Abstract
Urban development at city periphery as a unique process of urbanisation, manifests in distinctive spatial and socio-economic characteristics. The emergence of settlement types—an admixture of rural and urban characteristics—functionally transient between agrarian and non-agrarian economy with pervasive change in land uses and attendant livelihood sources, retreating mode of rural social norms and advancing urban way of life are remarkably obvious in peri-urban landscape of large Indian cities. The resultant socio-economic challenges for peri-urban inhabitants often create chasm between promised development agenda and their aspirations. Delving into the socio-economic transformations on account of land appropriation by the State government for urban and industrial development and ramifications of land negotiations in five peri-urban villages of Noida—this study reveals the discordant side of urbanisation benefitting urban at the cost of rural, and administrative processes which remain oblivious to the aspirations of those whose lands provided the grounds of this development agenda.
Introduction
In the context of a developing economy such as India wherein a large proportion of people continue to derive their livelihoods from the agricultural sector, the issue of land acquisition has always been a long vexing problem for policymakers and an issue of contestations, conflicts and protests by those who forego their land in the process of development. Besides being a primary source of employment, land also serves as a collateral, provides cushion against inflation and is associated with social prestige. On the other hand, land is a crucial resource required for development activities. Large parcels of land are acquired compulsorily by the government on payment of compensation in accordance with the land acquisition laws for construction of various infrastructure, housing or other public purposes. Furthermore, acquisition of land for establishment of privately-owned industries is also provisioned in these laws. Thus, conflicts due to land acquisition stem from dichotomy of views on land by different stakeholders.
While changes in land use take place gradually and incrementally over time through decisions by landowners, compulsory land acquisition is the main vehicle adopted by the government for bringing changes on a large scale. Land acquisition has been a highly contested and vexatious issue in Delhi’s neighbouring Noida and Greater Noida. Violent protests in two villages—Bhatta and Parsaul in May 2011 against the then Uttar Pradesh Government’s notification of 2009 for land acquisition for development of and along Yamuna Expressway have been widely reported (see Gahlot & Vishnu, 2011). While the matter drew political battlelines, however, the matter was expectedly resolved through the intervention of the Allahabad High Court ruling suspending land acquisition process, quashing the land acquisition notification and return of the land forcibly acquired. The issue is not of silence of participation of political parties and/or civil society which in fact may trigger politicisation of the issue, but also in the process bringing these issues to the public awareness mostly through media reporting. However, it is the inevitability of Court interventions, which can be protracted in matters of land acquisition and related disputes, which in effect reflects on the critical aspect of public consultation and consent for land acquisition and related policy matters. This has been addressed in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013. Replacing the out-dated colonial Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 1894, the enactment of LARR, 2013 with the provisions of increased compensation for acquired land, mandatory rehabilitation and resettlement for both the land and livelihood losers, and requiring prior consent of land holders in particular cases — aimed for greater transparency and benefits for the project affected families (PAFs) and correcting the existing imbalance between the interests of land-owners and the government as the custodian of public interest in the earlier land acquisition procedures (see Goswami (2016) and Singh (2016) for critical examination on LARR, 2013). While the LARR, 2013 has ensured advantageous outcomes for the PAFs, however, given the sharp enhancement in financial and other compensations, the pre-existing land pooling mechanism for planned urban development has gained traction across states in India in recent past. Several states announced their respective land pooling policies including Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Land pooling is not a substitute for land acquisition but an alternative for planned development at lower monetary cost for land and minimal conflict between government and landowners. The increased land value and improved infrastructure are favourable returns to landowners who pooled their land (Kirubakar, 2019).
This study presents a narrative on urbanisation-induced spatial and socio-economic changes in peri-urban villages around the industrial town of Noida. Given this synoptic introduction, this study provides a brief description of the urban growth in Noida and Greater Noida as well as the research locales. The findings on attendant transitions in the peri-urban research locales are structured in five sections which deal with land acquisitions, negotiations, landholdings, livelihoods and challenges experienced by peri-urban communities.
