related to land and water

management on rental basis.

6. Help in technological innovations and in increasing productive efficiency.

208

Chapter – 4

Land Use Plan

(Other than Agricultural Land)

The land use pattern in the district has been changing slowly but steadily. The

discussion on land use pattern is divided into two parts. One deals with the land use related to

agriculture and the other part deals with all categories of land use other than agriculture. We

have already discussed land use related to agriculture in Chapter – 3.

The categories related to land use other than agriculture have witnessed change due

to factors like population increase, urbanization, land degradation floods etc.

Following categories of land use may be combined under the heading other than

agricultural land:

(i) Forest

(ii) Land put to non-agricultural uses

(iii) Barren and unculturable land

(iv) Culturable waste

(v) Permanent pastures and other grazing land

(vi) Land under miscellaneous trees, crops and groves not included in net area

sown.

Our focus in preparing land use plan has been four fold –

(i) Agricultural land should not be transferred for use to other purposes.

(ii) Maximum area be brought under vegetative cover i.e.

(a) Increase forest

(b) Increase area under miscellaneous trees and groves.

(c) Increase area under pasture and grazing land.

(iii) Use culturable waste and other fallow land for such purposes. Therefore,

efforts should be made to convert land under these categories into forest,

orchards or grazing land.

(iv) Barren and unculturable land be used for constructing buildings or infra-

structural facilities.

PART – A 4.1 District Level Analysis of Land Use Pattern and Land Use Plan 4.1.1 Forest

The forest land fluctuated around 8.75 to 8.5 per cent of total reporting area during

the period 1960-61 to 1989-90. Thereafter in the next four years i.e. during 1989-90 to 1993-

209

94, declined and fluctuated around 6.3 per cent. The area under forest further decreased to

around 1.72 per cent by 2000-01 (See table 4.1).

The area under forest dropped to nill after that and is presently only 1.72 per cent of

total reporting area. The area under forest could be brought to around 3 per cent of total

reporting area, if some part of the land under other fallow and some part of land under

culturable waste is brought under forest. This could be done by forming Joint Forest

Management Committees consisting of plant growers from poor peasantry class and

representatives of forest department and land use committee. A cell should be formed to

provide them the financial support and infra-structural support so that they could get suitable

plants, methods to protect them and finally marketing of forest produce.

Secondly, development of such forests should be linked with watershed management

in the area. For this purpose an area of 500 hectares to 1000 hectares should be choosen as

unit for micro-watershed management.

This would include (i) construction of water retention structures (ii) clearing and

desilting of natural courses of drainage systems and (iii) restoration/reconstruction of ponds/

tanks in totally barren lands or low lying lands.

Thirdly programmes like Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojana etc. should be now utilised for

construction of bundhis, management of wild resources including fisheries, drainage

maintenance and enhancement etc.

Fourthly, more emphasis will have to be laid on energy plantation which would

provide fuel wood besides growing of fruit trees rather than timber linked growth of forests.

Private Micro Forests Private micro forest is different from orchards, as orchards generally comprise fruit

bearing plants. The concept of private micro forest envisages that private individuals could

also grow various varieties of plants, We have in the past found that eucalyptus had been

grown in private land because it was expected to fetch good amount. The private waste land

could also be used for growing timber. energy plants, etc. This could also be linked with

purification of surroundings. For this purpose plants related to different planets (Navgrah) and

different Nakshatra which are 27 in numbers could be planted as per specified arrangement.

Even plants with medicinal value could be grown in such land if people could be

informed about their medicinal and commercial value.

4.1.2 Land Put to Non-agricultural Uses Area under land put to non-agricultural uses has been continuously increasing over

the past 40 years. It was around 7.7 per cent during 1960-61 and has risen to around 12.25

per cent by the year 2000-01 (See table 4.1).

The proportion of land put to non-agricultural uses is already very high in present

Gorakhpur district. During the last two decades, it had increased by 1.5 per cent of reporting

area per decade. With the forest area having become very small, increase of land put to non-

agricultural uses needs to be restricted severely. Failing which, it would not be possible to

convert land available under other uses to bring under plantation.

210

Regulation of Land Use at Urban Fringes There is need to regulate land use at urban fringes. This could be done by setting up

an Gorakhpur Urban Fringe Development Authority. The UFDA could decide on the following:

(i) Conservation of green areas such as orchards, agriculture, social forestry and allied

activities.

(ii) Development of water management and drainage system. Ponds and other water

retention structures be revived. Any encroachment on such land should be identified

and legal proceedings against encroachers be initiated.

(iii) The provisions made under Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Acts (specially

section 143 and 154) and Consolidation of Holdings Act be used effectively to check

diversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

(iv) Heavy five should be imposed (say ten times the cost of the land) in case of such

diversion on the owner of the land.

(v) In addition to it, if the agricultural land had been sold then capital gain tax should be

imposed on purchaser of the land. Because huge capital gain accrues to the builders

who develop colonies in such land.

(vi) The first priority be given to development of social services in the fringe area which

will include hospitals, educational centres, training centres for farmers and agro-

based industries.

(vii) Barren and culturable land should be identified for development of micro-industrial

estates and then for developing multistoried residential complexes which are land

saving as well.

Besides urban fringes there is need to restrict the rate of increase of area under land

put to non-agricultural uses, in rural areas in general.

This could be made possible by adopting following steps.

(a) Discourage migration of people of nearby villages. This could be done by

increasing transport facility and by improving road networks.

(b) Strengthen household industries of rural areas by providing them institutional

support and market facilities.

(c) Develop green belt around city and any construction in the green belt area be

strictly prohibited.

(d) Encourage multi-story buildings and economic flats to weaker sections.

One important aspect of land put to non-agricultural uses is increasing number of

residential houses. However, since population growth rate is faster, per person living area is

decreasing. Even more disturbing factor is that per person open area in houses premises is

also declining. This is the trend in even rural areas. Hence space for community uses and

common recreation places must be developed even in rural areas. In city planning we leave

space for parks, playgrounds and recreation spots. Such planning should also be done for

211

rural areas. Watershed management could then be linked with development of parks and

recreation places. Some area could also be reserved for floriculture and horticulture.

Regulation of Land Use along Road Side There has been a tendency to change land use along road side – specially national

highways and state highways. Houses and shops are constructed or such land is put to even

other non-agricultural uses. As a result of this contiguous effect leads to further expansion of

settlements near highways and such places become accident prone. Therefore, there is need

to regulate land use along roadside. Following measures could be adopted in this respect:

(i) A green strip be developed on both sides of road. Such green strip on each side

should not be less than 10 meter wide.

(ii) Wherever, highways are connected with other roads, construction along side even

such connecting roads be prohibited for a length of at least one kilometer.

(iii) Those who construct houses or buildings on agricultural lands along side road should

be fined heavily (say ten times the cost of the land).

The rate of increase of area under the category of land put to non-agricultural uses

could then be restricted to around 13.5 per cent of total reporting area by the year 2010.

4.1.3 Barren and Unculturable Land Barren and uncultivable land in the district has increased from 0.52 per cent in 1960-

61 to 1.21 per cent of total reporting area in 2000-01. This trend needs to be reversed.

Barren and unculturable land can be used for further expansion of residential places,

playgrounds and construction of building for common uses such as school or panchayat

bhawan. It could also be used as Khalihan if it is nearby fields. And it could be used for

cremation ground or graveyard if it is far away from habitation.

Thus, barren and unculturable land could be shifted for use as land put to non-

agricultural purposes. Some part of it could also be used for developing as pasture and

grazing land.

We hope that through these measures, area under barren and unculturable land

could be reduced from 1.21 per cent to 0.5 per cent of reporting area in district Gorakhpur.

4.1.4 Culturable Waste This is a category showing non-enterprise. To our mind, there should be no such

category. If cultivation is not possible then it could be converted into area for social forestry or

developed as pasture and other grazing land.

Currently area under culturable waste is 1.03 per cent of total reporting area (See table 4.1). A part of it (say around 0.50 per cent) could be converted into social forestry and

the rest i.e. around 0.53 per cent could be developed as pasture and other grazing land. At

some places, such land could also be used for fodder cultivation – specially those areas,

which are owned by private individuals.

Support should be provided for developing pasture land and growing fodder.

Culturable Waste along River Side

212

Gorakhpur had two major rivers and many tributories flowing through it. The patches

of land along side these rivers are undulating and at some place with high mounds. These

areas could be developed as reserved forest strips with one to two kilometers' width. Plant

varieties which suit the local soils could be grown in these reserved forest strips.

Development of these reserved forest strips should also be linked with river water

pollution control systems. It means that water which goes through drainage courses and

which meets these rivers should be treated before it reaches the river. The management of

reserved strip forest should be entrusted with the responsibility to operate the treatment

plants.

Besides reserved forest strips, parks and picnic spots could be developed at various

points along the river route. Such parks/picnic spots could become centres of sight seeing

and attraction for tourists as well.

4.1.5 Land under Miscellaneous Trees, Crops, and Groves not included in Net Sown Area

Land use under this category had been the first victim of population growth and

conversion for other uses. Area under this category declined from 3.11 per cent of total

reporting area in 1960-61 to 0.45 per cent in 2000-01.

Land under this category could be increased by 1.0 per cent of total reporting area by

converting 1.0 per cent of total reporting area under other fallow for growing miscellaneous

trees and groves.

Reduction of such area increases run off of rain water. Such areas are best suited for

agro-forestry. The main types of agro-forestry system are:

(a) alley cropping – where annual crops are grown between lines of trees that

produce valuable mulching material.

(b) orchard systems – where the trees provide edible fruits, medicines and fuel wood,

while the ground layer is cropped or grazed.

(c) growth of scattered trees with pasture at the ground or grazing land.

(d) Conserve genetic resources

♦ Support grassroots associations of farmers and gardeners for the maintenance of traditional and local cultivars and breeds. Involve women's groups, Record farmers knowledge of traditional and local cultivars and breeds,

♦ Develop a common information service for exchange in information and germplasm among grassroots, state and national agencies.

213

Table 4.1

Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Gorakhpur District, (in percent)

Years Reporting area for

land Utilization

(in ha)

Forest Barren & Uncultur

able Land

Land Put to non-

agricultural Use

Culturable Waste

Permanent

Pastures & Other grazing

Land

Land under Misc. Trees

crops & groves

Current Fallow

Other Fallow Land

Net sown area

1960-61 637532 8.75 0.52 7.68 2.47 0.03 3.11 0.25 2.61 74.57

1961-62 634625 8.79 0.56 7.70 2.32 0.02 2.67 0.29 2.29 75.36

1962-63 637617 9.18 0.60 7.75 2.13 0.05 2.65 0.30 2.47 74.86

1963-64 636797 9.19 0.63 7.78 2.17 0.03 2.56 0.18 2.42 75.05

1964-65 615987 6.17 0.71 8.36 1.92 0.07 2.48 1.67 1.45 77.18

1965-66 633855 8.81 0.75 7.91 1.78 0.09 2.45 1.40 1.40 75.40

1966-67 633549 8.81 0.64 7.91 1.89 0.09 2.47 1.27 2.00 74.91

1967-68 633549 8.81 0.64 7.91 1.89 0.09 2.47 1.78 1.49 74.91

1968-69 633552 8.81 0.69 7.81 1.87 0.09 2.39 1.90 1.61 74.83

1969-70 633161 8.78 0.71 7.98 1.72 0.07 2.55 0.08 3.49 74.62

1970-71 633124 8.78 0.71 8.01 1.74 0.05 2.71 1.55 1.38 75.06

1971-72 633080 8.79 0.70 8.22 1.79 0.07 2.64 1.22 1.40 75.16

1972-73 644582 8.63 0.71 8.22 1.63 0.05 2.69 1.01 1.49 76.34

1973-74 642581 8.66 0.71 8.30 1.65 0.05 2.68 1.10 1.60 75.25

1974-75 635576 8.75 0.72 8.44 1.69 0.05 2.70 1.20 1.72 74.74

1975-76 635415 8.75 0.73 8.42 1.32 0.06 2.63 0.73 2.10 75.25

1976-77 635415 8.75 0.68 8.40 1.38 0.08 2.54 0.78 2.00 75.39

1977-78 635466 8.75 0.63 8.66 1.27 0.07 2.49 1.22 1.25 75.66

1978-79 694977 8.00 0.58 7.98 1.18 0.06 2.21 1.51 1.01 63.08

1979-80 635137 8.76 0.72 8.09 0.83 0.08 2.10 1.55 1.41 76.48

1980-81 635137 8.76 0.86 9.08 1.22 0.06 1.62 1.88 1.59 74.94

1981-82 633550 8.78 0.88 9.38 1.22 0.06 1.09 1.88 1.68 75.02

1982-83 656549 8.47 0.87 9.30 1.20 0.06 1.06 1.77 1.48 75.79

1983-84 656689 8.47 0.79 9.63 1.03 0.06 1.07 1.68 1.57 75.70

1984-85 656018 8.48 0.80 9.61 1.00 0.06 0.93 1.87 1.57 75.69

1985-86 655834 8.48 0.77 9.67 0.99 0.06 0.93 1.67 1.62 75.81

1986-87 656130 8.48 0.77 9.66 0.94 0.06 0.98 1.84 1.50 75.78

1987-88 642595 8.68 0.83 9.85 0.89 0.05 0.91 1.98 2.25 74.55

1988-89 643004 8.68 0.84 9.86 0.83 0.05 0.89 1.72 2.27 74.87

1989-90 643004 8.68 0.81 NA 0.82 NA NA NA NA 70.17

1990-91 353189 6.28 1.13 11.06 1.06 0.06 1.10 0.51 2.93 74.16

1991-92 353325 6.28 1.14 11.66 1.12 0.07 1.06 2.17 2.84 73.67

1992-93 353325 6.30 1.14 11.29 1.13 0.08 1.07 1.55 2.72 74.72

1993-94 353325 6.30 1.15 11.31 1.12 0.08 1.05 1.76 2.55 74.68

1994-95 342925 2.97 1.18 11.65 1.11 0.08 1.08 1.63 2.80 77.49

1995-96 342925 2.97 1.20 11.73 1.35 0.08 1.06 1.98 2.65 76.98

1996-97 338436 1.68 1.30 12.03 1.43 0.07 1.15 1.63 3.11 77.60

1997-98 336223 1.03 1.28 12.20 1.41 0.06 1.21 1.60 3.14 78.07

1998-99 336223 0.87 1.28 12.34 1.33 0.06 1.32 1.54 3.06 78.19

1999-2K 366223 1.61 1.16 11.31 1.11 0.06 0.31 2.31 5.12 71.11

2000-01 335223 1.72 1.21 12.27 1.03 0.05 0.45 2.38 2.80 77.88

2001-10 Proposed

214

4.2 Some General Suggestions 4.2.1 District Level (i) District Land Use Committee should be strengthened. The Committee must meet at

least once in a year and take stock of changes which have occurred during past one

year. It should also be informed about up-dating of records and changes which have

taken place during the year.

(ii) As regards its constitution, it should also include District Panchayat Adyaksha, BDOs

and some more representatives of farmers.

(iii) Each line department and BDO should be asked to furnish informations in a pre-

structured proforma.

(iv) The annual proceedings be documented and action plans drawn in the meeting be

circulated to all concerned departments and functionaries.

4.2.2 Block Level (i) Need for Block Level Land Use Committee (BLUC)

There is Land Use Committee at district level. There are Land Management

Committees at the village level. But there are no land use committees at the block

level.

Land records were maintained with a view to fix land revenue by the revenue

department. There had been no systematic effort to maintain land records to identify

land use categories on the basis of their potential development and quality.

The development perspective requires that unit for land use planning by made at

block level. Because at district level it remains too generalised, while at village level, it

would create operational problems in coordinating various line departments who have

bearing on the land use. Therefore, there is need to create a planning cum

implementing agency at he block level.

The Block level Land Use Committee may be formed with following as their members:

Block Pramukh - President

B.D.O. - Convenor

A.D.O. (Stat.) - Secretary

Other Members will include representatives from concerned line departments and

some specialists, and

Three B.D.C. Members (to be selected by Kshetra Panchayat Members)

Block level Land Use Committee may take up the following issues for planning and

implementation in the block:

(ii) Salinity and Alkalinity

The problem of alkalinity arises when infiltration rate of water in soil is low. This

results in higher run off of surface water and creates problems of water logging in

adjoining areas. As the water gets muddy, it also creates pollution of water streams.

Reclamation of such land will have multiple effect. Such as increase in the infiltration

215

rate, increase in recharge of ground water, reduction in water logging and control on

water polluation.

Following steps should be encouraged for reclamation of such land:

(a) Construction of field bunds – through boundary mounds,

(b) Levelling of fields,

(c) Use of gypsum/pyrites, depending upon the degree of alkalinity,

(d) Rotation of crops.

Group of farmers be formed for their collective action. Then such groups could be

provided financial, technical and infra-structural support for reclamation of alkaline

land.

(iii) Water Managment

Reforms are needed to facilitate water management systems for various reasons:

(a) rain and surface water needs to be preserved instead of being allowed to go

waste via drain courses;

(b) natural drain courses should not be allowed to be obstructed otherwise it leads to

avoidable water-logging

Increase in the number of private tubewells results in the lowering of level of ground

water, therefore water management should include recharging by using rain/surface

water.

By reducing run off we can check removal of top fertile soil on the one hand and

maintain infiltration on the other. the catchment area of each water route should be

mapped out and the programme to manage rain water should start from the highest

land and end at the drainage basin.

Water harvesting will involve shaping farm land and sometimes also the catchment

area of water course to slow the flow of water and thereby increase infiltration into

soil. There are several cheap ways to make contours, if this is taken up collectively.

The sloppy areas and those along the drainage or field boundary which otherwise are

not suitable for agriculture needs conservation efforts with optimum plant productivity.

The strip plantations of multipurpose trees or shelter belts for crop lands will provide

wood/leaf fodder and also ameliorate environment.

Water reservoir tanks/ponds/bundhis be constructed at places where main drain

routes meet. Such land should be mapped and brought under community/panchayat

ownership. No other construction be allowed to take place on such land through

suitable modification in laws.

Drain network-allowing disposal of waste household water as well as community

water using posts should be linked with natural drainage (by gravity flow) courses.

Thus there should be micro drains (for disposal of household waste water), which will

have to be connected to a community drain and finally the entire waste water has to

be drained to other reservoir sites after proper treatment.

216

Area along the drainage route should be allowed for fodder cultivation and if possible

for farm forestry. Fodder cultivation and farm forestry needs to be developed in

chronically water-logged areas. To facilitate this, land along drain routes and water-

logged land be kept outside the purview of tenancy provisions. Secondly, land owners

of such land be permitted to form fodder or farm forest production units and lease out

their land to such collective production units.

(iv) Protection of Communal Land

Common resource property has been one of the most important source of

sustenance of livelihood of less privileged communities in many backward and

remote areas.

A support system for maintenance and quality improvement in land use is needed to

protect grazing land, land under trees, bushes etc. as well as protection of land for

chak road and drainage system is also necessary. Through detailed mapping of each

village, community management and these (water recharging, drainage, trees) etc.

should be brought under communal ownership which should become non

transferable and any activity that leads to their destruction should become unlawful.


management of these natural resources. It must be emphasized that management of

such resources be vested with the local communities who will take a longer view.

Outside commercial interest will come and go with narrow economic interest only.


developed by empowering panchayats to develop modes of their use in their

respective panchayats and by providing them technical and managerial skill as well

as the needed capital resources.

(v) Culturable Waste Lands and Fallow Land

Culturable waste land could be brought under vegetable cover by providing

necessary institutional and infra-structural support.

We suggest following measures to facilitate their proper use.

(a) Identification of Records: Presently such lands are identified and delineated

through revenue records. Block Level Land Use Committee (BLUC) be entrusted

with the responsibility to identify and delineate such land in each block. Land

Management Committees of each Gram Panchayat should be involved in the

process.

(b) Preparation of Land Use Maps: Land use maps for all the villages be prepared

by the proposed BLUC.

(c) Put Such Land outside the Purview of Tenancy Clause: These types of land

require huge investment and long waitings for their reclamation. If they remain

within the purview of Tenancy Clause, it would be difficult for farmers to pool such

217

land and invest on them, because farmers generally prefer to invest on prime

land rather than on degraded land.

(d) Lease Out Such Land to Landless Peasants' Societies: Most of such land is

under State or Gram Samaj ownership. Distribution of small parcel of such land to

individual small farmers or land less peasants will not work. Because individual

peasants in these categories have neither the sufficient capital to invest nor they

could wait for longer periods to reap the profits of their investments. Landless

Peasants' Societies could be expected to make long term heavy investments

provided such land are leased out to them for sufficiently a longer duration, and

they are provided cheaper loans for this purpose.

(vi) A New Model for Culturable Waste and Degraded Land

For taking up regeneration activities of culturable waste and degraded land we will

have to keep the following factors in mind:

(a) Size of such land in contiguity;

(b) Nature of regeneration programme;

(c) Raising of capital and acquisition of technical support

(d) Incentive for participation of interested landless peasants and capacity building;

(e) Changes in the tenural rights over such land; and

(f) Distribution of benefits.

Keeping these in view we suggest another model in which local people could be

involved, and its economic viability could be ensured.

We suggest that a joint venture of state sector with local organisation be formed for

this purpose.

As a first step a Collective Land Development Society (or Self Help Group for Land

Development) be formed at local level. This Collective Land Development Society or

SHG should enter into a contract with any state department, which has been

approved for the purpose by the government.

(vii) Land Development Society/SHG for Land Development

(a) A Land Development Society or SHG shall be formed for a land

chunk of 10 to 25 acres.

(b) The chunk of land be divided into 10-20 equal size sub-chunks.

(c) Lease out around 1 acre of such sub-chunk land piece to one landless family

each.

(d) The tenure holder, in turn, will have to become member of the Land Development

Society or SHG.

218

(viii) Joint Venture

A Public Corporate Organisation (approved by the government for the purpose) will

then enter into an agreement with Land Development Society or SHG for a minimum

of ten years for jointly developing the land and for its utilization.

(a) Members of Land Development Society or SHG would provide land and labour;

(b) Public Corporate Organisation will provide capital, technology and technical

know-how;

(c) A joint management system will be evolved;

(d) One-third of the profit shall be ploughed back for further raising the capital stock

of the joint venture.

(e) The rest of the profit shall be shared on 50:50 basis between the state unit and

Land Development Society.

4.2.3 Village Level (i) The land use plan is almost finalized after consolidation of holdings is implemented in

a village. It provides land for various purposes in the village besides consolidating

holdings. These include -

(a) provision of roads and public irrigation channels,

(b) provision of land for house sites for scheduled castes and other weaker sections,

(c) provision of sector roads, inter village roads and link roads,

(d) provision of land for community purposes namely – schools, playgrounds,

panchayat ghar, hospital, cremation ground, graveyards, threshing floor, manure

pits, pasture land, plantation trees, flaying sites etc.

(e) solving of common disputes in the village regarding roads/naalis for irrigation for

each field through chak roads and chak naalis.

The problem is that powerful persons in the village influence functionaries of the

consolidation work and get some of government and community land located near

their farms. And once consolidation work is over, they easily encroach upon such

community land.

Therefore effort should be made that Bachat and Gram Sabha land is not left

scattered at many places. The consolidation process should also consolidate

government and gram sabha land in one or two large consolidated chaks.

The land which had been carved out as orchard, grazing land or pond/tank in the

past, should not be allowed to be transferred for other purposes by new rounds of

consolidation –neither through chak carvation nor through readjustment of gram

sabha land.

(ii) Whenever chakbandi is declared, illegal felling of trees takes place, land under

orchards or pasture or such other uses is sought to be shown as land under

cultivation. This happens on a large scale specially on Gaon Sabha and government

land. In order to check such changes in land use on the eve of consolidation, revenue

219

officials and consolidation officials should jointly prepare reports and send report to

concerned courts for quick action. The power to decide such cases should be

assigned to concerned SDM.

Similarly provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act and Manual regarding provision

of inter-village link road, bachat land, Gaon Sabha and Government land and other

common property resources should be widely made known to people so that its strict

implementation is done with peoples participation.

(iii) After consolidation is over land use for each plot of the villages is well defined.

It should be the responsibility of LMC to see that land use is not alterned. There

should be training of LMC members to make them aware of their roles and

responsibilities.

(iv) Land Management Committee should be treated as Chakbandi Committee during the

period of consolidation. Formation of separate committee does not prove helpful as it

is at the mercy of consolidation department and Pradhan only and ceases to exist

after consolidation work is over.

(v) All members of Chakbandi Committee should sign the final land use map prepared


(vi) The map of the village should be made available to all the members of Land

Management Committee, free of cost.

(vii) Encroachers of government and/or gram sabha land should be severely penalised

and eviction proceedings against them should be made more stringent.

(viii) Land capability maps he prepared for each village. The land use of each type of land

could then be planned for effective, efficient, sustainable and profitable use.

The land capability map will indicate about the texture and quality of soil. It will also

give information about limitations of the land such as erosion, water logging, degree

of alkalinity or salinity etc.

Thus land capability maps would provide necessary inputs for land use planning i.e.

suitability of land for agriculture, horticulture, forestry etc. It will also indicate as to

what measures would be needed for improving land for its optimum utilisation.

(ix) The Land Management Committee at the village level be revamped. And there should

be fair representation of weaker sections, beneficiaries of land allottees, self help

groups and all the hamlets/communities of the village.

The committee should meet once every six months, develop plans for water

conservation, drainage channels, regeneration of degraded land, effective use of

lands in the category of (a) barren and uncultivable land, (b) pastures, (c) orchards

groves and land under trees and (d) fallow land.

(x) There are already legal provisions under consolidation of Holdings Act and Supreme

Court Judgements in regard to protection of land uses. These should be widely

circulated among members of Land Management Committee. Proceedings for

eviction of encroachers should be launched in right earnest. The provision should be

220

made in law for eviction of unauthorised occupation of Gram Sabha land by summary

proceedings.

(xi) The gaon sabha land or pond or forest land should be given on lease to self help

groups or tree growers society or such other collective groups rather than to

individuals.

221

PART – B

4.3 Block-wise Analysis of Land Use Pattern and Land Use Plans 4.3.1 Block – Pali In Pali block land use pattern during 1999-2000 was found to be much different from

the trend during the earlier periods. One reason could be that total reporting area (TRA)

during this year reduced by 2,700 hectares. The proportional of agricultural land (i.e. net sown

area + current fellow) increased sharply during this year as compared to previous year.

In Pali block the area under forest had been very small, but the trend shows that it

remained increased from 0.14 per cent in 1975-76 to 6.3 per cent in 1989-90, but thereafter it

decreased from 0.53 per cent in 1999-2k. It could be increased to around 2 per cent if some

part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste land could be used for social or

energy forestry. We propose that around 0.8 per cent of TRA under other fallow land and 0.75

per cent of TRA under culturable waste land could be identified for development of forest in

the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around 2.0 per cent of TRA by

the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be developed to

increase area under forest.

There has been some disjuncture in the area under barren and unculturable land.

The land in this category showed a trend of very slow of increase from 0.58 per cent in 1975-

76 to 0.82 per cent in 1989-90. Then it increased to 1.63 per cent in 1996-97. And thereafter

again it declined to 1.03 per cent in 1999-2k. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced

and a part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes.

We propose that around 0.75 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of

barren and uncultivable land will have to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be

possible if we are able to restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only

by 0.75 per cent. That is from present 11.13 percent, area under this category does not rise

beyond 12.15 per cent by 2010.

However, the trend about land put to non-agricultural uses in somewhat puzzling. It

has declined from 16.97 per cent to TRA in 1980-81 to 7.82 per cent in 1999-2k.

The area under culturable waste shows a fluctuating trend during the period 1975-76

to 1999-2k. The proportion of culturable waste hovered around 1 per cent to 1.8 per cent

during this period. We have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be

converted into forest. We furthermore propose that another remaining part of culturable waste

could then be converted into pasture land. We fail to understand as to why there should be

any culturable waste land. The area which cannot be converted into forest should be

converted in pasture and grazing land in the long run. However, for a plan targeting year

2010, we propose that around 0.25 per cent of TRA under such land be utilized for pasture

and grazing land. That means the area under pasture land could be increased from present

0.01 per cent to around 0.26 per cent by the year 2010.

222

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves has decreased from 2.87 per

cent, in 1975-76 to 0.51 per cent in 1999-2k with 1980-81 as an exception period. It could be

increased from present 0.51 to 2 per cent by using some part of fallow land for this purpose.

Thus we propose that current fallow land would reduce from its present level of 6.8 per cent to

5.3 per cent by 2010. We propose to convert other fallow land for purposes other than

agriculture as we feel that in the past orchards had been cut to bring them under cultivation.

Bringing back some part of it under orchard cum cultivation purposes would be helpful both

for the agriculture as well as orchards.

Table 4.3.1 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Pali Block (in percent)

Years Total

reporting area

in hectare

Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 18,772 0.14 0.58 11.92 0.93 0.03 - 9.89 2.87 78.97 1980-81 16,863 1.25 0.69 16.97 1.66 - 1.67 1.86 5.40 70.50 1985-86 15,637 5.92 0.77 12.22 0.95 0.02 2.22 2.39 0.75 74.76 1989-90 14,723 6.30 0.82 12.48 1.02 0.02 2.15 2.28 1.25 73.71 1996-97 14,816 1.77 1.63 13.47 1.01 0.06 0.67 2.34 0.66 78.39 1998-99 16,736 - 1.11 12.16 1.79 0.03 1.42 6.24 1.14 76.12 1999-2K 14,036 0.53 1.03 7.82 1.03 0.01 6.80 1.42 0.51 80.86

223

The proposed land use plan of the block for year 2010 will have land use pattern as

follows:

Box – 4.3.1 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Pali Block

Land Use

Categories Present Level in Percentage (Year 1999-2k)

Proposed Level in Percentage (for Year 2010)

Remarks

Forest 0.53 2.00 Around 0.8 per cent from other fallow

land and around 0.75 per cent from

culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land

1.03 0.28 Shift 0.75 per cent for land for non-

agricultural purposes

Land put to non-

agricultural uses

7.82 8.57 Around 0.75 per cent from barren and

unculturable land

Culturable waste 1.03 0.03 Around 0.75 per cent to forest and

around 0.25 per cent for pasture

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land

0.01 0.26 0.25 per cent from culturable waste

Current Fallow

6.80 5.30 1.5 per cent to orchards cultivation

land

Other Fallow 1.42 0.62 0.80 per cent to forest cum orchard &

groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.51 2.0 1.5 per cent from current fallow land

Net Sown Area

80.86 80.86 -

Total reporting area

(in Hectares)

14,036.00 14,036.00 -

224

4.3.2 Block – Sahjanwa In Sahjanwa block land under agriculture has increased during last few years. After

1996, not only the net sown area, but even the area under current fallow has increased.

In Sahjanwa block the area under forest had been very small, but the trend shows

that it increased from around 0.59 per cent in 1975-76 to 3.74 per cent in 1989-90, but

thereafter it decreased 1.5 per cent in 1999-2k. It could be increased to around 2.5 per cent if

some part of culturable waste land could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose

that 0.75 per cent of TRA under culturable waste land could be identified for development of

forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around 2.25 per cent of

TRA by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be

developed to increase area under forest.

In Sahjanwa block, proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land was 0.48

per cent during 1975-76, but thereafter it slowly increased to 1.19 per cent in the year 1999-

2k. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced and a part of it could be utilized to meet

increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around 0.8 per cent of

TRA under such land could be utilized for this purpose. This will be possible if we are able to

restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.8 per cent. That is

from present 11.10 percent, area under this category does not rise beyond 11.90 per cent by

2010.

The proportion of area under culturable waste shows a fluctuating trend till 1989-90.

Then it steadily increased from 1.08 per cent in 1989-90 to 2.46 per cent in 1998-99. It

however declined to 1.05 per cent in 1999-2k. We have already discussed that a part of

culturable waste could be converted into forest. We fail to understand as to why there should

be any culturable waste land.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves in the block declined from

4.41 per cent in 1975-96 to 0.11 per cent in 1999-2k. It could be increased from present 0.11

per cent to 2.0 per cent by using some part of fallow land for this purpose. Thus we propose

that current fallow land would reduce from its present level of 4.5 per cent to 2.6 per cent by

2010. We propose to convert current fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we

feel that in the past orchards had been cut to bring them under cultivation. Bringing back

some part of it under orchard cum cultivation (where the trees will provide edible fruits,

medicines and fuel wood, while the ground layer could be used for cultivation of crops) would

be helpful both for agriculture as well as orchards.

225

Table 4.3.2 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Sahajanwa Block (in percent)

Years Total

reporting area

in hectare

Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 15,475 0.59 0.48 8.23 0.27 0.01 - 2.71 4.41 83.30 1980-81 15,509 2.78 0.64 6.87 1.25 0.01 3.28 2.79 0.69 81.68 1985-86 16,083 3.61 0.79 8.72 1.41 0.06 2.97 2.44 1.37 78.64 1989-90 15,509 3.74 0.88 9.32 1.08 0.06 2.02 2.48 3.41 76.99 1996-97 15,673 1.06 0.92 10.22 1.85 0.01 1.02 4.51 1.64 78.77 1998-99 19,337 0.17 0.61 7.78 2.46 0.01 2.13 5.97 0.85 80.02 1999-2K 15,483 1.50 1.19 11.10 1.05 0.03 4.50 0.52 0.11 80.00


follows:

Box – 4.3.2 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Sahjanwa Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest 1.5 2.25 Around 0.75 per cent from culturable

waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste

1.05 0.30 Around 0.75 per cent to forest

Pasture and

grazing land

0.03 0.03 -

Current Fallow

4.50 2.6 1.9 per cent to orchard cum

cultivation land

Other Fallow

0.52 0.52 -

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.11 2.0 1.9 per cent from current fallow

Net Sown Area

80.0 80.0 -


(in Hectares)

15,483.00 15,483.00 -

226

4.3.3 Block – Piparauli In Piparauli block, total reporting area has changed many a time since 1980. This has

also affected land use pattern besides other factors.

