Social Impact Assessment Study for NTPC Water …visakhapatnam.nic.in/collectorate/g/n25.pdfSocial...
116
1 FINAL REPORT JUNE 2016 Conducted By Commissioned By TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES HYDERABAD Social Impact Assessment Study for NTPC Water Corridor Project
Transcript of Social Impact Assessment Study for NTPC Water …visakhapatnam.nic.in/collectorate/g/n25.pdfSocial...
1
FINAL REPORT JUNE 2016
Conducted By Commissioned By
TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
HYDERABAD
Social Impact Assessment Study for
NTPC Water Corridor Project
2
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 10
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 11
1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Project description ..................................................................................................................... 12
1.2 Study Approach and Methodology....................................................................................... 12
1.3 Public Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 13
1.4 Size and attributes of land acquisition ............................................................................... 13
1.5 Alternatives Considered: ......................................................................................................... 13
1.6 Enumeration of affected families ......................................................................................... 14
1.7 Inventory of Loss ........................................................................................................................ 14
1.8 Socio Economic Profile ............................................................................................................. 14
1.9 Social Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 15
1.10 Mitigation measures.............................................................................................................. 17
2 Detailed Project Description .......................................................................................................... 19
2.1 Need for the project ................................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Project description ..................................................................................................................... 19
2.3 Public purpose ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.4 Examination of alternatives ................................................................................................... 21
2.5 Ancillary infrastructural facilities and workforce requirement............................... 22
2.6 Applicable legislations and policies .................................................................................... 22
3 Team composition, methodology and Schedule of SIA study............................................ 25
3.1 Team Composition ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Team structure ............................................................................................................................ 26
3.3 Brief profiles of SIA team ......................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 27
3.5 Sources of data used .................................................................................................................. 27
3.6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 27
3.7 Data collection process ............................................................................................................. 29
4
3.8 Schedule of the study ................................................................................................................ 31
3.9 Public consultations .................................................................................................................. 32
3.10 Challenges faced during data collection ........................................................................ 36
4 Land Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 37
4.1 Total land requirement and the intended use of land for the project .................... 37
4.2 Present use of any public, unutilized land in the vicinity of the project area ..... 37
4.3 Size of holdings, ownership patterns, and number of residential houses ............ 40
4.4 Project Displaced Households ............................................................................................... 41
4.5 Nature, present use and classification of land, irrigation coverage and cropping
patterns ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.6 Land prices and recent changes in ownership, transfer and use of lands over
the last 3 years.......................................................................................................................................... 42
5 Estimation and enumeration of affected families and assets ............................................ 44
5.1 Inventory of productive assets .............................................................................................. 45
6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE ........................................................................................................... 47
6.1 Demographic details of the population in the project area ........................................ 47
6.2 Income and Poverty levels ...................................................................................................... 54
6.3 Land use livelihood .................................................................................................................... 61
6.4 Access to credit ............................................................................................................................ 71
6.5 Factors contributing to local livelihoods ........................................................................... 73
6.6 Regional Dynamics and Historical change process ....................................................... 73
6.7 Quality of living environment ................................................................................................ 74
7 Social Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 80
7.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 80
7.2 Impact on Physical Resources ............................................................................................... 80
7.3 Approach in identifying the social impacts ...................................................................... 80
7.4 Qualitative observations .......................................................................................................... 82
8 Social Impact Management Plan ................................................................................................... 86
8.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 86
8.2 Institutional arrangement ....................................................................................................... 86
5
8.3 Relocation and Resettlement Site ........................................................................................ 88
8.4 Implementation schedule ........................................................................................................ 89
8.5 Impact mitigation measures ................................................................................................... 91
8.6 Income restoration .................................................................................................................... 92
8.7 Summary of Impacts and Benefits ....................................................................................... 96
8.8 Proposed Activities .................................................................................................................... 96
9 Analysis of cost and benefits and recommendations on acquisition.............................. 99
9.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 100
9.2 Description of Costs ................................................................................................................ 100
9.3 Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 107
9.4 Estimating the cost of R&R .................................................................................................. 108
9.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 108
6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of proposed land acquisition ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 2: SIA Team Structure .................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 3 : Snapshot of project life cycle ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 4 : Map of Z Chinthuva(v), Seethapalem (v), Lalamkoduru (v), Chatimetta (v)
Rambilli mandal in NTPC lands .............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 5 : Process of Grievance redressal ........................................................................................... 88
Figure 6: Implementation schedule of the project .......................................................................... 90
Figure 7: Lifecycle analysis of impact mitigation measures ........................................................ 92
List of Tables
Table 1: Details of affected households ............................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Demand supply scenario (during 2017-18 to 2022-23) ............................................. 19
Table 3: Entitlement matrix under RFCTLA R&R ............................................................................ 24
Table 4: Brief profile of SIA team ........................................................................................................... 26
Table 5 : Timelines ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 6: Demands of PAPs expressed during Public Hearing ..................................................... 35
Table 7 : Total land required for the project ..................................................................................... 39
Table 8 : Village wise distribution of households loosing own land and govt. land .......... 39
Table 9 : Village wise distribution of extent of land surveyed through primary research
............................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 10 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Total cultivated own land
proposed to be acquired (category wise-irrigated & non-irrigated) ....................................... 40
Table 11 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Total cultivated government land
proposed to be acquired (category wise-irrigated & non irrigated) ....................................... 41
Table 12 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents who lose their dwellings .................. 41
Table 13 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by area under cultivation to be
acquired (Crop wise) .................................................................................................................................. 42
Table 14 : Details of land prices in Chatimetta, Lalamkoduru, Kothakoduru and
Seethapalem. .................................................................................................................................................. 43
Table 15 : Details of affected households ........................................................................................... 44
Table 16 : Village wise distribution of PAH ....................................................................................... 44
Table 17 : The distribution of farm assets village wise ................................................................. 45
Table 18 : Village-wise Distribution of Households by Type of Family .................................. 48
Table 19 : Village-wise Distribution of Households by Gender and Sex ratio ..................... 48
Table 20 : Village-wise Distribution of Households by Age composition .............................. 49
Table 21 : Village -wise Distribution of Households by Type of Migration Status ............. 49
7
Table 22 : Village -wise Distribution of Households by Current educational status ......... 50
Table 23 : Village-wise Distribution of Household Members by Educational Level .......... 50
Table 24 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by common health problems ......... 51
Table 25 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by type of treatment in case of