Urban Growth Story of Noida and Greater Noida
Metropolitan areas act as strong attraction points for people due to significant investments and employment opportunities, thus, resulting in a process of continuous in-migration that leads to sustained expansion of built-up zones surrounding metropolitan areas. This stands true in the case of National Capital Region (NCR) wherein several new towns (e.g., Noida and Greater Noida) were planned and developed to decentralise the burgeoning population of Delhi and tackle the problem of increasing incursion of non-conforming industrial activities in prime residential areas of the capital city (Jain, 1989; Potter & Kumar, 2004). This led to the development of the new planned industrial town of Noida, which would attract industry from non-conforming areas in Delhi (Potter & Sinha, 1990).
The city of Noida officially came into existence on 17 April 1976 when the Uttar Pradesh State government notified 36 villages on the Eastern periphery of the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 3(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The area acquired for the city’s development comprised of a rich agricultural belt extending over Western Uttar Pradesh. Named after the newly created autonomous development authority, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), the area was meant to become a centre of industry facilitated by top-down bureaucratic management. The development authority was entrusted with the task of preparing and implementing the master plan to ensure regulated development of the town, with reference to incorporation of small-scale industries. It was envisaged that Noida would develop sites for about 10,000 small-scale industrial units which would collectively employ about 41,000 labourers, achieve conducive living and work environments for those engaged in manufacturing and allied activities and develop an integrated township for an ultimate population of 375,000 workers for the year 1991 (Noida Authority, nd, p. 2). But the most recent Noida Master Plan 2031 notes, even before the implementation of the Plan could commence, the basic assumptions on which the Plan was based had to be drastically recast (Noida Authority, nd, p. 2).
Today, Noida is one of the largest planned industrial townships of Asia and an important fringe town to Delhi. It is surrounded by several towns and cities—Ghaziabad, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr and Khurja in Uttar Pradesh and Faridabad and Ballabhgarh in Haryana—all growing with a strong industrial base. This sub-region of Delhi NCR has become hypersensitive to urbanisation. With Noida’s population rapidly approaching one million (637,272 persons as per Census of India, 2011), its growth has outpaced the development authority’s ability to develop public services and infrastructure facilities. Noida Master Plan 2031 narrates the scenario in which actual urbanisation and population growth consistently outpace projections while planners scrambled to check unauthorised land-use (Schindler & Kishore, 2015). While the development authority has struggled to regulate urban growth, Schindler & Kishore (2015) also note that, it also sought to assert their independence from the Delhi Metropolitan Area; thereby rejecting the city’s role in the regional division of labour as an industrial hub. Instead, the city has been pro-actively marketed as a centre of India’s emergent economic geography of information technology enabled services, media and film production and its burgeoning high-tech research and development sector (see Aoyama & Parthasarathy, 2012). As a result, Noida has become a mixture of high-end corporate facilities, exclusive gated communities and commercial areas, industrial clusters and unauthorised low-end residential and commercial spaces.
Another development having far-reaching implications for the growth potential of Noida, is the development of Greater Noida on a contiguous territory East of the river Hindon (a tributary of Yamuna). Before its designation, sporadic occupancy was visible in the area along with establishment of some academic institutions. It was argued that since the area is located on the peripheral and fertile hinterlands of Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh, it should benefit from this overall prosperity (Potter & Kumar, 2004). Considering this, the Government of Uttar Pradesh decided to acquire about 70,000 hectares for planned urban development, with a view to curb haphazard development in this area and created the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) in 1991, which has now prepared a master plan for the development of Greater Noida for an eventual population of 300,000 persons. Both authorities have been instrumental in the industrial, commercial and institutional development of the two cities through implementation of Master Plans.
All land negotiations—land assembly, acquisition and development—are vested with the respective development authorities. While centralisation of such massive scale may be advantageous in terms of implementing a highly planned development model; at the same time, such an urban governance structure contradicts the ideals of local self-government enshrined in the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992. Unlike the statutory Municipal Corporation, the development authority is a parastatal with non-elected functionaries drawn by the State government. As an administrative authority, they are vested with powers to deliver all urban services as well as take all the decisions pertaining to financial, planning and acquisition. Such set-up poses numerous challenges owing to non-representation of local and vulnerable communities in administrative decision-making processes and belies participatory urban governance. This is also observed in the case of Noida and Greater Noida. As parastatals, these development authorities are state level institutions established to deliver services and undertake all administrative functions for the city although without peoples’ representatives. In the absence of democratically elected functionaries in the form of Municipal Councillors, the mechanism for public participation in development processes and grievance redressal are unlike those in statutory urban local bodies (ULBs) such as Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee, Nagar Panchayat to be singular (as Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee). The ULBs have representatives from across different political parties elected from different wards of the city who take up development agenda, citizen’s issues and concerns of their respective wards at different forum. However, Noida and Greater Noida being non-statutory towns are administered by parastatals with no elected functionaries. One participant in the focussed group discussion (FGD) said that
Earlier village Pradhans (Sarpanch and Panchayat members elected from the village) represented the interest of people before the administration. With the dissolution of panchayats upon the acquisition and merger of villages within the Noida Development Authority, issues are taken up by the authority based on their priority.