In Piparauli block the area under forest had been very small. It increased till 1989-90

i.e. from 0.98 per cent of TRA in 1980-81 to 6.25 per cent in 1989-90. It could be increased to

around 1.5 per cent if some part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste land

could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose that around 1.0 per cent of TRA

under other fallow land and 0.5 per cent of TRA under culturable waste land could be

identified for development of forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could be

increased to around 1.5 per cent by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint

forest will have to be developed to increase area under forest.

The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land in Piparauli block shows a

mixed trend. It increased from 0.46 per cent in 1980-81 to 3.18 per cent in 1998-99, but then

declined to 1.64 per cent in 1999-2k. Barren and uncultivable land could be further reduced

and a part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes.

We propose that around 1 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of barren

and uncultivable land will have to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be


by 1 per cent. That is from present 11.94 per cent, area under this category does not rise

beyond 12.94 per cent by 2010. This is possible because in the past decadal changes land

put to non-agricultural uses has not been very large. It declined from 11.17 per cent in 1975-

76 to 10.37 per cent in 1985-86 and further to 10.21 per cent in 1996-97. It has started

increasing only after 1996-97.

We have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be converted into

forest. We fail to understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The area

under culturable waste increased from 0.41 per cent in 1980-81 to 1.69 per cent in 1998-99,

but then declined to 0.67 per cent in 1999-2k. We have already suggested that a part of it

could be converted into forest.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves decreased from 2.57 per cent

to in 1975-76 0.13 per cent in 1999-2k. It could be increased to 2.0 per cent by using some

part of current fallow land for this purpose. Thus we propose that other fallow land would

reduce from its present level of 4.23 per cent to 2.36 per cent by 2010. We propose to convert

current fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel that in the past orchards had

been cut to bring them under cultivation. Bringing back some part of it under orchard cum

cultivation (where the trees will provide edible fruits, medicines and fuel wood, while the

ground layer could be used for cultivation of crops), would be helpful both for agriculture as

well as orchards.

227

Table 4.3.3 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Piprauli Block (in percent)

Years Total

reporting area

in hectare

Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 16,083 - 0.88 11.17 0.60 0.02 - 3.94 2.57 80.83 1980-81 16,083 0.98 0.46 11.17 0.41 0.01 1.92 1.64 2.18 81.24 1985-86 17,018 5.91 0.73 10.37 0.44 0.04 1.69 1.67 0.81 78.34 1989-90 16,090 6.25 0.75 10.65 0.77 0.02 2.13 3.59 1.20 74.20 1996-97 16,161 1.74 1.36 10.21 1.18 0.05 0.77 6.96 0.59 77.15 1998-99 13,593 0.18 3.18 10.99 1.69 0.07 3.10 7.49 0.58 72.72 1999-2K 15,349 0.01 1.64 11.94 0.67 0.03 4.23 1.65 0.13 79.70


follows:

Box – 4.3.3 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Piparauli Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.03 0.03 -

Current Fallow


cultivation land

Other Fallow

1.65 0.65 1.0 per cent to forest

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

79.70 79.70 -


(in Hectares)

15,349.00 15,349.00 -

228

4.3.4 Block – Jangal Kauria In Jangal Kauria block, land use pattern has changed very little during the last 25

yerars. In Jangal Kauria block the area under forest had been very small, but the trend shows

that it remained stagnant around 3.6 per cent to 3.75 per cent from 1975-76 to 1989-90, but

thereafter it decreased to 1.03 per cent in 1996-97 and further to zero per cent in 1999-2K. It

could be regained to around 1.5 per cent if some part of other fallow land and some part of

culturable waste land could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose that around

0.75 per cent of TRA under other fallow land and 0.75 per cent of culturable waste land could

be identified for development of forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could be



There has been some disjuncture in the area under barren and unculturable land.

The land in this category showed a trend of decrease from 1.44 per cent in 1975-76 to 0.93

per cent in 1989-90. Then it increased to 2.96 per cent in 1998-99. And thereafter again it

decreased to 1.18 per cent in 1999-2K. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced and a

part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We

propose that around 0.75 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of

uncultivable land will have to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if

we are able to restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.75

per cent. That is from present 13.91 percent, area under this category does not rise beyond

14.66 per cent by 2010. Land put to other uses could be restricted to this level, as it has

shown a fluctuating trend in the past and had even declined from 21.5 per cent in 1998-99 to

13.91 per cent in 1999-2K.

The area under culturable waste shows a mixed trend during the period 1975-76 to

1999-2K. The trend changed every alternate period selected by us. The proportion of

culturable waste declined from 2.23 per cent in 1980-81 to 1.04 per cent in 1999-2K. We have

already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be converted into forest. We fail to

understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The area which cannot be

converted into forest should be converted in to pasture and grazing land in the long run.

However, for a plan targeting year 2010, we propose that around 0.75 per cent of such land

be utilized for forest.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves has declined from 1.66 per

cent, in 1975-76 to 0.14 per cent in 1999-2K with 1989-90 as an exception period. It could be

increased from present 0.14 to 0.89 per cent by using some part of current fallow land for this

purpose. Thus we propose that fallow land would reduce from its present level of 2.19 per

cent to 1.19 per cent by 2010, out of which 0.75 per cent would be used for developing

orchards and groves. We propose to convert current fallow land for purposes other than

agriculture as we feel that in the past orchards had been cut to bring them under cultivation.

Bringing back some part of it under orchard cum cultivation (where the trees will provide

229

edible fruits, medicines and fuel wood, while the ground layer could be used for cultivation of

crops), would be helpful both for agriculture as well as orchards.

Table 4.3.4 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Jangal Kauriya Block (in percent)

Years Total

reporting area in hectare

Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 21,131 3.68 1.44 11.64 0.91 0.03 - 2.60 1.66 78.04 1980-81 22,472 0.71 1.31 9.35 2.23 0.04 1.82 0.77 1.53 80.91 1985-86 23,290 3.62 0.91 10.08 1.94 0.03 0.49 2.28 0.70 79.96 1989-90 22,472 3.75 0.93 11.00 2.03 0.03 0.46 2.21 2.87 76.72 1996-97 22,220 1.03 1.62 12.55 1.06 0.02 1.47 1.64 0.79 80.09 1998-99 15,958 0.01 2.96 21.15 1.85 0.03 1.33 4.47 0.42 67.78 1999-2K 21,923 - 1.18 13.91 1.04 0.00 2.19 1.12 0.14 80.42


follows:

Box – 4.3.4 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Jangal Kauria Block

Land Use

Categories Present Level in Percentage (Year 1999-2K)


Remarks

Forest - 1.5 Around 0.75 per cent from other fallow land and around 0.75 per cent from culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- 0.25 Around 0.25 per cent from other

fallow land

Current Fallow

2.19 1.19 1.0 per cent to orchard cum cultivation land

Other Fallow 1.12 0.12 1.0 per cent to forest and 0.25 per cent for pasture and grazing land

Land Under Miscellaneous trees and groves


Net Sown Area

80.42 80.42 -


(in Hectares)

21,923.00 21,923.00 -

230

4.3.5 Block – Chargawan In Chargawan block, major changes in land use pattern took place during 1975-76 to

1989-90. One reason for changes in land use pattern could be changes in the total reporting

area (TRA) of the block. It declined from 21,088 hectares in 1975-76 to 13,882 hectares in

1996-97. In the block the area under forest had been sizable and showed an increasing trend

during 1975-76 to 1989-90. It increased from 8.1 per cent in 1975-76 to 10.91 per cent in

1989-90, but thereafter it decreased to 2.95 per cent in 1996-97. It could be increased from

2.96 per cent in 1999-2K to around 3.96 per cent if some part of other fallow land and some

part of culturable waste land could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose that

around 0.5 per cent of other fallow land and 0.5 per cent of culturable waste land could be




In Chargawan block, proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land was 0.73

per cent during 1980-81, but thereafter it increased to around 1.58 per cent in 1996-97. Then

it declined to 1.3 per cent in 1999-2K. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced and a

part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We

propose that around 1 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of barren and


we are able to restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 1 per

cent. That is from present 12.93 per cent, area under this category does not rise beyond

13.93 per cent by 2010.

The proportion of area under culturable waste shows that it fluctuated between 1.0

per cent to 1.6 per cent during 1975-76 to 1998-99. Then it declined to 0.79 per cent in 1999-

2K. We have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be converted into forest.

We fail to understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land. Effort should be

made to convert the rest of the area as pasture land.


5.57 per cent in 1975-76 to 0.58 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased from present 0.58

to 1.58 per cent by using some part of current fallow land for this purpose. Thus we propose

that current fallow land would reduce from its present level of 3.82 per cent to 2.82 per cent

by 2010.. We propose to convert current fallow land for purposes other than agriculture, as

we feel, that in the past orchards had been cut to bring them under cultivation. Bringing back

some part of it under orchard cum cultivation (where the trees will provide edible fruits,

medicines and fuel wood, while the ground layer could be used for cultivation of crops), would

be helpful both for agriculture as well as orchards.

231

Table 4.3.5 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Chargawan Block (in percent)

Years Total

reporting area

in hectare

Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 21,088 8.10 0.76 22.61 1.76 0.08 - 2.36 1.61 60.21 1980-81 18,273 9.76 0.73 6.24 1.04 0.10 1.85 4.66 5.57 70.05 1985-86 18,944 9.37 1.22 13.38 1.25 0.14 1.54 1.10 1.24 70.77 1989-90 16,273 10.91 1.41 16.10 0.98 0.15 1.60 1.85 2.94 76.34 1996-97 13,882 2.95 1.58 13.16 1.63 0.42 1.73 4.25 1.51 72.78 1998-99 17,554 0.51 1.16 9.71 1.49 0.33 1.53 2.95 1.76 80.30 1999-2K 13,567 2.96 1.30 12.93 0.79 0.29 3.82 1.23 0.58 76.11


follows:

Box – 4.3.5 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Chargwan Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.29 - -

Current Fallow

3.82 2.82 Around 1.0 per cent to orchard cum-

cultivation land

Other Fallow 1.23 1.50 0.5 per cent to forest and 1.3 for

orchard & groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

76.11 76.11 -


(in Hectares)

13,567.00 13,567.00 -

232

4.3.6 Block – Bhat-Hat In Bhat-Hat block the area under forest had been very small, i.e. 0.40 per cent in

1975-76 but it increased to 5.48 per cent in 1999-2K There is need to maintain area under

forest and improve its quality.

The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land in Bhat-Hat block has been

very small, generally less than 1.0 per cent of TRA. Barren and uncultivable land could be

further reduced to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose

that around 0.5 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of barren and

uncultivable land can be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are

able to restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.5 per cent.

That is from present 10.77 percent, area under this category does not rise beyond 11.27 per

cent by 2010.

The are under culturable waste has between 1.0 per cent to 2.0 per cent during 1975-

76 to 1998-99 of culturable waste could be converted into pasture and grazing land. We fail to

understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves increased from 2.85 per cent

to 6.99 per cent in 1989-90, but then it declined to 0.84 per cent in 1999-2K. We propose that

other fallow land could be reduce from its present level of 1.5 per cent to 0.5 per cent by

2010, for developing orchards and groves. We propose to convert other fallow land for

purposes other than agriculture as we feel it would be difficult to bring it back for agricultural

purposes.

Table 4.3.6 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Bhat-Hat Block (in percent)

Years Total

reporting area

in hectare

Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 13,761 0.40 0.47 8.02 0.86 0.14 - 1.42 2.85 85.83 1980-81 15,259 3.29 0.40 10.45 0.75 0.09 0.84 1.34 2.26 80.58 1985-86 15,826 3.84 0.60 8.11 0.55 0.11 - - 5.04 81.76 1989-90 15,269 5.01 0.63 6.69 0.52 0.10 0.79 1.39 6.99 77.80 1996-97 14,661 1.47 1.34 9.41 1.96 0.07 0.53 1.30 0.84 83.08 1998-99 18,506 4.18 0.61 8.16 0.93 0.03 0.31 1.05 4.63 80.35 1999-2K 15,448 5.48 0.89 10.77 0.83 0.04 1.69 1.50 0.84 77.96

233


follows:

Box – 4.3.6 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Bhat-Hat Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest 5.48 5.48 -

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.83 0.33 Around 0.5 per cent to develop

pasture and grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


Current Fallow

1.69 1.69 -

Other Fallow 1.50 0.50 1.0 per cent for orchard & groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.84 1.84 1.0 per cent from other fallow

Net Sown Area

77.96 77.96 -


(in Hectares)

15,448.00 15,448.00 -

234

4.3.7 Block – Piparaich Piparaich block has already very high proportion of net sown area, therfore scope for

planning of land uses for other categories is very limited. In Piparaich block the area under

forest had been very small except during 1985-86 and 1989-90, but the trend shows that it

was less than 0.5 per cent of TRA during 0.2 per cent to 1975-76 and 1980-81, but thereafter

it increased from to 6.17 per cent 1985-86 to 5.72 per cent in 1989-90. Then it started

declining and was reported to be 0.08 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased to around

1.5 per cent if some part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste land could be

used for social or energy forestry. We propose that 1.25 per cent of TRA under other fallow

land and 0.25 per cent of culturable waste land could be identified for development of forest in

the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around 1.58 per cent by the year

2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be developed to increase

area under forest.

The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land in Piparaich block shows a

trend of steady but very slow increase from 0.46 per cent in 1980-81 to 0.91 per cent in 1999-

2K. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced and some part of it could be utilized to

meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around 0.5 per

cent of TRA under such land could be utilized for this purpose. This would mean that around

0.5 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of uncultivable land will have to be

utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are able to restrict increase of

area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.5 per cent. That is from present 10.04

percent, area under this category does not rise beyond 10.54 per cent by 2010.


forest. We furthermore propose that effort should also be made to convert remaining part into

pasture land. We fail to understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The

area which cannot be converted into forest should be converted in pasture and grazing land in

the long run. However, for a plan targeting year 2010, we propose that around 0.25 per cent

of such land be utilized for forest land.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves has been very low except in

1975-76 and 1989-90. Area under this category could be increased by adopting orchard cum-

farming system, where trees will provide edible fruits, medicines and fuel wood, while the

ground layer could be used for cultivation of crops. We propose to convert current fallow land

for purposes other than agriculture as we feel that in the past orchards had been cut to bring

them under cultivation. Bringing back some part of it under orchard cum cultivation would be

helpful both for agriculture as well as orchards.

235

Table 4.3.7 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Pipraich Block (in percent)

Years Total

reporting area in hect.

Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 13,505 0.34 1.18 8.76 0.44 0.41 - 1.64 2.82 84.41 1980-81 13,910 0.50 0.46 9.79 0.88 0.35 1.13 1.42 0.15 85.33 1985-86 14,707 6.17 0.52 9.34 0.52 0.35 1.16 2.33 0.09 79.53 1989-90 15,872 5.72 0.55 10.58 0.72 0.36 1.48 1.61 0.77 78.20 1996-97 15,780 1.69 0.89 8.61 0.65 0.31 0.94 1.11 0.26 85.55 1998-99 15,219 0.16 0.77 9.99 0.63 0.20 0.52 1.88 0.26 85.60 1999-2K 15,781 0.08 0.91 10.04 0.56 0.18 2.28 2.19 0.04 83.71


follows:

Box – 4.3.7 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Pipraich Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest 0.08 1.58 Around 1.25 per cent from other

fallow land and around 0.25 per cent

from culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land

0.91 0.41 Shift 0.5 per cent of such land for

non-agricultural purposes

Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.18 0.18 -

Current Fallow

2.28 1.28 Around 1.0 per cent for orchard and

groves

Other Fallow


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.04 1.04 Around 1.0 per cent from current

fallow land

Net Sown Area

83.71 83.71 -


(in Hectares)

15,781.00 15,781.00 -

236

4.3.8 Block – Sardanagar In Sardanagar block, land use pattern has changed very little during the last twenty

five years. In this block the area under forest had been very small, but the trend shows that it

remained very small from 1975-76 to 1980-81, but thereafter it increased to 6.53 per cent in

1985-86 and to 7.06 per cent in 1989-90. Thereafter it showed a trend of sharp decline to

0.64 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased to around 2 per cent if some part of other

fallow land and some part of culturable waste land could be used for social or energy forestry.

We propose that around 1.0 per cent of TRA under of other fallow land and 0.36 per cent

under culturable waste land could be identified for development of forest in the block. Thus

total area under forest could be increased to around 2.0 per cent by the year 2010. Concept

of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be developed to increase area under forest.

The area under barren and uncultivable land as percentage of total reporting area

has always been very small and varied 0.32 per cent to 0.82 per cent during the last twenty

years Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced to only a limited extent and only a very

small part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes.

We propose that around 0.60 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of


we are able to restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.60

per cent. That is from present 12.37 percent, area under this category does not rise beyond

12.97 per cent by 2010. Land put to other uses could be restricted to this level as it has

shown a fluctuating trend in the past, but had increased from 10.81 per cent in 1998-99 to

12.57 per cent in 1999-2K.

The proportion of area under culturable waste in the block had been very small. We

have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be converted into forest. We

have suggested to bring down area under this category at the minimum. We fail to understand

as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The land which could not be used for

social or energy forestry could be converted into pasture or grazing land.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves in the block declined form

3.37 per cent in 1975-76 to 0.81 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased from present level

of 0.81 per cent to 1.81 per cent by using some part of other fallow land for this purpose. Thus

we propose that other fallow land would reduce from its present level of 2.98 per cent to 0.98

per cent by 2010, out of which 1.0 per cent would be used for developing orchards and

groves. We propose to convert other fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel

it would be difficult to bring it back for agricultural purposes.

237

Table 4.3.8 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Sardanagar Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 13,262 0.63 0.89 11.09 0.96 0.17 - 0.69 3.37 82.20 1980-81 13,262 0.73 0.32 11.51 0.91 0.11 1.00 2.14 0.20 83.06 1985-86 13,880 6.53 0.63 8.67 0.66 0.37 1.32 1.44 0.20 80.58 1989-90 12,839 7.06 0.41 9.27 0.68 0.11 0.62 1.60 1.84 78.42 1996-97 13,323 1.93 0.67 9.78 0.76 0.08 1.09 1.76 0.56 83.37 1998-99 12,458 - 0.64 10.81 0.68 0.10 0.48 2.78 1.82 82.68 1999-2K 13,041 0.64 0.82 12.37 0.82 0.06 0.34 2.98 0.81 81.17


follows:

Box – 4.3.8 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Sardanagar Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.06 0.06 -

Current Fallow

0.34 0.34 -

Other Fallow 2.98 0.98 1.0 per cent to forest and 1.0 per cent

for orchard & groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

81.17 81.17 -


(in Hectares)

13,041.00 13,041.00 -

238

4.3.9 Block – Khorabar In Khorabar block land use of non-argicultural land has changed significantly. Area

under forest has decreased while area under culturable waste had increased during the last

twenty years, while there has been significant increase in area under other fallow land. In the

block the area under forest had been above 12 per cent of total reporting area from 1975-76

to 1989-90, but thereafter it decreased to 1.36 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased to

around 5.0 per cent of TRA if some part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste

land could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose that 1.64 per cent of reporting

area under other fallow land and 1.03 per cent of reporting area under culturable waste land

could be identified for development of forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could

be increased to around 5.0 per cent of TRA by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest

and joint forest will have to be developed to increase area under forest.

The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land shows an increasing trend.

It decreased from 1.08 per cent in 1975-76 to 0.46 per cent in 1998-99, with 1996-97 as an

exception period when it rose to 1.06 per cent. After 1998-99 it again rose to 1.16 per cent in

1999-2K. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced and only a very small part of it could

be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that

around 1.0 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of barren and uncultivable

land will have to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are able

to restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 1.0 per cent. That is


2010. This is possible because except 1985-86 and 89-90, area under land put to not-

agricultural uses had hovered around 12.3 per cent.

The proportion of area under culturable waste shows a mixed trend in this block. It

decreased from 2.07 per cent in 1975-76 to 0.44 per cent in 1989-90. But then it increased to

5.93 per cent in 1998-99. Then we find that proportion of culturable waste slightly declined to

5.15 per cent in 1999-2K. We have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be

converted into forest. We have suggested to bring down area under this category to the

minimum possible level. We fail to understand as to why there should be any culturable waste

land. The area which cannot be converted into forest should be converted into orchard

pasture and grazing land in the long run.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves in the block had a fluctuating

trend during 1975-76 to 1989-90. In this period proportion of area under trees and groves

declined from 3.16 per cent to 1.20 per cent in 1985-86 but again increased to 2.85 per cent

in 1989-90. But thereafter it again declined to 0.06 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased

from present 0.06 to 3.56 per cent by using some part of culturable waste and some part of

other fallow land for this purpose. Thus we propose that other fallow land would reduce from

its present level of 5.59 per cent to 1.95 per cent by 2010, out of which 2.0 per cent would be

used for developing orchards and groves and 1.64 per cent for forest. We propose to convert

239

other fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel it would be difficult to bring it

back for agricultural purposes.

Table 4.3.9 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Khorabar Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 18,339 12.91 1.08 6.22 2.07 0.10 - 1.08 3.16 71.91 1980-81 18,855 12.10 0.72 12.19 0.37 0.16 2.81 1.08 1.94 68.64 1985-86 19,487 12.26 0.64 14.62 0.35 - 1.96 1.25 1.20 67.69 1989-90 19,163 12.47 0.69 14.72 0.44 0.01 1.35 0.75 2.85 66.72 1996-97 16,100 3.35 1.06 12.28 5.90 0.16 1.60 3.15 1.01 71.45 1998-99 16,011 1.41 0.46 12.52 5.93 0.12 1.50 1.93 0.31 73.95 1999-2K 16,068 1.36 1.16 12.27 5.15 0.13 3.58 5.59 0.06 70.69

The proposed land use plan of the block for year 2010 will have land use pattern as follows:

Box – 4.3.9 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Khorabar Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest 1.36 5.00 Around 1.64 per cent from other fallow land and around 2.0 per cent from culturable waste

Barren and Unculturable land

1.16 0.16 Shift 1.0 per cent for land for non-agricultural purposes

Land put to non-agricultural uses

12.27 13.27 Around 1.0 per cent from barren and unculturable land

Culturable waste 5.15 0.70 Around 2.0 per cent to forest, around 1.0 per cent for pasture grazing land and 1.5 per cent for orchards and groves

Pasture and

grazing land

0.13 1.13 1 per cent from culturable waste

Current Fallow

3.58 3.58 -

Other Fallow 5.59 1.95 1.64 per cent to forest and 2.0 per cent for orchard & groves


0.06 3.56 1.5 per cent from culturable waste and 2.0 per cent from other fallow land

Net Sown Area

70.69 70.69 -


(in Hectares)

16,068.00 16,068.00 -

240

4.3.10 Block – Brahampur In Brahampur block, land use pattern has changed very little during the last 25 years.

In this block the area under forest had been very small except during 1985-86 and 1989-90,

but the trend shows that it was less than around 1.5 per cent of TRA during 1975-76 and

1980-81, and was as 6.1 per cent and 6.48 per cent during 1990-91 and 1995-96

respectively. Then it again declined to 0.32 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased to

around 2 per cent if some part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste land


under other fallow land and 0.2 per cent of culturable waste land could be identified for

development of forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around

2.0 per cent by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be


The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land shows that its proportion

was very low and varied between 0.5 per cent to 0.8 per cent during the last twenty years.

Therefore barren and uncultivable land could be reduced to only a very small part extent to

meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around 0.5 per

cent of total reporting area which is in the category of uncultivable can be utilized for non-

agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are able to restrict increase of area under

land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.5 per cent. That is from present 6.79 per cent, area

under this category does not rise beyond 7.29 per cent by 2010. This is possible because

during the last ten years area under this category has decreased from 8.29 per cent in 1989-

90 to 6.79 per cent in 1999-2K.

The proportion of area under culturable waste has gradually declined from 0.8 per

cent in 1975-76 to 0.34 per cent in 1989-90, then it increased to 1.85 per cent in the year

1998-99. It again declined to 0.59 per cent in 1999-2K. We have already discussed that a part

of culturable waste could be converted into forest. We have suggested to bring down area

under this category to the minimum possible level. We fail to understand as to why there

should be any culturable waste land. The area which cannot be converted into forest should

be converted into pasture and grazing land in the long run.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves in the block has steadily

declined from 2.54 per cent in 1975-76 to 0.21 per cent in 1999-2K. There is need to arrest

this trend. It seems that orchards and groves in the block have been converted into

agricultural land. That is why other fallow land has increased in the block. This needs to be

discouraged. This could be done by encouraging orchard development in some agricultural

land. We propose to convert other fallow land for purposes other than other fallow as we feel


241

Table 4.3.10 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Brahampur Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 18,806 0.23 0.53 8.75 0.80 0.09 - 2.12 2.54 84.95 1980-81 19,268 1.57 0.61 6.92 0.39 0.08 2.43 1.13 3.24 83.62 1985-86 19,923 6.11 0.44 6.47 0.36 0.08 1.27 2.07 1.26 81.93 1989-90 18,768 6.48 0.55 8.29 0.34 0.21 1.33 1.47 1.03 80.30 1996-97 19,417 1.73 0.71 7.44 1.30 0.10 1.03 1.94 1.40 84.35 1998-99 20,258 0.33 0.54 6.96 1.85 0.09 0.59 2.20 0.65 86.79 1999-2K 20,002 0.32 0.79 6.79 0.59 0.14 1.73 5.92 0.21 83.49


follows:

Box – 4.3.10 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Brahampur Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.14 0.14 -

Current Fallow

1.73 1.73 -


to orchard

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.21 2.21 By encouraging orchard development

in 2.0 per cent of other fallow land.

Net Sown Area

83.49 83.49 -


(in Hectares)

20,002.00 20,002.00 -

242

4.3.11 Block – Kauriram In Kauriramis block the area under forest was nill during 1975-76, then rose to 3.75

per cent in 1989-90. The area under forest again became nil after 1996-97. However, there is

scope to develop social/energy forestry in the block. It could still be increased to around 2 per

cent if some part of other fallow land could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose

that around 110 hectares of culturable waste land could be identified for development of

forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around 320 hectares by



Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced and a part of it could be utilized to

meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around one per

cent of total reporting area which is in the category of uncultivable land could be utilized for

non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are able to restrict increase of area

under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 1 per cent. That is from present 10.8 percent,

area under this category does not rise beyond 11.8 per cent by 2010.

The proportion of area under culturable waste has generally been less than 1.0 per

cent except the year 1985-86 and 1989-90. We have already discussed that a part of

culturable waste could be converted into forest. The area which cannot be converted into

forest should be converted into pasture and grazing land in the long run. However, for a plan

targeting year 2010, we propose that around 0.5 per cent of TRA under such land be utilized

for developing forest land.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves has been declining after

1989-90. It could again be increased to 2.5 per cent of TRA by using some part of other fallow

land for this purpose. Thus we propose that other fallow land would reduce from its present

level of 6.56 per cent to 1.76 per cent by 2010, out of which 2.3 per cent would be used for

developing orchards and groves, 1.5 per cent for forest and 1.0 per cent for pasture and

grazing land. We propose to convert other fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as

we feel it would be difficult to bring it back for agricultural purposes.

Table 4.3.11 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Kauriram Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 16,668 - 0.63 10.36 0.95 - - 4.04 2.18 81.83 1980-81 16,576 1.95 1.07 8.87 0.80 0.01 3.02 1.35 1.70 81.24 1985-86 17,183 3.61 1.09 9.76 1.25 0.05 2.49 2.04 1.01 78.70 1989-90 16,576 3.75 1.41 9.62 1.38 0.04 2.26 2.01 3.40 76.14 1996-97 16,747 1.02 1.55 10.02 0.54 0.05 1.15 1.38 0.81 83.48 1998-99 16,554 - 1.28 10.18 0.68 0.05 0.88 1.50 0.76 84.66 1999-2K 17,466 - 1.50 10.80 0.60 0.05 1.43 6.56 0.20 80.02

243


follows:

Box – 4.3.11 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Kauriram Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest - 2.00 Around 0.5 per cent from culturable

waste and 1.5 per cent from other

fallow land

Barren and

Unculturable land

1.50 0.50 Shift 1 per cent for land for non-


Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.60 0.10 Around 0.5 per cent to forest

Pasture and

grazing land

0.05 1.05 Around 1.0 per cent from other fallow

land

Current Fallow

1.43 1.43 -

Other Fallow 6.56 1.76 2.3 per cent for orchard and groves,

1.5 per cent to forest and 1 per cent

to pasture and grazing land

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

80.02 80.02 -


(in Hectares)

17,466.00 17,466.00 -

244

4.3.12 Block – Bansgaon In Bansgaon block the area under forest had been found to be nil in 1999-2K, but the

trend shows that it increased from 2.53 per cent to 3.75 per cent during 1980-81 to 1989-90,

but thereafter it decreased to 1.11 per cent in 1996-97 thereafter it was reported nil in

subsequent periods. It could be increased to around 2 per cent if some part of other fallow

land and some part of culturable waste land could be used for social or energy forestry. We

propose that around 1.5 per cent of TRA under other fallow land and 0.5 per cent under

culturable waste land could be identified for development of forest in the block. Thus total

area under forest could be increased to around 2.0 per cent of TRA by the year 2010.

Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be developed to increase area

under forest.

There has been little change in the area under barren and unculturable land. The land

except during 1975-76. in this category was 9.96 per cent in 1975-76. Then it declined to 0.81

per cent in 1995-96. And thereafter again it increased to 1.02 per cent in 1985-86, and then

declined to around 0.75 per cent during subsequent periods. Barren and uncultivable land

could be reduced and a part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-

agricultural purposes. We propose around 0.5 per cent of total reporting area which is in the

category of uncultivable land will have to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be


by 0.5 per cent. That is from present 11.58 percent, area under this category does not rise

beyond 12.08 per cent by 2010. This seems to be viable proportion of area under this

category had declined from 12.07 per cent in 1998-99 to 11.58 per cent in 1999-2K.

The area under culturable waste had been small and varied between 0.45 per cent to

0.88 per cent during the last twenty five years. We have already discussed that a part of

culturable waste could be converted into forest. We furthermore propose that if culturable

waste can not be used for any other purpose then it could be converted into pasture land. We

fail to understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The area which

cannot be converted into forest should be converted in pasture and grazing land in the long

run. However, for a plan targeting year 2010, we propose that around 0.5 per cent of such

land be utilized for developing forest.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves has been above 2.0 per cent,

till 1998-99. However it declined to 0.36 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased from

present 0.36 per cent to 1.36 per cent by using some part of other fallow land for this purpose.

Thus we propose that other fallow land would reduce from its present level of 3.64 per cent to

1.14 per cent by 2010, out of which 1 per cent would be used for developing orchards and

groves and 1.5 per cent for developing forest. We propose to convert other fallow land for

purposes other than agriculture as we feel it would be difficult to bring it back for agricultural

purposes.

245

Table 4.3.12 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Bansgaon Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 15,924 - 6.96 5.65 0.45 - - 3.13 3.54 86.49 1980-81 15,828 2.53 0.81 5.88 0.75 0.04 2.00 0.99 2.77 84.23 1985-86 16,410 3.61 1.02 8.55 0.87 0.02 2.35 1.69 2.08 79.82 1989-90 15,828 3.75 0.94 9.65 0.88 0.03 4.61 6.17 3.85 69.45 1996-97 16,005 1.11 0.75 11.57 0.62 - 1.98 1.36 2.14 80.48 1998-99 15,389 - 0.78 12.07 0.64 - 0.56 2.84 2.21 80.91 1999-2K 16,038 - 0.74 11.58 0.61 - 2.72 3.64 0.36 80.34


follows:

Box – 4.3.12 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Bansgaon Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest - 2.00 Around 1.5 per cent from other fallow


culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- - -

Current Fallow

2.72 2.72 -



Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

80.34 80.34 -


(in Hectares)

16,038.00 16,038.00 -

246

4.3.13 Block – Uroowa In Uroowa block the area under forest had been very small, but the trend shows that

it increased from 0.16 per cent in 1975-76 to 3.75 per cent in 1989-90, but thereafter it

decreased to 1.1 per cent in 1996-97 and to nill in 1998-99. Thereafter, it increased to 2.9 per

cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased to 4.0 per cent if some part of other fallow land could

be used for social or energy forestry. We propose that around 1.1 per cent of TRA under

other fallow land could be identified for development of forest in the block. Thus total area

under forest could be increased to around 4.0 per cent of TRA by the year 2010. Concept of

private micro forest and joint forest will have to be developed to increase area under forest.

In this block, proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land was 1.1 per cent

during 1975-76, and it continued to hover around 1.0 per cent to 2.0 per cent, during the last

twenty five years. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced very little, and a part of it

could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose

that around 1 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of barren and

uncultivable land could be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are

able to restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 1 per cent.

That is from present 9.5 per cent, area under this category does not rise beyond 10.5 per cent

by 2010.

The proportion of area under culturable waste has generally been less than 1.0 per

cent except 1980-81 and 1985-86. We propose that a part of culturable waste could be

converted into pasture and grazing land. We fail to understand as to why there should be any

culturable waste land.


4.15 per cent in 1975-96 to 0.66 per cent in 1999-2K. But generally it has fluctuated around

2.0 per cent of TRA. It could be increased from present 0.66 per cent to 1.66 per cent by

using some part of other fallow land for this purpose. Thus we propose that other fallow land

would reduce from its present level of 2.74 per cent to 0.64 per cent by 2010, out of which 1.0

per cent would be used for developing orchards and groves and 1.1 per cent for forest. We

propose to convert other fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel it would be

difficult to bring it back for agricultural purposes.