illness ................................................................................................................................................................ 52
Table 26 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Management in case of child
delivery ............................................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 27 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Maternal death in the family
during last one year- Excellent ............................................................................................................... 53
Table 28 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Infant death in the family during
last one year ................................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 29 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by feeling towards distance to the
health centre .................................................................................................................................................. 54
Table 30 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Satisfaction with the treatment
............................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Table 31 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Vulnerabilities
............................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Table 32 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Disability,
status of PH certificate, need for supporting aids ........................................................................... 55
Table 33: Category wise distribution of vulnerabilities ............................................................... 55
Table 34 : village wise distribution of total annual income of the people surveyed from
various sources ............................................................................................................................................. 56
Table 35 : the village wise distribution of monthly expenditure of the families surveyed
under various heads ................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 36 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Monthly Expenses (Expense
wise) .................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 37 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by their current level of income and
expenditure .................................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 38 : Village-wise Distribution of Household by Type of ration card ........................... 60
Table 39 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Their ownership of land ............. 61
Table 40 : Village-wise Distribution of Type of soil by Acreage ................................................ 62
Table 41 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents’ agriculture land by Source of
irrigation .......................................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 42 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents who own livestock .............................. 63
Table 43 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Number of animals ....................... 63
Table 44 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents who own milch animals .................... 64
Table 45 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by total milk production in a year 64
Table 46 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by affect of land acquisition on
8
livestock ........................................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 47 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by reasons for affecting their
livestock ........................................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 49 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Unemployed
youth ................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Table 48 : Village wise distribution of occupation of respondents ......................................... 66
Table 50 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Period of
unemployment .............................................................................................................................................. 67
Table 51 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Reasons for
unemployment .............................................................................................................................................. 67
Table 52 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by type of technical qualification
desired .............................................................................................................................................................. 68
Table 53 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Kind of job expected after skill
development training ................................................................................................................................. 69
Table 54 : Village -wise Distribution of Households by Type of Migration Status ............. 69
Table 55 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents whose occupation is getting affected
due to proposed land acquisition .......................................................................................................... 70
Table 56 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by their interest in taking up new
livelihood activities ..................................................................................................................................... 70
Table 57 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Total Production of food crops
(crop wise) ...................................................................................................................................................... 71
Table 58 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents who have a saving account in a
bank or post office ....................................................................................................................................... 71
Table 59 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by borrowing money ......................... 72
Table 60 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Source of Borrowed Money ...... 72
Table 61 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Rate of Interest .............................. 72
Table 62 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Type of house ................................ 74
Table 63 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Ownership status of house ....... 74
Table 64 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Number of rooms in their house
............................................................................................................................................................................. 75
Table 65 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Water supply facility .................. 75
Table 66 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Toilet facility .................................. 76
Table 67 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Status of electricity connection
............................................................................................................................................................................. 76
Table 68 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Type of fuel used for cooking .. 76
Table 69 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Status of acquisition of house
under NTPC project (yes/no) .................................................................................................................. 77
Table 70 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Construction materials used ... 77
9
Table 71 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Items purchased from PDS ........ 78
Table 72 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Satisfaction with the quantity of
food items in PDS ......................................................................................................................................... 78
Table 73 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Satisfaction with the quality of
food items in PDS ......................................................................................................................................... 78
Table 74 : Village -wise Distribution children below 5 years attending anganwadi ........ 79
Table 75 : Snapshot of direct impacts .................................................................................................. 80
Table 76 : Village wise distribution of respondents based on no. of sources of income
and percentage loss of income ................................................................................................................ 81
Table 77: Village wise distribution of livelihood preferences .................................................... 93
Table 78 : Category wise distribution of livelihood preferences .............................................. 93
Table 79 : Village wise distribution of skill preferences ............................................................... 94
Table 80 : Category wise distribution of skill preferences .......................................................... 95
Table 81 : Gender wise distribution of skill preferences .............................................................. 95
Table 82: Village wise summary of project impacts ....................................................................... 96
Table 83: Village wise summary of project benefits....................................................................... 96
Table 84 : Village wise distribution of percentage loss of land .................................................. 98
Table 85: Nature of Costs in the project .............................................................................................. 99
Table 86: Segregation of costs according to type ............................................................................ 99
Table 87: Detailed cost of R&R ............................................................................................................ 108
10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several persons have contributed in various capacities for the successful completion of
the survey. We extend our sincere thanks and deepest gratitude to all of them.
Sri Dr. N Yuvaraj IAS, Collector & District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam district, for
commencing the study and entrusting it to TISS. We are highly thankful to Sri.
Yuvaraj and his team for the support throughout the study period.
We are extremely grateful to Sri J. Nivas, IAS, Joint Collector & Addl. District
Magistrate, Visakhapatnam district, for his valuable suggestions since the inception
of the study till the end. His responsiveness and timely intervention to sort out
issues on the ground with help of his staff was immensely helpful.
Prof. S. Parasuraman, Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) for granting
necessary permission to associate with this major project and his constant
encouragement.
We are thankful to Mr. Radhakrishna, GGM and Kamal K Verma GM (Technical
division) for their support and cooperation during the study.
We are thankful to Mr. Ch. Sattibabu SDC LA APIIC for his timely support in
providing required data during the study.
We also want to extend our gratitude to Mr Seetharama Raju, technical engineer for
his invaluable support in helping the team to understand the project and other
technical aspects.
We appreciate all the TISS survey team for their sense of responsibility and
commitment in successfully carrying out the various research activities in the
assigned field areas. We thank the Project staff Ms. Sangeetha Vidhya, Ms. Ranjitha
Mounika, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Pavan Kumar, Mr. Chandra Mohan, and Mr.
Bharath Simha Reddy for their continued support during the study. We want to
thank Mr. Varun Ramchandruni, TISS Hyderabad, for continued support during the
project.
We will be failing our duty if we do not extend our gratitude to all the community
members who provided us with the requisite information. Also our sincere thanks to
the Sarpanches and other community leaders in the respective study villages,
various personnel of government and volunteers who assisted in different stages of
the field work.