Research Methodology
The context of this study is built on peri-urbanisation with a focus on land acquisition for urbanisation. The research locales included five peri-urban villages around Noida and Greater Noida cities located in Gautam Buddha Nagar District of Uttar Pradesh, namely Achheja, Gharbarah, Khera Choganpur, Kondli Bangar and Kudi Khera, whose lands were acquired for industrial and residential development (see Map 1). These were selected based on diversity in locational and social attributes (See Map 1 and Profile of Peri-Urban Villages). Data for demographic, socio-economic, land use collated from several secondary sources available in the public domain—Census of India, Master Plan of Noida, etc., were used to construct background profiles of the five villages. Primary data were generated through a questionnaire survey administered to a total of 166 households (HHs) in these villages during March–July 2019. Since the study focusses on land acquisition and its attendant impacts, HH identification for survey was purposive and final inclusion dependent on the willingness of HH members to be interviewed. The survey was initiated with the key informant introducing a few HH and thereafter, through snowball sampling. Among the 166 HHs surveyed, only 15 respondents were females, and the remaining were males. See Table 1 for village-level HH profile of respondents.
Location of Research Locales
Household Profile of Respondents.
Quantitative analysis of the survey enabled to capture specific aspects about land holdings, changes in land utilisation, farming and livelihood practices and land negotiations. Following the HH survey, a FGD with primary stakeholders including the Village Panchayat members (from all five villages), farmers and community leaders was undertaken which facilitated details regarding land acquisition processes and challenges faced by peri-urban residents. Respondents’ experiences and narratives during the HH survey and FGD enriched the quantitative analysis of this study. Data analysis is presented in the form of tables and figures. In addition, locational attributes of all five research locales and two most prominent changes in landscape for reference years 2007 and 2019 (Achheja and Kondli Bangar) have been depicted using Google Maps.
Findings and Discussion
Profile of Peri-Urban Villages
Select Demographic Attributes, 2011.
Given that land has been acquired in and around these villages for planned urban development, improved road infrastructure connecting village abadi (settlement) is available. However, for other basic amenities, these villages are still awaiting services at par with their urban counterparts. Piped water supply is limited as HHs remain dependent on private borewells. Similarly, provision of sewer connections, storm water drainage and solid waste collection and management are neglected. Lack of social infrastructure facilities and community-level amenities such as green spaces, playground, sport facilities, education and medical facilities, marriage hall, crèche, community centre, etc., is evident. Given that both the planned parts of Noida and peri-urban villages are governed by the same development authority sets a poor example of equitable development. Kondli Bangar presents an isolated example where community amenities such as community hall, cremation ground, community spaces largely used by men for discussions (locally called as chaupal) and a market have been developed by the authority. Falling now under the jurisdiction of development authority, these villages lost their independent local self-governance status as Panchayats were dissolved. While the Panchayat lost its political decision-making power to the development authority, more critically, community participation in local development agenda has been the biggest loss. These villages are now one among the hundreds of colonies and neighbourhoods contending for the development authority’s attention for provision, operation and maintenance of basic services and infrastructure facilities.
Land Acquisitions and Changing Land Use
Major Land Uses in the Research Locales.