Table 4.3.13 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Uroowa Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 18,230 0.16 1.10 4.00 0.55 0.02 - 3.38 4.15 86.25 1980-81 18,130 1.80 2.00 7.37 1.06 0.08 2.57 1.84 1.58 81.70 1985-86 18,802 3.61 0.85 8.73 1.21 0.16 2.94 1.90 1.37 79.21 1989-90 18,130 3.75 1.27 9.42 0.79 0.09 3.22 5.97 3.54 71.95 1996-97 18,332 1.10 1.57 8.97 0.57 0.06 3.19 6.21 1.54 76.79 1998-99 14,149 - 2.06 11.60 0.92 0.08 3.79 4.25 1.81 75.50 1999-2K 17,451 2.90 1.52 9.50 0.62 0.06 2.25 2.74 0.66 79.73

247


follows:

Box – 4.3.13 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Uroowa Block

Land Use



Remarks


land

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.62 0.12 Around 0.5 per cent to pasture and

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


Current Fallow

2.25 2.25 -



Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

79.73 79.73 -


(in Hectares)

17,451.00 17,451.00 -

248

4.3.14 Block – Gagaha In Gagaha block the area under forest had been sizable during 1985-86 and 1989-90.

The proportion of area under forest during these years was 5.97 per cent and 5.96 per cent

respectively but thereafter it decreased to nil 1999-2K. It could be increased to around 2 per

cent if some part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste land could be used for

social or energy forestry. We propose that around 1.25 per cent of TRA under other fallow

land and 0.75 per cent of TRA under culturable waste land could be identified for


2.0 per cent of TRA by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have

to be developed to increase area under forest.

The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land in Gagaha block shows a

that it varied between 1.0 per cent to 2.0 per cent during 1980-81 to 1999-2K. Barren and

uncultivable land could be reduced and a part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need

of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around 1 per cent of total reporting

area which is in the category of barren and uncultivable land could be utilized for non-


land put to non-agricultural uses only by 1 per cent. That is from present 9.16 percent, area

under this category does not rise beyond 10.16 per cent by 2010.


forest. We fail to understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The area

which cannot be converted into forest, should be converted into pasture and grazing land in

the long run.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves could be increased from

present 0.38 per cent to 2.38 per cent by using some part of other fallow land for this purpose.


2.61 per cent by 2010, out of which 1.25 per cent could be converted into forest and 2.0 per

cent would be used for developing orchards and groves. We propose to convert other fallow

land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel it would be difficult to bring it back for

agricultural purposes.

Table 4.3.14 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Gagaha Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 15,689 0.19 0.66 7.09 0.22 0.01 - 2.04 2.80 86.98 1980-81 16,009 2.98 1.74 8.00 1.57 - 3.72 3.15 3.33 75.52 1985-86 16,567 5.97 1.80 9.06 1.30 0.05 2.22 2.64 1.68 75.29 1989-90 16,604 5.96 1.46 8.15 1.17 - 1.23 1.62 1.66 72.73 1996-97 15,882 1.75 1.30 9.24 0.93 - 1.32 1.58 1.22 82.65 1998-99 14,283 - 1.45 10.32 1.30 - 1.37 1.63 2.22 81.72 1999-2K 16,204 - 1.27 9.16 1.10 - 1.99 4.84 0.38 81.25

249


follows:

Box – 4.3.14 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Gagaha Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest - 2.00 Around 1.25 per cent from other



Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land


Pasture and

grazing land

- - -

Current Fallow

1.99 1.99 -

Other Fallow 4.86 1.61 1.25 per cent to forest and 2.0 per

cent for orchard & groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

81.25 81.25 -


(in Hectares)

16,204.00 16,204.00 -

250

4.3.15 Block – Khajni In Khajni block the area under forest had been very small i.e. 0.06 per cent in 1975-

76, but the trend shows that it increased to 3.74 per cent to total reporting area (TRA) by

1989-90, but thereafter it decreased to nil in 1998-99. The are under forest again rose to 2.28

per cent in 1999-2K. In view of the past trend, it is necessary to maintain this coverage under

forest, and try to improve the quality. We propose that besides this some more land could be


increased to around 3.5 per cent of TRA, it this much land from the category of the fallow

could be converted into forest by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint


The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land in this block shows a trend

of fluctuating within a narrow range of 1.0 per cent of TRA to 1.15 per cent of TRA till 1998-

99. It declined to 0.93 per cent in 1999-2K. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced to

a limit extent only and a part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-

agricultural purposes. We propose that around 0.5 per cent of TRA under of such land could

be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are able to restrict

increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.5 per cent. That is from

present 9.85 percent, area under this category does not rise beyond 10.35 per cent by 2010.

The trend in the are under culturalbe waste shows that its proportion was around 1.4

per cent during 1980-81 to 1989-90. But thereafter it decreased and was found to be 0.91 per

cent in 1999-2K. We have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be

converted into forest. We furthermore propose that those part of culturable waste which could

not be converted to forest could then be converted into pasture land. We fail to understand as

to why there should be any culturable waste land. The area which cannot be converted into

forest should be converted in pasture and grazing land in the long run. However, for a plan

targeting year 2010, we propose that around 0.5 per cent of such land be utilized for

developing forest.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves has steadily decreased from

4.8 percent in 1975-76 to 0.39 per cent in 1999-2K, with 1989-90 being a deviant year. We

propose to convert 1.0 per cent of TRA under other fallow land for developing orchards and

groves. The area under other fallow land has increased above 1.32 per cent only during

1998-99 and 1999-2K. We also feel that it would be difficult to bring back a major part of other

fallow land for agricultural purposes. Therefore, there is need to utilize them for purposes

other than agriculture but related to plantation.

251

Table 4.3.15 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Khajni Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 17,578 0.06 1.15 6.75 0.67 0.01 - 0.92 4.80 74.27 1980-81 16,251 2.90 1.11 5.64 1.38 0.01 1.86 0.67 2.92 83.51 1985-86 16,842 3.61 1.06 9.61 1.35 0.02 1.60 1.19 0.93 80.63 1989-90 16,251 3.74 1.10 9.97 1.45 0.02 1.51 1.21 3.48 77.50 1996-97 16,421 1.04 1.15 9.88 0.93 0.07 1.94 1.32 1.01 82.67 1998-99 17,620 - 1.05 9.22 0.60 0.06 0.47 2.70 0.85 85.05 1999-2K 16,503 2.28 0.93 9.85 0.91 0.05 3.11 3.54 0.39 78.95


follows:

Box – 4.3.15 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Khajni Block

Land Use



Remarks


fallow land

Barren and

Unculturable land


non-agricultural uses

Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.91 0.41 Around 0.5 per cent for pasture and

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


Current Fallow

3.11 3.11 -


cent to orchards and groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.39 1.39 1.0 per cent from other fallow land

Net Sown Area

78.95 78.95 -


(in Hectares)

16,503.00 16,503.00 -

252

4.3.16 Block – Belghat In Belghat block the area under forest had been nil during 1998-99 and 1999-2K, but

the trend shows that it increased from 0.02 per cent of TRA in 1975-76 to 3.75 per cent in

1989-90, but thereafter it declined sharply. It could be increased to around 2 per cent if some

part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste land could be used for social or

energy forestry. We propose that around 1.0 per cent of TRA under other fallow land and 1.0

per cent of TRA under culturable waste land could be identified for development of forest in

the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around 2.0 per cent of TRA by



The area under barren and uncultivable land as percentage of total reporting area

increased from 1.71 per cent in 1975-76 to 2.07 per cent in 1989-90. And thereafter it, it has

hovered around 2.06 per cent. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced and a part of it

could be utilized to meet increasing need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose

that around 1.0 per cent of total reporting area which is in the category of uncultivable land

will have to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. This will be possible if we are able to

restrict increase of area under land put to non-agricultural uses only by 1.0 per cent. That is


2010. The proportion of area under the category land put to non-agricultural purposes had

fluctuated during the past, and do not show a definite rising trend. Therefore, it would be

possible to restrict its increase only by 1.0 per cent of TRA.

The proportion of area under culturable waste shows a mixed trend in the block, but

shown increase over a long period of time. It increased from 0.32 per cent in 1975-76 to We

have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be converted into forest. We

have suggested to bring down area under this category at the minimum. We fail to understand

as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The area which con not be converted

into forest should be converted into pasture and grazing land in the long run.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves in the block declined form

2.17 per cent in 1985-86 to 0.38 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be increased from present level

of 0.38 per cent to 2.38 per cent by using some part of other fallow land for this purpose. Thus

we propose that other fallow land would reduce from its present level of 6.13 per cent to 2.13

per cent by 2010, out the rest 2 per cent would be used for developing orchards and groves

and 1.0 per cent each for developing forest and pasture and grazing land. We propose to

convert other fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel it would be difficult to

bring it back for agricultural purposes.

253

Table 4.3.16 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Belghat Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 20,279 0.02 1.71 17.72 0.32 0.01 - 2.47 1.61 76.13 1980-81 20,169 1.55 1.89 11.91 0.87 0.21 2.63 0.91 1.43 78.60 1985-86 20,917 3.61 0.62 15.73 0.70 0.11 3.71 1.10 2.17 72.26 1989-90 20,169 3.75 2.07 16.05 1.32 - 4.77 9.45 1.80 60.79 1996-97 20,353 1.01 2.04 14.92 1.33 - 1.88 6.74 0.73 71.35 1998-99 19,969 - 2.08 14.51 - - 2.94 2.70 0.84 76.92 1999-2K 19,990 - 2.05 15.21 1.37 - 2.88 6.13 0.38 72.00

The proposed land use plan of the block for year 2010 will have land use pattern as follows:

Box – 4.3.16 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Belghat Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- 1.00 Around 1.0 per cent from current

fallow land

Current Fallow

2.88 2.88 -


for orchard & groves and 1.0 per cent


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

72.00 72.00 -


(in Hectares)

19,990.00 19,990.00 -

254

4.3.17 Block – Gola In Gola block the area under forest had been very small i.e. 0.12 per cent of TRA

during 1975-76, but the trend shows that it increased to 3.95 per cent of TRA during 1989-90,

than it declined to nil in 1998-99. The area under forest again rose to 2.87 per cent of TRA in

1999-2K. In view of the past trend, it is necessary to maintain the present level of coverage

under forest and try to improve the quality. It could be increased to around 3.87 per cent if

some part of other fallow land could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose that

1.0 per cent of reporting area under other fallow land could be identified for development of

forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around 3.87 per cent of

TRA by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be


The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land shows that since 1985-86,

it has remained stagnant around 1.1 per cent of TRA. Barren and uncultivable land could be

reduced to a limited extent only and a very small part of it could be utilized to meet increasing

need of land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around 0.5 per cent of total

reporting area which is in the category of barren and uncultivable land be utilized for non-


land put to non-agricultural uses only by 0.5 per cent. That is from present 13.89 percent,

area under this category does not rise beyond 14.39 per cent by 2010.

The proportion of area under culturable waste shows a mixed trend in Gola block. It

increased from 0.16 per cent in 1975-76 to 1.87 per cent in 1980-81. But then it declined to

0.81 per cent in 1999-2K. We have already discussed that a part of culturable waste could be

converted into pasture and grazing land. We have suggested to bring down area under this

category to the minimum possible level. We fail to understand as to why there should be any

culturable waste land. The culturable area which cannot be cultivated should be converted

into forest or pasture and grazing land in the long run.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves in the block had a slightly

deviant trend during 1989-90, but over all trend shows that the proportion of area under trees

and groves have continuously declined since 1975-76. It could be increased from present

0.25 per cent of TRA to 1.5 per cent by using some part of other fallow land for this purpose.


1.15 per cent by 2010, and the rest 1.25 per cent would be used for developing orchards and

groves. We propose to convert other fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel


255

Table 4.3.17 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Gola Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 12,813 0.12 0.89 7.06 0.16 0.02 - 2.86 4.16 84.58 1980-81 13,974 3.87 0.83 2.16 1.87 0.02 3.98 3.83 3.89 79.55 1985-86 14,488 3.60 1.18 13.42 1.01 0.01 4.61 1.80 2.11 72.25 1989-90 13,974 3.95 1.17 13.95 1.08 0.01 0.97 1.98 0.45 72.60 1996-97 14,126 1.09 1.10 13.88 0.89 0.01 0.91 1.38 2.52 78.24 1998-99 14,086 - 1.10 13.92 - 0.01 0.63 1.67 1.70 80.96 1999-2K 14,154 2.87 1.07 13.89 0.81 0.01 0.67 2.40 0.25 78.03


follows:

Box – 4.3.17 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Gola Block

Land Use



Remarks


land

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.81 0.31 Around 0.5 per cent for pasture

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


land

Current Fallow

0.67 0.67 -

Other Fallow

2.40 0.15 1.0 per cent to forest and 1.25 per


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

78.03 78.03 -


(in Hectares)

14,154.00 14,154.00 -

256

4.3.18 Block – Badhalganj In Badhalganj block the area under forest had been very small i.e. nil during 1975-76,

but the trend shows that it remained stagnant around 3.6 per cent to 3.75 per cent from 1985-

86 to 1989-90, and declined to 1.0 per cent in 1996-97 and nil during 1998-99, it rose to 2.9

per cent in 1999-2K. In view of the past trend, it is necessary to maintain the present level of

coverage under forest and try to improve the quality of the forest. It could be increased to

around 3.9 per cent if some part of other fallow land and some part of culturable waste land


under fallow land and 0.5 per cent of TRA under culturable waste land could be identified for


3.9 per cent of TRA by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have

to be developed to increase area under forest.

The proportion of area under barren and uncultivable land shows that it has remained

stagnant around 1.1 pre cent since 1985-86. Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced

to a limited extent only and a very small part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of

land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around 0.75 per cent of total reporting

area which is in the category of uncultivable land will have to be utilized for non-agricultural

purposes. This will be possible if we are able to restrict increase of area under land put to

non-agricultural uses only by 0.75 per cent. That is from present 13.66 percent, area under

this category does not rise beyond 14.41 per cent by 2010.

The proportion of area under culturable waste shows a mixed trend varying between

nil to 1.36 per cent of TRA since 1975-76. We have already discussed that a part of culturable

waste (0.5 per cent) could be converted into forest. We have suggested to bring down area

under this category to the minimum possible level. We fail to understand as to why there

should be any culturable waste land. The culturable area which cannot be cultivated should

be converted into forest or pasture and grazing land in the long run.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves in the block has steadily

declined from 1.42 per cent in 1975-76 to 0.44 per cent in 1999-2K, with 1989-90 the period

showing slightly a deviant trend. There is need to arrest this trend of steady decline. It seems

that orchards and groves in the block have been converted into agricultural land. That is why

net sown area shows a trend of with mild fluctuations increase during the last 25 years. This

needs to be discouraged. This could be done by encouraging orchard development in some

agricultural land. We propose to convert 0.5 per cent of TRA under other fallow land for

purposes other than agriculture i.e. for orchard development as we feel it would be difficult to

bring it back for agricultural purposes.

257

Table 4.3.18 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Badhalganj Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 21,923 - 1.99 22.78 0.78 - - 2.44 1.42 70.58 1980-81 21,803 1.20 3.33 16.56 1.36 - 4.44 1.89 1.02 70.19 1985-86 22,580 3.61 1.16 4.19 0.71 - 4.93 4.15 1.11 71.10 1989-90 21,803 3.74 1.15 18.57 0.76 - 3.06 4.15 2.78 65.78 1996-97 22,023 1.00 1.12 13.47 0.56 - 1.17 4.57 1.36 76.75 1998-99 22,924 - 1.08 12.72 - - 2.88 1.06 0.50 81.77 1999-2K 21,763 2.90 1.13 13.66 0.63 - 0.30 1.96 0.44 78.97


follows:

Box – 4.3.18 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Badhalganj Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- - -

Current Fallow

0.30 0.30 -

Other Fallow

1.93 0.93 0.5 per cent to forest, 0.5 per cent for

orchard and groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


in some agricultural land, 0.5 per cent

from other fallow land

Net Sown Area

78.97 78.97 -


(in Hectares)

21,763.00 21,763.00 -

258

4.3.19 Block – Kampairganj The land use pattern of Kampairganj changed drastically after 1989-90. The area

under forest had been around 19 per cent of TRA to 20 per cent of TRA till, 1989-90. Then it

sharply declined to around 3.73 per cent in 1996-97, but then again slightly increased to 5.48

per cent in 1999-2K. In view of the past trend, it is necessary to maintain the present level of

coverage under forest and try to improve the quality of forest. It could still be increased if

some part culturable waste land could be used for social or energy forestry. We propose that

around 0.5 per cent of TRA under of culturable waste land could be identified for development

of forest in the block. Thus total area under forest could be increased to around 5.98 per cent

of TRA by the year 2010. Concept of private micro forest and joint forest will have to be


Barren and uncultivable land could be reduced as its proportional had always been

less than 1.0 per cent in the past and a part of it could be utilized to meet increasing need of

land for non-agricultural purposes. We propose that around 0.5 per cent of total reporting area

which is in the category of uncultivable land will have to be utilized for non-agricultural

purposes. This will be possible if we are able to restrict increase of area under land put to

non-agricultural uses only by 0.5 per cent. That is from present 12.08 per cent, area under

this category does not rise beyond 12.58 per cent by 2010.

The proportion of area under culturable waste has shown a fluctuating trend since

1980-81 and varied between 0.5 per cent of TRA to 1.5 per cent of TRA. We have already

discussed that a part of culturable waste could be converted into forest. We furthermore

propose that area under this category be brought down to minimum level. We fail to

understand as to why there should be any culturable waste land. The culturable area which

cannot be cultivated should be converted into forest or pasture and grazing land in the long

run. However, for a plan targeting year 2010, we propose that 0.5 per cent of TRA under such

land be utilized for pasture and grazing land and 0.5 per cent for forest. That means the area

under pasture land could be increased from present 0.01 per cent to around 1.51 per cent by

the year 2010.

The area of land under miscellaneous trees and groves declined from 2.49 per cent

of TRA in 1975-76 to 0.61 per cent in 1989-90. Then it rose to 2.23 per cent in 1998-99 and

thereafter declined to 0.24 per cent in 1999-2K. It could be slightly increased to 0.74 per cent

by using some part of other fallow land for this purpose. Thus we propose that other fallow

land would reduce from its present level of 1.07 per cent to 0.57 per cent by 2010, and the

rest 0.5 per cent would be used for developing orchards and groves. We propose to convert

other fallow land for purposes other than agriculture as we feel it would be difficult to bring it

back for agricultural purposes.

259

Table 4.3.19 Total Reporting Area (TRA) and Land Use Pattern in Kampiarganj Block (in percent)

Years Total


Forest Barren &

unculturable land

Land put to

non-agr. Uses

Culturable

wastes

Pasture land

Current fallow

Other fallow

Land under misc.

Net sown area

1975-76 23,654 19.18 0.94 6.20 3.03 0.07 - 2.89 2.49 65.19 1980-81 20,792 20.38 0.29 8.34 0.55 0.01 0.63 0.25 1.74 67.80 1985-86 1989-90 18,997 19.39 0.53 7.55 0.91 - 2.90 0.68 0.61 62.17 1996-97 25,910 3.73 0.71 10.71 1.54 0.03 3.82 1.82 1.25 76.38 1998-99 25,631 3.98 0.55 11.96 0.80 0.03 1.32 0.71 2.23 78.41 1999-2K 25,083 5.48 1.11 12.08 1.26 0.01 0.51 1.07 0.24 78.24


follows:

Box – 4.3.19 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Kampairganj Block

Land Use



Remarks


waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land



grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


land

Current Fallow

0.51 0.51 -

Other Fallow

1.07 0.57 0.5 for orchard and groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

78.24 78.24 -


(in Hectares)

25,083.00 25,083.00 -

260

Chapter – 5

Village Level Plans (Based on Village Level Survey)

Village Study – I Jangal Ayodhya Prasad (Block – Khorabar)

Village Study – II Shivpur (Block – Khorabar)

Village Study – III Titanpar (Block – Sahajanava)

Village Study – IV Kasraul (Block – Sahajanava)

261

Village Study – I Village – Jangal Ayodhya Prasad (Block – Khorabar)

(A) Village Profile This revenue village is situated at a distance of 16 kilometers from the block

headquarter Khorabar. There is no road from block headquarter to the village. This is mainly

because village is surrounded by forest land from three sides. The village is situated on the

banks of Rapti river, it is easier to go to the village from district headquarter than block head

quarter. The village is affected by floods every year. The soil is sandy (alluvial), and only one

crop is grown in a year. Some households also grow vegetables during summer. Even other

wise vegetable growing is the main crop in the area where irrigation facility is available. Since

the village is adjacent to the forest, some landless workers also get wage work in the forest.

There were around 20 households of Brahmins, and almost in each Brahmin household, there

is at least one person who has either served in defence services or has retired from there.

They are generally prosperous people. Almost similar number of households belong to

Yadava caste, whose main occupation is milk selling besides farming. They are prosperous

and politically powerful also. The present Pradhan of the gram panchayat belongs to this

caste. There are around 50 families of Mallah, 70-75 families of schedule castes and 40-50

familes of other castes who depend on wage labour work.

5.1.1 Land Use Pattern Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad is a medium size village with 285.145 hectares of

total reporting area. In village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad, land use pattern shows that it

continues to be predominantly agricultural as 93.14 per cent of total reporting area was under

cultivation. Another important feature was that the share of forest was nil, though the village

was surrounded by forest (See table 5.1.1).

Table – 5.1.1

Land Use Pattern in the Jangal Ayodhya Prasad Village of the Gorakhpur District

Land Use Categories In hectare In percent Total reporting area 285.145 100.00 Water bodies 3.919 1.37 Habitation 8.554 3.00 Other uses 6.101 2.14 Pasture 0.356 0.12 Banjar 0.060 0.02 Kabristan/Khalihan 0.567 0.20 Net sown area 265.587 93.14

Source: Revenue department.

262

5.1.2 Demographic Profile The average family size was 7.1 in the village. The population in the working age

group i.e. in the age group (14-60) years comprised 52.35 per cent of total population. That is

around 48.0 per cent persons constituted dependents in the family. The village also shows

adverse sex ratio. This is evident from the fact that the number of female population per

thousand male population was around only 939.13. It would be interesting to note that sex

ratio in the age group below five year was 1118.34 while the sex ratio in the age group 5 to 14

was 987.39. We could infer from it that mortality of female child was higher than the male

child in the age group 5 to 14 years (See table 5.1.2.1).

The literacy rate was 71.86 per cent. It could also be seen from table 5.1.2.2 that

number of illiterates was much higher among females than among males. On the other hand

in each category of education group the number of males was much higher than females.

Table – 5.1.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Total

population Below 5 year population

5 to 14 year population


Above 60 year population

Caste

M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T

Family size

Chamar 140 144 284 28 32 60 37 43 80 74 68 142 1 1 2 6.3Kahar 32 20 52 7 2 9 5 5 10 20 13 33 - - - 6.5Nai 16 15 31 3 5 8 4 3 7 9 7 16 - - - 10.3Viswakarma 7 5 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 3 8 - - - 4.0Teli 21 16 37 6 4 10 7 5 12 8 7 15 - - - 4.6Gupta 41 43 84 10 13 23 6 10 16 25 20 45 - - - 6.4Kewat 150 123 273 27 30 57 42 26 68 81 67 148 - - - 6.0Nishad 255 244 499 41 54 95 77 75 152 135 113 248 2 2 4 6.5Sahani 22 13 35 7 3 10 6 - 6 9 9 18 - 1 1 8.7Maurya 32 31 63 6 4 10 10 14 24 16 13 29 - - - 9.0Yadav 83 82 165 17 22 39 17 19 36 48 40 88 1 1 2 9.7Jaiswal 5 5 10 - 1 1 3 1 4 2 3 5 - - - 5.0Brahmin 116 123 239 16 18 34 23 33 56 72 67 139 5 5 10 12.6Total 920 864 1784 169 189 358 238 235 473 504 430 934 9 10 19 7.1

Table – 5.1.2.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Graduation and

above Intermediate and high

school Below high school Illiterate Caste

M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T

Chamar - - - - 1 1 73 45 118 37 62 99Kahar - - - - - - 13 5 18 13 12 25Nai - - - 1 - 1 8 4 12 4 6 10Viswakarma - - - - - - 4 1 5 2 3 5Teli - - - - - - 10 5 15 5 7 12Gupta 2 - 2 3 - 3 22 13 35 2 16 18Kewat - - - 6 - 6 76 34 110 40 57 97Nishad - - - 5 - 5 131 84 215 78 98 176

263

Sahani - - - 3 - 3 7 4 11 2 7 9Maurya - - - - - - 22 15 37 - 9 9Yadav 1 - 1 17 7 24 36 26 62 15 25 40Jaiswal - - - - - - 5 2 7 - 2 2Brahmin 20 10 30 48 27 75 25 43 68 - - -Total 23 10 33 83 35 118 432 281 731 198 304 502Percentage 2.5 1.16 1.85 9.02 4.05 6.61 46.93 32.52 40.97 21.52 35.18 28.14

5.1.3 Land Ownership In Jangal Ayodhya Prasad, the average size of landholding per family was 0.49 acres

and per adult person only 0.12 acres (See table 5.1.3.1). It is obvious that the variation in the

size of holdings per family was larger than the variations in the size of landholdings per adult

persons. The low size of land holdings per adult person also indicates that the land available

for cultivation was not enough to engage all the adults in agriculture for full time work. The

pressure of land has therefore forced many others to search for jobs outside agriculture. The

fact that per adult person land was around 0.12 acres in even the landholding group (5-10)

acres, shows that in future, population pressure on land would be tremendous in all size

groups. The village is thus moving towords a situation in which it will be dominated by

landless and near landless households who already constitute around 60 per cent of total

households in the village. Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad is a typical village from the point of

view of distribution of castes in the village population. Chamars, Kewats and Nishads are the

predominant castes in the village as around 66 per cent households belonged to these castes

(See table 5.1.3.2). And therefore the caste wise land distribution in the village was similar as

land distribution among the these castes. Only a few Yadavas and Brahmins owned more

than 2.5 acres of land.

Table – 5.1.3.1 Distribution of Per Family/Per Adult Size of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in

the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Landholding size Total households

Total adult pop. (>14 year)

Total land in acre

Average landholding in acre (Per adult person)

Average landholding in

acre(Per family)Land-less 49 144 - - - Below 0.63 Acre 140 450 26.2 0.05 0.18 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 17 79 8.9 0.14 0.65 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 38 228 60.2 0.26 1.67 2.5 to 5.0 Acre 3 25 9.0 0.36 3.00 5.0 to 10.0 Acre 3 27 17.0 0.62 5.70 Above 10 Acre - - - - - Total 250 953 123.9 0.12 0.49

Table – 5.1.3.2 Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in the Village Jangal

Ayodhya Prasad

Caste Land-less Below 0.63 Acre

0.63 to 1.0 Acre

1.0 to 2.5 Acre

2.5 to 5.0 Acre

5.0 to 10.0 Acre

Above 10 Acre

Total HHs.

Chamar 13 31 - 1 - - - 45 Kahar 1 6 - 1 - - - 8 Nai - 2 - 1 - - - 3 Viswakarma 1 2 - - - - - 3 Teli - 6 2 - - - - 8 Gupta - 10 1 2 - - - 13

264

Kewat 14 24 6 1 - - - 45 Nishad 19 52 3 2 - - - 76 Sahani 1 - 2 1 - - - 4 Maurya - 3 - 4 - - - 7 Yadav - 2 3 8 3 1 - 17 Jaiswal - 2 - - - - - 2 Brahmin - - - 17 - 2 - 19 Total 49 140 17 38 3 3 - 250 Percentage 19.6 56.0 6.8 15.2 1.2 1.2 - 100.0

5.1.4 Occupational Structure The occupation-wise distribution of households showed that the main occupation of

only 42 out of 250 households (i.e. 16.8 per cent households) was cultivation, while that of

126 households i.e. around 50 per cent households it was wage work.

The occupation of many households have also changed as a result of increasing

pressure on land and non-availability of work in the village. The change in main occupation

has taken place mainly among cultivators and other workers. Out of 47 households whose

main occupation was cultivation in the past, now only 31 i.e. 66 per cent are continuing with

and 16 (i.e. 34 per cent) are engaged in service. Interestingly all those 16 households who

have shifted to other occupations, still continue to be engaged in cultivation as their

supplementary occupation. Similarly other work and shop running was supplementary

occupation of many cultivators. The number of households who were engaged in other work

has also reduced from 96 in the past to 51 presently. The number of such households has

increased in case of wage work and service. Whereas in the past only 104 households were

engaged in wage work, their number at present is 126 (See table 5.1.4.1).

There were 809 workers in the village out of which 469 were males and 340 were

females. If we take (14-60) years age group as working age group, then we find that

participation rate among males and females was 93.06 per cent and 79.07 per cent

respectively. The participation rate for the village as a whole was 86.62 per cent. Occupation

wise distribution of workers in the village showed that out of 809 workers 188 i.e. 23.24 per

cent were cultivators, 274 i.e. 33.87 per cent were agricultural labourers 228 i.e. 28.18 per

cent were other labourers, 52 i.e. 6.43 per cent were in service and 67 i.e. 8.28 per cent were

engaged in other work. Gender wise distribution of occupation of workers showed that

proportion of female workers was higher than male workers among cultivators, agricultural

labourers and other labourers. Males predominated in the category of service class and those

who were engaged in other work (See table 5.1.4.2).

Table – 5.1.4.1

Present and Past Occupations of Households in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Past occupation Present main occupation Supplementary occupation Occupation Total

HHs. Cultiva

tor Wage Servic

e Other works

Cultivator

Wage Other work

Shop

Cultivator 47 31 - 16 - 16 - 5 6 Wage 104 3 92 7 2 9 10 10 2 Other work 96 8 34 5 49 5 40 7 12 Service 3 - - 3 - 3 - - - Total 250 42 126 31 51 33 50 22 20

265

Table – 5.1.4.2

Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Cultivator Agricultural

Labour Other Labour Services Other WorkersCaste

M

F T M

FT M

FT M

FT M

F T

Chamar 1 1 2 18 20 38 40 32 72 4 - 4 9 - 9Kahar 1 1 2 - - - 17 13 30 - - - 2 - 2Nai 1 3 4 5 4 9 - - - 1 - 1 2 - 2Viswakarma - - - - - - 3 3 6 - - - 2 - 2Teli - - - - - - 5 7 12 - - - 3 - 3Gupta 6 4 10 1 16 17 - - - 6 - 6 8 - 8Kewat 24 36 60 33 31 64 - - - 15 - 15 9 - 9Nishad 12 12 24 62 60 122 43 41 84 1 - 1 17 - 17Sahani 1 1 2 4 4 8 2 2 4 - - - - - -Maurya 8 8 16 - 5 5 - - - 1 - 1 6 - 6Yadav 25 20 45 7 4 11 10 10 20 - - - 6 - 6Jaiswal 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1Brahmin 21 - 21 - - - - - - 24 - 24 1 1 2Total 101 87 188 130 144 274 120 108 228 52 - 52 66 1 67Percentage 21.54 25.59 23.24 27.72 42.35 33.87 25.59 31.76 28.18 11.09 - 6.43 14.07 0.29 8.28

5.1.5 Livestock The animal population in proportion to the number of households was found to

increase with the size of holding upto the category of small farmers i.e. those holding (2.5-5.0

acres) of land (See table 5.1.5). This was so because landless and near landless households

owned less animals than those who owned more than 1 acre of land. It could be seen from

the table that cows and buffaloes were the main animals in the village. If we work out the

average number of cattles (that is cows and buffaloes taken together) in different landholding

groups then we find that it was as follows: landless - 0.67 per households, below 0.63 acre –

1.21 per households, 0.63-1.0 acre 1 per households, 1.65 – 2.5 acre 2.34 per households,

2.5 – 5 acre 4.67 per households and 5 – 10 acres 2.67 per households. Average cattle

owned was thus found to be 1.37 per households in the village. Landless and near landless

households possessed other types of live stock in larger number.

Table – 5.1.5 Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Size Groups Households

in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Landholding size Total HHs. Cow Buffalo Calf Other Total Land-less 49 26 7 31 48 112 Below 0.63 Acre 140 94 76 128 80 378 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 17 11 17 22 12 62 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 38 31 58 82 - 171

266

2.5 to 5.0 Acre 3 3 11 18 - 32 5.0 to 10.0 Acre 3 5 3 10 - 18 Above 10 Acre - - - - - - Total 250 170 172 291 140 773

5.1.6 Housing Condition There were 365 built houses owned by 250 households i.e. about 115 households

owned more than one house. These are generally those households who own a pucca house

along with a kutcha /semi pucca house. There is a tendency to shift to a pucca house

whenever possible and then kutcha or semi pucca house is put to other uses or as storage.

Out of 365 houses in the village 111 i.e. 30.41 per cent were kutcha houses, 170 i.e. 46.58

per cent were pucca houses, and 84 i.e. 23.01 per cent were semi pucca houses (See table

5.1.6).

Table – 5.1.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Housing

Conditions

Caste

Katchha Pakka Semi Pakka

Total Houses

Total Households

Chamar 16 30 7 53 45 Kahar 1 5 2 8 8 Nai - 2 3 5 3 Viswakarma - 2 1 3 3 Teli 6 5 3 14 8 Gupta 10 12 3 25 13 Kewat 14 28 11 53 45 Nishad 25 38 36 99 76 Sahani 3 3 3 9 4 Maurya 5 7 - 12 7 Yadav 10 17 5 32 17 Jaiswal 2 2 - 4 2 Brahmin 19 19 10 48 19 Total 111 170 84 365 250

267

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Twenty households in the village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad were selected to elicit

information about land use behaviour at household level.