Project Team
Dr. Lakshmi Lingam (Deputy Director, TISS Hyderabad)
Dr. Srinivas Surisetti (Assistant Professor, TISS Hyderabad)
Assisted by
Narendar Garidi (Senior Project Manager)
Vamsi Krishna Nukala (Senior Project Manager)
11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APIIC Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
FGD Focus group discussion
GoAP Government of Andhra Pradesh
GRC Grievance Redressal Committee
IDI In depth Interviews
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NTPC National Thermal Power Corporation
OCWS Open Circulating Water System
PAH Project Affected Household
PDH Project Displaced Household
RFCTLA R&R
Act 2013
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SIMP Social Impact Management Plan
TISS Tata Institute of Social Sciences
12
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Project description
NTPC is one of the Maharatna Companies and is the biggest power generation company
in India, meeting 25% of country’s energy demands. With an objective of providing
uninterrupted power supply to industries and people, Government of Andhra Pradesh
(GoAP) has invited NTPC to set up a power plant in Pudimadaka village in Rambilli
Mandal of Visakhapatnam district. GoAP allocated 1200 acres of land in Special
Economic Zone (SEZ) in Pudimadaka for the project. NTPC agreed to start a coal based
Super Thermal Power Project (STPP) with a capacity of 4000 MW in the allotted land.
To meet the operational requirements of the plant there is a need for large quantities of
water to cool the turbines. As per the feasibility study conducted by IIT Madras, it is
suggested that an Open Circulating Water System (OCWS) shall be used to draw water
from the sea. In OCWS, water is taken from the nearest water body through an inlet and
sent through condensers to cool the turbines and finally the used water to be
discharged into the sea. The present land acquisition is for the construction of water
and coal corridor for supporting the operations of the 4000 MW plant location. The
scope of the present report is to examine the probable impacts that would result due to
the construction of the coal and water corridor.
1.2 Study Approach and Methodology
The objective of the SIA study is to have a complete understanding of socio-economic
conditions of the land losing families, displaced families, inventory of public assets, to
identify social costs involved and to prepare social impact management plan (SIMP).
Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were followed in the study. Various tools
of data collection like interview schedule, focus group discussions (FGDs), in-depth
interviews, and transect walks were used during the survey.
A survey schedule was prepared to capture the socio-economic status of affected
families as per the guidelines mentioned in Part II–Sec. 3(i) of RFCTLA R&R (Social
Impact Assessment and Consent) rules. Following the timelines mentioned in the act, a
notification was given by the district administration. The notification, clearly explains
the proposed project, details of project developer, objectives of SIA, and the schedule of
SIA. A draft report was prepared based on a detailed analysis of socio-economic data. A
public hearing was conducted to present the findings from the draft report. A final
report was prepared as per the format mentioned in Part II–Sec. 3 (i) of RFCTLA R&R
(Social Impact Assessment and Consent) rules, after incorporating the inputs from the
public hearing.
13
1.3 Public Purpose
Section 2 (1) of RFCTLA R&R Act 2013 states that the land may be acquired only for the
public purpose. The public purpose mentioned in the Act includes defense and national
security; roads, railways, highways, and ports built by government and public sector
enterprises etc. NTPC was established to meet the growing energy demand of the
country. Being a Government of India undertaking, NTPC falls into the category of public
sector enterprises mentioned above. Also, the primary objective of the present plant is
to reduce the prevailing energy demand and power shortages in the state. The
proposed land acquisition is to support the operations of the main plant without which
power generation is not possible, thus serving the public purpose.
1.4 Size and attributes of land acquisition
The proposed project needs 627 acres of land. Out of the total requirement, 18.5%
(116.35 acres) of land was acquired by APIIC under its earlier acquisition and allotted
to the current project. Nearly 11.25% (70.59 acres) of land is under the control of
Government. Around 40.8% of the land is near to the coast and does not have any
survey number, indicating that there is no Government or Private ownership of the
land. Around 29.38% (184.24) acres of land is under the ownership of private persons.
Of the total required land, less than 1/3rd of land is a private property. The project
design has been made to keep land requirements to the barest minimum possible by
realigning the design away from private property / human habitation. Thus, there will
be a minimal relocation of people. Also, most of the crops cultivated in the land are
plantations, not food crops. Some part of the area was used as salt beds for producing
rock salt and hence they are unfit for cultivation.
1.5 Alternatives Considered:
Before considering the proposed acquisition for water corridor project, NTPC has
reviewed alternative options regarding design and project site. As mentioned earlier,
the main 4000 MW plant needs huge quantities of water to cool the turbines which
mandate the proximity of the plant to the sea. For constructing the water corridor, two
alternate options were studied. As a first option, the channels can be routed straight
from plant boundary to sea. The length of the CW channels and area of land was
minimum in this option as channels are on the straight path. But there is a power plant
(Sunvera) and a large number of dwellings in the straight line path. Considering this
option will result in a large-scale displacement of commercial as well as residential
spaces. Hence, an alternate option was explored. The CW channels are routed with
sufficient clearance from Sunvera plant and Sitapalem village instead of straight line
path.
14
1.6 Enumeration of affected families
For purposes of the Social Impact Assessment, the survey tool has the household as a
unit of focus from the point of view of assessing the project affects and impacts. The
survey had categorized households as Project Affected Households (PAH) and Project
Displaced Households (PDH) according to RFCTLA R&R Act 2013.
The definitions of PAH and PDH are as follows:
Project Affected Households (PAH):
Households losing their income, partially or fully, due to loss of land in the acquisition
are PAHs. The severity of the effect can be further categorized based on the extent of
loss of land under cultivation (either partial or full). If a household is losing their total
land under cultivation, then it is considered as fully affected else partially affected.
Project Displaced Households (PDH): Households losing their dwelling and livelihood due to land acquisition and are
displaced from their habitation are considered as project displaced households
independent of whether they hold any land in the project area. Both PAH and PDH are
directly affected due to the proposed acquisition.
Table 1: Details of affected households
S.No Category Number Comments
1 Project Affected Households 161 Whose income is getting affected
2 Project Displaced Households
(Lovapalem)
42* Who are losing their dwellings &
livelihoods
Total affected households 203
*Total 46 PDHs: During the public hearing 4 more PDHs were identified. The final list is provided in the annexure.
1.7 Inventory of Loss
The project needs 627 acres of land for the construction of coal and water corridor.
Apart from the land, 46 residential spaces, a black top road & a kaccha road each of 300
meters wide and 42 farm assets like tube wells, bore wells, cattle sheds are getting
affected due to proposed acquisition.
1.8 Socio Economic Profile
The majority of the surveyed families are nuclear (72%) followed by women-headed
families (13%). The majority of the people are living in their own house and 53% of the
houses are pucca houses. Among the surveyed population it is observed that 52% are
female and remaining 48% are male. The overall sex ratio is 1064 per 1000 males. All
15
the surveyed families follow Hinduism and every one of them belongs to Other
Backward Castes (OBC). The working age population (15-60 years) constitutes nearly
73% of the total population. About 73% of the total surveyed people are literate and
among them, more than 60% of the people have education qualification below
secondary class.