In the last two decades, land permanently lost from agricultural practices amounted 655.37 hectares. On the other hand, ANAC—the built-up area increased by more than five times, from 169.68 hectares in 1991 to 881.11 hectares in 2011. This change was observed in 4 out of 5 peri-urban villages. In absolute terms, Kudi Khera recorded the largest decline in its cultivated area as it lost 300 hectares of land. Similarly, Achheja lost a substantial part of cultivated area (183.22 hectares). The decline in other two villages, Kondli Bangar and Khera Choganpur were in the range of 65–67 hectares, each. Only Gharbarah registered a marginal increase of 18.15 hectares in area devoted to cultivation. While all villages continue to cultivate their unacquired lands mainly for wheat, bajra and jowar (sorghum), agricultural use reduced significantly as non-agricultural use (residential and industrial) predominated the land use.
Over the past few years, mixed land use is increasingly visible with people converting their agricultural land into residential or are using it for cattle rearing and horticulture. In Achheja, some farmers have even given their lands on rent for horticulture production, while barren lands are used as brick kilns. However, the most striking land use change observed in Achheja is the sprawl of warehousing and industrial units to the North and West of the village abadi over the past decade (see Map 2). With coming up of the Noida–Greater Noida Expressway, large-scale infrastructure development including roads and other trunk infrastructure to service the peri-urban areas has enveloped Kondli Bangar (see Map 3).
Changes in Landscape in Achheja
Changes in Landscape in Kondli Bangar
Gharbarah and Kudi Khera are the two villages having low proportion of their area under non-agricultural uses (28.04% and 13.41%). A total of 162 hectares of land was acquired in Gharbarah by GNIDA in 2002 mainly for institutional and infrastructure development purposes—Gautam Buddha University, NIIT Technologies and Yamuna Expressway. Mixed-use development with institutional land use on one side of the highway, flanked by the village on its other side has completely changed its functioning. The existing land use is in contravention of the current Master Plan provisions which earmarked this area as a green zone. While a lot of land was utilised for development purpose, a good chunk of it remains vacant and is used as dumping grounds. Kudi Khera presents an exception, with agriculture as the dominant land use. However, it is also witnessing the issue of conversion of agricultural land into informal plots, which are largely illegal constructions. This spontaneous haphazard growth presents a challenge to the provisions of Master Plan as they often emerge into unauthorised colonies lacking integration with infrastructure provisions found in planned parts of the city.
Another aspect of land use change post-acquisition is vacant lands. Proposed infrastructure development is a long-drawn process after completion of land acquisition. Large tracks of land acquired in the last 15 years have remained vacant and unused, particularly common property resources like pastures and grazing lands, ponds and water bodies. These are in a state of neglect and degradation, being used as dumping grounds in the absence of solid waste management practices, while low-lying lands have been encroached by migrant labourers. Further, transformers, tube-wells, water supply connections etc., in the acquired land parcels have been discontinued to ensure that no claim to land or farming activity is put up by landowners as they may lead to legal hurdles in the acquired land parcels, and thus remain vacant lands until development is initiated. Some people, whose lands were acquired but continue to be vacant, had filed cases in the court. Although verdict mentioned that the competent authority may surrender these land parcels back to the landowners; however, after paying some more compensation, the authority reacquired those land parcels.
Land Negotiations
Large-scale land transaction activities were found in the selected locales with 80.12% HHs surveyed reporting land acquisition and/or sale of land parcels. Among the remainder, 10.96% of HHs still had unsold land parcels and 9.04% HHs had no land holdings. Government-led land acquisition overwhelmingly dominated land transactions (85.71% of HHs reported it) while remaining 14.29% reported sale to private real estate developers and brokers.
Lands were acquired between 2002 and 2009 under the LAA, 1894 by the two development authorities (of Noida and Greater Noida) for industrial development (in Achheja, Khera Choganpur and Kondli Bangar), infrastructure development like Yamuna Expressway (in Gharbarah), metro rail (in Kondli Bangar), Eastern Peripheral Expressway (in Kudi Khera), institutional development—Gautam Buddha University (in Gharbarah) and beautification purposes (in Achheja). Monetary compensation at circle rates was paid in either one-time lump-sum payment or in two/three installments by cheque. The per hectare price ranged between ₹1.4 million in Gharbarah, ₹2.9–3.5 million in Kondli Bangar, ₹4.4 million in Khera Choganpur, ₹8.5 million in Achheja and ₹23.5 million in Kudi Khera. However, the prevalent market rates for the same piece of land were around three to four times higher than the circle rates paid by the government. Since the lands were acquired for public purpose under Clause 4 of the LAA, 1894, villagers had no option but to give away their land. Besides monetary compensation, rehabilitation through allotment of 5–6% serviced land and job for one member of the family were also promised although this was not a uniform clause for all land acquisitions (with Achheja not considered for additional compensation clause). However, monetary compensation below market rate was widely contested in the court by HHs which led to payment of enhanced compensation of 64% and additional 5% serviced land totalling 10%. Similar enhancements were announced for Khera Choganpur (from ₹4.36 million to ₹6.85 million). However, this verdict applied only to those landowners who petitioned in the court, not all landowners whose lands were acquired benefitted.