5.1.7 Change in Size of Land Holding Among the selected households 8 (i.e. 40.0 per cent) belonged to Brahmin caste and

5 to Mallah caste. The distribution of households on the basis of landholdings showed that 40

per cent owned 1.0 to 2.5 acre of land, and 50 per cent owned between 2.5 acres to 5.0 acres

of land. Thus 40 per cent farmers were marginal farmer and 50 per cent farmers were small

farmers (See table 5.2.7.1).

In Jangal Ayodhya Prasad, out of 20 households 11 reported that the size of

landholdings changed during the last 20 years.

The reason of changes in the total land owned during the last 20 years in selected

households showed that in 7 households (i.e. 35 per cent), division of family was the major

cause, while in case of two households each changes took place due to consolidation of

holdings. Three households and purchase of land while only 1 (i.e. 5 per cent) reportedly sold

land (See table 5.1.7.2). Table – 5.1.7.1

Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages Jangal Ayodhya Prasad

Caste Below

0.63 Acre 0.63 to

1.0 Acre 1.0 to 2.5

Acre 2.5 to 5.0

Acre 5.0 to

10.0 Acre Above 10

Acre Total

Chamar - - 1 - - - 1 Yadav - - - 2 - - 2 Teli - - 1 - - - 1 Maurya - - 1 1 - - 2 Mallah - - 3 1 1 - 5 Kahar - - - 1 - - 1 Brahmin - - 2 5 1 - 8 Total - - 8 10 2 - 20 Percentage - - 40.0 50.0 10.0 - 100.0

Table – 5.1.7.2 Reason of Changes in Total Land Owned During the Last 20 years in Selected

Households

Reason Number

Percent

Division of family 7 35.0 Purchased 2 10.0 Due to consolidation of holdings 2 10.0 Sold 1 5.0 Leasing in 1 5.0

268

Not applicable 9 45.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

269

In Jangal Ayodhya Prasad village, 3 (i.e. 15 per cent) households reported that their

landholding increased during the last 20 years. The average change per reporting household

was found to be 0.63 acres. That shows the purchase of land was at a very small scale (See

table 5.1.7.3).

The number of households who reported decrease in their landholdings was 8 (i.e. 40

per cent) of total sampled households, and the average change per reporting households was

6.64 acres (See table 5.1.7.4).

Table – 5.1.7.3

Number of Households Whose Landholding Increased

Number of HHs.

Land owned at present (in acre)

Land owned 20 years ago (in acre)

Change during 20 years (in acre)

Average change per reporting HHs. (in acre)

3 12.29 10.41 1.88 0.63

Table – 5.1.7.4 Number of Households Whose Landholding Decrease

Number of

HHs. Land owned at

present (in acre) Land owned 20

years ago (in acre) Change during

20 years (in acre) Average change per

reporting HHs. (in acre)

8 40.24 93.33 53.09 6.64

270

5.1.8 Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes

In Jangal Ayodhya Prasad 8 out of 20 respondents (i.e. 40 per cent) reported that

they had converted some of their agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. Seven of

them reported that it was due to division in family and consequent need of more land for non-

agricultural purposes. Only one household suggested that the conversion of agricultural land

for non-agricultural purposes was done to establish cattle shed (See table 5.1.8.1).

It was also reported by respondents that reasons of conversion of agricultural land for

non-agricultural purposes in the village was –

(i) Division of family and consequent need of land for construction of houses;

(ii) To construct cattle shed (See table 5.1.8.2).

The respondents were also asked whether they had discontinued cultivation of any

part of agricultural land owned by them. In village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad, respondents

replied in affirmative, and the reason for it was water logging/seepage (See table 5.1.8.3). Table 5.1.8.1

Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of Owned Land by Selected Households

Reason Number Percent

Division of family for construction of houses 7 35.0 Cattle shed 1 5.0 Not applicable 13 65.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.8.2 Reasons of Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes in the

Village (As Suggested by Respondents)

Reason Number Percent Division of family for construction of houses 20 100.0 Cattle shed 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table 5.1.8.3 Distribution of Respondents on the Basis of Responses to Query "Reasons for not cultivating

the agriculture land"

Reasons Number Percent

Water logging/seepage 8 40.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

271

5.1.9 Land Reclamation

All villages have some land which is barren and uncultivable. We wanted to know

villagers perception about the possible uses of barren land. Only 11 out of 20 respondents

replied to our query that barren land could be put to which uses. The suggestions were:

Barren land could be used for ((i) construction of houses; (ii) construction of new ponds and

tanks for fisheries (iii) to develop small industries/commercial place and (iv) for plantation

(See table 5.1.9.1).

Only 11 out of 20 respondents were aware about the government programmes to

reclaim usar land (See table 5.1.9.2).

Ten out of eleven farmers who could give reasons for not availing the facilities of

schemes for land reclamation, said they did not need it (See table 5.1.9.3).

Table – 5.1.9.1

Distribution of Responses to the query "Barren land could be put to which uses"

Reason Number Percent Construction of House/Colony 4 20.0 Develop Small Industry/Commercial Place 1 5.0 Construction of New Ponds/Fisheries 1 5.0 Plantation 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.9.2 Distribution of Responses to the question "Are you aware of the Government

Programmes to recalm Usar Land"

Responses Number Percent Yes 11 55.0 No 2 10.0 Don't know 7 35.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.9.3

Distribution of Responses to the Query "Reasons for Not-availing the Facilities of Schemes for Land Reclamation"

Responses Number Percent

Scheme not implemented in the village 1 5.0 Don't need 10 50.0 Not applicable 9 45.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

272

5.1.10 Water Harvesting

Water harvesting is a serious challenge at the village level. It has two aspects one is

water logging and the other is water conservation. The problem of water logging is a serious

problem in the village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad. When asked, what measures could be

adopted to avoid water logging due to rain water, 12 suggested that nullah be linked to pond

and 8 out of 20 (i.e. 40 per cent) respondents suggested that there was need to construct new

nullah. Cleansing of nullah was another important suggestion made by respondents (See

table 5.1.10.1).

As regards water conservation, when farmers were asked, what could be done to

conserve rain water in the village, 9 (i.e. 45 per cent) suggested that old ponds be renovated,

while 2 others (i.e. 10 per cent) suggested that new ponds should be constructed. Thus ponds

are considered by most of the farmers as most suitable way to conserve rain water (See table

5.1.10.2).

Farmers were also asked as to what would be the potential use of water. If more

water could be conserved in the village. Farmers suggested that it could be used for irrigation

and for animals (See table 5.1.10.3).

Table – 5.1.10.1 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What measures could be adopted to avoid

water logging due to rain water"

Reasons Number Percent Construction of new puliya 1 5.0 Nullah be linked to pond 12 60.0 Cleaning of nullah 5 25.0 Construction of new nullah 8 40.0 No problem 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.10.2

Distribution of Responses to the Query "What could be done to Conserve rain water in the village"


Renovation of old Ponds 9 45.0 Construct new Ponds 2 10.0 Not Needed 11 55.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.10.3

Distribution of Responses to Query "If more water could be conserved in the village then, it could be put to what uses?


Irrigation 7 35.0 For animal 7 35.0 Not of any uses 4 20.0 No response 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

273

We also enquired about the present status/use of those ponds, which have totally or

partially disappeared. It was reported by respondents that such land had been encroached

upon, and/or is being used for cultivation (See table 5.1.10.4).

When asked what efforts should be made to renovate/revive those ponds, farmers

said that desiltation and removal of encroachments were necessary for renovation of ponds

(See table 5.1.10.5).

We also enquired from farmers as to what benefits would accrue if ponds could be

revived. Villagers expected various benefits if disappeared ponds could be renovated/revived.

The water thus available then could be used for irrigation, for cattle and also for domestic use

(See table 5.1.10.6).

The present use of ponds showed an encouraging sign. As it was used for cattle,

domestic purposes and for fisheries (See table 5.1.10.7).

Table – 5.1.10.4 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What is the present use of land of those

ponds, which have totally or partially disappeared"

Reason Number Percent Encroachment 20 100.0 Agriculture 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.10.5

Distribution of Responses to the Query "What efforts could be made for revival of ponds"


Cleaning of pond 18 90.0 Remove encroachments 16 80.0 No response 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.10.6 Distribution of Responses to query "In what way the revival of Ponds will help

villagers"

Reason Number Irrigation 16 For Cattle use 14 Fisheries 2 Domestic use 3 Total Respondents 20

Table 5.1.10.7 Distribution of Responses to query

"What is the Present Use of Existing Ponds"

Reason Number

For cattle use 4 Irrigation 1 Domestic use 5 Fisheries 10 Total Respondents 20

274

5.1.11 Orchards

Farmers were also asked whether the area under orchards has increased or

decreased. Seventeen (i.e. 85 per cent) farmers suggested that it has decreased, while only

15 per cent reported increase in area under orchards (See table 5.1.11.1).

The main reason for decrease of orchards according to farmers were water logging

its long gestation (See table 5.1.11.2).

The reason for increase in the area under orchards, and/or coming up of new

orchards was mentioned by three farmers only. All suggested that plantation was being done

by forest department (See table 5.1.11.3).

When asked that why the potential of growth of orchards was low in the village, 19

(i.e. 45 per cent) farmers held water logging responsible for it while two farmers suggested

that it was so because more land was needed for agriculture (See table 5.1.11.4).

Table – 5.1.11.1 Distribution of Responses to query "Whether the area under orchards has

increased/decreased"

Response Number Percent Increased 3 15.0 Decreased 17 85.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.11.2

Distribution of Perception of Respondent about Reason of Decrease of Orchard

Reasons Number Percent Long gestation 5 25.0 New orchards not coming 4 20.0 Water logging/seepage 16 80.0 Not applicable 3 15.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.11.3 Perception of Respondent about Reason of Increase of Orchard


New orchards planted 1 5.0 Plantation by forest department 3 15.0 Not applicable 17 85.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.11.4 Distribution of Responses to query "Why the potential of growth of orchards is low"


Scarcity of land 2 10.0 Long gestation 1 5.0 Seepage/water logging 9 45.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

275

For some farmers the scope for developing new orchards in the village seemed to be

very limited as a farmers felt that new orchards could be developed on agricultural land while

4 farmers suggested that it could be developed on road side in hamlets (See table 5.1.11.5).

When asked, what kind of facilities would be required to increase area under orchard,

35 per cent farmers suggested that system of water drainage be developed, while 15 per cent

suggested that high yielding variety plants be given for the purpose (See table 5.1.11.6).

Table – 5.1.11.5 Distribution of Responses to query "On which type of land area under orchards could

be increased

Type of Land Number Percent Agricultural land 9 45.0 Barren land 2 10.0 Hamlet and road side 4 20.0 All type land 1 5.0 No response 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.11.6 Distribution of Responses to query "What kind of facilities would be required to

increase area under orchard"

Reason Number Percent G.S. land be made available for the purpose 2 5.0 System of water drainage 7 35.0 H.Y.V. plants be given 3 15.0 Awareness campaign 4 15.0 No response 8 40.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

5.1.12 Livestock

In Jangal Ayodhya Prasad, 14 out of 20 selected respondents reported that size of

their livestock has decreased, while 5 reported increase in the livestock.

The main reasons suggested for decrease in livestock by respondents were scarcity

of fodder and grazing, there was no one in the family to look after livestock and also because

of increasing use of tractors (See table 5.1.12.1).

Out of the five (i.e. 25 per cent) respondents who reported increase in number of

cattles, three said that they while two others attributed the increase in number of cattles to

family need (See table 5.1.12.2).

When asked that number of which type of livestock has decreased; the respondents

reported that number of only two types namely bovine and bullocks had decreased (See table 5.1.12.3).

The overwhelming majority of respondents suggested that their economic condition

would improve if they increase bovine cattle (See table 5.1.12.4).

The main constraints in increasing livestock were: scarcity of fodder/grazing land,

lack of manpower and economic constraint (See table 5.1.12.5).

Table – 5.1.12.1 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for decrease in livestock"

Reason Number

Low income 1 Scarcity of fodder/ Grazing land 6 Lack of manpower 2 Now use tractors 9 Paucity of space 2 Not applicable 8 Total Respondents 20

Distribut"Reasons

R

IncreaseFamily neNot appliTotal Re

Table – 5.1.12.3 Distribution of Responses to query "Number

of which type of livestock has decreased"

Type of Cattles Number Bovine 9 Bullock 11 Not applicable 3 Total Respondents 20

Distribu"What type

Typ

BovineTotal R

Table – 5.1.12.2 ion of Responses to query for increase in livestock"

eason Number d income 3 ed 2

cable 14 spondents 20

276

Table – 5.1.12.4 tion of Responses to query of livestock will improve your

economic condition"

es of Cattle Number 20 espondents 20

Table – 5.1.12.5 Distribution of Responses to query "What

are the main constraints in increasing livestock"

Reason Number Economic constraint 7 Lack of manpower 11 Scarcity of fodder/grazing land 7 Scarcity of animal's doctor 1 No problem 1 Total Respondents 20

277

5.1.13 Agriculture

The main crops grown in the village Jangal Ayodhya Prasad were wheat and paddy.

The average production of wheat and paddy was 9.2 Qt./acre and 14.0 Qt./acre respectively

(See table 5.13.1).

Out of the 20 selected farmers, 12 reported that productivity in their farms was lower

than other farms. The main reasons for lower productivity were scarcity of manpower and

inability to look after farming and secondly lower use of fertilizer, pesticide, compost etc. (See

table 5.1.13.2).

Farmers were also asked about the main constraints in better utilization of agricultural

land. The constraints suggested included economic constraint, water logging, low irrigation,

erratic power supply and scarcity of manpower (See table 5.1.13.3).

Table – 5.1.13.1 Cropping Pattern of Selected Household, Average Production and Use of Fertilizer

Crops Net sown area

(in acre) Production (in Qt./Acre)

Compost (per acre)

DAP (in kg./acre)

Urea (in kg./acre)

Potas (in kg./acre)

Pesticide (Rs./Acre)

Wheat 32.0 9.2 1 Trolley 31.9 36.6 30.0 - Paddy 16.0 14.0 - 29.8 65.0 - 300.00 Barley 4.5 8.8 - 15.0 - - - Bajara 3.4 5.5 - - 30.0 - - Peas 4.5 7.5 - 33.0 - - - Gram 0.6 7.0 - 22.0 - - - Jwar 0.6 6.6 - - 20.0 - -

Table – 5.1.13.2 Distribution of Responses to query "Reason for lower productivity of respondents farm

from other farms"

Reason Number Percent Low use of fertilizer/pesticide/compost etc. 5 25.0 Low irrigation 1 5.0 Economic constraint 3 15.0 Scarcity of manpower and inability to look after farming 9 45.0 Not applicable 8 40.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.13.3 Distribution of Responses to query "What are the main constraints in better utilisation

of agricultural land"

Constraints Number Percent Water logging/seepage 9 45.0 Low irrigation 11 55.0 Economic constraint 4 20.0 Natural calamities 2 10.0 Erratic power supply 3 15.0 Not applicable 6 30.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

278

The various suggestions made by farmers to remove these constraints included

increase in irrigation facility. HYV seeds be made available, power supply be increased

economic assistance should be provided, and cleansing of drainage system (See table 5.1.13.4).

Tenancy: Only two of the selected farmers leased out land. The reason for it was

scarcity of manpower and inability to look after farming (See table 5.1.13.5). Only one

selected farmer reported that he leased in land. The reason was that he owned very small

piece of land (See table 5.1.13.6).

Table – 5.1.13.4 Distribution of Responses to query "How above mentioned constraints could be

removed"

Measures Number Percent Increase irrigation facility 9 45.0 Economic/Credit assistance 2 10.0 Cleaning of drainage system 2 10.0 Increase power supply 4 20.0 HY Varieties be made available 2 10.0 Not applicable 6 30.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.13.5 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing out the land"


Scarcity of manpower and inability to look after farming 2 10.0 Not applicable 18 90.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.1.13.6 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing in by tenants"


Economic constraint and Owned land is small 1 5.0 Not applicable 19 95.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

279

(C) Land Use Plan for Jangal Ayodhya Prasad Village (i) The village Jangal Ayudhya Prasad is a flood prone village. Water of Rapti river

enters into the village during every rainy reason. If an embankment could be built, it

would help in better utilization of much land area of the village. The construction of

embankment would also help in developing the drainage system of the village.

(ii) A road should be constructed to connect the village from the main road. This could be

done if the road passes through forest land, and therefore concurrence of forest

department should also be obtained for construction of such road. Otherwise the

village would remain isolated.

(iii) Dairy related activities could be promoted by developing pasture land on the banks of

the river. Market would not be problem because city is within approachable distance.

(iv) The drainage system could become more effective if a lift pump could be installed at

the place where the drain gate is located. The gate has been installed at the outskirts

of the village to facilitate out flow of water through the drainage system. Around 369

acres of land which is flood affected would also become available for double

cropping.

(v) Ponds of the village should be renovated.

(vi) The drainage route should be cleansed.

(vii) Some more orchards could be developed if the problem of water logging is tackled.

Besides above suggestions following steps could be taken to regulate land use in the

village:

(i) Land Management Committee be reconstituted with representations of all sections

and entrusted with specific responsibilities related to land use in the village.

(ii) After consolidation, conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes be

prohibited. Those who have violated this norm should be penalized. A fine based on

current value of land and house be imposed.

(iii) Building tax should be collected every year from those farmers who have constructed

any house/building on farm land.

(iv) Stringent action should be taken against those who have encroached upon pond of

the village. They should be debarred from getting benefit of any government scheme

and also debarred from contesting any elections.

(v) Desiltation of drainage course should be done regularly.

280

Village Study – II Village – Shivpur (Block – Khorabar)

(A) Village Profile Village Shivpur is located on Deoria road at a distance of 10 kilometers from block

headquarter. The land of the village is good for agriculture. The main crop grown in thevillage

is peanut. Other important crops of the village are paddy, wheat, vegetables etc. Some of

those landholders who are in service or engaged in other occupations, had given their land on

sharecropping or fixed annual rent to other farmers. The village is relatively a developed one.

The soil is red matiar domat type and suitable for all types of agriculture. Themain source of

irrigation is power run pump sets.

Land less people work as agricultural labourers and also work as labourers in forest

department and in city. There is no pond in the village.

5.2.1 Land Use Pattern In village Shivpur land use pattern was changing over the years. The present land

use pattern showed that 65.0 per cent of the total reporting area was net sown area. The land

put to other uses was very small (0.6 per cent) and 11.47 per cent was barren land (See table

5.2.1). Shivpur is an agriculturally less developed village as only around 3.72 per cent of net

sown area is irrigated area.

Table – 5.2.1

Land Use Pattern in the Shivpur Village of the Gorakhpur District

Land Use Categories In hectare In percent Total reporting area 335.216 100.0 Water bodies 3.644 1.09 Habitation 32.793 9.78 Other uses 2.02 0.6 Banjar 38.461 11.47 Culturable waste 4.453 1.33 Current fallow 36.032 10.75 Net sown area 217.813 64.98

(a) Irrigated 8.097 3.72 (b) Un-irrigated 209.716 96.28 Source: Revenue department.

5.2.2 Demographic Profile The average family size was 6.0 in the village. (See table 5.2.2.1). The population in

the working age group i.e. in the age group (14-60) years comprised 55.73 per cent of total

population. That is the rest of 44 per cent persons constituted dependents in the family. The

sex ratio (i.e. number of females per thousand males) was 929.05.

The literacy rate was 65 per cent in the village. It could also be seen from table

5.2.2.2 that number of illiterates was much higher among females than among males. On the

281

other hand in each category of education group, the number of males was much higher than

females.

Table – 5.2.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Shivpur

Total

population Below 5 year population




Caste

M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T

Family size

Chamar 212 196 408 41 39 80 46 50 96 116 96 212 9 11 20 5.7Pasi 4 1 5 - - - 3 - 3 1 1 2 - - - 5.0Garariya 5 3 8 - - - 1 1 2 4 2 6 - - - 8.0Dhobi 21 20 41 8 7 15 5 2 7 8 11 19 - - - 13.7Kahar 3 1 4 - - - - - - 3 1 4 - - - 4.0Barai 11 6 17 2 1 3 2 1 3 7 4 11 - - - 4.2Nai 47 38 85 8 5 13 11 9 20 27 21 48 1 3 4 5.7Vishwakarma 3 3 6 - 1 1 - - - 3 2 5 - - - 3.0Chaudhari 13 14 27 2 4 6 - 1 1 10 9 19 1 - 1 6.7Gaud 11 13 24 3 2 5 1 3 4 7 7 14 - 1 1 6.0Kewat 52 48 100 7 12 19 18 12 30 25 21 46 2 3 5 3.7Nishad 98 82 180 15 14 29 21 10 31 60 55 115 2 3 5 5.8Sahani 9 7 16 3 2 5 1 1 2 5 3 8 - 1 1 8.0Koyari 11 10 21 1 1 2 2 2 4 8 7 15 - - - 21.0Kurmi 27 18 45 3 1 4 7 3 10 17 14 31 - - - 5.6Pal 47 40 87 12 10 22 8 8 16 26 22 48 1 - 1 5.8Maurya 22 10 32 - 1 1 9 - 9 12 8 20 1 1 2 4.6Yadav 104 86 190 12 17 29 31 21 52 57 46 103 4 2 6 6.3Muslims 21 12 33 3 1 4 5 4 9 13 7 20 - - - 6.6Thakur 39 23 62 7 3 10 14 2 16 16 17 33 2 1 3 6.9Brahmins 13 10 23 1 - 1 3 4 7 7 4 11 2 2 4 7.6Chaurasiya 5 4 9 - - - 3 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 4.5Total 778 645 1423 128 121 249 191 135 326 433 360 793 26 29 55 6.0

Table – 5.2.2.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Shivpur

Graduation and

above Intermediate and high

school Below high school Illiterate Caste

M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T

Chamar 3 - 3 27 6 33 68 54 122 50 79 129Pasi - - - - - - 3 - 3 1 1 2Garariya - - - - - - 4 2 6 - - -Dhobi - - - 1 - 1 9 2 11 4 11 15Kahar - - - - - - - - - 3 1 4Barai - - - 3 - 3 3 1 4 3 4 7Nai 4 - 4 5 - 5 21 15 36 17 23 40Vishwakarma - - - 4 - 4 3 3 6 1 4 5Chaudhari - - - - - - - 1 1 11 9 20Gaud - - - 3 - 3 2 4 6 4 7 11Kewat - - - 4 - 4 18 12 30 23 36 59Nishad 1 - 1 4 5 9 38 18 56 25 39 64Sahani 2 - 2 3 - 3 1 1 2 - 1 1Koyari - - - 4 - 4 6 5 11 - 4 4Kurmi - - - 6 - 6 13 2 15 3 12 15Pal - - - - - - 21 11 32 15 19 34

282

Maurya 1 - 1 7 2 9 12 2 14 3 6 9Yadav 1 1 2 10 - 10 55 31 86 20 36 56Muslims - - - - - - 18 2 20 - 9 9Thakur 6 2 8 9 6 15 13 12 25 - 3 3Brahmins 4 1 5 1 1 2 8 4 12 - 3 3Chaurasiya - - - - - - 5 1 6 - 3 3Total 22 4 26 91 20 111 321 183 504 183 310 493Percentage 2.83 0.62 1.83 11.70 3.10 7.80 41.26 28.37 35.42 23.52 48.06 34.65

5.2.3 Land Ownership In Shivpur, the average size of landholding per family was 0.54 acres and per person

only 0.15 acres (See table 5.2.3.1). It is obvious that the variation in the size of holdings per

family was larger than the variations in the size of landholdings per adult person. The low size

of land holdings per adult person also indicates that the land available for cultivation was not

enough to engage all the adults in agriculture for full time work. The pressure of land has

therefore forced many others to search for jobs outside agriculture The fact that per person

land was around 1.04 acres in even the landholding group (5-10) acres, and that around 94

per cent households owned less than 2.5 acres of land, shows that in future, population

pressure on land would be tremendous in all size groups. The village is thus moving towards

a situation in which it will be dominated by landless and near landless households who

already constitute 73.42 per cent of total households in the village. The village has mixed

population. Chamars constitute the largest caste group followed by Nishads, Yadavas, Kewat,

Nai and Pals as other major castes in the village.

The overwhelming majority of Nishads, Kewats, Nai, and Pals households were

landless or near landless households, on the other hand landowners owning more than 2.5

acres of land belonged to Thakur and Yadava caste only (See table 5.2.3.2). Table – 5.2.3.1

Landholding Size : Per Family/Per Adult in the Village Shivpur

Landholding size

Total households Total adult pop. (>14 year) Total land

Average landholding (Per adult person)

Average landholding (Per

family)

Land-less 66 206 - - - Below 0.63 Acre 108 361 21.1 0.05 0.20 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 28 102 20.3 0.20 0.72 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 22 110 33.0 0.30 1.50 2.5 to 5.0 Acre 8 24 29.0 1.20 3.62 5.0 to 10.0 Acre 5 25 26.0 1.04 5.0 Above 10 Acre - - - - - Total 237 822 129.4 0.15 0.54

Table – 5.2.3.2 Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings Size in the Village Shivpur

Caste Land-less Below 0.63 Acre

0.63 to 1.0 Acre

1.0 to 2.5 Acre

2.5 to 5.0 Acre

5.0 to 10.0 Acre

Above 10 Acre

Total HHs.

Chamar 35 37 - - - - - 72Pasi 1 - - - - - - 1Garariya 1 - - - - - - 1Dhobi 1 1 - 1 - - - 3Kahar - - - 1 - - - 1Barai - 3 1 - - - - 4

283

Nai 3 7 4 1 - - - 15Vishwakarma - - - 2 - - - 2Chaudhari 1 3 - - - - - 4Gaud 3 - 1 - - - - 4Kewat 2 10 4 1 - - - 17Nishad 5 18 3 1 4 - - 31Sahani - 1 1 - - - - 2Koyari - - - 1 - - - 1Kurmi 2 - - 6 - - - 8Pal 2 13 - - - - - 15Maurya - - 6 1 - - - 7Yadav 1 13 8 5 2 1 - 30Muslims 3 2 - - - - - 5Thakur 4 - - - 1 4 - 9Brahmins 1 - - 1 1 - - 3Chaurasiya 1 - - 1 - - - 2Total 66 108 28 22 8 5 - 237Percentage 27.85 45.57 11.81 9.28 3.38 2.12 - 100.0


26 out of 237 households i.e. 11.0 per cent was cultivation, while that of 98 households i.e.

41.35 per cent it was wage work and 56 i.e. 23.63 per cent were engaged in service. Main

occupation of 57 households i.e. 24.0 per cent was other works.



has taken place mainly among cultivators. Out of 75 households whose main occupation was

cultivation in the past, now only 26 i.e. 34.67 per cent are continuing with it, 35 (i.e. 46.67 per

cent) are engaged in service and 14 (i.e. 18.67 per cent) are engaged in other work.

Interestingly among those 49 households who have shifted to other occupations, 40 still

continue to be engaged in as cultivation as their supplementary occupation. Similarly those

households who continue cultivation as their main occupation are also engaged in

supplementary occupations. Running a shop and other work was supplementary occupation

of many cultivators (See table 5.2.4.1).

There were 648 workers in the village out of which 399 were males and 249 were

females. If we take (14-60) years age group as working age group, then we find that

participation rate among males and females was 92.15 per cent and 69.17 per cent

respectively. The participation rate of all persons in the working age group in the village was

81.72 per cent. It could also be seen from the table 5.2.4.2 that out of 648 workers 33.49 per

cent were cultivators, 20.68 per cent were agricultural labourers, 19.44 per cent were non-

agricultural labour, 12.65 per cent were in service and 15.2 per cent were engaged in other

work.

Table – 5.2.4.1

Present and Past Occupation of Households in the Village Shivpur

Past occupation Present main occupation Supplementary occupation

Occupation Total HHs.

Cultivator

Wage Service Other works

Cultivator

Wage Shop Other work

Cultivator 75 26 - 35 14 40 9 10 5

284

Wage 107 - 98 9 - 30 9 5 5 Mining labour 2 - - 2 - 2 - - - Other work 53 - - 10 43 14 28 7 6 Total 237 26 98 56 57 86 46 22 16

285

Table – 5.2.4.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village Shivpur

Cultivator Agricultural

Labour Other Labour Services Other Workers Caste

M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T M F

T

Chamar - - - 34 7 41 24 6 30 14 - 14 19 - 19Pasi - - - - - - 1 1 2 - - - - - -Garariya - - - 1 1 2 3 1 4 - - - - - -Dhobi - - - - - - - - - 3 - 3 5 11 16Kahar 2 1 3 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1Barai 2 3 5 1 1 2 - - - 2 - 2 2 - 2Nai 6 24 30 - - - - - - 13 - 13 9 - 9Vishwakarma 5 6 1 - - - - - - 2 - 2 - - -Chaudhari - - - - - - 10 9 19 - - - - - -Gaud - - - - - - 4 7 11 - - - 3 - 3Kewat 6 6 12 4 7 11 7 8 15 4 - 4 4 - 4Nishad 18 20 38 12 22 34 - - - 5 - 5 15 - 15Sahani 2 3 5 - - - - - - 1 - 1 2 - 2Koyari 8 7 15 - - - - - - - - - - - -Kurmi 9 10 19 - - - 2 4 6 6 - 6 - - -Pal 1 1 2 13 11 24 12 11 23 1 - 1 3 - 3Maurya 5 8 13 - - - - - - 3 - 3 4 - 4Yadav 21 32 53 8 12 20 - - - 17 - 17 3 - 3Muslims - - - - - - 9 7 16 - - - 4 - 4Thakur 6 - 6 - - - - - - 9 - 9 2 - 2Brahmins 2 - 2 - - - - - - 2 - 2 2 - 2Chaurasiya 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - -Total 94 123 217 73 61 134 72 54 126 82 - 82 78 11 89Percentage 23.56 49.40 33.49 18.30 24.50 20.68 18.05 21.69 19.44 20.55 - 12.65 19.55 4.42 13.73

5.2.5 Livestock Even the animal population per households was not very large in the village (See

table 5.2.5). It could be seen from the table that cows and buffaloes were the main animals in

the village. If we work out the average number of cattles (that is cows and buffaloes taken

together) in different landholding groups then we find that it was as follows: landless – 0.5 per

household, below 0.63 acre – 0.96 per household, (0.63 - 1.0) acre – 1.11 per household, (1 -

2.5) acre – 0.95 per household, (2.5 - 5 acre) – 1.5 per household and (5 - 10) acres – 0.8 per

household. Average cattle owned was thus found to be 0.86 per households in the village.

Table – 5.2.5 Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Households in the Village

Shivpur

Landholding size Total HHs. Cow Buffalo Calf Other Total Land-less 66 23 10 28 14 75 Below 0.63 Acre 108 40 64 98 40 242 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 28 2 29 30 9 70 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 22 2 19 18 11 50 2.5 to 5.0 Acre 8 2 10 15 3 30 5.0 to 10.0 Acre 5 3 1 6 - 10

286

Above 10 Acre - - - - - - Total 237 72 133 195 77 477

5.2.6 Housing Condition There were 324 built houses owned by 237 households i.e. 87 households owned

more than one house. These are generally those households who own a pucca house along

with a kutcha /semi pucca houses. There is a tendency to shift to a pucca house whenever

possible and then kutcha or semi pucca house are put to other uses or as storage. Out of 324

houses in the village 142 i.e. 43.83 per cent were kutcha houses, 142 i.e. 43.83 per cent were

pucca houses, and 40 i.e. 12.35 per cent were semi pucca houses (See table 5.4.6).

Table – 5.2.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Shivpur

Housing Conditions Caste

Katchha Pakka SemiPakka

Total Total HH.

Chamar 51 26 2 79 72 Pasi - - 1 1 1 Garariya - 1 - 1 1 Dhobi - 3 - 3 3 Kahar - 1 - 1 1 Barai 3 4 1 8 4 Nai 10 6 5 21 15 Vishwakarma 1 2 1 4 2 Chaudhari 3 3 2 8 4 Gaud 2 4 2 8 4 Kewat 8 5 4 17 17 Nishad 20 12 6 38 31 Sahani - 2 - 2 2 Koyari - 1 1 2 1 Kurmi 4 7 - 11 8 Pal 10 14 - 24 15 Maurya 5 7 2 14 7 Yadav 16 26 6 48 30 Muslims - 5 - 5 5 Thakur 8 9 5 22 9 Brahmins 1 2 2 5 3 Chaurasiya - 2 - 2 2 Total 142 142 40 324 237

287

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Shivpur Village

Twenty households in the village Shivpur were selected to elicit information about

land use behaviour at household level. We selected only those households who owned some

land.

5.2.7 Change in Size of Land Holding The distribution of households on the basis of landholdings showed that 3 (i.e. 15 per

cent) owned less than 1 acre of land and 10 (i.e. 50 per cent) owned between 1 to 2.5 acres

of land. Thus 65 per cent farmers were marginal farmer, 10 per cent farmers were small

farmers and 25 per cent belonged to medium size group (See table 5.2.7.1).

In Shivpur, out of 20 households 18 reported that the size of landholdings changed

during the last 20 years.



cause, while in case of 4 (i.e. 20 per cent) households changes took place due to purchase of

land . Two households (i.e. 10 per cent) sold land while changes in 2 households took place

due to acquisition by government department (See table 5.2.7.2).