Most common health problems experienced by the respondents are cold, cough,
common fever, and headache (92%), followed by blood pressure (13%) and malaria
(11%). Almost 75% of the total surveyed families visit the nearest hospital for
treatment in case of illness. More than three fourth (75.4%) of the respondents stated
that they were only partially satisfied with their treatment. Almost 80% of the women
respondents have stated that they were taken to government or private hospital for
delivery. There is no maternal death reported among the families surveyed during last
one year. Only one infant death was reported during last one year in Lalamkoduru
among all the villages surveyed. Out of the total surveyed families, there are 20
differently abled persons. Most (50%) of the differently abled persons are
orthopedically challenged.
Out of the total PAF and PDF families surveyed, 82% of the families own land and
mostly (90%) these lands are used for agriculture purpose. Out of all the households
surveyed, 83% of the households are engaged in horticulture as a source of income,
followed by daily wage employment (68%) and then by livestock (34%). Out of the total
surveyed households, 59% mentioned that they are not able to earn enough and have to
borrow frequently. Out of the total households surveyed 39% of the households own
livestock. There are 42 unemployed persons out of the total respondents and majority
of them are from Lalamkoduru (17) and Kothakoduru (11). Out of the 67 children (Aged
0-6 years) from the surveyed households, only 32 people are attending Anganwadi.
Almost all the surveyed households are purchasing food items from the public
distribution system (PDS). More than three-fourth of the respondents (76%) from all
the villages stated that they are not satisfied with the quantity of food grains they
receive through the PDS.
1.9 Social Impacts
The project design was aligned to avoid residential spaces, commercial entities, and
productive agricultural lands during acquisition. In spite of creating a thoughtful plan
and design, there are unavoidable impacts, which will be created due to the proposed
acquisition. Income and dwelling of a family are the two major parameters, which are
getting affected due to proposed acquisition, and the same are used to estimate the
impact. The degree of severity is calculated based on the quantum of loss in the income
and loss of the house. Following categorisation has been adopted to estimate the
severity of income:
16
Low impact (<30% income loss): Households whose percentage of income loss
is less than 30% of their total annual income are considered to have low impact
Moderately affected (30 – 60% income loss): Households whose percentage
of income loss is more than 30% and less than 60% of their total annual income
are considered to have moderately affected
Severaly affected (60 – 100% income loss): Households whose percentage of
income loss is between 60% and 100% of their total annual income are
considered to be severely affected
Adversely affected (losing dwelling and homestead): Households who are
losing dwelling irrespective of income loss are considered to be adversely
affected
While estimating the impact, multiple sources of income are considered, as families
with the single source are more vulnerable compared to families with multiple sources
of income. There are only seven families who have single source of income and out of
them, only three families are losing more than 60% of income. There are 42 families
who are losing their dwellings due to proposed acquisition, out of which 36 families
have houses in their own land whereas 6 families are staying in a house constructed on
government land and are considered severely affected irrespective of their income loss.
Apart from quantitative aspects of impacts, some of the impacts, which are observed
qualitatively through FGDs, In depth Interviews (IDI), and Key informant interviews, are
as follows:
All the displaced families have a facility for a small kitchen garden, horticulture
around their residences, which serves as a supplementary source of income or
expenditure saving strategy. If the resettlement site does not have similar
characteristics then it will have a greater impact on the income and lifestyle.
It is estimated that there will be a workforce need of 2000 persons (both
contractual and permanent). The same will be supplied by registered contractors
with NTPC. The contractors will not only source people from the nearby villages
but also from far off places. There is a possibility of tension between local people
and outsiders. As the migrant workforce will only involve in NTPC assignment,
so there will not be any major impact on the livelihoods of local people
The present project being a water corridor project does not require large
manpower after its completion. Thus, the project might not employ people
directly for its operations. But with the construction of water and coal corridor
project and the 4000 MW NTPC thermal power plant operational there is a
likelihood of the generation of livelihood opportunities. Qualified persons from
the affected families can utilize these opportunities with proper facilitation and
skill development. Also, NTPC R&R policy states that the organisation is
committed to creating livelihoods by awarding petty contracts, vehicle hiring,
courier services, newspaper vending etc. This can create a positive impact in
terms of livelihood options to the local communities
17
The displaced people are going to be rehabilitated in the nearest location. An
R&R site will be proposed by the district administration to rehabilitate the
affected people. There might be a chance of friction between communities in the
newly relocated site due to the presence of people from various caste categories.
This needs to be closely understood and addressed.
1.10 Mitigation measures
Institutional Setup: NTPC will be spearheading the implementation of impact management plan. APIIC in
consultation with NTPC kept displacement of households at the design stage to a bare
minimum. APIIC, along with district administration, should ensure that there will be
smoother acquisition with proper awareness to the targeted communities. District
administration should also provide residential sites to the displaced families. The cost of
these units will be borne by NTPC. It should also play an active role in targeting eligible
government schemes towards affected families.
NGOs or other expert agencies’ help may be sought during relocation to help displaced
people in to acquaint themselves to the new site. In post-relocation, they can be
engaged, in identifying the skill gap and imparting the necessary training, providing
financial planning, setting up community institutions and helping men and women to
develop enterprises.
A Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) is suggested to address any of the queries or
complaints of the project affected/displaced families. The responsibilities of the GRC are
i) to resolve any problems arising due to land acquisition ii) Recording and prioritizing
the grievances of PAH/PDHs during relocation phase iii) Informing affected families on
developments of grievances filed with GRC iv) Issues which are not under the purview
of GRC shall be directed to competent authority.
Mitigation measures: During the survey, youth (15-35 years) were asked to indicate their need for skill
training preferences. Similarly at the household level, individuals were asked to indicate
their livelihood preference and also the nature of benefits they are expecting from
NTPC. Some of the mitigation measures based on the survey and the public hearing are
as follows:
Placement linked skill training to eligible and interested youth
Support to in taking up livestock and self-employment
Improving agricultural productivity by training farmers on low cost and high
yield techniques
Skill training and enterprise development training to women members of the
affected families
Better targeting of Government schemes to improve the income realization at
household level.
18
An overall strategy for fishing communities, particularly the ones surviving on
fishing for living and
Commitment of NTPC for a long-term engagement with the affected families to
restore their income levels, quality of life and dignity with a sound CSR strategy.
19
2 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Need for the project
To solve the frequent power shortages and to provide 24x7 power supply to Industries
in the state, the Government of A.P. has invited NTPC Ltd in setting up a thermal based
mega power project. After initial consultations, NTPC a central public sector unit has
proposed to set up a coal-based 4000 MW Super Thermal Power Station (STPP).