On the other hand, private real estate developers also bought land from individual farmers in Achheja and Kudi Khera at market rates in range of ₹1.8–11.2 million per hectare for plotting and industrial development. While monetary compensation was paid in installments through both cash and cheque, HHs were more satisfied with the monetary compensation received through sale proceeds since these transactions were at market rates, and not circle rates. Land parcels were primarily sold for social reasons like children’s education, marriage or medical exigencies, however, budding colonies in the village (which) were giving good prices for the lands was cited as a favourable option for those who wished to sell their lands. Plotting and construction, predominantly of residential colonies by local builders negotiating and buying land from individual villagers in Kudi Khera was rampant; but mostly unauthorised in the absence of sanction for change in land use (from agriculture to non-agriculture) and building sanctions as per the Building Bye-Laws. Thus, emergence of unauthorised colonies amidst planned urban development has been common.
Absence of collateral benefits other than monetary compensation left villagers with an increased sense of insecurities and deprivations with respondents strongly mentioning that by selling our land, we have been rendered homeless and without money and livelihood. People wasted and exhausted compensation money in purchasing houses, cars, etc.
Landholdings
Although agriculture is the dominant economic activity in India, however, it is in retreat in the peri-urban areas. Land is the most important resource in urbanisation process. The change in its intrinsic relationship with agricultural practices is related to several factors like subdivision of land holdings and low agricultural revenue. In addition, expanding cities, increased sale of land for residence, business use or other commercial purposes have taken away adjoining agricultural lands, thereby reducing HH landholdings. The survey revealed a high proportion of marginal land holding (44.37%), followed by semi-medium landholdings (18.54%), equivalent proportion of small and medium (17.22% each) and large landholdings accounting for the lowest proportion (2.65%) (see Figure 1). Land ownership was absent among 9.04% surveyed HHs.
Except for Gharbarah, marginal landholding is the predominant size across all selected villages, with nearly two-thirds of agricultural land in Achheja (62.60%) less than 1 hectare (see Figure 2).
Its proportion ranged between 31.03% and 48.39% in other villages. Large-sized landholdings are found in only two villages (Gharbarah and Kondli Bangar). Overall, a tendency of sub-division of landholdings into smaller land parcels coupled with land acquisition was attributable for marginal and small landholdings. Despite meagre landholdings, the peri-urban communities depended on agriculture for livelihoods. However, a shift from agriculture to non-agricultural sources of livelihoods is certainly happening, as explained in the next section.
Shifting Livelihoods
Compulsory acquisition of land necessarily led to shift from agriculture to non-agricultural livelihood practices in the research locales. Among the surveyed HHs, only about a quarter of HHs (22.89%) were solely dependent on agriculture, whereas non-agricultural sources of livelihoods were predominant among all the respondents with 46.99% HHs reporting it as their primary livelihood activity (see Figure 3).
These included both public and private sectors, formal as well as informal jobs such as employment in public institutions (schools, police and army), running businesses (real estate, shops, hardware equipment, provision stores) or engaged in services (such as sales, housekeeping and labour). Around 27.11% HHs pursued agricultural and other livelihood sources (earning pensions or incomes from fixed deposits or rental incomes from other properties). Agriculture is the dominant mode of livelihood in only one peri-urban village, that is, Kondli Bangar, while non-agricultural activities predominated in remaining four villages (see Figure 4).