Table – 5.2.7.1 Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages Shivpur

Caste Below

0.63 Acre 0.63 to

1.0 Acre 1.0 to 2.5

Acre 2.5 to 5.0

Acre 5.0 to

10.0 Acre Above 10

Acre Total

Chamar - - 1 - - - 1 Pasi - - 1 - - - 1 Gaur - 1 - - - - 1 Patel - 1 2 - - - 3 Yadav - - 1 - - - 1 Pal - 1 - - - - 1 Kushwahawa/Maurya

- - 2 - - - 2

Nai - - 1 - - - 1 Chaurasiya - - 1 - - - 1 Thakur - - - 1 4 1 6 Brahmin - - 1 1 - - 2 Total - 3 10 2 4 1 20 Percentage - 15.0 50.0 10.0 20.0 5.0 100.0


Households

Reason Number

Percent

Division of family 9 45.0 Acquisition by govt. department 2 10.0 Purchased 4 20.0 Due to consolidation of holdings 1 5.0

288

Sold 2 10.0 Not applicable 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

In Shivpur village, 4 (i.e. 20 per cent) households reported that their landholding

increased during the last 20 years. The average change per reporting household was found to

be 0.55 acres. That shows the purchase of land was of a very small scale (See table 5.2.7.3).

The number of households who reported decrease in their landholdings was 14 (i.e.

70 per cent) of total sampled households, and the average change per reporting households

was 6.38 acres (See table 5.2.7.4).

In Shivpur land of two selected households was acquired. The land was acquired by

irrigation department for construction of canals. It was agricultural land, and the size of land

acquired was 0.63 acres. Farmers had received compensation for land (See table 5.2.7.5).

Table – 5.2.7.3 Number of Households Whose Landholding Increased

Number of HHs.





4 14.3 12.1 2.2 0.55


Number of

HHs. Land owned at





14 69.39 158.83 89.44 6.38

Table – 5.2.7.5 Number of Households Whose Land was Acquired

Number of HHs.


Land acquired (in acre)

Types of land Acquired by the Dept.

Purpose Compensa-tion

2 2.52 0.63 Ag. Land Irrigation Canal Received

289


In Shivpur 5 out of 20 respondents (i.e. 25 per cent) reported that they had converted

some part of their agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. All the five of them reported

that it was due to division in family and consequent need of more land for non-agricultural

purposes. And two households amongst them reported that the conversion of agricultural land

for non-agricultural purposes was done because it was acquired for canal (See table 5.2.8.1).


non-agricultural purposes in the village were (See table 5.2.8.2)–


(ii) Acquision of land for canal;


part of agricultural land owned by them. In village Shivpur, 5 respondents replied in

affirmative, and the reasons for it was stated as follows: litigation, low productivity and

engaged in other occupations (See table 5.2.8.3).

Table 5.2.8.1 Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of Owned Land by

Selected Households

Reason Number Percent Division of family for construction of houses 5 25.0 Acquisition for canal 2 10.0 Not applicable 15 75.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.2.8.2

Other Reasons of Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purpose in the Village (As Suggested by Respondents)


Division of family for construction of houses 20 100.0 Acquisition for canal 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table 5.2.8.3

Distribution of Respondents on the Basis of Responses to Query "Reasons for not cultivating



Litigation 2 10.0

Low productivity 3 15.0 Engaged in other occupations 2 10.0 Not applicable 15 75.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

290



villagers' perception about the possible uses of barren land. Sixteen of 20 respondents replied

to our query that barren land could be put to which uses. The suggestions were: Barren land

could be used for ((i) construction of houses; (ii) construction of new ponds and tanks for

fisheries (iii) to develop small industries/commercial place and (iv) for plantation (See table

5.2.9.1).


reclaim usar land (See table 5.2.9.2). However, they did not avail the facility as the

programmes not implemented in the village.

Table – 5.2.9.1


Reason Number Percent Construction of House 5 25.0 Construction of New Ponds/ Fisheries 2 10.0 Develop Small Industry/ Commercial Place 2 10.0 Plantation 2 10.0 No uses 6 30.0 No response 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.2.9.2

Distribution of Responses to the question "Are you aware of the Government Programmes to recalm Usar Land"


Yes 13 65.0 No 1 5.0 Don't know 6 30.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

291



water logging and the other is water conservation. The problem of water logging either due to

floods or seepage was a serious problem in some parts of village Shivpur. When asked, what

measures could be adopted to avoid water logging due to rain water 4 respondents wanted

cleansing of nullah while only one respondent suggested that there was need to construct

new nullah (See table 5.2.10.1).

Water harvesting is a serious challenge at the village level. As regards water

conservation, when farmers were asked, what could be done to conserve rain water in the

village, 11 (i.e. 55 per cent) suggested that new ponds should be constructed. Thus ponds

are considered by most of the farmers as most suitable way to conserve rain water (See table

5.2.10.2).

Farmers were also questioned about the potential use if more water could be

conserved in the village. Farmer suggested that if more water could be conserved in the

village, then it could be used for irrigation and for animals (See table 5.2.10.3.


partially disappeared. No such case was reported by respondents as there was no pond in

the village.



Reasons Number Percent Construction of new nullah 1 5.0 No problem 7 35.0 Cleaning of nullah 4 20.0 Not applicable 12 60.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.2.10.2 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What could be done to Conserve rain water in

the village"

Reason Number Percent Construct new Ponds 11 25.0 Not Needed 9 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.2.10.3 Distribution of Responses to Query "If more water could be conserved in the village

then, it could be put to what uses?

Responses Number Percent Irrigation 11 55.0 For animal 9 45.0

292

Not uses 3 15.0 No response 3 15.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

293

5.2.11 Orchards

Farmers were also asked whether the area under orchards had increased or

decreased. Twelve (i.e. 60 per cent) farmers suggested that it has decreased, while only 40

per cent reported increase in area under orchards (See table 5.2.11.1).

The main reason for decrease of orchards according to farmers were increase in

felling of trees and need for agricultural land and long gestation period of orchards (See table 5.2.11.2).


orchards was mentioned by two farmers only. Both suggested that plantation was being done

by forest department while three amongst them also attributed it to tendency for commercial

groves (See table 5.2.11.3).




Table – 5.2.11.2 Distribution of Perception of Respondent about Reason of Decrease of Orchard

Reasons Number

Tree felling increased 3 New orchards not coming 2 Long gestation 4 Need for Agricultural Land 8 No response 2 Not applicable 8 Total Respondents 20


Reason Number

Plantation by forest department 8 Tendency for commercial groves 3 Not applicable 12 Total Respondents 20

294

When asked as to why the potential of growth of orchards was low in the village, 11

(i.e. 55 per cent) farmers suggested that it was so because more land was needed for

agriculture, two suggested that it was difficult to protect from animals while two others

attributed it to water logging (See table 5.2.11.4).

The scope for developing new orchards in the village seemed to be very limited as

most farmers felt that new orchards could be developed on agricultural land (See table 5.2.11.5).


various suggestions were made, which included high yielding variety plants be given for the

purpose increase in irrigation facility, gram sabha land be made available for the purpose,

etc. (See table 5.2.11.6).



More land needed for agriculture 11 55.0 Long gestation period 1 5.0 Water logging/seepage 2 10.0 Difficulty to protect from animals 2 10.0 Fruit tree are not being planted 2 10.0 Not applicable 8 40.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0


be increased

Type of Land Number Percent Agricultural land 15 75.0 Road side and around hamlet 3 15.0 G.S. Land 2 10.0 No response 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Reason Number Percent Irrigation 1 5.0 G.S. land be made available for the purpose 1 5.0 H.Y.V. plants be given 5 25.0 Awareness campaign 1 5.0 Protection of tree 2 10.0 Not applicable 10 50.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

295

5.2.12 Livestock

In Shivpur, 8 out of 20 selected respondents reported that size of their livestock has

decreased, while only 1 reported increase in the livestock.


of fodder and grazing land, there was no one in the family to look after livestock and also

because of increasing use of tractors (See table 5.2.12.1).

Among the respondents who reported increase in number of cattles. four suggested

that the number of cattle was increased to increase family income while 5 attributed it to

family requirement (See table 5.2.12.2).


reported that number of only two types namely bovine and bullocks had decreased (See table 5.2.12.3).



The main constraints in increasing livestock were: lack of manpower to manage,

economic constraint and scarcity of fodder/grazing land (See table 5.2.12.5).



Scarcity of fodder/Grazing land 2 10.0 No one to look after them 5 25.0 Death 1 5.0 Now use tractors 8 40.0 Scarcity of money 2 10.0 Not applicable 12 60.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.2.12.2 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for increase in livestock"

Reason Number Increase income 4 Family requirement 5 No response 3 Not applicable 8 Total Respondents 20



Type of Cattles Number Bovine 10 Bullock 10 Goat 2 Not applicable 1 Total Respondents 20

Table – 5.2.12.4 Distribution of Responses to query "What type of livestock will improve

your economic condition"

Types of Cattle Number Bovine 19 Goat 1 Total Respondents 20



Reason Number Economic constraint 8 Lack of manpower to manage 7 Scarcity of fodder/grazing land 3 Scarcity of animal's doctors 1 No response 1 Total Respondents 20

296

5.2.13 Agriculture

The main crops grown in the village Shivpur were wheat and paddy groundnuts and

peas. The average productivity of wheat and paddy was 11.3 Qt./acre and 13.7 Qt./acre

respectively (See table 5.2.13.1). It could also be seen from the table that fertilizer was used

only in production of wheat, paddy, potato and groundnuts.


than other farms. The main reasons for lower productivity were reported as scarcity of

resources, economic constrains, and lower use of fertilizer, pesticide, compost etc. (See table

5.2.13.2).


land. The constraints suggested included, low irrigation, erratic power supply, scarcity of

manpower and economic constraint, low productivity of land (See table 5.2.13.3).

Table – 5.2.13.1

Cropping Pattern of Selected Household, Average Production and Use of Fertilizer

Crops Net sown area (in acre)

Production (in Qt./Acre)

Compost (per acre)

DAP (in kg./acre)

Urea (in kg./acre)

Potas (in kg./acre)


Wheat 50.9 11.3 2 Trolley 37.7 40.7 - - Paddy 17.2 13.7 - 38.6 36.6 - 285 Potato 4.3 74.0 2 Trolley 222.0 99.3 50.0 250 Peas 6.7 9.0 - 22.0 - - - Mustard 0.6 2.0 - - - - - Groundnut 19.2 7.0 - 150.0 50.0 50.0 - Maize 3.7 10.0 - - 20.0 - -


from other farms"

Reason Number Percent Low use of fertilizer/pesticide/compost etc. 3 15.0 Low irrigation 1 5.0 Scarcity of resources 16 80.0 Economic constraint 13 65.0 Not applicable 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Constraints Number Percent Low irrigation 8 40.0 Economic constraint 4 20.0 Low productivity of land 2 10.0 Scarcity of electricity for irrigation 6 30.0 Not applicable 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

298

The various suggestions made by farmers to remove these constraints included,

power supply be increased, economic assistance should be provided, soil testing should be

done, and irrigation facility be increased (See table 5.2.13.4).

Tenancy: Four out of twenty farmers leased out land. The main reason for leasing

out land was non-availability of workers. The other reasons was small size of holding and long

distance of farm land (See table 5.2.13.5). Only three selected farmers reported that they

leased in land. The reason was that they wanted to augment income while one based in land

because his landholding was small (See table 5.2.13.6).


removed"

Measures Number Percent Economic/Credit assistance 5 25.0 Soil testing 3 15.0 Land reclamation 1 5.0 More electricity for irrigation 7 35.0 Not applicable 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.2.13.5 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing out the land"


Non-availability of workers 3 15.0 Small size of land/long distance 2 10.0 Not applicable 16 80.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table 5.2.13.6 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing in by tenants"


Augment income 2 10.0 Small size of land holdings 1 5.0 Not applicable 17 85.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

299

(C) Land Use Plan for Shivpur Village (i) Since the village is adjacent to the forest villagers are motivated to plant trees. But

they are not permitted to cut or sell the tree even after it is fully grown. They do it,

illegally by bribing functionaries. Tree growing could improve if some arrangement

could be made to derive economic advantage out of trees.

(ii) Forest department could help villagers in energy forestry.

More water could be conserved in the village by constructing new ponds. This will

also help in managing the problem of waterlogging. This will also help in developing some

grazing land around ponds.


village:












300

Village Study – III

Village – Titanpar (Block – Sahajanava) (A) Village Profile Titanpar village is a revenue village of Sahajanwa block and located at a distance of

10 kilometers from block headquarter. The land of the village is quite fertile. This village is a

flood affected village and outer places of the village has undulating and slopy landscape. As a

result of this when flood water enters this area, they remain there for quite long, as there is no

drainage system. There is also a big pond (lake) near village. This pond also overflows during

rainy season and inundates nearby fields.

5.3.1 Land Use Pattern Village Titanpar is a small village with only 98.274 hectares of total reporting area. In

village Titanpar land use pattern shows that it continues to be predominantly agricultural as

60.91 per cent of total reporting area was under cultivation and about 99 per cent of it was

irrigated. Besides net sown area, some area was reported, under water bodies and some

fallow land was also reported, which could become an important aspect of land use planning

of the village. The village has also sizable area under undulating and high slope land (See

table 5.3.1). Table – 5.3.1

Land Use Pattern in the Titanpar Village of the Gorakhpur District

Land Use Categories In hectare In percent Total reporting area 98.274 100.0 Water bodies 0.907 0.92 Habitation 1.737 1.77 Other uses 1.048 1.07 Kabristan/Khanihan 0.202 0.20 Orchards NA NA Other trees and plantations NA NA Current Fallow NA NA Net sown area 59.862 60.91

(a) Irrigated 59.229 98.94 (b) Un-irrigated 0.633 1.06 Source: Revenue department.

301


group i.e. in the age group (14-60) years comprised about 56.23 per cent of total population.

That is less than 50 per cent persons constituted dependents in the family. The village also

shows adverse sex ratio. This is evident from the fact that the number of female population

per thousand male population was only 778.39 (See table 5.3.2.1).


number of illiterates was much higher among females than among males. On the other hand

in each category of education group, the number of males was much higher than females.

Table – 5.3.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Titanpar

Particulars Gender Harijan

Pasi Kahar

Dhobi Patel Gupta Yadav Thakur Brahmin

Total

Male 80 14 23 14 76 26 81 44 3 361Female 74 14 15 13 41 26 52 44 2 281

Total population

Total 154 28 38 27 117 52 133 88 5 642Male 16 1 6 4 4 2 15 8 - 56Female 16 3 5 3 5 5 8 5 - 50

Below 5 year population

Total 32 4 11 7 9 7 23 13 - 106Male 19 3 6 2 33 7 15 8 3 96Female 26 4 3 2 12 6 2 13 1 69


Total 45 7 9 4 45 13 17 21 4 165Male 42 10 11 8 38 15 51 27 - 202Female 31 7 7 8 24 13 42 26 1 159


Total 73 17 18 16 62 28 93 53 1 361Male 3 - - - 1 2 - 1 - 7Female 1 - - - - 2 - - - 3


Total 4 - - - 1 4 - 1 - 10Family size 6.4 5.6 7.6 9.0 5.3 5.2 7.0 6.7 5.0 6.33

Table – 5.3.2.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Titanpar


Pasi Kahar


Total %age

Male 3 1 - 1 5 - - 7 - 17 4.71Female - - - - 2 - - 3 - 5 1.78

Graduation and above

Total 3 1 - 1 7 - - 10 - 22 3.43Male 2 1 3 - 8 7 23 8 - 52 14.40Female 1 - - - - - - 3 - 4 1.42

Intermediate and high school

Total 3 1 3 - 8 7 23 11 - 56 8.72Below high

h lMale 36 6 4 5 49 11 39 18 3 171 47.37

302

Female 25 4 5 5 13 13 8 18 1 92 32.74school

Total 611 10 9 10 62 24 47 36 4 263 40.97Male 23 5 10 4 9 8 4 3 - 66 18.28Female 34 7 5 5 21 10 36 15 1 143 50.89

Illiterate

Total 57 12 15 9 30 18 40 18 1 209 32.55

5.3.3 Land Ownership In Titanpar, the average size of landholding per family was 1.0 acres and per adult

person only 0.27 acres (See table 5.3.3.1). It is obvious that the variation in the size of

holdings per family was larger than the variations in the size of landholdings per adult




fact that per adult person land was around 0.54 acres in the landholding group (2.5-5.0) acres

shows that in future population pressure on land would be tremendous in all size groups. The

village is thus moving towords a situation in which it will be dominated by landless and near

landless households and marginal farmers who already constitute around 90.20 per cent of

total households in the village. Village Titanpar had a mixed population from the point of view

of distribution of castes in the village population. Harijans (Chamars, a schedule caste) was

the predominant caste in the village as 24out of 252 i.e. around 102 per cent households

belonged to this caste (See table 5.3.3.2). Other castes with some sizable households

included Patels, Yadava and Thakurs.


the Village Titanpar

Landholding size Total households

Total adult pop. (>14 year)

Total land Average landholding (Per

adult person)

Average landholding (Per family)

Land-less 7 20 - - - Below 0.63 Acre 33 91 6.7 0.07 0.20 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 24 80 18.8 0.23 0.78 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 28 132 42.7 0.32 1.52 2.5 to 5.0 Acre 4 20 10.8 0.54 2.70 2.05 to 10.0 Acre 4 16 27.6 1.72 6.90 Above 10.0 Acre 2 12 25.8 2.15 12.90 Total 102 371 132.4 0.35 1.30

Table – 5.3.3.2

Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in the Village Titanpar

Landholding size

Harijan

Pasi Kahar

Dhobi Patel Gupta Yadav Thakur Brahmin Total HHs.

%age

Land-less 4 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 7 6.86

303

Below 0.63 Acre 11 1 - 3 4 10 1 3 - 33 32.350.63 to 1.0 Acre 7 2 3 - 8 - 3 - 1 24 23.531.0 to 2.5 Acre 2 1 2 - 6 - 10 7 - 28 27.452.5 to 5.0 Acre - - - - 3 - 1 3 - 4 3.925.0 to 10.0 Acre - - - - 2 - 2 - - 4 3.92Above 10 Acre - - - - 1 - 1 - - 2 1.96Total 24 5 5 3 22 10 19 13 1 102 100.00

304


46 out of 102 households i.e. 45.1 per cent was cultivation, while that of 26 households i.e.

around 25.5 per cent households it was wage work.



has taken place mainly among cultivators and wage labour. Out of 62 households whose

main occupation was cultivation in the past, now 40 i.e. 64.5 per cent are continuing with it 18

(i.e. 29.0 per cent) are engaged in service and 4 (i.e. 6.45 per cent) are engaged in wage

work. Interestingly out of 22 households who have shifted to other occupations, 18 continue

to be engaged in cultivation as their supplementary occupation (See table 5.3.4.1).

Occupation wise distribution of workers in the village showed that out of 321 workers

32.4 per cent were cultivators 17.45 per cent were agricultural labour, 30.84 per cent were

other labourers, 10.59 per cent were in service and 8.72 per cent were engaged in other

work. Gender wise distribution of occupation of workers showed that proportion of male and

female workers among cultivators was 31 per cent and 35 per cent respectively. The

proportion of males was higher in the category of service class. But proportion of females was

higher among the categories of cultivators agricultural, and other labourers (See table

5.3.4.2).

Table – 5.3.4.1 Present and Past Occupations of Households in the Village Titanpar

Past occupation Present main occupation Supplementary occupation

Occupation Total HHs

Cultivator

Wage Service

Other works

Cultivator

Wage Shop Other Works

Cultivator 62 40 4 18 - 18 21 4 2 Wage 29 6 20 3 - 3 6 4 1 Service 3 - - 3 - 3 - - - Other Works 8 - 2 1 5 1 - 1 1 Total 102 46 26 25 5 25 27 9 4

305

Table – 5.3.4.2

Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village Titanpar


Pasi Kahar


Total %age

Male 4 - 4 - 3 9 24 14 - 58 30.85Female 4 - 3 - 2 9 28 - - 46 34.29

Cultivator

Total 8 - 7 - 5 18 52 14 - 104 32.40Male - - - - 16 - 10 - - 26 13.83Female - - - - 16 - 14 - - 30 22.56

Agricultural Labour

Total - - - - 32 - 24 - - 56 17.45Male 22 10 4 - 10 6 - - - 52 27.66Female 26 7 4 - 6 4 - - - 47 35.34

Other Labour

Total 48 17 8 - 16 10 - - - 99 30.84Male 3 - 3 - 10 1 10 6 - 33 17.55Female 1 - - - - - - - - 1 0.75

Service

Total 4 - 3 - 10 1 10 6 - 34 10.59Male 3 - 1 8 - - 7 - - 19 10.11Female - - - 8 - - - - 1 9 6.77

Others

Total 3 - 1 16 - - 7 - 1 28 8.72

306

5.3.5 Livestock The animal population per household was not very large in the village (See table

5.3.5). This was so because landless and near landless households owned less animals than

those who owned more than 1 acre of land. It could be seen from the table that cows and

buffaloes were the main animals in the village. If we work out the average number of cattles

(that is cows and buffaloes taken together) in different landholding groups then we find that it

was as follows: landless - 1.0 per household, below 0.63 acre – 0.61 per household, (0.63-

1.0) acre – 0.67 per household, (1– 2.5) acres – 1.25 per household, (2.5–5) acres – 2.75 per

household, (5–10) acres – 1.0 per household and in the above 10 acres – 0.5. Average cattle

owned was thus found to be 0.92 per household in the village.

Table – 5.3.5

Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Size Groups Households in the Village Titanpar

Landholding size Total HHs. Cow Buffalo Calf Other Total

Land-less 7 - 7 5 - 12 Below 0.63 Acre 33 7 13 22 24 66 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 24 5 11 13 4 33 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 28 7 28 31 6 72 2.5 to 5.0 Acre 4 2 9 9 3 23 5.0 to 10 Acre 4 - 4 3 - 7 Above 10.0 Acre 2 - 1 1 - 2 Total 102 21 73 84 37 215


amore than one house. These are generally those households who own a pucca house along


possible and then kutcha or semi pucca house is put to other uses or as storage. Out of 142



Table – 5.3.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Titanpar

Housing condition

Harijan

Pasi Kahar

Dhobi Patel Gupta Yadav Thakur Brahmin Total

Katcha 7 2 2 3 12 4 10 12 - 52Pakka 17 3 3 - 14 10 14 13 - 74Semi Pakka - - - - - - 5 10 1 16Total 24 5 5 3 26 14 29 35 1 142Total HHs. 24 5 5 3 22 10 19 13 1 102

307

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Village Titanpar

Twenty households in the village Titanpar were selected to elicit information about


land.

5.3.7 Change in Size of Land Holding Among the selected households 7 (i.e. 35.0 per cent) belonged to Yadava caste and

5.0 to Kurmis (Patels). The distribution of households on the basis of landholdings showed

that 2 (i.e. 10 per cent) owned less than 1 acre of land, 9 (i.e. 45 per cent) owned between 1

to 2.5 acres of land and 3 owned between 2.5 to 5 acres of land. Thus 55 per cent farmers

were marginal farmer and 30 per cent farmers owned more than 5.0 acres of land (See table

5.2.7.1).

In Titanpar, 16 out of 20 households reported that the size of landholdings changed




cause, while in case of 7 households changes took place due to sale of land (See table

5.3.7.2). Table – 5.3.7.1

Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages Titanpar

Caste Below 0.63 Acre

0.63 to 1.0 Acre

1.0 to 2.5 Acre

2.5 to 5.0 Acre

5.0 to 10.0 Acre

Above 10 Acre

Total

Chamar - 1 1 - - - 2 Pasi - 1 1 1 - - 3 Patel - - 2 - 2 1 5 Yadav - - 3 1 2 1 7 Brahmin - - - 1 - - 1 Thakur - - 2 - - - 2 Total - 2 9 3 4 2 20 Percentage - 10.0 45.0 15.0 20.0 10.0 100.00


Households

Reason Number

Percent

Division of family 6 30.0 Consolidation 1 5.0 Purchased 7 35.0 Sold 2 10.0 Not applicable 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

309

In Titanpar village, 7 (i.e. 35 per cent) households reported that their landholding


be 0.61 acres. The land owned by them increased from 20.17 acres to 24.4 acres. It that

shows the purchase of land was not quite significant (See table 5.3.7.3).

The number of households who reported decrease in their landholdings was 9 (i.e. 45

per cent) of total sampled households, and the average change per reporting households was

6.3 acres which wasa significant change (See table 5.3.7.4).

In Titanpar land of one selected household was acquired. The land was acquired by

government. It was unirrigated land, and the size of land acquired was 3.55 acres (See table 5.3.7.5).

Table – 5.3.7.3


Number of HHs.





7 24.40 20.17 4.23 0.61


Number of

HHs. Land owned at





9 30.53 87.26 56.73 6.30


Number of HHs.




Purpose Compensation

1 3.0 3.55 Unirrigated Govt. Pasture -

310


In Titanpar 7 out of 20 respondents (i.e. 35 per cent) reported that they had

converted some of their agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. All the 7 of them

reported that it was due to division in family and consequent need of more land for non-

agricultural purposes. Only one household amongst them suggested that the conversion of

agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes was done to establish industry and two other

households suggested that conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes took

place due to development of village (See table 5.3.8.1).


non-agricultural purposes in the village was –


(ii) For animal husbandry (See table 5.3.8.2).


part of agricultural land owned by them. In village Titanpar, five respondents replied in

affirmative, and the reason for 4 respondents was that, there was water logging/seepage in

agricultural land while one respondent discontinued cultivation because his land was near

usar land (See table 5.3.8.3). Table 5.3.8.1

Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of Owned Land by Selected Households


Division of family for construction of houses 7 35.0 Development of village 2 10.0 House for animal husbandry 1 5.0 Not applicable 13 65.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Reason Number Percent Division of family for construction of houses 18 90.0 Canal/Road 1 5.0 Animal husbandry 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0




Water logging/seepage 4 20.0 Low quality/Usar land 1 5.0

311

Not applicable 15 75.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0





Barren land could be used for (a) construction of new houses and (b) for plantation and (c) for

establishing industry (See table 5.3.9.1).

Nine out of 20 respondents were aware about the government programmes to

reclaim usar land (See table 5.3.9.2). However no such programme was being implemented

in the village

Table – 5.3.9.1


Reason Number Percent Construction Houses 1 5.0 Plantation 2 10.0 Increase Industry 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.3.9.2

Distribution of Responses to the question "Are you aware of the Government Programmes to recalm Usar Land"


Yes 9 45.0 No 11 55.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

312


Water harvesting is a serious challenge at the village level. It has two aspects – one

is water logging and the other is water conservation. The problem of water logging either due

to floods or other reasons was reported by 16 farmers of village Titanpar. When asked, what

measures could be adopted to avoid water logging due to rain water, 14 out of 20 (i.e. 70 per

cent) respondents suggested that there was need to construct new nullah while 12 also

suggested for cleaning up of old nullah (See table 5.3.10.1).


conserve rain water in the village, 4 (i.e. 20 per cent) suggested that old ponds be renovated,

while 3 farmers (i.e. 15 per cent) suggested that new ponds should be constructed. Thus

ponds are considered by most of the farmers as most suitable way to conserve rain water

(See table 5.3.10.2).

Farmers were also asked as to what would be the potential use of water, if more

water could be conserved in the village. Farmers suggested that it could be used for irrigation,

for animals and for bathing/washing clothes etc. (See table 5.3.10.3).



Reasons Number Percent Construction of New puliya 1 5.0 Drainage system link to pond 2 10.0 Cleaning of nullah 12 60.0 Construction of new nullah 14 70.0 Not applicable 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.3.10.2 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What could be done to Conserve rain water in

the village"

Reason Number Percent Renovation of old Ponds 4 20.0 Construct new Ponds 3 15.0 Not Needed 13 65.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.3.10.3



Irrigation 4 20.0 For animal 3 15.0 Fisheries 2 10.0 Bathing/Washing 3 15.0 No use 13 65.0

313

Total Respondents 20 100.0 We also enquired about the present status/use of those ponds, which have totally or

partially disappeared. It was reported by respondents that such land had been encroached

upon, and/or is being used for cultivation and/or houses have also been constructed on such

land (See table 5.3.10.4).


said that desiltation and removal of encroachments were necessary for renovation of ponds

(See table 5.3.10.5).

We also enquired from farmers as to what benefits would accrue if ponds could be

revived. Villagers expected various benefits if disappeared ponds could be renovated/revived.

The water thus available then could be used for irrigation, for cattle and also for domestic use

(See table 5.3.10.6).

The present use of ponds showed an encouraging sign. As it was used for irrigation

for cattle, and for domestic use (See table 5.3.10.7). Table – 5.3.10.4

Distribution of Responses to the Query "What is the present use of land of those ponds, which have totally or partially disappeared"


Encroachment 10 50.0 Cultivation 1 5.0 House constructed 2 10.0 No response 2 10.0 Not applicable 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.3.10.5 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What efforts could be made for revival of

ponds"

Reason Number Percent Renovation/Cleaning of pond 17 65.0 Raise bunding 1 5.0 Stop the encroachment 7 35.0 Not applicable 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0


villagers"

Reason Number PercentIrrigation 10 50.0 For Cattle use 11 55.0 Domestic use 1 5.0 No response 3 15.0 Total respondents 20 100.0

Table 5.3.10.7 Distribution of Responses to query

"What is the Present Use of Existing Ponds"


Irrigation 11 55.0 For cattle use 12 60.0 Fisheries 1 5.0 Domestic use 5 25.0 No response 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

314

5.3.11 Orchards


decreased. Ninteen (i.e. 95 per cent) farmers suggested that it has decreased, while only one

i.e. 5 per cent reported increase in area under orchards (See table 5.3.11.1).

The main reason for decrease of orchards according to farmers were need for

agricultural land and increase in felling of trees (See table 5.3.11.2).


orchards was mentioned by one farmer only. He attributed it to tendency for commercial

groves (See table 5.3.11.3).





Reasons Number

Old tree felling increased 6 Low irrigation 1 New orchards not coming 2 Need for agricultural land 15 Not applicable 1 Total Respondents 20


Reason Number

Tendency for commercial groves 1 Not applicable 19 Total Respondents 20

315

When asked that why the potential of growth of orchards was low in the village, 17

(i.e. 85 per cent) farmers suggested that it was so due to scarcity of land while 5 also said that

more land was needed for agricultural purposes (See table 5.3.11.4).


most of reporting farmers felt that new orchards could be developed on agricultural land while

some suggested that barren land or road side land could be used for the purpose (See table 5.3.11.5).


15 per cent farmers suggested that high yielding variety plants be given for the purpose while

protection of trees was considered as an important factor by 20 per cent farmers (See table

5.3.11.6).



More land needed for agriculture 5 30.0 Scarcity of land 17 85.0 Low irrigation 1 5.0 Tendency declined 1 5.0 No response 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0


be increased

Type of Land Number Percent Agricultural land 7 35.0 Barren land 2 5.0 Road side and around hamlet 3 15.0 All type land 3 15.0 No response 3 15.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Reason Number Percent H.Y.V. plants be given 3 15.0 Protection of tree 4 20.0 Economic assistance 2 10.0 G. S. Land be made available for the purpose 3 15.0 Awareness campaign 5 25.0 No response 6 30.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

316

5.3.12 Livestock

In Titanpar, 13 out of 20 selected respondents reported that size of their livestock has

decreased, while 7 reported increase in the livestock.


of fodder and grazing, there was no one in the family to look after livestock and the majority of

them said that is was so because of increasing use of tractors (See table 5.3.12.1).

Out of the seven respondents who reported increase in number of cattles, five said

that it was done to meet family needs (See table 5.3.12.2).


reported that number of mainly two types namely bovine and bullocks had decreased (See

table 5.3.12.3).



The main constraints in increasing livestock were: scarcity of manpower to look after

livestock, scarcity of fodder/grazing land, lack of manpower and economic constraint (See

table 5.3.12.5).


Reason Number

Low income 1 Scarcity of fodder/Grazing land 2 Scarcity of manpower 4 Sold 1 Now use tractors 6 Not applicable 7 Total Respondents 20


Reason Number

Need for family 5 No response 2 Not applicable 13 Total respondents 20



Type of Cattles Number Bovine 6 Bullock 7 No applicable 7 Total Respondents 20

Table – 5.3.12.4 Distribution of Responses to query

"What type of livestock will improve your economic condition"

Types of Cattle Number

Bovine 20 Goat 1 Total Respondents 20



Reason Number Economic constraint 5 Scarcity of manpower 11 Scarcity of fodder/grazing land 6 Total Respondents 20

317

5.3.13 Agriculture

The main crops grown in the village Titanpar were wheat and paddy and potato. The

average production of wheat and paddy was 12.5 Qt./acre and 10.0 Qt./acre respectively

(See table 5.13.1).

All 20 selected farmers reported that productivity in their farms was lower than other

farms. The main reasons for lower productivity were economic constraint, scarcity of

manpower and inability to look after farming and lower use of fertilizer, pesticide, compost etc.

(See table 5.3.13.2).


land. The constraints suggested included economic constraint, low productivity of land, water

logging, low irrigation, erratic power supply and scarcity of manpower (See table 5.3.13.3).


Crops N

e

t

s

o

w

n

a

r

e

a (in acre)

Production (in Qt./Acre)

Compost (per acre)

DAP (in kg./acre)

Urea (in kg./acre)

Potas (in kg./acre)


Wheat 32.5 12.5 1 Trolley 42.5 36.5 31.0 - Paddy 32.4 10.0 - 32.0 32.0 - 300.00 Potato 18.5 54.0 1.2 Trolley 133.0 90.0 - - Peas 2.14 7.0 - 32.0 - - - Gram 0.24 7.5 - 23.0 - - - Sugarcane 2.0 200.0 - 100.0 75.0 50.0 300.00 Arhar 1.0 6.0 - - - - - Makka 0.5 5.0 - - - - -


from other farms"

Reason Number Percent Low use of fertilizer/pesticide/compost etc. 6 30.0

318

Low Irrigation 1 5.0 Scarcity of resources 3 15.0 Economic constraint 7 35.0 Scarcity of manpower and inability to look after farming 4 20.0 Low productivity of soil 2 10.0 Water logging/seepage 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Constraints Number Percent Scarcity of manpower 1 5.0 Irrigation 2 10.0 Natural hindrance 1 5.0 Scarcity of resources 2 10.0 Economic constraint 2 10.0 Water logging/seepage 6 30.0 Low productivity of soil 2 10.0 Scarcity of power supply 2 10.0 Not applicable 3 15.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0


cleansing of drainage system, HYV seeds be made available, power supply be increased,

economic assistance should be provided, soil testing should be done and irrigation facility be

increased (See table 5.3.13.4).