Following data about demand supply scenario during 2017- 23 will reiterate the
relevance of the project.
Description Without Pudimadaka plant With Pudimadaka plant ALL INDIA SOUTHERN
REGION AP ALL INDIA SOUTHERN
REGION AP
PEAK DEMAND %
7.10 TO -0.40 -25.5 TO -30.3 -21.9 TO -33 7.1 TO 0.7 -25.5 TO -26.3 -21.9 TO -27.7
ENERGY AVAIALBILITY %
11.30 TO 5.10 -14.3 TO -17.9 -5.8 TO -17.8 11.3 TO 6.4 -14.3 TO -12.9 -5.8 TO -10.6
Table 2: Demand supply scenario (during 2017-18 to 2022-23) <Source: NTPC Official Documents>
Above statistics clearly indicate that there will be a shortage of power in Southern India
at large and AP in particular by the end of 2022. Through the additional capacity
provided by proposed project will substantially help in meeting the power demands of
the country. To begin the project, NTPC has requested GoAP for an allotment of 1200
acres of land near APSEZ in Pudimadaka village of Atchutapuram Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
2.2 Project description
NTPC is a power generating company as defined in Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act,
2003 and is a Govt. of India Enterprise. NTPC has diversified its operations and set to
become the biggest player in integrated power. NTPC was conferred the Maharatna
status by Govt. of India on 21st May 2010. NTPC is the largest power company in the
country contributing about 25% of India’s energy demand with less than 20% of
installed capacity. NTPC is well on its way becoming 128GW Company by 2032. NTPC
has vast experience which is backed by credible performance and financial strength to
execute Megaproject of 4000MW capacity. Thus, NTPC is an ideal choice of GoAP.
The 4000MW project will be implemented in single phase through four Ultra Super
Critical Units of 1000MW each. NTPC has committed to complete this project before
March 2019, and it will be the biggest single location, power project in Andhra Pradesh.
This project entails an investment of more than Rs 25000 Crores approximately.
Pudimadaka STPP is a base load coal-based thermal power plant in Visakhapatnam
District of Andhra Pradesh. Power Purchasing Aggrements (PPAs) have been signed
with all beneficiaries (Southern Region states). The coal requirement for the project has
20
been envisaged to be met primarily through imports as PPA beneficiaries have agreed
to purchase power based on imported coal. Andhra Pradesh state will be allocated 85%
of power generated subject to the approval of Ministry of Power. However, Ministry of
Power, Govt of India vide dated 17.01.2011 had already allocated 50% power to
undivided Andhra Pradesh. The project is expected to start yielding benefits during
early 2019.
The present land acquisition is for the construction of water and coal corridor for
supporting the operations of the 4000 MW plant. Due to the proximity of the sea, water
from the sea is proposed to be used for meeting complete water requirement of the
project. Various options for Circulating Water (CW) system are studied, and once-
through cooling water system is found to be an optimum choice for Circulating Water
System, which forms the major portion of the required water. As per feasibility report,
Open Cycle CW System is being adopted, and Water requirement of the plant, about 7.0
Lac Cu M per Hr will be drawn from the Bay of Bengal. Sea water requirement will be
met through canal from Sea to plant.
About 14.0 Million Tons of Imported Coal will be used for fuel requirement. One of the
envisaged modes of coal transportation from the sea is through the construction of
dedicated port with coal storage & jetty. Coal will be conveyed from Jetty to Plant
through Conveyors. To implement the project as envisaged in Feasibility report, a port
to receive coal and a corridor for conveying coal and water (inlet and discharge canal)
have to be provided. Port will require about 500 acres of land, which includes part of
canal and coal conveyor. Corridor with Water canal and coal conveyor will need about
200 acres. NTPC will construct the canal and coal conveyor. A total of 627 acres will be
acquired for the present project. The scope of the present SIA study is to examine the
impacts likely to result due to the construction of coal and water corridor.
Figure 1: Map of proposed land acquisition
21
2.3 Public purpose
Section 2 (1) of RFCTLA R&R Act 2013 states that the land may be acquired only for the
public purpose. The public purpose mentioned in the Act include Defence and National
Security; roads, railways, highways, and ports built by government and public sector
enterprises; land for the project affected people; planned development; and
improvement of village or urban sites and residential purposes for the poor and
landless, government administered schemes or institutions. Also include all the
activities mentioned in the notification of the Government of India in the Department of
Economic Affairs (infrastructure Section) number l3/6/2009-lNF, dated the 27th March
2012, excluding private hospitals, private educational institutions, and private hotels,
etc. The provisions of the act shall be applicable in above cases.
NTPC was established to meet the growing energy demand of the country. Being a
Government of India undertaking, NTPC falls into the category of public sector
enterprises mentioned above. Also, the primary objective of the present plant is to
reduce the prevailing energy demand and power shortages in the state. The proposed
land acquisition is to support the operations of the main plant without which power
generation is not possible, thus serving the public purpose.
2.4 Examination of alternatives
Before considering the proposed acquisition, NTPC has reviewed various other options
regarding design and project site. The fundamental idea behind the present acquisition
is to ensure lowest possible displacement of people and minimal interference with
residential areas.
For the routing of CW channels, two alternate options were studied. In the first option,
the channels were routed straight from plant boundary to sea. The length of the CW
channels and area of land is the bare minimum in this option as channels are on the
straight path. But there is a power plant (Sunvera) and a large number of dwellings in
the straight line path. Considering this option will result in a large-scale displacement of
commercial as well as residential spaces. Hence, an alternate option was explored. In
the second option, the CW channels are routed with sufficient clearance from Sunvera
plant and Sitapalem village instead of straight line path. Department of Ocean
Engineering, IIT Madras, conducted the study of the present model of drawing water
from sea and discharge into the sea. During the study, it was found that the best
possible option is routing of CW channels, which involves slight bend in channel
alignment. This will also serve the desired technical requirement. Accordingly, this is
considered to be the best alternative available. The land proposed for the acquisition is
bare minimum considering the design and purpose of CW channels. Further, under the
second option, a considerable portion of the land is under government control or
already acquired by APIIC. Thus, there will be a minimal relocation of people. Also, most
of the crops cultivated in the proposed land are plantation crops. Some portion of the
22
proposed land was used as salt beds for producing rock salt and hence they are unfit for
cultivation.