The adoption of non-agricultural livelihoods created a deep sense of deprivation since farming was the only occupation to which villagers were accustomed since generations. Monetary compensation for the lost land was not sufficient as it did not translate into a secured livelihood alternative without attendant challenges of skill and/or education such a transition entailed. The money was spent very quickly. The erstwhile landholder took up whatsoever option of informal livelihood available in the market based on his capability. Further, shift from agriculture towards non-agricultural livelihoods is also prevalent due to uncertainties associated with agricultural practices attributed to availability of water as well as its contamination, unwillingness of younger generations to engage in agriculture, thereby increased dependence on labour for farm operations and lower returns as well as marginal landholdings. In fact, subsistence farming was the most widely reported (39.75% HHs) farming practice whereas only a fifth of the HHs (20.48%) were involved in commercial operations. HHs reported an increase in horticulture, dairying and poultry farming in recent times prompted by growing demand from the city. While dependence on family for farm operations was more than 50% across the villages, however, as much as a fifth of the HHs relied on hired labour mainly for sowing and harvesting activities and for digging drains in the fields or gave their farm on rent in a system called aadhi batai, that is, division of farm produce between landowner and contracted labourers. This is commonly practiced among large landholders due to unavailability of HH members as the younger generations are not interested in practicing agriculture anymore, while other family members have shifted to non-agricultural pursuits.
Also, increased incomes from non-agricultural based livelihoods are encouraging landholders to sell off their lands and shift to other economic sectors. For comparative picture of annual income from agriculture and non-agricultural activities, see Figure 5. As evident, income generated from agriculture is low with nearly three-quarters of HHs reporting below ₹50,000 annually, only 1.2% HHs earned above ₹550,001. The comparative figure from non-agricultural activities is 24.10% and 13.86%, respectively.
In general, HHs found incomes from agriculture to be insufficient to meet their needs. With large proportion of marginal and small landholdings in these villages, the financial viability of agricultural practices is highly reduced. While reduced size of landholdings is attributable to sub-divisions as joint families gradually spilt into nuclear units, agricultural production is largely for subsistence, that is, for HH consumption. Coupled with urbanisation are rising aspirations driven by education and job opportunities in cities. The young generations in these villages are motivated for enhancing their present status and move out of farming activities. Hence, continuation of agriculture and associated activities over future generations is not tenable, particularly among nuclear families. In addition, water availability had not been an issue previously since these villages are situated in the proximity of Yamuna and Hindon rivers. However, with large-scale industrialisation, scarcity and contamination of ground water due to nearby industries has contributed to the shift from agriculture in these villages.
An Unfinished Development Agenda
Agriculture was the main source of livelihood for villagers whose lands were acquired. However, urbanisation-induced land acquisition by the authority, whether full or part acquisition of landholdings necessitated a shift in their main source of livelihood. In addition, decrease in landholdings was economically non-profitable, particularly in large family households, prompting them to adopt alternative livelihood strategies. Landowners had no option, but to adapt to the change for which they neither had financial literacy for management of compensation money nor education and technical skills for transitioning to non-agricultural livelihood options. Given a general lack of education beyond school among the landowners (61.43% HHs had school education only) and skills aligned to higher paying jobs in the city, landowners were forced to opt for meagre informal jobs like watchman, labour work, cab driver, etc. Largely, respondents during the FGDs opined that people belonging to the age group between 35 and 40 years suffered the most in terms of employment opportunities after land acquisition/sale. Owing to their illiteracy/limited literacy levels and skills, they were ineligible to secure formal jobs in public or private sector in cities, thus, bereft of alternate livelihood options. This issue of lack of appropriate skills matching employment opportunity is further compounded by the middle age bracket itself being a barrier for entry level jobs in both government and private sectors which have minimum and upper limit age criterion for any position. The FGD also revealed that private companies are wary of employing locals due to possibilities of disruption in production and processes arising out of any disputes between management and local employees. Thus, they believed all they knew was farming and were fit to do that only.