Tenancy: None of the selected farmers leased out land. And only one selected

farmer reported that he leased in land. The reason suggested to augument his income (See

table 5.3.13.5).


removed"

Measures Number Percent Increase irrigation facility 2 10.0 Economic/Credit assistance 4 20.0 Soil testing 1 5.0 Cleaning of drainage system 7 35.0 Increase power supply 1 5.0 Disease resistant 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.3.13.5 Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for leasing in by tenants"


Augment income and owned land is small 1 5.0 Not applicable 19 95.0

319

Total Respondents 20 100.0

320

(C) Land Use Plan for Titanpar Village (i) The Tal (pond) is spread over in around 30 acres of land. A Bundi should be

constructed as embankment and a culvert be also constructed on the road near the

tal, then flood water would flow into the river.

(ii) The Tal (pond) should be connected to river through a drainage passage.


village:



(ii) After consolidation, conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is









321

Village Study – IV Village – Kasraul (Block – Sahajanava)

(A) Village Profile The village is located at a distance of 15 kilometers from block headquarter on

Gorakhpur – Maghar road. The village has two major problems. One, flood from Ami river and

secondly raising of road level after every few years. Due to raising of road level the problem

of water logging has increased manifold. There is also a big tal (pond) on the western side of

the village. When flood water goes into tal, it overflows and destroys crops. When water

logging prolongs for longer duration, then it affects the next crop also.

There are a large number of families in the village who are also engaged in

occupations other than agriculture. For example there are 40 Muslim families in the village

and most of them are engaged in non-agricultural activities such as motor mechanic, grill

fabricator, etc. and women of these households are engaged in bidi-making. Main occupation

of many Yadava families is milk selling.

Due to water logging, bushes and tall grasses and reed grasses grow in the low lying

lands of the village. Such area has also increased because there has been digging for

earthwork for construction of road. There is also some area in the village with usar land. the

land around road side was full of trees, which have been cut after acquisition of land for road.

Fruit bearing trees have also been destroyed due to water logging.

5.4.1 Land Use Pattern Village Kasraul is a medium size small village with 102.75 hectares of total reporting

area. In village Kasraul land use pattern shows that 57.47 per cent of total reporting area was

under cultivation with around 85 per cent irrigated area. Another important feature was that

the land under other uses was 18.19 per cent and the land under the railway line was 17.09

per cent (See table 5.4.1). Table – 5.4.1

Land Use Pattern in the Kasraul Village of the Gorakhpur District

Land Use Categories In hectare In percent Total reporting area 102.75 100.0 Water bodies 3.331 3.24 Habitation 1.547 1.50 Other uses 18.698 18.19 Banjar 1.481 1.44 Kabristan/Khanihan 0.45 0.44 Railway line 17.563 17.09 Current fallow 0.456 0.44 Net sown area 59.034 57.47

(a) Irrigated 50.0 84.69 (b) Un-irrigated 9.034 15.31

Area sown more than once 50.0 84.70 (a) Irrigated 50.0 100.0 (b) Un-irrigated - -

322

Source: Revenue department.

323


group i.e. in the age group (14-60) years comprised around 54 per cent of total population.

That is more than 46 per cent persons constituted dependents in the family. The village also

shows adverse sex ratio. This is evident from the fact that the number of female population

per thousand male population was around only 924.03 (See table 5.4.2.1).


number of illiterates was much higher among females (44.55 per cent) than among males

(27.03 per cent). On the other hand in each category of education group above high school

the number of males was much higher than females. It could also be seen from the table that

higher education was reported only from two castes namely Yadavas and Muslims.

Table – 5.4.2.1 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Population in the Village Kasraul

Particulars Gender Harijan Rajbhar Vishwakar

ma Maurya Yadav Muslim Total

Male 65 54 10 8 121 308 566 Female 66 53 11 6 109 278 523

Total population

Total 131 107 21 14 230 586 1089 Male 7 10 - - 7 58 82 Female 7 4 1 2 17 60 91

Below 5 year population

Total 14 14 1 2 24 118 173 Male 29 14 - 1 40 88 172 Female 23 14 1 - 28 74 140


Total 52 28 1 1 68 162 312 Male 27 30 10 7 73 157 304 Female 34 24 9 4 62 139 270


Total 61 54 19 11 135 296 586 Male 2 - - - 1 5 8 Female 2 1 - - 2 5 10


Total 4 1 - - 3 10 18 Family size 4.0 5.1 5.2 4.7 7.2 7.8 6.5

Table – 5.4.2.2

Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Education in the Village Kasraul

Particulars Gender Harijan Rajbhar Vishwakarma

Maurya Yadav Muslim Total %age

Male - - 1 - 6 6 13 2.30Female - - - - 2 - 2 0.38

Graduation and above

Total - - 1 - 8 6 15 1.38Male 3 - 5 - 43 38 89 15.72Female - - 2 - 8 6 16 3.06

Intermediate and high school Total 3 - 7 - 51 47 101 9.27

Male 30 17 1 4 37 138 227 40.12Below high school Female 21 13 4 - 31 97 166 31.74

324

Total 51 30 5 4 68 235 393 36.09Male 25 27 1 4 28 68 153 27.03Female 38 26 2 4 51 112 233 44.55

Illiterate

Total 63 53 3 8 79 180 386 35.45 5.4.3 Land Ownership In Kasraul, the average size of landholding per family was 0.85 acres and per adult

person only 0.25 acres (See table 5.4.3.1). It is obvious that the variation in the size of

holdings per family was larger than the variations in the size of landholdings per adult




fact that per adult person land was around 0.53 acres in even the landholding group (2.5-5.0)

acres, shows that in future population pressure on land would be tremendous in all size

groups. The village is thus moving towords a situation in which it will be dominated by

landless, near landless and marginal farmer households who already constitute 88.69 per

cent of all households in the village. The distribution of caste in the village population showed

that there were four major castes. There were Harijans, Rajbhars, Yadavas and Muslims.

Most of the scheduled caste households belonged to landless or near landless categories

while Yadava caste households owned more than 1 acre of land and a majority of them

owned more than 2.5 acres of land. Muslims were spread in all landholding size groups (See table 5.4.3.2).


the Village Kasraul Landholding size Total

households Total adult pop.

(>14 year) Total land Average

landholding (Per adult person)

Average landholding (Per family)

Land-less 61 178 - - - Below 0.63 Acre 22 64 6.0 0.09 0.27 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 32 112 26.1 0.23 0.81 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 34 125 48.5 0.39 1.42 2.5 to 5.0 Acre 17 86 46.3 0.53 2.72 5.0 to 10.0 Acre 1 6 5.5 0.91 5.50 Above 10.0 Acre 1 7 12.0 1.71 12.0 Total 168 578 144.4 0.25 0.85

Table – 5.4.3.2

Caste-wise Distribution of Landholdings in Different Size Groups in the Village Kasraul

Landholding size Harijan Rajbhar Vishwakarma

Maurya Yadav Muslim Total HHs.

%age

Land-less 15 17 4 3 - 22 61 36.31Below 0.63 Acre 8 3 - - 1 10 22 13.090.63 to 1.0 Acre 1 1 - - 3 27 32 19.05

325

1.0 to 2.5 Acre 9 - - - 12 13 34 20.242.5 to 5.0 Acre - - - - 15 2 17 10.125.0 to 10.0 Acre - - - - - 1 1 0.60Above 10.0 Acre - - - - 1 - 1 0.60Total 33 21 4 3 32 75 168 100.00

326


32 out of 168 households was cultivation, that of 70 households i.e. 41.67 per cent it was

wage work, while that of 49 households i.e. around 29.17 per cent households it was service.

The occupation of many households have also changed as a result of increasing pressure on

land and non-availability of work in the village. The change in occupation has taken place due

to spread of education. The change in main occupation has also taken place mainly among

cultivators. Out of 72 households whose main occupation was cultivation in the past, now only

28 i.e. 39 per cent are continuing with it, while 27 (i.e. 37.5 per cent) are engaged in service

and 10 (i.e. 13.89 per cent) are engaged in wage work. Interestingly among the 44

households who have shifted to other occupations, 29 still continue to maintain farming as

their supplementary occupation. Similarly those households who continue cultivation as their

main occupation are also engaged in supplementary occupations (See table 5.4.4.1).

Occupation wise distribution of workers in the village showed that out of 622 workers

323 were males and 299 were females. It could also be seen from the table that out of 622

workers 199 i.e. 31.99 per cent were cultivators 106 i.e. 17.04 per cent were agricultural

labourers, 71 i.e. 11.41 per cent were in service and 37 i.e. 5.95 per cent were engaged in

other work. Gender wise distribution of occupation of workers showed that number of female

workers was higher among cultivators and were was higher among cultivators and category of

other workers (See table 5.4.4.2).

Table – 5.4.4.1 Present and Past Occupations of Households in the Village Kasraul

Past occupation Present main occupation Supplementary occupation Occupation Total

HHs. Cultiva

tor Wage Servic

e Other works

Cultivator

Wage Shop Others

Cultivator 72 28 10 27 2 29 5 7 1 Labour 80 3 60 17 - 10 7 3 - Service 6 1 - 5 - 5 - 1 - Others 10 - - - 15 6 5 3 - Total 168 32 70 49 17 50 17 14 1

Table – 5.4.4.2 Caste and Gender-wise Distribution of Occupation of Workers in the Village Kasraul

Particulars Gender Harijan Rajbhar Vishwakarma

Maurya Yadav Muslim Total %age

Male 5 - - 7 42 37 91 28.17Female 5 - - 4 62 37 108 36.12

Cultivator

Total 10 - - 11 104 74 199 31.99Male - 18 - - - 41 59 18.27Female - 18 - - - 29 47 15.72

Agricultural Labour

Total - 36 - - - 70 106 17.04Male 23 22 - - - 29 74 22.91Female 36 21 - - - 78 135 45.15

Other Labour

Total 59 43 - - - 107 209 33.60Male 1 1 2 - 24 43 71 21.98Female - - - - - - - -

Service

Total 1 1 2 - 24 43 71 11.41Others Male - 1 8 - 7 12 28 8.67

327

Female - - 9 - - - 9 3.01 Total - 1 17 - 7 12 37 5.95

5.4.5 Livestock Even the animal population per household was not very encouraging in the village

(See table 5.4.5). This was so because landless and near landless households owned less

cattles i.e. cows and buffaloes than those who owned more than 1 acre of land. If we work out

the average number of cattles (that is cows and buffaloes taken together) in different

landholding groups then we find that it was as follows: landless - 0.18 per household, below

0.63 acre – 0.36 per household, (0.63 - 1.0) acre – 0.53 per household, (1 - 2.5) acre – 0.71

per household, (2.5 - 5 acre) – 1.29 per household and (5 - 10) acres – 2 per household.

Average cattle owned was thus found to be 0.51 per households in the village. Villagers also

owned other animals.

Table – 5.4.5 Distribution of Animal in Different Categories of Landholding Size Groups Households

in the Village Kasraul

Landholding size Total HHs. Cow Buffalo Calf Other Total Land-less 61 5 6 10 34 55 Below 0.63 Acre 22 3 5 10 28 46 0.63 to 1.0 Acre 32 9 8 16 38 71 1.0 to 2.5 Acre 34 8 16 23 35 82 2.5 to 5.0 Acre 17 7 15 33 10 65 5.0 to 10.0 Acre 1 1 - 1 - 2 Above 10.0 Acre 1 1 1 2 - 4 Total 168 34 51 95 145 325


more than one house. These are generally those households who own a pucca house along


possible and then kutcha or semi pucca house are put to other uses or as storage. Out of 175



Table – 5.4.6 Caste-wise Distribution of Housing Condition in the Village Kasraul

Housing condition Harijan Rajbhar Vishwak

arma Maurya Yadav Muslim

Total

Katcha 22 20 2 - 20 54 108 Pakka 12 2 - - 14 10 38 Semi Pakka 3 2 - - 14 10 29 Total 37 24 2 - 48 74 175 Total Households 33 21 4 3 32 75 168

328

(B) Responses of Selected Households in Village Kasraul

Twenty households in the village Kasraul were selected to elicit information about


land.

5.4.7 Change in Size of Land Holding Among the selected households 9 (i.e. 75.0 per cent) belonged to Muslim community

and 6 to Yadava caste. The distribution of households on the basis of landholdings showed

that 12 (i.e. 60 per cent) were marginal farmers, 6 were small farmers and 2 belonged to the

category of semi medium farmers (See table 5.2.7.1).

In Kasraul, out of 20 households 14 reported that the size of landholdings changed




cause, while in case of 4 (i.e. 20 per cent) household change took place due to acquisition of

land by the government. Four households (i.e. 20 per cent) purchased land while only 2 (i.e.

10 per cent) reportedly received land under land distribution programme sold land (See table

5.4.7.2). Table – 5.4.7.1

Caste and Landholding wise Distribution of Selected Households in Villages Kasraul

Caste Below 0.63 Acre

0.63 to 1.0 Acre

1.0 to 2.5 Acre

2.5 to 5.0 Acre

5.0 to 10.0 Acre

Above 10 Acre

Total

Chamar 1 - 1 - - - 2Pasi - 1 - - - - 1Yadav - - 1 4 - 1 6Lohar - - 1 - - - 1Rajbhar - - 1 - - - 1Muslims - 1 5 2 1 - 9Total 1 2 9 6 1 1 20Percentage 5.0 10.0 45.0 30.0 5.0 5.0 100.0


Households

Reason Number

Percent

Division of family 6 30.0 Purchased 4 20.0 Land distribution 2 10.0 Acquired by the government 4 20.0 Not applicable 6 35.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

330

In Kasraul village, 6 (i.e. 30 per cent) households reported that their landholding


be 1.03 acres (See table 5.4.7.3).

The number of households who reported decrease in their landholdings was 11 (i.e.

55 per cent) of total sampled households, and the average change per reporting household

was 5.6 acres (See table 5.4.7.4).

In Kasraul land of four selected households was acquired. The land was acquired by

PWD department for construction of roads. It was agricultural land, and the size of land

acquired was 6.12 acres. Farmers had received compensation for land (See table 5.4.7.5).

Table – 5.4.7.3


Number of HHs.





6 23.36 17.19 6.17 1.03


Number of

HHs. Land owned at





11 51.64 113.28 61.64 5.60


Number of HHs.




Purpose Compensa-tion

4 14.18 6.12 Ag. Land PWD Road Received

331


In Kasraul 7 out of 20 respondents (i.e. 37 per cent) reported that some part of their

agricultural land had been converted for non-agricultural purposes. All the seven of them

reported that it was due to division in family and consequent need of more land for non-

agricultural purposes. Two households also suggested that the conversion of agricultural land

for non-agricultural purposes was due to development of village (See table 5.4.8.1).


non-agricultural purposes in the village was – division of family and consequent need of land

for construction of houses, development of village and increase in industry (See table 5.4.8.2).


part of agricultural land owned by them. In village Kasraul, only three respondents replied in

affirmative. Multiple reasons were given by them for it. The main reasons were water logging

land being usar and litigation (See table 5.4.8.3).

Table – 5.4.8.1 Reason of Conversion of Agricultural land for Non-agricultural Uses of Owned Land by

Selected Households

Reason Number Percent Division of family for construction of houses 7 35.0 Development of Village 2 10.0 Not applicable 13 65.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Reason Number Percent Division of family for construction of houses 16 80.0 Development of village 4 20.0 Increase industry 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0




Engaged in other works 1 5.0 Disputed land 1 5.0 Water logging/seepage 2 10.0 Usar land 2 10.0 No response 17 65.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

332





Barren land could be used for ((i) construction of houses; (ii) construction of new ponds and

tanks for fisheries (iii) for plantation (See table 5.4.9.1).


reclaim usar land (See table 5.4.9.2). However no one benefited from such scheme as the

scheme was not implemented in the village.

Table – 5.4.9.1


Reason Number Percent Construction of House 4 20.0 Construction of New Ponds/ Fisheries 2 10.0 Plantation 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.4.9.2 Distribution of Responses to the question "Are you aware of the Government

Programmes to recalm Usar Land"

Responses Number Percent Yes 12 60.0 No 3 15.0 Don't know 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

333



water logging and the other is water conservation. The problem of water logging either due to

floods or other reasons was reported by 18 out of 20 farmers in Kasraul. When asked, what

measures could be adopted to avoid water logging due to rain water, 9 out of 20 (i.e. 45 per

cent) respondents suggested drainage system should be linked with ponds while four farmers

suggested that there was need to construct new nullah and 4 others suggested cleansing of

drainage system (See table 5.4.10.1).


conserve rain water in the village, 4 (i.e. 20 per cent) suggested that old ponds be renovated

while three others were in favour of construction of new ponds. Thus ponds are considered by

most of the farmers as most suitable way to conserve rain water (See table 5.4.10.2).

Farmers were also questioned about the potential use if more water could be

conserved in the village. Farmers suggested that if more water could be conserved in the

village, then it could be used for irrigation, for animals and for bathing/washing clothes etc.

(See table 5.4.10.3).



Reasons Number Percent Drainage system linked to pond 9 45.0 Construction of new nullah 4 20.0 Construction of new pulliya 1 5.0 Cleaning of drainage system 4 20.0 Not applicable 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.4.10.2

Distribution of Responses to the Query "What could be done to Conserve rain water in the village"


Renovation of old Ponds 4 20.0 Link with drainage system 1 5.0 Raise bunding 1 5.0 Construction of new pond 3 15.0 Not needed 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.4.10.3



Irrigation 6 30.0 For animal 5 25.0 Fisheries 2 10.0 Bathing/Washing 3 15.0 Not of any use 4 20.0

334

Total Respondents 20 100.0

335


partially disappeared. It was reported by respondents that such land is being used for

agricultural purposes, had been encroached upon, and some part is also being used as

grazing land (See table 5.4.10.4).


said that desiltation, raising of bunding and removal of encroachments were necessary far

renovation of ponds (See table 5.4.10.5).

Villagers expected various benefits if disappeared ponds could be renovated/revived.

The water thus available then could be used for irrigation, for cattle and also for domestic use.

One farmer also suggested that it would help in managing water logging (See table 5.4.10.6).

The present use of ponds showed that it was used for cattle, for irrigation and was

used for domestic purposes while 12 reported that it was unusable (See table 5.4.10.7).

Table – 5.4.10.4 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What is the present use of land of those

ponds, which have totally or partially disappeared"

Reason Number Percent Grazing land 1 5.0 Encroachment 4 20.0 Agriculture 11 55.0 No response 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table 5.4.10.7

Distribution of Responses to query "What is the Present Use of Existing Ponds"

Reason Number Percent For cattle use 12 60.0 Domestic use 2 10.0 Unusable 2 10.0 For irrigation 15 75.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.4.10.5 Distribution of Responses to the Query "What efforts could be made for revival

of ponds"

Reason Number Renovation of old pond 18 Raise bunding 1 Remove encroachments 3 Not response 1 Total Respondents 20


villagers"

Reason Number Irrigation 16 For Cattle use 17 Fisheries 1 Manage water logging 1 Domestic use 2 Total Respondents 20

336

5.4.11 Orchards


decreased. Sixteen (i.e. 80 per cent) farmers suggested that it has decreased, while only 4

farmers reported increase in area under orchards (See table 5.4.11.1).

The main reason for decrease of orchards according to farmers were increase in

felling of trees, need for agricultural land and water logging (See table 5.4.11.2).


orchards was mentioned by four farmers only. All of them suggested that non-fruit trees were

being planted while one of them also told that he wanted to develop it as a commercially

viable orchard (See table 5.4.11.3).






Old tree felling increased 5 25.0 New orchards not coming 2 10.0 Water logging 4 20.0 Need for Agricultural Land 5 25.0 Scarcity of irrigation 1 5.0 Not applicable 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Non-fruit tree are being planted 4 20.0 Tendency for commercial groves 1 5.0 Not applicable 16 80.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

337

When asked that why the potential of growth of orchards was low in the village, 8 (i.e.

40 per cent) farmers suggested that it was so because more land was needed for agriculture,

4 said it was due to scarcity of irrigation and 2 attributed to its long gestation period (See

table 5.4.11.4).


most of the farmers felt that new orchards could be developed on agricultural land (See table

5.4.11.5).


two farmers suggested that gram sabha land be made available for the purpose, while six

others suggested that high yielding variety plants be given for the purpose. Development of

water drainage system and economic assistance for the purpose and protection of trees were

the other suggestions made by farmers (See table 5.4.11.6).



More land needed for agriculture 8 40.0 Tendency declined 3 15.0 Scarcity of irrigation 4 20.0 Long gestation period 2 10.0 No response 3 15.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0


be increased

Type of Land Number Percent Agricultural land 10 50.0 G. S. Land 2 10.0 Road side and around hamlet 3 15.0 No response 5 25.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0



Reason Number Percent G.S. land be made available for the purpose 6 30.0 H.Y.V. plants be given 6 30.0 System of water drainage be developed 1 5.0 Economic assistance 3 15.0 Protection for tree 2 10.0 No response 4 20.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

338


Reason Number

Family need 4 Income increase 3 Not applicable 12 Total Respondents 20



Type of Cattles Number Bovine 9 Bullock 12 Goat 3 All type animal 1 Total Respondents 20

Table – 5.4.12.4 Distribution of Responses to query "What type of livestock will improve

your economic condition"

Types of Cattle Number Bovine 20 Goat 1 Bullock 1 Total Respondents 20



Reason Number

Economic constraint 8 Lack of manpower to manage 11 Scarcity of fodder/grazing land 6 Total Respondents 20

5.4.12 Livestock

In Kasraul, 12 out of 20 selected respondents reported that size of their livestock has

decreased, while 7 reported increase in the livestock.

The main reasons suggested for decrease in livestock by respondents were

increasing use of tractors, scarcity of fodder and grazing land and also because, there was no

one in the family to look after livestock (See table 5.4.12.1).

Out of the seven (i.e. 15 per cent) respondents who reported increase in number of

cattles, four said that they increased cattle to meet family needs, while two others increased

number of cattles in order to increase income (See table 5.4.12.2).


reported that number of only two types namely bovine and bullocks had decreased (See table

5.4.12.3).



The main constraints in increasing livestock were: lack of manpower to manage,

economic constraint and scarcity of fodder/grazing land (See table 5.4.12.5). Table – 5.4.12.1

Distribution of Responses to query "Reasons for decrease in livestock"


Low income 1 5.0 Scarcity of fodder/ Grazing land 2 10.0 No one to look after them 6 30.0 Now use tractors 7 35.0 Not applicable 8 40.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

339

5.4.13 Agriculture

The main crops grown in the village Kasraul were wheat and paddy. The average

production of wheat and paddy was 9.6 Qt./acre and 13.5 Qt./acre respectively (See table

5.43.1).


than other farms. The main reasons for lower productivity were economic constraint, scarcity

of resources, scarcity of manpower and inability to look after farming, low productivity of soil

and lower use of fertilizer, pesticide, compost etc. (See table 5.4.13.2).


land. The constraints suggested included low irrigation, economic constraint, low productivity

of land, water logging, low irrigation, erratic power supply, scarcity of manpower and poor

protection against stray animals (See table 5.4.13.3).


Crops Net sown area

(in acre) Production (in Qt./Acre)

Compost (per acre)

DAP (in kg./acre)

Urea (in kg./acre)

Potas (in kg./acre)


Wheat 36.84 9.6 2 Trolley 44.5 50.0 - - Paddy 29.3 13.5 - 22.0 73.0 - 300.00 Bajra 1.1 5.0 - - 30.0 - - Groundnut 0.5 7.0 - 150.0 50.0 - - Gram 1.6 6.0 - 25.0 - - - Matar 3.8 6.0 - 25.8 - - -


from other farms"

Reason Number Percent Low use of fertilizer/pesticide/compost etc. 2 10.0 Low irrigation 2 10.0 Scarcity of resources 2 10.0 Economic constraint 9 45.0 Scarcity of manpower and inability to look after farming 6 30.0 Low productivity of soil 4 20.0 Not applicable 2 10.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

Table – 5.4.13.3

Distribution of Responses to query "What are the main constraints in better utilisation of agricultural land"

Constraints Number Percent

Scarcity of manpower to manage 3 15.0 Low irrigation 6 30.0 Economic constraint 4 20.0 Low productivity of land 5 25.0 Scarcity of resources 1 5.0 Water logging/Seepage 1 5.0 No protection from stray animals 6 30.0 Erratic power supply 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

340


protection from stray wild animals, irrigation facility be increased economic assistance should

be provided and soil testing should be done (See table 5.4.13.4).

Tenancy: No case of tenancy was reported from the village.


removed"

Measures Number Percent Increase irrigation facility 6 30.0 Economic/Credit assistance 2 10.0 Soil testing 3 15.0 Protection from stray/wild animals 8 40.0 Increase power supply 1 5.0 Total Respondents 20 100.0

341

(C) Land Use Plan for Kasraul Village There is need to develop an integrated watershed management system in the village.

This would also include linking of tal with the river through an open drainage passage, and

drains within village should meet at pond.

Orchards could be developed along road side.

Small ponds with bundhis at some places could be developed in the low lying areas.

Trees could be planted on the usar land.


village:



(ii) After consolidation, conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is









342

Chapter – 6

Conclusion and Recommendations

The total area of Gorakhpur district reduced from 6314.00 sq. km. In 1971 to 3397.00

sq. km. in 1981 due to carving out of new districts.

There had also been obvious changes in the number of residential houses and

number of households during the last 40 years.

The number of residential houses have been increasing at the rate of more than 10

per cent per decade. Though this is an obvious off shoot of increase in population, it will have

serious implication for land use planning during the coming decades. These implications

would have two aspects. One, more and more land would be brought under the category 'land

put to non-agricultural purposes'. Secondly, planning for housing in both urban and rural

areas will have to be given serious thought such as:

(i) how land saving devices could be adopted;

(ii) how civic amenities could be provided;

(iii) what kind of infra-structural facilities will be needed to be developed; and

(iv) what kind of common use facilities will be required to be developed.

The urban area of undivided Gorakhpur was 82.8 sq.km. in 1981, while the urban

area under divided Gorakhpur is 195.1 sq.km. That is area under urban limits had increased

by more than 135 per cent during the decade 1981-91.

The decinnial growth rate had been very high during the last three decades. This has

resulted in the pressure of population on land.

The density of population of the district was as high as 750 persons per squire

kilometre in 1991, which increase to 1140 persons per square kilometre in 2001.

The literacy rate increased from 19.8 per cent in 1971 to 43.3 per cent in 1991.

The pressure on land in Gorakhpur has remained very high because the work-force

on agriculture remains high.

The high proportion of agricultural labourers shows that wage-workers were not able

to get employment in secondary and tertiary sector.

Another feature of dependency on land is that while the share of cultivators among

total workers has declined from 54.54 per cent in 1981 to 41.08 per cent in 1991, the

proportion of agricultural labourers has increased from 26.48 per cent in 1981 to 30.01 per

cent in 1991.

343

6.1 Land Use Plan Related to Agricultural Land In Gorakhpur district the average size of landholding was 0.58 hectare as per the

1995-96 agricultural census, 93.04 per cent holdings belonged to the small and marginal

farmers, while they accounted for only 64.54 per cent of total area under all landholdings.

The net sown area of the district as percentage of total reporting area hovered around

77 per cent after 1996-97.




years.

The cropping intensity of the Gorakhpur district had almost remained constant around

150 since 1980-81.

The most important factor which has effected cropping intensity is irrigation.

The irrigation intensity i.e. net irrigated area as percentage of net sown area has

increased from 62.78 per cent in 1980-81 to 74.89 per cent in 1999-2K. This trend was

discernible in all the blocks of the district as well.

Furthermore, gross irrigated area as percentage of net irrigated area has increased


with fluctuating trends during intervening periods.

Tubewell is now the dominant source of irrigation in Gorakhpur district, and accounts

for more than 90 per cent of net irrigated area.


become dominant source of irrigation, the role of public sources continues to be very

important. Because canals and government tubewells together account for more than 50 per

cent net irrigated area in most of the blocks. That means, public investment in irrigation will

continue to play an important role in increasing gross irrigated area, which in turn would help

in increasing the cropping intensity in these blocks.

The cropping pattern in the district has vastly changed during the last 30 years.

The main crops viz. paddy, wheat, potato and sugarcane have witnessed very large

increases in their productivity also during the period 1960-61 to 1998-99.

Thus farmers have shifted to crops, which are highly irrigated, fertilizer use is higher

on them and whose productivity is also comparatively very high.





344

(c) Orchards, fallow land and land under social forestry could be used for growing such

crops.

(d) Processing industries of oilseeds and spices be promoted at local level with support

for technology up gradation, packaging and market access facilities.

Use of fertilizer had been increasing in all the blocks. But their balanced and

proportionate application has not been reported.


(a) Lay guidelines for each gram-panchayat-on the basis of soil-testing – the proportion

of fertilizer which is required to be applied.

(b) Farmers meeting be organised at village level before every cropping season to make

them aware about such guidelines.

(c) Farmers be also informed about hazardous impact of non-proportionate application of

urea.

(d) Government functionaries, specially at the gram-panchayat level be sensitised


The extent of mechanisation has increased in the district. The number of tractors,

plough machine, sprayers, Threshing machine etc. have increased, while the number of

Wood Plough have decreased during the last 20 years.

The trend of increasing mechanisation despite the fact that average size of

landholdings has been decreasing indicates a new type of resource sharing in rural area.

Those who cannot afford to purchase the machine, hire its services. Be it irrigation water,

tractor, thresher or any other machine, their services are being hired by those who cannot

afford to purchase or maintain them. Very poor farmers do not keep draught animals and hire

services of new machines because they cannot afford to feed draught animals throughout the

year.




Livestock plays two types of roles in rural economy. One it provides drought animals

or for pulling carts. Secondly it generates income through animals products, which has

serious implications for diversification of rural economy.



will be required.

Another fall-out of growing urbanisation and increase in extent of mechanisation has

been drastic decline in the number of livestock in Gorakhpur district. That number of all

animals in the district have declined excepting those of pig and poultry.

345

Agricultural Production System and Framework for Land Reforms It was found that except for Bundelkhand region, the majority of land owners who

leased out their land belonged to medium, small or marginal farmers. The fact that even small

and marginal farmers were leasing out their land, revealed two trends - one, in case of

uneconomic holdings farmers want to search other opportunities and will be content to get the

market rent for their land yet they would prefer to retain the land instead of selling it out right.

Moreover, the new generation, if educated seeks jobs in cities, and prefers to lease out the

land. The other aspect was in regard to changing relationship. The exploitative relationship

between tenant/share cropper and the land lord is fast changing. It is now purely an economic

arrangement of mutual interests. Small and marginal farmers also lease-out land to other

small and marginal farmers. Thus enterprising farmers are continuing agricultural activities by

pooling resources from fellow farmers, while some other farmers are trying to make efforts in

non-agricultural activities also.

Thus the new form of economic arrangement under tenancy was giving way to

emergence of new enterprising farmers who were seeking ways to pool resources for higher

productivity and application of new technology.

Dependency relationship based tenancy was declining because not many cultivators

wanted to be tied up for the whole of year with some small parcel of land which they did not

own, and further depend on the landlord for resources and credit. Landless or near landless

people also now want to keep options open for seeking job elsewhere as well. So they

preferred to work as casual agricultural labour during peak periods rather than working as an

attached labour or as a tenant.

On the other hand leasing-out by small farmers was on the increase because many

small farmers wanted to get job outside agriculture and at the same time wanted some

income from their land also. This was possible only by leasing-out land to fellow farmers at

mutually agreed terms. This kind of tenancy was free from both the dependency and

exploitative relationship.

Sharing of machines and equipments was also found to be widely prevalent among

farmers of this district. It was found that almost all farmers owning agricultural machines and

equipments hired out or shared their services with other farmers. many agricultural tools were

also found to be shared among farmers on the exchange basis.

Factors Inhibiting Growth The immediate factors which inhibited growth among small and marginal farmers

were: lack of resources, capital deficiency and lack of facility to sell at remunerative prices.

The other factors included the problems of water logging, floods, drying of canals during

summer, etc.

Framework for Agricultural Growth Among small and marginal farmers, agricultural productivity is hampered by poor

logistical support and weak infrastructure. If food production is to be increased in a

346

sustainable way, these deficiencies must be corrected and favourable economic framework

for agriculture should be evolved. Such actions need to be backed up by practices aimed at

maintaining or enhancing fertility and productivity.

The first step is to protect the best land for agriculture. In view of the scarcity of high

quality arable land and the rising demand for food and other agricultural products, the land

that is most suitable for crops should be reserved for agriculture. Government should map

and monitor the more productive areas of farm land and adopt planning and zoning policies to

prevent the loss of prime land to urban settlements. Village Land Management Committee

and local authorities should be entrusted with responsibility to ensure that these policies are

implemented in their areas.

We have found that the number of small and marginal farmers in the district is

predominant. It was also found that the immediate factors which inhibited growth among small

and marginal farmers were lack of resources, capital deficiency and lack of facility to sell at

remunerative prices. The most important factor which could become basis for future

restructuring of agricultural production system related to tenancy. It was found the majority of

land owners who leased out their land (without entering into any written or formal contract)

belonged to the category of medium, small or marginal farmers. This was for two reasons –

one in case of uneconomic holdings, farmers wanted to search other opportunities and would

be content to get the market rent for their land. Yet they would prefer to retain the land instead

of selling it outright. The other aspect was in regard to non-exploitative nature of relationship

between the lessor and the lessess. It is now purely an economic arrangement in which small

and marginal farmers are also leasing out land to other small and marginal farmers. Thus

enterprising farmers are continuing agricultural activities by pooling resources from fellow

farmers, while some other farmers are seeking opportunities in non-agricultural activities also.