2.5 Ancillary infrastructural facilities and workforce requirement
It is envisaged that there will be a need for nearly 2000 contract workers of various skill
sets during the construction phase. The principal contractors will supply this workforce.
During operational phase, requirement of manpower (both temporary and permanent)
will be decided after the award of the contract and level of automation. There is no need
for setting up of major ancillary infrastructure around the plant.
2.6 Applicable legislations and policies
This section of the report presents various laws and regulations in the country, which
are applicable to the coal and water corridor project of NTPC. A detailed understanding
of the provisions mentioned in these legislations will help to identify a suitable legal
framework under which rehabilitation of project affected families can be implemented.
The applicable laws on land acquisition, rehabilitation, and resettlement of the
proposed NTPC project are as follows:
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
NTPC R&R Policy
2.6.1 Entitlement matrix under RFCTLA R&R
S.No. Nature of Loss Entitlement unit Provisions in the Act 1 Loss of multi-cropped
land Title holders of the land
A multi-cropped land cannot be acquired except under exceptional circumstances
In the event of acquisition, an equivalent area of waste land shall be developed or equivalent amount shall be deposited with state government for enhancing food security
This provision is not applicable in case of acquisitions which are linear in nature like railways, electric lines, water canals etc.
23
2 Loss of agricultural land Title holders of the land a) The market value specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell in the area where the land is situated or The average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest vicinity area, ascertained from the highest 50% of sale deeds of the proceeding 3 years. Plus a Solatium amount which is equivalent to 100% of market value Multiplier factor as decided by appropriate government Plus an interest of 12% per annum on market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of notification of the SIA study till date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier
b) Where jobs are created through the project, after providing suitable training and skills development in the required field, make provision of employment at a rate not lower than minimum wages; Or Onetime payment of Rs.5, 00,000/- per affected household Or annuity policy that shall pay Rs.2000/- per month for 20 years with appropriate indexation to consumer price index for agricultural labourers
3 Loss of dwelling in case of displacement
Owner of the house If a house is lost in rural areas, a constructed house shall be provided as per the Indira Awas Yojana specifications.
Each affected family which is displaced from the land acquired shall be given a monthly subsistence allowance equivalent to 3000/- per month for a period of one year from the date of award.
Each affected family which is displaced shall get a one-time financial assistance of 50, 000/- as transportation cost
Each affected family shall be given a one-time Resettlement Allowance of 50, 000/- only
The stamp duty and other fees payable for registration of the land or house allotted to the affected families shall be borne by the requiring body
4 Loss of dwelling of tenants in case of displacement
Tenant The benefit of housing shall be extended to any affected family which is without homestead land and which has been residing in the area continuously for a period of not less than three years preceding the date of notification of the affected area
24
5 Loss of cattle shed and other farm assets
Owner of the structure Each affected family who are losing their cattle sheds shall get one-time financial assistance a minimum of 25,000/- or as specified by Government Value of standing crops, farm assets will be estimated by competent authority and shall be paid along with compensation
6 Relocation of displaced families
Displaced families Provision of Infrastructural Amenities: Infrastructural facilities and basic minimum amenities as mentioned in the Third Schedule of RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 should be provided by NTPC to ensure a reasonable standard of community life to the displaced people in the proposed resettlement site.
Table 3: Entitlement matrix under RFCTLA R&R
25
3 TEAM COMPOSITION, METHODOLOGY AND SCHEDULE OF SIA STUDY
3.1 Team Composition
Senior Project Advisor Two senior professors from TISS led the present SIA study in the capacity of senior
project advisor (SPA), who has vast experience in the field of academics and research.
The SPAs are instrumental in conducting the pilot study, finalizing the study design,
providing guidance and leadership support to the team, carrying out project
communication with all the external stakeholders and internal team. One of the SPA,
who is having an immense experience in the field of women’s studies provided gender
inputs for the report. She has conducted focus group discussions, in-depth interviews
with women in the affected villages to understand gender issues and possible impact of
the project.
Senior Project Managers To execute the study, two resource persons who are having more than seven years of
work experience in the field of research and project management have been appointed
as senior project managers. The project managers are responsible for preparation of
survey schedule, conducting a pilot study, leading field team during data collection,
preparation of draft and final report under the guidance of senior project advisor.
Project managers are responsible for reporting day-to-day status and any such issues
related to study to SPA.
Research Assistants Six research assistants were recruited who have completed/pursuing post-graduation
in social sciences, experience in conducting research and community engagement. The
primary tasks of a research assistant are to administer survey schedule, assist project
managers or senior project advisor during community interactions. Research assistants
report directly to project managers on completed surveys, operational & technical
issues during data collection and any such matters relating to study. Research assistants
are recruited from the Visakhapatnam district considering their acquaintance with local
conditions.
26
3.2 Team structure
Figure 2: SIA Team Structure
3.3 Brief profiles of SIA team
S.No
Name Designation in the project Qualification
1 Dr. Lakshmi Lingam Senior Project Advisor &
Gender Expert
M.A Sociology, Ph. D(IIT-B)
2 Dr. Srinivas Surisetti Senior Project Advisor M.SW (Nagarjuna University.), Ph.D.
(Andhra University)
2 Narendar Garidi Senior Project Manager B.Tech, MA in Social Entrepreneurship
3 Vamsi Krishna Nukala Senior Project Manager B.Tech, MA in Social Entrepreneurship
4 Sangeetha Vidhya Research Assistant B.Com, M.A (Social Work)
5 Ranjitha Mounika Research Assistant B.A, M.A (Social Work)
6 Praveen Kumar Research Assistant B.A with 10 years of NGO experience
7 Pavan Kumar Research Assistant B.A with 6 years of work experience in
the field of education and agriculture
8 Chandra Mohan Research Assistant M.A with 8 years of experience in
research & Data collection
9 Bharath Simha Reddy Research Assistant B.Tech with 6 years of rural exposure Table 4: Brief profile of SIA team
27
3.4 Approach
The objective of the SIA study is to have a complete understanding of socio-economic
conditions of the land losing families, displaced families, inventory of public assets, to
identify social costs involved and to prepare social impact management plan (SIMP).
Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were followed in the study. Various tools
of data collection like interview schedule, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews,
and transect walks were used during the survey.