Also, it was difficult to comprehend sudden changes in their everyday lifestyles. One respondent mentioned during the FGD that ‘money came first, but knowledge of where to use the money did not come; first give knowledge (on investment) and then money. This understanding is absent in people. When people got money, they invested in house and alcohol’. Post land acquisition, most landowners spent compensation amount on building new houses, renovations, purchasing depreciating assets like cars, spending on social customs like marriage and dowry, etc. Lack of financial literacy is evident from the survey as proportion of HHs investing was limited—only 2.9% in Kudi Khera, 8.33% in Achheja, 9.68% in Gharbarah, 11.76% in Khera Choganpur and 33.33% in Kondli Bangar had invested in conventional means such as fixed deposits or recurring deposits, mutual funds and equity shares. Interestingly, insurance cover primarily for cars and/or life insurance was high—35.48% in Gharbarah, 56.67% in Kondli Bangar, 69.44% in Achheja, 77.14% in Kudi Khera and 79.41% in Khera Choganpur. Thus, lack of awareness on investment instruments resulted in failure to park money in safe options from where a regular income could have been generated. Farmers were left with nothing—neither land nor money—but only a bunch of depreciating assets.
In case of financial emergencies, HHs still depend on communal ties instead of formal financial institutions. While trust among community members is a strong reason attributed to this, however, lack of understanding about formal financial transactions is an important reason, as villagers in Achheja opined that ‘because we cannot complete and fulfil the formalities of bank and cannot pay back the higher interest, many people still prefer to take credit from immediate relatives, friends, villagers or even the Sarpanch [village head-man]’. Many respondents mentioned lack of ‘proper documents to take loan’—property documents not registered in individual name but as a joint property as well as absence of collateral (land has been acquired/sold) to avail credit facilities from financial institutions. Thus, a very low proportion of HHs (8.82% in Khera Choganpur, 11% in Kudi Khera, 12.9% in Gharbarah, 13.89% in Achheja and 33.33% in Kondli Bangar) availed loan/credit facilities from formal institutions for purchasing cars, motorbikes and agricultural/livestock purposes.
Skilling as a Way Forward
The National Skill Development Mission (NSDM) of the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of India has been at the forefront of policy making for skilling people throughout the country along with State level programmes such as UP Skill Development Mission (UPSDM;
The UPSDM is running six programmes, namely Skill Development Initiative, Special Central Assistance to Scheduled-Caste Sub-Plan, Multi-Sectoral Development Programme, Border Area Development Programme, Building & Other Construction Workers’ Scheme (BOCW) and State Skill Development Fund. Except for the BOCW which is open to persons up to 50 years age, the remainder programmes are targeted for youth between 14 and 35 years of age and including 30% reservation for women. This leaves no scope for absorption of persons in 35 years and above. A revision in the age criteria would certainly go a long way in uptake of PAFs within the ambit of government programmes for skilling and training, thereby, securing their livelihoods.
Conclusions
The issue of land acquisition has always been a disconcerting problem for policymakers and an issue of contestations, conflicts and protests by those who forego their land in the process. This was evidently present in the research locales. Factors such as subdivision of land holdings, increased input costs and low agricultural revenue have increasingly changed the intrinsic relationship between landowners and landholdings. Additionally, urbanisation has also reduced the HH land ownership owing to increased sale of land for residence, business use or other commercial purposes and shift towards non-agricultural livelihoods. Since these land acquisitions and transactions were undertaken under the erstwhile LAA, 1894, there exists problems and imbalances between interests of landowners and government as the custodian of public interest, lower compensations by the public players as land is bought at circle rates, which is lesser than the market rates and land utilisation contrary to the assigned land use has generated mistrust, resistance among the public, thereby giving rise to a plethora of legal cases.
While development has taken place, the promised and perceived benefits have not accrued to villagers whose lands were acquired for the purported development agenda. A lack of appropriate skills and training for gainful employment is one of the biggest impediments in inclusive socio-economic development as identified in this study. Although a shift in livelihood from agricultural to non-agricultural is not being contested, however, this research argues for a strong need to provide an institutional mechanism for livelihood rehabilitation of affected HHs to transition from agricultural to non-agricultural livelihoods through technical and skill development training programmes, financial management training programmes, which is acutely deficient at present. This would enable transition of peri-urban villages to alternative livelihood opportunities with a strong long-term financial security, which is currently missing. It would also be worthwhile to examine the impacts of land acquisition in and around the study region after the introduction of LARR, 2013, and come out with further policy recommendations, as required.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This study is an outcome of a research project on peri-urbanisation funded by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR). The authors express their gratitude to ICSSR for providing financial assistance which enabled extensive field work in the study sites. The authors are also grateful to anonymous referees for going through this submission and providing valuable feedback for improving the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
The research was supported by funding from the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR).