Thus the new form of economic arrangement was giving way to pooling of resources by

enterprising farmers, while other farmers who were leasing out their land were treating their

land as a share capital for which they will receive the rent as well as the share in profit. The

process of pooling of resources was further strengthened by a simultaneous process of

sharing of machines and equipments. it was found that almost all farmers owning agricultural

machines and equipments hired out or shared their services with other farmers.

It seems to us that a limited restructuring of the production process in agriculture can

be such that it serves the interests of small and marginal farmers and at the same time

protects wider interests of the farming community.

One major step in this direction would be to allow formation of Collective Farming

Society and Confederation of Farming Societies. In the collective farming society framework,

tenancy to such farming societies could be permitted under specified conditions. In particular

such societies may be formed of small and marginal farmers for a complete package of

inputs, and it may then be permissible for any member of such a society to lease out land to

the society or to any other member of the society.

347

At the next level, a confederation of such Collective Farming Societies could be

formed which will work as service societies. These confederations would provide high cost

machinery and equipments to Collective Farming Societies on hire. The idea essentially is

that it should be possible to increase number of viable farms by permitting some of the non-

viable farmers to go out of agricultural business and seek other jobs and economic

opportunities. This should on the one hand, improve productivity of labour on the expanded

farms and on the other aid in much needed shift of labour away from agriculture.

Collective Farming Society 1. Collective farming units be allowed to be registered under a separate Collective

Farming Society Registration Act.

2. Only small and marginal farmers be allowed to become members of such a

society.

3. The number of members of a society should not be above twenty and below five.

4. Those who become members of such a collective farming society will be allowed to

lease out their land to the society for a minimum of ten years on a fixed annual rent.

5. A collective farming society will not bring under its purview more than ten hectares of

irrigated land.

6. A collective farming society will be allowed to pool its resources on hire or through

raising capital from its members.

7. The produce will be shared among members in proportion to the share amount of

each member.

8. The share amount of each member will be the weighted sum of (a) money

invested under capital raising scheme plus, (b) the amount fixed as annual

rent for the land leased out to the society, (c) operational holdings of actual

cultivators.

Confederation of Collective Farming Societies For storage facilities, providing transportation facilities and to work as marketing

syndicates of farming societies, a confederation of ten to twenty corporate farming societies

be allowed to be formed.

These confederations will work in the following areas:

1. Marketing of agricultural goods at national and international level.

2. Provide transportation and storage facilities to Collective Farming Societies against

such stored goods.

3. Function as cushions against speculative prices.

4. The confederation will also act as counselling centre for farmers projecting the

production and demands of each agricultural commodity for the next two years.

5. Provide high costing tools and machines to Collective Farming Societies for land

levelling, soil testing, land reclamation and other activities related to land and water

management on rental basis.

6. Help in technological innovations and in increasing productive efficiency.

348

6.2 District Level Analysis of Land Use Pattern and Land Use Plan

(Other than Agricultural Land) Our focus in preparing land use plan has been four fold –

(i) Agricultural land should not be transferred for use to other purposes.

(ii) Maximum area be brought under vegetative cover i.e.

(a) Increase forest

(b) Increase area under miscellaneous trees and groves.

(c) Increase area under pasture and grazing land.

(iii) Use culturable waste and other fallow land for such purposes. Therefore,

efforts should be made to convert land under these categories into forest,

orchards or grazing land.

(iv) Barren and unculturable land be used for constructing buildings or infra-

structural facilities.

Forest The forest land fluctuated around 8.75 to 8.5 per cent of total reporting area during

the period 1960-61 to 1989-90. Thereafter in the next four years i.e. during 1989-90 to 1993-

94, declined and fluctuated around 6.3 per cent. The area under forest further decreased to

around 1.72 per cent by 2000-01.

The area under forest dropped to nill after that and is presently only 1.72 per cent of

total reporting area. The area under forest could be brought to around 3 per cent of total

reporting area, if some part of the land under other fallow and some part of land under

culturable waste is brought under forest. This could be done by forming Joint Forest

Management Committees consisting of plant growers from poor peasantry class and

representatives of forest department and land use committee. A cell should be formed to

provide them the financial support and infra-structural support so that they could get suitable

plants, methods to protect them and finally marketing of forest produce.

Secondly, development of such forests should be linked with watershed management

in the area. For this purpose an area of 500 hectares to 1000 hectares should be choosen as

unit for micro-watershed management.

This would include (i) construction of water retention structures (ii) clearing and

desilting of natural courses of drainage systems and (iii) restoration/reconstruction of ponds/

tanks in totally barren lands or low lying lands.

Thirdly programmes like Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojana etc. should be now utilised for

construction of bundhis, management of wild resources including fisheries, drainage

maintenance and enhancement etc.

Fourthly, more emphasis will have to be laid on energy plantation which would

provide fuel wood besides growing of fruit trees rather than timber linked growth of forests.

Private Micro Forests

349

Private micro forest is different from orchards, as orchards generally comprise fruit

bearing plants. The concept of private micro forest envisages that private individuals could

also grow various varieties of plants, We have in the past found that eucalyptus had been

grown in private land because it was expected to fetch good amount. The private waste land

could also be used for growing timber. energy plants, etc. This could also be linked with

purification of surroundings. For this purpose plants related to different planets (Navgrah) and

different Nakshatra which are 27 in numbers could be planted as per specified arrangement.

Even plants with medicinal value could be grown in such land if people could be

informed about their medicinal and commercial value.

Land Put to Non-agricultural Uses Area under land put to non-agricultural uses has been continuously increasing over

the past 40 years. It was around 7.7 per cent during 1960-61 and has risen to around 12.25

per cent by the year 2000-01.

The proportion of land put to non-agricultural uses is already very high in present

Gorakhpur district. During the last two decades, it had increased by 1.5 per cent of reporting

area per decade. With the forest area having become very small, increase of land put to non-

agricultural uses needs to be restricted severely. Failing which, it would not be possible to

convert land available under other uses to bring under plantation.

Regulation of Land Use at Urban Fringes There is need to regulate land use at urban fringes. This could be done by setting up

an Gorakhpur Urban Fringe Development Authority. The UFDA could decide on the following:

(i) Conservation of green areas such as orchards, agriculture, social forestry and allied

activities.

(ii) Development of water management and drainage system. Ponds and other water

retention structures be revived. Any encroachment on such land should be identified

and legal proceedings against encroachers be initiated.

(iii) The provisions made under Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Acts (specially

section 143 and 154) and Consolidation of Holdings Act be used effectively to check

diversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

(iv) Heavy five should be imposed (say ten times the cost of the land) in case of such

diversion on the owner of the land.

(v) In addition to it, if the agricultural land had been sold then capital gain tax should be

imposed on purchaser of the land. Because huge capital gain accrues to the builders

who develop colonies in such land.

(vi) The first priority be given to development of social services in the fringe area which

will include hospitals, educational centres, training centres for farmers and agro-

based industries.

(vii) Barren and culturable land should be identified for development of micro-industrial

estates and then for developing multistoried residential complexes which are land

saving as well.

350

Besides urban fringes there is need to restrict the rate of increase of area under land

put to non-agricultural uses, in rural areas in general.

This could be made possible by adopting following steps.

(a) Discourage migration of people of nearby villages. This could be done by

increasing transport facility and by improving road networks.

(b) Strengthen household industries of rural areas by providing them institutional

support and market facilities.

(c) Develop green belt around city and any construction in the green belt area be

strictly prohibited.

(d) Encourage multi-story buildings and economic flats to weaker sections.

One important aspect of land put to non-agricultural uses is increasing number of

residential houses. However, since population growth rate is faster, per person living area is

decreasing. Even more disturbing factor is that per person open area in houses premises is

also declining. This is the trend in even rural areas. Hence space for community uses and

common recreation places must be developed even in rural areas. In city planning we leave

space for parks, playgrounds and recreation spots. Such planning should also be done for

rural areas. Watershed management could then be linked with development of parks and

recreation places. Some area could also be reserved for floriculture and horticulture.

Regulation of Land Use along Road Side There has been a tendency to change land use along road side – specially national

highways and state highways. Houses and shops are constructed or such land is put to even

other non-agricultural uses. As a result of this contiguous effect leads to further expansion of

settlements near highways and such places become accident prone. Therefore, there is need

to regulate land use along roadside. Following measures could be adopted in this respect:

(i) A green strip be developed on both sides of road. Such green strip on each side

should not be less than 10 meter wide.

(ii) Wherever, highways are connected with other roads, construction along side even

such connecting roads be prohibited for a length of at least one kilometer.

(iii) Those who construct houses or buildings on agricultural lands along side road should

be fined heavily (say ten times the cost of the land).

The rate of increase of area under the category of land put to non-agricultural uses

could then be restricted to around 13.5 per cent of total reporting area by the year 2010.

Barren and Unculturable Land Barren and uncultivable land in the district has increased from 0.52 per cent in 1960-

61 to 1.21 per cent of total reporting area in 2000-01. This trend needs to be reversed.

Barren and unculturable land can be used for further expansion of residential places,

playgrounds and construction of building for common uses such as school or panchayat

bhawan. It could also be used as Khalihan if it is nearby fields. And it could be used for

cremation ground or graveyard if it is far away from habitation.

351

Thus, barren and unculturable land could be shifted for use as land put to non-

agricultural purposes. Some part of it could also be used for developing as pasture and

grazing land.

We hope that through these measures, area under barren and unculturable land

could be reduced from 1.21 per cent to 0.5 per cent of reporting area in district Gorakhpur.

Culturable Waste This is a category showing non-enterprise. To our mind, there should be no such

category. If cultivation is not possible then it could be converted into area for social forestry or

developed as pasture and other grazing land.

Currently area under culturable waste is 1.03 per cent of total reporting area. A part of

it (say around 0.50 per cent) could be converted into social forestry and the rest i.e. around

0.53 per cent could be developed as pasture and other grazing land. At some places, such

land could also be used for fodder cultivation – specially those areas, which are owned by

private individuals.

Support should be provided for developing pasture land and growing fodder.

Culturable Waste along River Side Gorakhpur had two major rivers and many tributories flowing through it. The patches

of land along side these rivers are undulating and at some place with high mounds. These

areas could be developed as reserved forest strips with one to two kilometers' width. Plant

varieties which suit the local soils could be grown in these reserved forest strips.

Development of these reserved forest strips should also be linked with river water

pollution control systems. It means that water which goes through drainage courses and

which meets these rivers should be treated before it reaches the river. The management of

reserved strip forest should be entrusted with the responsibility to operate the treatment

plants.

Besides reserved forest strips, parks and picnic spots could be developed at various

points along the river route. Such parks/picnic spots could become centres of sight seeing

and attraction for tourists as well.

Land under Miscellaneous Trees, Crops, and Groves not included in Net Sown Area

Land use under this category had been the first victim of population growth and

conversion for other uses. Area under this category declined from 3.11 per cent of total

reporting area in 1960-61 to 0.45 per cent in 2000-01.

Land under this category could be increased by 1.0 per cent of total reporting area by

converting 1.0 per cent of total reporting area under other fallow for growing miscellaneous

trees and groves.

Reduction of such area increases run off of rain water. Such areas are best suited for

agro-forestry. The main types of agro-forestry system are:

(a) alley cropping – where annual crops are grown between lines of trees that

produce valuable mulching material.

352

(b) orchard systems – where the trees provide edible fruits, medicines and fuel wood,

while the ground layer is cropped or grazed.

(c) growth of scattered trees with pasture at the ground or grazing land.

(d) Conserve genetic resources

♦ Support grassroots associations of farmers and gardeners for the maintenance of traditional and local cultivars and breeds. Involve women's groups, Record farmers knowledge of traditional and local cultivars and breeds,

♦ Develop a common information service for exchange in information and germplasm among grassroots, state and national agencies.

6.3 Some General Suggestions 6.3.1 District Level (i) District Land Use Committee should be strengthened. The Committee must meet at

least once in a year and take stock of changes which have occurred during past one

year. It should also be informed about up-dating of records and changes which have

taken place during the year.

(ii) As regards its constitution, it should also include District Panchayat Adyaksha, BDOs

and some more representatives of farmers.

(iii) Each line department and BDO should be asked to furnish informations in a pre-

structured proforma.

(iv) The annual proceedings be documented and action plans drawn in the meeting be

circulated to all concerned departments and functionaries.

6.3.2 Block Level (i) Need for Block Level Land Use Committee (BLUC)

There is Land Use Committee at district level. There are Land Management

Committees at the village level. But there are no land use committees at the block

level.

Land records were maintained with a view to fix land revenue by the revenue

department. There had been no systematic effort to maintain land records to identify

land use categories on the basis of their potential development and quality.

The development perspective requires that unit for land use planning by made at

block level. Because at district level it remains too generalised, while at village level, it

would create operational problems in coordinating various line departments who have

bearing on the land use. Therefore, there is need to create a planning cum

implementing agency at he block level.

The Block level Land Use Committee may be formed with following as their members:

Block Pramukh - President

B.D.O. - Convenor

A.D.O. (Stat.) - Secretary

353

Other Members will include representatives from concerned line departments and

some specialists, and

Three B.D.C. Members (to be selected by Kshetra Panchayat Members)

Block level Land Use Committee may take up the following issues for planning and

implementation in the block:

(ii) Salinity and Alkalinity

The problem of alkalinity arises when infiltration rate of water in soil is low. This

results in higher run off of surface water and creates problems of water logging in

adjoining areas. As the water gets muddy, it also creates pollution of water streams.

Reclamation of such land will have multiple effect. Such as increase in the infiltration

rate, increase in recharge of ground water, reduction in water logging and control on

water polluation.

Following steps should be encouraged for reclamation of such land:

(a) Construction of field bunds – through boundary mounds,

(b) Levelling of fields,

(c) Use of gypsum/pyrites, depending upon the degree of alkalinity,

(d) Rotation of crops.

Group of farmers be formed for their collective action. Then such groups could be

provided financial, technical and infra-structural support for reclamation of alkaline

land.

(iii) Water Managment

Reforms are needed to facilitate water management systems for various reasons:

(a) rain and surface water needs to be preserved instead of being allowed to go

waste via drain courses;

(b) natural drain courses should not be allowed to be obstructed otherwise it leads to

avoidable water-logging

Increase in the number of private tubewells results in the lowering of level of ground

water, therefore water management should include recharging by using rain/surface

water.

By reducing run off we can check removal of top fertile soil on the one hand and

maintain infiltration on the other. the catchment area of each water route should be

mapped out and the programme to manage rain water should start from the highest

land and end at the drainage basin.

Water harvesting will involve shaping farm land and sometimes also the catchment

area of water course to slow the flow of water and thereby increase infiltration into

soil. There are several cheap ways to make contours, if this is taken up collectively.

The sloppy areas and those along the drainage or field boundary which otherwise are

not suitable for agriculture needs conservation efforts with optimum plant productivity.

354

The strip plantations of multipurpose trees or shelter belts for crop lands will provide

wood/leaf fodder and also ameliorate environment.

Water reservoir tanks/ponds/bundhis be constructed at places where main drain

routes meet. Such land should be mapped and brought under community/panchayat

ownership. No other construction be allowed to take place on such land through

suitable modification in laws.

Drain network-allowing disposal of waste household water as well as community

water using posts should be linked with natural drainage (by gravity flow) courses.

Thus there should be micro drains (for disposal of household waste water), which will

have to be connected to a community drain and finally the entire waste water has to

be drained to other reservoir sites after proper treatment.

Area along the drainage route should be allowed for fodder cultivation and if possible

for farm forestry. Fodder cultivation and farm forestry needs to be developed in

chronically water-logged areas. To facilitate this, land along drain routes and water-

logged land be kept outside the purview of tenancy provisions. Secondly, land owners

of such land be permitted to form fodder or farm forest production units and lease out

their land to such collective production units.

(iv) Protection of Communal Land

Common resource property has been one of the most important source of

sustenance of livelihood of less privileged communities in many backward and

remote areas.

A support system for maintenance and quality improvement in land use is needed to

protect grazing land, land under trees, bushes etc. as well as protection of land for

chak road and drainage system is also necessary. Through detailed mapping of each

village, community management and these (water recharging, drainage, trees) etc.

should be brought under communal ownership which should become non

transferable and any activity that leads to their destruction should become unlawful.


management of these natural resources. It must be emphasized that management of

such resources be vested with the local communities who will take a longer view.

Outside commercial interest will come and go with narrow economic interest only.


developed by empowering panchayats to develop modes of their use in their

respective panchayats and by providing them technical and managerial skill as well

as the needed capital resources.

355

(v) Culturable Waste Lands and Fallow Land

Culturable waste land could be brought under vegetable cover by providing

necessary institutional and infra-structural support.

We suggest following measures to facilitate their proper use.

(a) Identification of Records: Presently such lands are identified and delineated

through revenue records. Block Level Land Use Committee (BLUC) be entrusted

with the responsibility to identify and delineate such land in each block. Land

Management Committees of each Gram Panchayat should be involved in the

process.

(b) Preparation of Land Use Maps: Land use maps for all the villages be prepared

by the proposed BLUC.

(c) Put Such Land outside the Purview of Tenancy Clause: These types of land

require huge investment and long waitings for their reclamation. If they remain

within the purview of Tenancy Clause, it would be difficult for farmers to pool such

land and invest on them, because farmers generally prefer to invest on prime

land rather than on degraded land.

(d) Lease Out Such Land to Landless Peasants' Societies: Most of such land is

under State or Gram Samaj ownership. Distribution of small parcel of such land to

individual small farmers or land less peasants will not work. Because individual

peasants in these categories have neither the sufficient capital to invest nor they

could wait for longer periods to reap the profits of their investments. Landless

Peasants' Societies could be expected to make long term heavy investments

provided such land are leased out to them for sufficiently a longer duration, and

they are provided cheaper loans for this purpose.

(vi) A New Model for Culturable Waste and Degraded Land

For taking up regeneration activities of culturable waste and degraded land we will

have to keep the following factors in mind:

(a) Size of such land in contiguity;

(b) Nature of regeneration programme;

(c) Raising of capital and acquisition of technical support

(d) Incentive for participation of interested landless peasants and capacity building;

(e) Changes in the tenural rights over such land; and

(f) Distribution of benefits.

Keeping these in view we suggest another model in which local people could be

involved, and its economic viability could be ensured.

We suggest that a joint venture of state sector with local organisation be formed for

this purpose.

356

As a first step a Collective Land Development Society (or Self Help Group for Land

Development) be formed at local level. This Collective Land Development Society or

SHG should enter into a contract with any state department, which has been

approved for the purpose by the government.

(vii) Land Development Society/SHG for Land Development

(a) A Land Development Society or SHG shall be formed for a land

chunk of 10 to 25 acres.

(b) The chunk of land be divided into 10-20 equal size sub-chunks.

(c) Lease out around 1 acre of such sub-chunk land piece to one landless family

each.

(d) The tenure holder, in turn, will have to become member of the Land Development

Society or SHG.

(viii) Joint Venture

A Public Corporate Organisation (approved by the government for the purpose) will

then enter into an agreement with Land Development Society or SHG for a minimum

of ten years for jointly developing the land and for its utilization.

(a) Members of Land Development Society or SHG would provide land and labour;

(b) Public Corporate Organisation will provide capital, technology and technical

know-how;

(c) A joint management system will be evolved;

(d) One-third of the profit shall be ploughed back for further raising the capital stock

of the joint venture.

(e) The rest of the profit shall be shared on 50:50 basis between the state unit and

Land Development Society.

6.3.3 Village Level (i) The land use plan is almost finalized after consolidation of holdings is implemented in

a village. It provides land for various purposes in the village besides consolidating

holdings. These include -

(a) provision of roads and public irrigation channels,

(b) provision of land for house sites for scheduled castes and other weaker sections,

(c) provision of sector roads, inter village roads and link roads,

(d) provision of land for community purposes namely – schools, playgrounds,

panchayat ghar, hospital, cremation ground, graveyards, threshing floor, manure

pits, pasture land, plantation trees, flaying sites etc.

(e) solving of common disputes in the village regarding roads/naalis for irrigation for

each field through chak roads and chak naalis.

357

The problem is that powerful persons in the village influence functionaries of the

consolidation work and get some of government and community land located near

their farms. And once consolidation work is over, they easily encroach upon such

community land.

Therefore effort should be made that Bachat and Gram Sabha land is not left

scattered at many places. The consolidation process should also consolidate

government and gram sabha land in one or two large consolidated chaks.

The land which had been carved out as orchard, grazing land or pond/tank in the

past, should not be allowed to be transferred for other purposes by new rounds of

consolidation –neither through chak carvation nor through readjustment of gram

sabha land.

(ii) Whenever chakbandi is declared, illegal felling of trees takes place, land under

orchards or pasture or such other uses is sought to be shown as land under

cultivation. This happens on a large scale specially on Gaon Sabha and government

land. In order to check such changes in land use on the eve of consolidation, revenue

officials and consolidation officials should jointly prepare reports and send report to

concerned courts for quick action. The power to decide such cases should be

assigned to concerned SDM.

Similarly provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act and Manual regarding provision

of inter-village link road, bachat land, Gaon Sabha and Government land and other

common property resources should be widely made known to people so that its strict

implementation is done with peoples participation.

(iii) After consolidation is over land use for each plot of the villages is well defined.

It should be the responsibility of LMC to see that land use is not alterned. There

should be training of LMC members to make them aware of their roles and

responsibilities.

(iv) Land Management Committee should be treated as Chakbandi Committee during the

period of consolidation. Formation of separate committee does not prove helpful as it

is at the mercy of consolidation department and Pradhan only and ceases to exist


(v) All members of Chakbandi Committee should sign the final land use map prepared


(vi) The map of the village should be made available to all the members of Land

Management Committee, free of cost.

(vii) Encroachers of government and/or gram sabha land should be severely penalised

and eviction proceedings against them should be made more stringent.

(viii) Land capability maps he prepared for each village. The land use of each type of land

could then be planned for effective, efficient, sustainable and profitable use.

358

The land capability map will indicate about the texture and quality of soil. It will also

give information about limitations of the land such as erosion, water logging, degree

of alkalinity or salinity etc.

Thus land capability maps would provide necessary inputs for land use planning i.e.

suitability of land for agriculture, horticulture, forestry etc. It will also indicate as to

what measures would be needed for improving land for its optimum utilisation.

(ix) The Land Management Committee at the village level be revamped. And there should

be fair representation of weaker sections, beneficiaries of land allottees, self help

groups and all the hamlets/communities of the village.

The committee should meet once every six months, develop plans for water

conservation, drainage channels, regeneration of degraded land, effective use of

lands in the category of (a) barren and uncultivable land, (b) pastures, (c) orchards

groves and land under trees and (d) fallow land.

(x) There are already legal provisions under consolidation of Holdings Act and Supreme

Court Judgements in regard to protection of land uses. These should be widely

circulated among members of Land Management Committee. Proceedings for

eviction of encroachers should be launched in right earnest. The provision should be

made in law for eviction of unauthorised occupation of Gram Sabha land by summary

proceedings.

(xi) The gaon sabha land or pond or forest land should be given on lease to self help

groups or tree growers society or such other collective groups rather than to

individuals.

6.4 Block Level Plans for Year 2010 The proposed land use plan of the Baragaon block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.1 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Baragaon Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land



359

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


Current Fallow

6.80 5.30 1.5 per cent to orchards cultivation

land

Other Fallow 1.42 0.62 0.80 per cent to forest cum orchard &

groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

80.86 80.86 -


(in Hectares)

14,036.00 14,036.00 -

360


follows:

Box – 6.4.2 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Sahjanwa Block

Land Use



Remarks


waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.03 0.03 -

Current Fallow


cultivation land

Other Fallow

0.52 0.52 -

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.11 2.0 1.9 per cent from current fallow

Net Sown Area

80.0 80.0 -


(in Hectares)

15,483.00 15,483.00 -

361

The proposed land use plan of the Piparauli block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.3 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Piparauli Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.03 0.03 -

Current Fallow


cultivation land

Other Fallow


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

79.70 79.70 -


(in Hectares)

15,349.00 15,349.00 -

362

The proposed land use plan of the Jangal Kauria block for year 2010 will have land

use pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.4 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Jangal Kauria Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest - 1.5 Around 0.75 per cent from other fallow land and around 0.75 per cent from culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- 0.25 Around 0.25 per cent from other

fallow land

Current Fallow

2.19 1.19 1.0 per cent to orchard cum cultivation land

Other Fallow 1.12 0.12 1.0 per cent to forest and 0.25 per cent for pasture and grazing land



Net Sown Area

80.42 80.42 -


(in Hectares)

21,923.00 21,923.00 -

363

The proposed land use plan of the Chargawan block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.5 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Chargwan Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.29 - -

Current Fallow

3.82 2.82 Around 1.0 per cent to orchard cum-

cultivation land

Other Fallow 1.23 1.50 0.5 per cent to forest and 1.3 for

orchard & groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

76.11 76.11 -


(in Hectares)

13,567.00 13,567.00 -

364

The proposed land use plan of the Bhat-Hat block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.6 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Bhat-Hat Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest 5.48 5.48 -

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.83 0.33 Around 0.5 per cent to develop

pasture and grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


Current Fallow

1.69 1.69 -

Other Fallow 1.50 0.50 1.0 per cent for orchard & groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

77.96 77.96 -


(in Hectares)

15,448.00 15,448.00 -

365

The proposed land use plan of the Pipraich block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.7 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Pipraich Block

Land Use



Remarks




Barren and

Unculturable land


non-agricultural purposes

Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.18 0.18 -

Current Fallow

2.28 1.28 Around 1.0 per cent for orchard and

groves

Other Fallow


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.04 1.04 Around 1.0 per cent from current

fallow land

Net Sown Area

83.71 83.71 -


(in Hectares)

15,781.00 15,781.00 -

366

The proposed land use plan of the Sardanagar block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.8 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Sardanagar Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.06 0.06 -

Current Fallow

0.34 0.34 -



Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

81.17 81.17 -


(in Hectares)

13,041.00 13,041.00 -

367

The proposed land use plan of the Khorabar block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.9 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Khorabar Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest 1.36 5.00 Around 1.64 per cent from other fallow land and around 2.0 per cent from culturable waste

Barren and Unculturable land

1.16 0.16 Shift 1.0 per cent for land for non-agricultural purposes

Land put to non-agricultural uses

12.27 13.27 Around 1.0 per cent from barren and unculturable land

Culturable waste 5.15 0.70 Around 2.0 per cent to forest, around 1.0 per cent for pasture grazing land and 1.5 per cent for orchards and groves

Pasture and

grazing land

0.13 1.13 1 per cent from culturable waste

Current Fallow

3.58 3.58 -

Other Fallow 5.59 1.95 1.64 per cent to forest and 2.0 per cent for orchard & groves


0.06 3.56 1.5 per cent from culturable waste and 2.0 per cent from other fallow land

Net Sown Area

70.69 70.69 -


(in Hectares)

16,068.00 16,068.00 -

368

The proposed land use plan of the Brahampur block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.10 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Brahampur Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

0.14 0.14 -

Current Fallow

1.73 1.73 -


to orchard

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


in 2.0 per cent of other fallow land.

Net Sown Area

83.49 83.49 -


(in Hectares)

20,002.00 20,002.00 -

369

The proposed land use plan of the Kauriram block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.11 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Kauriram Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest - 2.00 Around 0.5 per cent from culturable

waste and 1.5 per cent from other

fallow land

Barren and

Unculturable land

1.50 0.50 Shift 1 per cent for land for non-


Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land


Pasture and

grazing land

0.05 1.05 Around 1.0 per cent from other fallow

land

Current Fallow

1.43 1.43 -

Other Fallow 6.56 1.76 2.3 per cent for orchard and groves,

1.5 per cent to forest and 1 per cent


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

80.02 80.02 -


(in Hectares)

17,466.00 17,466.00 -

370

The proposed land use plan of the Bansgaon block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.12 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Bansgaon Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- - -

Current Fallow

2.72 2.72 -



Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

80.34 80.34 -


(in Hectares)

16,038.00 16,038.00 -

371

The proposed land use plan of the Uroowa block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.13 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Uroowa Block

Land Use



Remarks


land

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.62 0.12 Around 0.5 per cent to pasture and

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


Current Fallow

2.25 2.25 -



Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

79.73 79.73 -


(in Hectares)

17,451.00 17,451.00 -

372

The proposed land use plan of the Gagaha block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.14 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Gagaha Block

Land Use



Remarks

Forest - 2.00 Around 1.25 per cent from other



Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land


Pasture and

grazing land

- - -

Current Fallow

1.99 1.99 -



Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

81.25 81.25 -


(in Hectares)

16,204.00 16,204.00 -

373

The proposed land use plan of the Khajni block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.15 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Khajni Block

Land Use



Remarks


fallow land

Barren and

Unculturable land


non-agricultural uses

Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.91 0.41 Around 0.5 per cent for pasture and

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


Current Fallow

3.11 3.11 -


cent to orchards and groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves

0.39 1.39 1.0 per cent from other fallow land

Net Sown Area

78.95 78.95 -


(in Hectares)

16,503.00 16,503.00 -

374

The proposed land use plan of the Belghat block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.16 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Belghat Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- 1.00 Around 1.0 per cent from current

fallow land

Current Fallow

2.88 2.88 -


for orchard & groves and 1.0 per cent


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

72.00 72.00 -


(in Hectares)

19,990.00 19,990.00 -

375

The proposed land use plan of the Gola block for year 2010 will have land use pattern

as follows:

Box – 6.4.17 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Gola Block

Land Use



Remarks


land

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste 0.81 0.31 Around 0.5 per cent for pasture

grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


land

Current Fallow

0.67 0.67 -

Other Fallow

2.40 0.15 1.0 per cent to forest and 1.25 per


Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

78.03 78.03 -


(in Hectares)

14,154.00 14,154.00 -

376

The proposed land use plan of the Badhalganj block for year 2010 will have land use

pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.18 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Badhalganj Block

Land Use



Remarks



culturable waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land

Culturable waste


Pasture and

grazing land

- - -

Current Fallow

0.30 0.30 -

Other Fallow

1.93 0.93 0.5 per cent to forest, 0.5 per cent for

orchard and groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


in some agricultural land, 0.5 per cent

from other fallow land

Net Sown Area

78.97 78.97 -


(in Hectares)

21,763.00 21,763.00 -

377

The proposed land use plan of the Kampairganj block for year 2010 will have land

use pattern as follows:

Box – 6.4.19 Proposal of Land Use Plan for Kampairganj Block

Land Use



Remarks


waste

Barren and

Unculturable land



Land put to non-

agricultural uses


unculturable land



grazing land

Pasture and

grazing land


land

Current Fallow

0.51 0.51 -

Other Fallow

1.07 0.57 0.5 for orchard and groves

Land Under

Miscellaneous trees

and groves


Net Sown Area

78.24 78.24 -


(in Hectares)

25,083.00 25,083.00 -

378

6.5 Village Level Plans for Selected Villages

6.5.1 Land Use Plan for Jangal Ayodhya Prasad Village

(i) The village Jangal Ayudhya Prasad is a flood prone village. Water of Rapti river enters into

the village during every rainy reason. If an embankment could be built, it would help in better

utilization of much land area of the village. The construction of embankment would also help

in developing the drainage system of the village.

(ii) A road should be constructed to connect the village from the main road. This could be done

if the road passes through forest land, and therefore concurrence of forest department

should also be obtained for construction of such road. Otherwise the village would remain

isolated.

(iii) Dairy related activities could be promoted by developing pasture land on the banks of the

river. Market would not be problem because city is within approachable distance.

(iv) The drainage system could become more effective if a lift pump could be installed at the

place where the drain gate is located. The gate has been installed at the outskirts of the

village to facilitate out flow of water through the drainage system. Around 369 acres of land

which is flood affected would also become available for double cropping.

(v) Ponds of the village should be renovated.

(vi) The drainage route should be cleansed.

(vii) Some more orchards could be developed if the problem of water logging is tackled.

6.5.2 Land Use Plan for Shivpur Village

(i) Since the village is adjacent to the forest villagers are motivated to plant trees. But they are

not permitted to cut or sell the tree even after it is fully grown. They do it, illegally by bribing

functionaries. Tree growing could improve if some arrangement could be made to derive

economic advantage out of trees.

(ii) Forest department could help villagers in energy forestry.

More water could be conserved in the village by constructing new ponds. This will also help

in managing the problem of waterlogging. This will also help in developing some grazing land

around ponds.

6.5.3 Land Use Plan for Titanpar Village

(i) The Tal (pond) is spread over in around 30 acres of land. A Bundi should be constructed as

embankment and a culvert be also constructed on the road near the tal, then flood water

would flow into the river.

(ii) The Tal (pond) should be connected to river through a drainage passage.

6.5.4 Land Use Plan for Kasraul Village

379

There is need to develop an integrated watershed management system in the village. This

would also include linking of tal with the river through an open drainage passage, and drains within

village should meet at pond.

Orchards could be developed along road side.

Small ponds with bundhis at some places could be developed in the low lying areas.

Trees could be planted on the usar land.

Besides above suggestions following steps could be taken to regulate land use in all the

village:

(i) Land Management Committee be reconstituted with representations of all sections and

entrusted with specific responsibilities related to land use in the village.


prohibited. Those who have violated this norm should be penalized. A fine based on current

value of land and house be imposed.

(iii) Building tax should be collected every year from those farmers who have constructed any

house/building on farm land.

(iv) Stringent action should be taken against those who have encroached upon pond of the

village. They should be debarred from getting benefit of any government scheme and also

debarred from contesting any elections.