An initial launch meeting was conducted with all the stakeholders to understand the
scope of the project. A survey schedule was prepared as per the to capture socio-
economic status of affected families as per the guidelines mentioned in Part II –Sec. 3(i)
of RFCTLA R&R (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) rules. Following the timelines
mentioned in the act, a notification was given by the district administration. The
notification, provided in the annexure, clearly states that the list of possible affected
families and TISS will be conducting SIA study in the affected villages. Data collection
was started nearly two weeks after the notification. A draft report was prepared based
on a detailed analysis of socio-economic data. A public hearing (which was explained in
later sections) was conducted to present the findings from the draft report. A final
report was prepared as per the format mentioned in Part II –Sec. 3 (i) of RFCTLA R&R
(Social Impact Assessment and Consent) rules.
3.5 Sources of data used
Both primary and secondary sources of data were used in the preparation of this report.
The data collected during the household survey is used in building the socio-economic
profile of the affected families. Secondary data sources like village revenue records,
census data, project maps, NTPC project reports, previous SIA studies conducted by the
various agencies were considered during the survey. The secondary data thus collected
complemented the primary data and field observations while compiling the report.
3.6 Methodology
3.6.1 Enumeration of households District revenue department provided the list of households in each village. A rigorous
enumeration exercise was done during the initial days of the survey to find present
users/owners of the land since land records data provided for identifying the
landholders is not updated. Rigorous procedures were followed to verify all necessary
identification documents to align the names in the list to the individuals who now hold
land and also are tilling land under various types of title holding. Households were
enumerated with the help of village revenue assistant, SHG women leaders, DWACRA
CA and heads of the community. If the identified land is sold to other members of the
community, the survey was administered to people who bought the land. If the owner of
the property is deceased, then his/her descendants who are presently cultivating the
28
land have been considered. Families who have migrated to cities and not in contact with
any person in the village were marked as not available. During the survey, a total of 205
households were covered and another 4 households were included during the public
hearing.
Data collection team did a transect walk along with the technical team of NTPC to
understand the topography, various common property resources, crops, and residential
houses in the proposed land. It was found that there were nearly 42 families who are
residing in the project area and are not part of the initial list provided by the
government. Due to the potential impact on the families mentioned above, their houses
were also considered during the study. During the public hearing 4 more households
were identified as project displaced households.
3.6.2 Sample size
There should be a comprehensive understanding of impacts on the families who will be
affected by proposed land acquisition. In the present scenario, the concept of a
representative sample is not relevant. Entire population of families who are losing their
land or dwelling or both is considered for the study.
3.6.3 Research Tools employed
As stated earlier, both qualitative and quantitative research tools have been employed
to collect data and record field observations. SIA team has conducted a transact walk
along the stretch of proposed land to understand its landscape. A survey schedule is
used to collect household level socio-economic information. Focus group discussions
were held with farmers and women to understand their aspirations and possible
impacts on them due to land acquisition. In-depth interviews were conducted with
some of the informed, active and socially conscious people from all age groups and
gender in the village.
3.6.4 Awareness creation
District administration took active steps in creating the awareness among the villagers
regarding the study well in advance. Notification in this regard has been given in leading
dailies of the local language. Also, respective village presidents and other political
representatives were informed and requested to disseminate the information in all the
villages. The SIA team along with the help of local revenue officers, DWACRA SHG
women leaders conducted community meetings (not a full-scale Gramsabha) with heads
of the village, youth, educated persons before beginning a survey in a village. The
primary objective of this meeting is to create awareness among villagers about the SIA
survey thus helping in smoother execution.
29
3.7 Data collection process
Following are the stages of data collection.
Preparation of survey schedule
o Survey questionnaire is used to understand the socio-economic,
demographic profile and preferences of the families who are getting
affected due to land acquisition. A draft schedule was prepared under the
guidance of senior project advisor.
Pilot visit
o Before beginning the study, SIA team has conducted a pilot study to get a
clear understanding of the project and seek inputs in designing the
suitable methodology. The team had interactions with District Collector,
Joint Collector, NTPC, Revenue officials at Mandal and Village level. During
the pilot study, the team also visited some of the villages and had few
interactions with the villagers to get insights about the living conditions,
basic information regarding primary livelihoods and type of crops.
Fine tuning of survey schedule
o Based on the insights from the pilot visit, the survey schedule was
modified to incorporate the local dynamics. It helped to add, change and
delete some of the options in the questionnaire, thus ensuring proper
codification of responses.
Software coding of the survey questionnaire
o Data collection exercise is conducted using tablet PCs. One of the main
reasons to use software-based system is its ability to ensure proper
controls and validations on the data. It will also help in reducing the
human error to the maximum possible extent. After the survey schedule
was finalized, the same was coded onto software platform and tested
thoroughly before executing in the field
Training of Research assistants
o Research Assistants, who are going to collect data, were trained on the
survey schedule and usage of the software. During the training and even
afterward they were provided with ample opportunities to get acquaint
with the survey tool before starting data collection.
Pilot testing of survey schedule
o A pilot test of the survey was conducted to ensure foolproof data
collection process and fine tune any technical glitches in the software.
30
o Insights gained during the pilot were incorporated into the schedule.
Data collection
o Each of the research assistants was provided with necessary documents
like the list of households, survey numbers of lands. Apart from
administering the schedule, research assistants were also asked to record
qualitative observations. The whole exercise of data collection lasted for
11 days from 16th March to 26th March 2016.
Identification of the households:
o A probable list of affected households was provided by the district
administration along with the survey numbers of land. The provided list
is not up to date and the research team found it difficult in identifying a
household during the initial days of the survey.
o As the list is not updated, the research team has to cross check the
documents related to the identification of the land owner and the
ownership. Typically at a household level, research investigators have
used Aadhar & Ration card to check the identities of the owner and land
patta pass book issued revenue department to ascertain the ownership of
the land. Also, the knowledge of village elders, local VRO and IKP staff was
utilized in identifying the right owners of the land.
Consent from the households:
o Households who have participated in the survey were asked to sign a
consent form, captures their willingness to participate in the survey.
Before taking the consent from a household, the purpose of the survey
and the project was explained in detail by the research investigators.
Even after a detailed explanation, some of the households does not want
to sign the consent form with a fear of losing their lands. In such cases, a
collective consent was taken at a village level.
Cleaning and uploading of data
o In spite of introducing various software validations and controls, still
there were minor errors in the data collected. All such errors were
thoroughly checked and corrected before uploading the data to server for
further analysis.
31
3.8 Schedule of the study
This section indicates the major stages involved in the SIA study along with
corresponding timelines.