380

Appendix - 1

List of Herbal Plants

Botanical NameFamily Name fgUnh ukefgUnh ukefgUnh ukefgUnh uke

1 Abrus precatorius LEGUMINOSAE (FABACEAE) xqatk 2 Abutilon indicum MALVACEAE vfrcyk 3 Acacia catechu LEGUMINOSAE (MIMOSAE) [kfnj 4 Acacia collcinna LEGUMINOSAE (MIMOSAE) f'kdkdkbZ 5 Acacia nilotica LEGUMINOSAE (MIMOSAE) ccwy 6 Acalypha hispida EUPHORBIACEAE lqyrku 7 Achyranthus aspera AMARANTHACEAE vikekxZ 8 Aconitum heterophyllum RANUNCULACEAE vfrfo"kk 9 Acorus calamus ARACEAE opk

10 Adallsonia digitata BOMBACACEAE xksj{kh 11 Adhatoda vasica (Nees) ACANTHACAE vMwlk 12 Adiantum lunu1atum (Burm) POLYPODIACEAE gaWliknh 13 Aegle marmelos (Corr) RUTACEAE fcYo 14 Agave americana (Linn) AGAVACEAE daVkyk 15 Aijallthusexcelsa (Roxb) SIMARUBACEAE vjyoks 16 Albizzia lebbek (Bellth) LEGUMINOSAE (MIMOSAE) f'kjh"k 17 Allium cepa (Linn) LlLIACEAE iyk.Mq 18 Allium sativum (Linn) LlLIACEAE ylqu 19 Alocasia indica (Roxb) ARACEAE ekudan 20 Aloe barbadensis (Mill) IJlLIACEAE ?kr̀dqekjh 21 Alpinia galanga (Willd) ZINGIBERACEAE egkHkjhop 22 Alstonia scholaris (R.Br) APOCYANACEAE lIri.kZ 23 Althea officinalis (Linn) ACEAE [ks# 24 Amaranthus spinosus (Lilln) AMARANTHACEAE r.Mqyh; 25 Amarryllis beladonna (Linn) AMARRYLLIDACEAE cSykMksuk fyfy 26 Amomum subulatum (Roxb) ZINGIBERACEAE c`gnsyk 27 AmorphophaJlus companulatus

(Blume) ARACEAE lwjudan

28 Anacardium occidentales (Linn) ANACARDIACEAE crkM+ 29 Anacyclus pyrethrum (D.C) ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITEAE) vkdkj dje 30 Ananas cosmosum (Merr) BROMELIACEAE vUukukl 31 Andrographis paniculata (Nees) ACANTHACEAE HkwfuEc

381

32 Annonasquamosa (Linn) ANNONACEAE lhrkQy 33 Anthocephalus cadamba (Miq) RUBIACEAE dnEc 34 Apium graveolens (Linn) UMBELLIFERAE vteksr 35 Aralia nudicaulis (Linn) ARALIACEAE y{e.kk


36 Arec~catechu (Linn) PALMAE iwxhQy 37 ArgeiT1one maxicana (Linn) PAPAVARACEAE dVqi.khZ 38 Argyreia speciosa (Sweet Syn) CONVOL VULACEAE o`)nkjd 39 Aristolochia indica, (Linn) ARISTOLOCHIACEAE bZýjh 40 Artemissia yulgaris (Linn) ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE) neud 41 Artocarpusintegrifolia (Linri) MORACEAE iu'k 42 AsclepIas curassavica (Linn) ASCLEPIADACEAE dkduklk 43 Asparagus adscendens (Roxb) LILIACEAE ýsreq'kyh 44 Asparagus recemosus (Willd) LILIACEAE 'krkoj 45 Asteracantha longifolia (Nees) ACANTHACEAE dksfdyk{k 46 A verrhoa carambola OXALIDACEAE dej[k 47 Azadirachta indica MELIACEAE uhe 48 Bacopa monieri (Linn) SCROPHULARIACEAE tyuhe 49 Balanites roxbu ghi (Planch) SIMARUBACEAE baxqnh 50 Bombusa arundlnacla (Wllld) POACEAE (GRAMINAE) oa'kykspu 51 Barleria prionitis {Linn) ACANTHACEAE ihykoklk 51 Basella alba (Linn) CHENOPODIACEAE iwfrdk 53 Bauhinia purpurea (Linn) LEGUMINOSAE

(CAESALPINACEAE) dksfonkj ¼yky½

54 Bauhin.ia v~riegata (Linn) LEGUMINOSAE (CAESALPINACEAE)

dpukj

55 Berberis arlstata (D.C) BERBERIDACEAE nk#gYnh 56 Biophytum sensitivum (Linn) GERANIACEAE (OXALIDACEAE) vyEcq"kk 57 Boerhaavia diffusa (Linn) NYCTAGINACEAE ykyiquuZok 58 Brassica campestris CRUCIFERAE (BRASSICACEAE) ljlksa 59 Brassica Juncea (Linn) BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) ykyjkbZ 60 Brassica oleracea (Linn) BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) iRrk xksHkh 61 Bryophyllum calycinum Salib CRASSULACEAE iRFkjpwj 62 Butea frondosa koenex (Roxb) LEGUMINOSAE (FABACEAE) iyk'k 63 Caesalpinia bonducela Fleming LEGUMINOSAE

(CAESALPINACEAE) iwfrdjat

64 Callicarpa macrophylla (Linn) VERBENACEAE fç;axq 65 Calotropis procera (Aif) ASCLEPIADACEAE vydZ 66 Cannabis indica (Linn) CANNABINACEAE nsofdyh 67 Cannabis Sativa (Linn) CANNABINACEAE Hkkax 68 Capsicum annum (Linn) SOLANACEAE fejpk

382

69 Carica papaya (Linn) CARICACEAE iihrk 70 Carum copticum (Benth & Hook) UMBELLIFERAE vtok;u 71 Cassa auriculata (Linn) CAESALPINACEAE vcZwj 72 Cassia absus (Linn) LEGUMINOSAE

(CAESALPINACEAE) p{kq";k

73 Cassia angustifolia (Vahl) LEGUMINOSAE (CAESALPINACEAE)

luk;

383


74 Cassia fistula (Linn), Cassia rhombifolia

LEGUMINOSAE (CAESALPINACEAE)

veyrkl

75 Cassia occidentalis (Linn) LEGUMINOSAE, (CAESALPINACEAE)

dklenZ

76 Cassiatora (Linn) LEGUMINOSAE (CAESALPINACEAE)

pØenZ

77 Catharanthes roseus (L.) vincarosea APOCYANACEAE lnkcgkj 78 Cedrela toona (Roxb Syn) toona

ciliata roem MELIACEAE rwu

79 Cedrus deodara. (Roxb) Loud PINACEAE nsonkj 80 Celastrus paniculatus (Willd) CELASTRACEAE eky dkaxuh 81 Celosia argentea. (Linn) AMARANTHACEAE f'kfrokj 82 Centella asiatica (Linn) (Hydrocotyle

asiatica) UMBELLIFERAE eaMwdi.khZ

83 Cestrum diuranum (Linn) SOLANACEAE fnu dk jktk 84 Cestrum nocturnum (Linn) SOLANACEAE jkrjkuh 85 Chenopodium albu (Linn) CHENOPODIACEAE cFkqvk 86 Chlorophytum borivilianum (Sant &

Ferm) LILIACEAE lQsn ewlyh

87 Cicerarietinum (Linn) LEGUMINOSAE (FABACEAE) puk 88 Cinnamomum camphora (Nees &

Eberm) LAURACEAE phud diZwj

89 Cinnamomum tamala (Nees & Eberrm)

LAURACEAE rstikr

90 Cinnamomum zeylanicum (Blume Syn)

LAURACEAE nkyphuh

91 Cissampelos pareira (Linn) MENISPERMACEAE ikBk 92 Cissus quadrangularis (Linn) VITACEAE gM+tksM+ 93 Citrullus colocynthis (Schrader) CUCURBITACEAE bUk;.k 94 Citrus medica var. acida watt.) RUTACEAE dkxth uhacw 95 Citrus medica (Linn) RUTACEAE fctksjk 96 Cleome viscosa (Linn Syn) CAPPARIDACEAE ihyk gqjgqj 97 Clerodendron inerme (LiI1l1) VERBENACEAE NksVk vjuh 98 Clerodendron phlomidis (Linn) VERBENACEAE vjuh 99 Clerodendron serratum (Spreng) VERBENACEAE Hkkj›-h

100 Clitoria ternatea (Linn) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) vijkftrk 101 Coccinia indica (W & A) CUCURBITACEAE dqUn: 102 Coleus aromaticus (Benth) LABIATAE iRFkjpwj 103 Commiphora mukul (Hook &

Exstocks) BURSERACEAE xqXxqy

104 Convolvulus pluricaulis (Choisy) CONVOLVULACEAE 'ka[kiq"ih 105 Cordia myxa (Ro.xbSyn) Cordia

dichotoma BORAGINACEAE fylksM+k

106 Coriandrum sativum (Linn) UMBELLIFERAE /kfu;k 107 Costus speciosus (Koen) smith ZINGIBERACEAE dsoqd dUn

385


108 Crataeva nurvala (Buch-Ham) CAPPARIDACEAE c#.k 109 Crinum asiaticum (Linn) AMARYLLIDACEAE lqn'kZu 110 Croton tiglium (Linn) EUPHORBIACEAE tekyxksVk 111 Cuminum Cyminum (Linn) UMBELLIFERAE lQsn thjk 112 Curculigo orchioides (Gaertn.) AMARYLLIDACEAE dkyh ewlyh 113 Curcuma amada (Roxb) ZINGIBERACEAE vkek gYnh 114 Curcuma domestica (Valsyn) longa ZINGIBERACEAE gYnh I 15 Cuscuta reflexa (Roxb) CONVOLVULACEAE vejosy 116 Cymbopogon citratus (Andropogon

citratus) POACEAE (GRAMINAE) Hkwr`.k

117 Cymbopogon Schoenanthus (Linn) POACEAE (GRAMINAE) jksfg"k ?kkl 118 Cynodon dactylon (Linn) Pefs POACEAE (GRAMINAE) gjh nwc 119 Cyperus rotundus (Linn) CYPERACEAE eksFkk 120 Dalbergia sissoo (Roxb) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) 'khle 121 Datura metal (Linn. Syn) Datura

innoxia SOLANACEAE dkyk /krwjk

122 Datura Stramonium (Linn) SOLANACEAE dud /krwjk 123 Daucus Carota L. Var. Sativa D. C. UMBELLIFERAE xktj 124 Desmodium gangeticum (D.C.) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) 'kkyi.khZ 125 Digitalis purpurea (Linn) SCROPHULARIACEAE fryiR=h 126 Dillenia indica (Linn) DILLENIACEAE fpYVk 127 Dioscorea bulbifera (Linn) DIOSCORIACEAE okjkgh dan 128 Eclipta alba (Hassk.) ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE) Hka`xjkt 129 Elettaria Cardamomum (Maton.) ZINGIBERACEAE NksVh byk;ph 130 Embelia ribes (Burm. F.) MYRSINACEAE ok;foMa›- 131 Emblica officinalis (Geartn.) EUPHORBIACEAE vkeydh 132 Erioborya Japonica (Linn) ROSACEAE ykSdkV 133 Ervatamia Coronaria (Jacq. Syn)

Tabernaemontana divaricata APOCY ANACEAE pkanuh

134 Erythrina indica (Lam) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) ikfjHknz 135 Euphorbia antiquorum (Linn) EUPHORBJACEAE ctzd.Vd 136 Euphorbia hirta (Linn) E.pillllitera

(Ljnn) EUPHORBIACEAE nqfX/kdk

137 Euphorbianeriifolia (Linn) EUPHORBIACEAE lsagqM 138 Euphorbia tirucalli (Linn) EUPHORBIACEAE 'kkryk 139 Euryale ferox (Salisb) NYMPHAEACEAE e[kkuk 140 Evolvulus alsinoides (Linn) CONVOLVULACEAE uhy 'ka[kiq"ih 141 Feronia elephantum (Correa) RUTACEAE dfijFk 142 Ferula foetida (Regd. Syn) feruala

narthex (Boiss) UMBELLIFERAE ghax

143 Ficus bengalensis (Linn) MORACEAE oV

386

144 Ficus Carica (Linn) MORACEAE vathj


145 Ficus glomerata (Roxb. Syn) F. recemosa

MORACEAE xwyj

146 Ficus religiosa (Linn) MORACEAE ihiy 147 Foel1iculum Vulgare (Mill} UMB.ELLIFERAE lkSaQ 148 Fumaria indica (Pugsley) FUMARIACEAE fiRr ikiM+k 149 Gardenia gummifera (Linn) RUBIACEAE Mhdkekyh 150 Gloriosa superba. (Linn) LILIACEAE dfygkjh 151 Glycyrrhiza glabra (Bois) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) e/kq;s"Bh 152 Gmelina arborea (Roxb) VERBINACEAE xEgkj 153 Gossypium herbaceum (Linn) MALVACEAE dikl 154 Grewia subinaequalis (D.c.Syn)

gasiatica TlLIACEAE Qkylk

155 Grevillea robusta. (A.Cunn.) PROTEACEAE flYoj vkWd 156 Gymnema Sylvestre (R. Br.) ASCLEPIADACEAE xqM+ekj 157 Gynandropsis pentaphylla. (D.C.) CAPPAR1DACEAE 'osr gqj&gqj 158 Hedychium spicatum (Hamex. smith) ZINGIBERACEAE xa/k iyk'kh 159 Helianthus Annuus (Linn) ASTERACEAE (COMPOSIT AE) lw;Zeq[kh 160 Hemidesmus indicus (R.Br.) ASCLEPIADACEAE lkfjok 161 Hibiscus rosa-sinesis (Linn) MALVACEAE xqM+gy 162 Holarrhena antidysenterica (Wall) APOCY ANACEAE dqVt 163 Jasminum grandiflorum (Linn) OLEACEAE pesyh 164 Jasminum Sambac (Ait.) OLEACEAE eksxjk 165 Jatropha Curcas (Linn) EUPHORBIACEAE O;k/kz ,j.M 166 Jatropha gossypifolia (Linn) EUPHORB1ACEAE jrutksr 167 Juniperus communis (Linn) CLJPRESSACEAE giq"kk 168 Lagerstroemia speciosa (Pers. Syn.) LYTHRACEAE tk:y 169 Lantana camara (Linn) VERBINACEAE ou rqylh 170 Lawsonia inermis Linn. L. alba. LYTHRACEAE esfUndk 171 Lepidium Sativum Linn BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) peZgU=h 172 Leptadenia reticulata. W & A ASCLEPIADACEAE, thouh 173 Leucas Cephalotes spreng LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE) nzks.kiq"ih 174 Linum Usitatissimum. (Linn) LNACEAE vylh 175 Litchi chil1ensis Syl1. Nephelium litchi

comb. SAPINDACEAE fyph

176 Loral1thus lol1gitlorus Desrsyn. Dendropthoe falcala

LORANTHACEAE okank

177 Luffaacutangula (Linn) Roxb Var.amaraclark.

CUCURBITACEAE dM+oh rksjbZ

178 Lycopersicon esculentum Mill SOLANACEAE VekVj

387

179 MallotusPhillippinensis Mue'l Arg EUPHORBIACEAE dihyk 180 Mangifera indica. (Linn) ANACARDIACEAE vke


181 Meliaazedarach. (Linn) MELIACEAE odk;u 182 Mentha Piperata (Linn) LAMIACEAE fiijfeUV 183 Ment.ha Spicata (Linn) LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE) iqnhuk 184 Mesua ferrea GUTTIFERAE ukxds'kj 185 Michelia champaca (Linn) MANGNOLIACEAE lksupEik 186 Mimosa pudica (Linn) MIMOSAE (LEGUMINOSAE) yTtkoUrh 187 Mimusops elengi (Linn) SAPOTACEAE. cdqy 188 Mirabilisjalapa (Lil1l1) NYCTAGINACEAE xqyokl 189 Momordica charantia (Linn) CUCURBITACEAE djsyk 190 Momordica dioica (Roxb) CUCURBITACEAE ddkZsVdh 191 Moringa pterygosperma (Gaertn) MORINGACEAE lfgatuk 192 Morus indica (Griff.) MORACEAE lgrwr 193 Mucuna Pruriens (Bek.) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) dkSap 194 Murraya koenigii. Spreng RUTACEAE ehBh uhe 195 Murraya paniculata Jack Syn.

M.exotica RUT ACEAE dkfeuh

196 Musa sapientum (Linn) M. paradisiaca.

MUSACEAE dsyk

197 Myrica nagi Thunb. M.esculanta ct1lq MYRICACEAE dk;Qy 198 Myristica fragrans Houtt. MYRISTICACEAE tk;Qy 199 Myristica fragrans Houtt MYRISTICACEAE tkfo=h 200 Nardostachys jatamansi VALERIANACEAE tVkekalh 201 Nelumbium speciosum (Willd) NYMPHAEACEAE dey 202 Nerium odorum Soland. APOCYANACEAE dusj 203 Nigella Sativa Linn RANUNCULACEAE dykSath 204 Nyctanthes arbor-tristis (Linn) OLEACEAE gjflaxkj 205 Ocimum basilicum (Linn) LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE) diwj rqylh 206 Ocimum canum sines. o. americanum LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE) ou rqylh 207 Ocimum grattisimum (Linn) LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE) jke rqylh 208 Ocimum sanctllm (Linn) LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE) xkSjh rqylh 209 Oldenlandia Corymbosa (Linn) RUBIACEAE {ks= iiZV 210 Operculina terpthum Silva Manso.

Ipomoea terpethllm CONVOLVULACEAE fu'kksFk

211 Oroxylum indicum Vent. BIGNONIACEAE lksuk ikBk 212 Oxalis Corniculata (Linn) OXALIDACEAE pkaxsjh 213 Pandanus odoratissimus Roxb PANDANACEAE dsoM+k

388

214 Papaver Somniferum (Linn) PAPAVARACEAE vQhe 215 Pedalium murex (Linn) PEDALIACEAE cM+k xks[k# 216 Peucedonum graveolens (Linn) UMBLLIFERAE 'kriq"ik 217 Phaseolus trllobus. Alt FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) ou ewax 218 Phyllanthus niruri (Linn) P.

asperulatus EUPHORBIACEAE HkWaqbZ vkWaoyk


219 Physalisminima (Linn) SOLANACEAE Vadkjh 220 Phyla nodit1ora. Lippia nodit1ora Rich VERBENACEAE ty ihiy 221 Picrorl.hiza kurroa. Royle exbenth. SCROPHULARIACEAE dVqdh 222 Pinlls longifolia Roxb. PINACEAE phM+ 223 Piper betle Linn. PIPERACEAE iku 224 Piper longum (Linn) PIPERACEAE fiIiyh 225 Pipernigrum (Linn) PIPERACEAE dkyh efjp 226 PiperSylvaticum Roxb PIPERACEAE igkM+h ihiy 227 Pluchea lanceolata oliver & Hiern. COMPOSITAE (ASTERACEAE) Ñf=e v'kksd 228 Plumbago Zeylanica Linn. PLUMBAGINACEAE fp=d 229 Plumeria acutifolia Poir. APOCY ANCEAE jkluk 230 Pluchea lanceolata oliver & Hiern. COMPOSITAE (ASTERACEAE) [ksj pEik 231 Pongamia Pinnata Syn P. glabra.

Vent FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) djat

232 Portulaca oleracea (Linn) PORTULACEAE cM+h yks.kk 233 Pol1ulaca quadrifida (Linn) PORTULACEAE y?kq yks.kk 234 Prosopis Spicigera MIMOSAE (LEGUMINOSAE) 'keh 235 Prunus amygdalus Batsch. ROSACEAE cknke 236 Prunus Persica Batsch. ROSACEAE vkM+w 237 Psoralea Corylifolia (Linn) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) ckdqph 238 Psidium guajava (Linn) MYRTACEAE ve:n 239 Pterocarpus marsupium. Roxb. FABACEAE (PAPILIONACEAE) vlu 240 Pueraria tuberosa D.C. FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) fonkjh dan 241 Punica granatum. (Linn) PUNICACEAE vukj 242 Putranjiva roxbllrghii. Wall EUPHORBIACEAE firkSaft;k 243 Pyrus maills (Linn) ROSACEAE lso 244 Quisqllalis indica (Linn) COMBRETACEAE e/kqekyrh 245 Randia dllmetorum Lam. RUBIACEAE enu 246 Raphanus Sativus Linn BRASICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) ewyh 247 Rauwolfia Serpenlina Benth. ex. kurz. APOCYANACEAE liZxa/kk 248 Ricinus communis Linn EUPHORBIACEAE ,j.M 249 Rosa centifolia (Linn) ROSASEAE xqykc 250 Rubia cordifolia Linn RUBIACEAE eaft"Bk

389

251 Saccharum officinarium. Linn POACEAE (GRAMINAE) bZ[k 252 Salmalia malbarica. BOMBACEAE lsey 253 Santalum album Linn. SANT ALACEAE lQsn pUnu 254 Sansevieria roxburghina Schult. HAEMODORACEAE ukxneu 255 Sapindlls trifolialus (Linn) SAPINDACEAE jhBk 256 Saraca indica CAESALPINACEAE

(LEGUMINOSAE) v'kksd


257 Saxifraga ligulata Wall. SAXIFRAGACEAE ik"kk.kHksn 258 Sesamum indicum'Linn. PEDALIACEAE fry 259 Shorea robusta gaertn. DIPTEROCARPACEAE 'kky 260 Sida Cordifolia (Linn) MALVACEAE cyk 261 Sida rhombifolia (Linn) MALVACEAE egkcyk 262 Smilex china (Linn) LILIACEAE pksi phuh 263 Solanum indicum (Linn) SOLANACEAE c`grh 264 Solanum melongena (Linn) SOLANACEAE cSxqu 265 Solanum nigrum (Linn) SOLANCEAE edks; 266 Solanum Surattense Brumt.

S.Xanthocarpum. SOLANACEAE daVdkfjdk

¼y?kq½ 267 Soymida febrifuga. A. Juss MELIACEAE jksfguh 268 Spinacia oleracea (Linn) CHENOPODIACEAE ikyd 'kkd 269 Strychnos nux vomica (Linn) LOGANIACEAE dqpyk 270 Swertia chirayata Roxb.Syn. GENTIANACEAE fpjk;rk 271 Symplocos racemosa Roxb. Syn. mu SYMPLOCACEAE yks/kz 272 Syzygium aromatica. Meril & Perry. MYRTACEAE ykSax 273 Syzygium cumini Skeels Syn. MYRTACEAE cM+h tkequ 274 Tagetes erecta (Linn) ASTERACEAE xsank 275 Tamarindus indica (Linn) CAESALPINACEAE

LEGUMINOCEAE beyh

276 Tamarix articulata. Vahl. TAMARICACEAE NksVh i=okl 277 Tamarix gallica (Linn) TAMARICACEAE cM+h i=okl 278 Tectona grandis (Linn) VERBINACEAE lkxoku 279 Tephrosia purpurea Linn FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) 'kjiqa[k 280 Teramnus labialis spreng FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) ek"ki.khZ 281 Terminalia arjuna. Bedd. COMBRETACEAE vtqZu 282 Terminalia belerica. Roxb. COMBRETACEAE foHkhrd 283 Terminalia chebula Retz. COMBRETACEAE gjhrdh ¼cM+h½ 284 Terminalia tomentosa. W & A. COMBRETACEAE vlu 285 Thevetia neriifolia Juss. APOCYANCEAE ihyk dusj

390

286 Thuja orientalis CUPRESSACEAE e;wj ia[k 287 Tinospora cordifolia (Willd) Miers. MENISPERMACEAE fxyks; 288 Trapa natans (Linn) TRAPACEAE fla?kkM+k 289 Tribullls terrestris (Linn) ZYGOPHYLLACEAE xks{kqj 290 Trichosanthes dioica. Roxb. CUCURBITACEAE ijoy 291 Trigonella foenum graecum (Linn) FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) esfFkdk 292 Tylophora indica (Burmf.) Merr. ASCLEPIADACEAE vdZi.khZ 293 Uraria picta. Desv. FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) i`fJi.khZ


294 Urginia indica. kunth. LILIACEAE taxyh I;kt 295 Vernonia anthelmintica (Willd) ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE) ou thjk 296 Vernonia cinerea Less. ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE) lgnsoh 297 Vetiveria zizanioides (Linn) Nash. POACEAE (GRAMINAE) ohj.kewy 298 Viola odorata Linn VIOLACEAE xqycui'kk 299 Vitex negundo (Linn) VERBENACEAE fuxZq.Mh 300 Vitis Vinifera (Linn) VITACEAE nzk{kk 301 Withania Somnifera Dunal. SOLANACEAE výxa/kk 302 Wrightia tinctoria R. Br. Syn. APOCYANACEAE ehBk bUnzto 303 Zingiber officinale Roscoe. ZINGIBERACEAE vnj[k 304 Zizyphus Vulgaris Lam. RHAMNACEAE jkt cnj

391

Appendix - 2

xzg u{k= okfVdkvksa dk jksi.kxzg u{k= okfVdkvksa dk jksi.kxzg u{k= okfVdkvksa dk jksi.kxzg u{k= okfVdkvksa dk jksi.k gekjs _f"k&eqfu;ksa us çR;sd xzg ,oa u{k= ls lEcfU/kr ikS/ks ds ckjs esa tkudkjh ,d= dh Fkh rFkk uoxzg ,oa u{k= okfVdk,a LFkkfir dh FkhA lnSo ls ;g ekU;rk jgh gS fd xzg&u{k=ksa ds dqçHkkoksa ls o`{k ,oa ouLifr;kWa lekIr ;k de dj ldrh gSaA Hkkjrh; ekU;rk es lw;Ze.My ds leLr lnL;ksa o milnL;ksa ¼ftlesa lw;Z o pUnzek Hkh 'kkfey gS½ dks xzg dgk x;k gSA ;g /kjrh ds djhc gksus ls budh fLFkfr rst cnyrh jgrh gSA u{k= /kjrh ls vR;ar nwj gksus ls LFkku cnyrs ugha çrhr gksrs vr% fLFkj vFkkZr u{k= dgs x;sA Hkkjrh; euhf"k;ksa us vkleku esa lUnzek ds ;k=k&iFk dks 27 Hkkxksa esa ckaVk rFkk gj 27osa Hkkx esa iM+us okys rkjkeaMy ds chp dqN fof'k"V rkjksa dh igpku dj mUgsa ,d uke fn;k ftUgsa u{k= dgk x;kA bl çdkj uoxzgksa rFkk 27 u{k=ksa dh igpku dh x;hA fdlh O;fDr ds tUe ds le; panzek /kjrh ls ftl u{k= dh lh/k esa jgrk gS] ;g ml O;fdr dk tUe u{k= dgykrk gSA xzg] u{k=] ikS/kksa dk mYys[k ikSjkf.kd] T;ksfr"k] vk;qosZfnd] rkaf=d o vU; xzUFkksa esa feyrk gS] buesa ls izeq[k xzUFk gSa %

• ikSjkf.kd xzUFk ukjn iqjk.k • T;ksfr"k xzUFk ukjn lafgrk • vk;qosZfnd xzUFk jkt fu?kaVq] o`gr~ lqJqr] ukjk;.kh lafgrk • rkaf=d xzUFk 'kkjnk fryd] ea=egk.kZo] Jh fo|k.kZo ra= vkfn • vU; xzUFk vkuUnkJe izdk'ku] ouLifr&v/;kRe] u{k=&o{̀k vkfn lHkh rF;ksa ij fopkj djus ds ckn fofHkUu xzgksa ,oa u{k=ksa ds fy, ftu ikS/kksa ds uke

fu"d"kZ esa vk;s gSa mudk fooj.k rkfydk 1 o 2 esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ikrduk'ku ,oa 'kkjhfjd d"V fuokj.k gsrq xzgksa ds vuqlkj jRuksa ds /kkj.k djus dk T;ksfr"k 'kkL= esa izko/kku gSA mlh izdkj xzgksa ,oa u{k=ksa ls lEcfU/kr ikS/kksa dks mxkus ls Hkh yksxksa dks euksokaf{kr Qy fey ldrk gSA egf"kZ pjd ds vuqlkj /keZ] vFkZ] dke] eks{k dks izkIr djus gsrq vkjksX; jguk vko';d gSA LoLFk 'kjhj ,oa nh?kZthou izkIr djus ds fy, Hkkstu] 'kqf)] ok;q] ty rFkk iznw"k.k jfgr i;kZoj.k vko';d gSA egkRek rqylhnkl us fy[kk gS%

"xxu lehj vuy ty /kjuhA budh ukFk lgt tM+ djuhAAxxu lehj vuy ty /kjuhA budh ukFk lgt tM+ djuhAAxxu lehj vuy ty /kjuhA budh ukFk lgt tM+ djuhAAxxu lehj vuy ty /kjuhA budh ukFk lgt tM+ djuhAA" bUgsa e;kZfnr djus esa o`{kksa@ouLifr;ksa dh vge Hkwfedk lnSo ls jgh gSA yxHkx lHkh dkyksa esa ^ou] ckx] miou] okfVdk lj dwi oklh lksggh* dh izFkk jgh gSA vkt Hkh gfj;kyh rFkk 'kq) i;kZoj.k ds izfr ge tkx:d gSaA

xzgksa dh 'kkafr gsrq iwtk&ikB] ;K&gou esa fo'ks"k iztkfr ds iYyo] iq"i] Qy] dk"B dh vko';drk iM+rh gS tks fd uoxzg ,oa u{k=ksa ls lEcfU/kr ikS/ks gh ns ldrs gSaA iqjk.kksa ds vuqlkj ftl u{k= esa xzg fo|eku gksa ml le; ml u{k= laca/kh ikS/ks dk ;RuiwoZd laj{k.k rFkk iwtu ls xzg dh 'kkafr gksrh gS rFkk tkrd dks euksokaf{kr Qy feyrk gSA

u{k=ksa u{k=ksa u{k=ksa u{k=ksa ØØØØ----lalalala----

u{k=u{k=u{k=u{k= nnnn

1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27-

vf'ouh Hkj.kh d̀frdk jksfg.kh e`xf'kjk vknzkZ iquoZlq iq"i vk'ys"kk e/kk iwokZ QkYxquh mRrjh QkYxquh gLr fp Lokrh fo'kk[kk vuqjk/kk T;s"Bk ewyk iwokZ"kk<+k mRrjk"kk<+k Jo.k ?kfu"Bk 'krfe"kd iwokZ Hkknzin mRrjk Hkknzin jsorh

vf' vfXczg~elkse:nvfnc`gLlw;firHkxvHlfoRo"ok;banzkfe=banz fu_tyfo'fo"olo:vtvfgiw"kk

xzgksa xzgksa xzgksa xzgksa ØØØØ----lalalala---- xzgxzgxzgxzg

uuuu1- jfo

rkfydk% 1rkfydk% 1rkfydk% 1rkfydk% 1 ls lEcfU/kr ikS/ksls lEcfU/kr ikS/ksls lEcfU/kr ikS/ksls lEcfU/kr ikS/ks

ikS/ks dk ukeikS/ks dk ukeikS/ks dk ukeikS/ks dk uke sorksorksorksork jkjkjkjkf'kf'kf'kf'k laLdr̀laLdr̀laLdr̀laLdr̀ fgUnhfgUnhfgUnhfgUnh

ouh es"k dkjdjk dqfpyk

392

u k z fr ifr Z j kZ;k rk Vk q fXu

fr osnso .kq q .k Sdin Zcq/kU;

es"k es"k@o`"k o"̀k o"̀k@feFkqu feFkqu feFkqu@ddZ ddZ ddZ flag flag flag@dU;k dU;k dU;k@rqyk rqyk rqyk@of̀'pd o`f'pd o`f'pd /kuq /kuq /kuq@edj edj edj@dqaHk dqaHk dqaHk@ehu ehu ehu

/kkoh mnqEcj tEcw [kkfnj d̀".k oa'k v'oRFk tkx oV iyk'k Iy{k vfjoV foY; vtqZu fodadr odqy ljy lxZ oaxqy iul vdZ 'keh dnEc vkez fuEc e/kwd

vkaoyk xwyu tkequ [kSj 'kh'ke ckal ihiy ukxdslj cjxn Bkd ikdM+ jhBk csy vtqZu dVkbZ ekSyJh phM+ lky tyosrl dVgy enkj N;ksZdj dnEc vke uhe egqvk

2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9-

lkseeaxcq/kc`g'kqØ'kfujkgdsr

dq'k ¼dsrq½ 'keh ¼'kfu½ if

'pe

if'pe

if'pe

if'pe

nwc ¼jkgq½

rkfydk% 2rkfydk% 2rkfydk% 2rkfydk% 2 ls lEcfU/kr ikS/ksls lEcfU/kr ikS/ksls lEcfU/kr ikS/ksls lEcfU/kr ikS/ks dk dk dk dk kekekeke

iwtu@gou gsrq iwtu@gou gsrq iwtu@gou gsrq iwtu@gou gsrq ikS/ksikS/ksikS/ksikS/ks

enkj
y Lifr q q
iyk'k [kSj vikekxZ ¼yVthjk½ ihiy xqyj 'keh nwc dq'k

¼c

uoxzg okfVdkuoxzg okfVdkuoxzg okfVdkuoxzg okfVdk mRrjmRrjmRrjmRrj

ihiy g̀Lifr½

vikekxZ ¼yVthjk½ ¼cq/k½

enkj ¼jfo½

Xwyj ¼'kqØ½

[kSj ¼eaxy½

iyk'k ¼lkse½

iwjciwjciwjciwjc

nf{k.knf{k.knf{k.knf{k.k

393

Location Map

Model Land Use Plan - UP

Documents

Transcript of Model Land Use Plan - UP