3.8.1 Snapshot of Project life cycle
Figure 3 : Snapshot of project life cycle
32
3.8.2 Timelines
S.No. Detail Date of completion Status
1 Launch meeting with DC, JC and other
stakeholders
30th January, 2016 Completed
2 Pilot visit 3_ March to 5th March, 2016 Completed
3 Development of survey schedule and
uploading the same on to software platform
7_March to 15_ March Completed
4 Data collection 16_March to 26_March Completed
5 Data Analysis 5- April Completed
6 Draft report submission 21- April Completed
7 Summary SIA report in Telugu to JC office 12-May Completed
8 Circulation of SIA report in Telugu to
affected Gram Panchayats from JC office
12- May Completed
9 Public hearing to be notified by JC office 21- May Completed
10 Public hearing on 28- May Completed
11 Final report in English 22-June Completed
Table 5 : Timelines
3.9 Public consultations
Public consultation is a continuous process followed throughout the duration of SIA
study. The project team strongly believed that the voluntary participation of affected
people is important to understand their needs. It was also ensured that all the
information regarding SIA study was disseminated to the affected families to make
them informed. A prior intimation helped in the active participation of the people
during the study. Engagement of the affected people in the project from the beginning is
essential to avoid friction at later stages of the project.
To understand the local dynamics and various developmental problems present in the
affected area, various stakeholders were consulted during the study. The participatory
meetings were also used to educate the affected people on the proposed project and to
consider their views regarding the same.
3.9.1 Objectives of consultation
The main purpose of the consultation process is to educate the project affected people
regarding NTPC water corridor project and regarding importance of SIA study.
Following are the objectives of public consultation:
To disseminate information on the scope and activities of the project and to
ascertain the perceptions of the project affected and displaced households with
33
respect to loss of their property and livelihoods.
To understand the expected demands of the affected and displaced families in
terms of resettlement and compensation.
To understand the larger social and cultural conditions prevailed in the project
affected area which will help in effective resettlement and implementation of
impact management plan.
To identify contentious local issues which might risk the implementation of the
project.
To understand the presence of any common property resources and their role in
the livelihoods of affected families
To understand the economic characteristics of the affected area to prepare an
effective mitigation plan
To educate the people from the affected area regarding overall development
goals and benefits of the project.
3.9.2 Process of public consultation
Land acquisition has been a continuous activity in the affected area due to proximity to
the coast. Most of the people have knowledge about the acquisition and compensation.
A notification has been given in all the leading dailies to ensure the people will have
sufficient knowledge about the project and study. Later a pilot visit was planned by the
project team to understand the local dynamics before starting the study. During the
pilot visit, a small community meeting was held at a Lovapalem and found that there is
an involuntary displacement due to proposed acquisition. These inputs were factored
into the design of the study and questionnaire.
During the study people in the affected villages were informed before commencement
of the survey. Community meetings were held at villages to explain the purpose and
objective the study. These meetings were also used to educate the people about the new
R&R act and cleared some of the assumptions regarding land acquisition. Local revenue
officials, SHG group members volunteered to mobilize people.
Apart from the affected families, other stakeholders like NTPC, district administration
and people representatives from the affected area were contacted to take their inputs
and prepare a mitigation plan.
3.9.3 Tools for consultation
The research team interacted with affected people at individual and community level
during the study. Following are the tools employed for public consultation by the
research team:
34
1. Individual interactions at household level was conducted to record qualitative
information
2. Community meetings were held at each village before starting the survey.
3. Focus group discussions were held with women, elderly persons and youth in
the affected villages
4. Informal discussions and unstructured interviews were conducted with Key
informants in the community
5. Public hearing was conducted to triangulate the findings of the SIA study before
compiling final report.
People voicing their concerns during the Public Hearing
3.9.4 Public hearing
A public hearing was conducted on 28th May 2016 to present the findings of SIA study
to the affected families. To create awareness about the public hearing, a notification has
been given in all the leading dailies in the affected area and a public announcement was
given a night before the event. Copies of draft report in the Telugu language were
circulated to all the affected villages a week prior to the public hearing.
The meeting was chaired by Special Deputy Collector (SDC) Land acquisition and other
members include Divisional Revenue Officer (RDO), Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), and
Deputy Director of TISS along with the members of the research team, NTPC officials
and public representatives from the affected villages. People from all the affected
villages were present during the meeting. After an initial introduction about the event,
TISS team presented the findings of the report and asked people to suggest any new
35
mitigation measures. There was a slight opposition from the representatives of
fishermen community with possible environmental effect on the marine life due to the
construction of water corridor.
Most of the affected people demanded full-time employment with NTPC or similar
organisation and a just compensation for the acquired lands as per the prevailing
market rates. The demands expressed by the people are summarised under five
categories namely rehabilitation, employment, compensation, livelihoods and
mitigation measures.
Demands from public hearing
Activity Details
Rehabilitation
1. Rehabilitation should be provided near Veduruwada
2. All the affected families should be provided with R card
3. Both male and female adult members of the family should be allocated land at the R&R
Site
4. Rehabilitation should be provided to all the families in Lovapalem
5. Displaced families should be supported financially in constructing the house
Employment 1. Each of the young adult members of affected families should get a permanent job in
NTPC
Livelihoods
1. People whose livelihoods are getting affected should be provided with sufficient
options to compensate their loss of income
2. Cattle farming will be affected due to the loss of fodder and water source. Adequate
measures should be taken to reduce the effect
Compensation 1. Compensation should be provided to Government, Patta and encroached lands
according to the prevailing market rates
Mitigation
measures
1. Sufficient measures should be taken to insulate the nearest communities from the
effects of pollution and other pollutants emitted due to the operation of NTPC
2. Fishing community will get effected due to release of waste and hot water which is
detrimental to marine population. A plan should be developed to take care of the fishing
communities and marine eco-system.
Table 6: Demands of PAPs expressed during Public Hearing
Most of the demands expressed by the PAPs were already addressed in the mitigation
measures of the draft report. Affected people, especially from the fishermen community
were worried about the release of the used hot water into the sea which will eventually
reduce the fish population in the fishing zones. Also, other major concerns expressed by
PAPs are about the pollution emitted during NTPC operations. The same was expressed
by the TISS team to NTPC officials. It was later clarified that, the plant is going to use
latest technology and design which will have minimum impact on the surrounding
environment as well as on the marine life. It was mentioned by the NTPC officials during
the meeting that the environmental impacts of proposed OCWS have been studied by
IIT-Madras and found that there will be a very minimal or no effect on the marine life.
The report is available with NTPC.
36
3.10 Challenges faced during data collection
There were some constraints encountered by the team as listed below:
In most of the villages community was supportive and was welcoming
throughout the study. But in a couple of villages, people initially showed
resistance to the data collection. They were not ready to sign on consent form
which seeks their willingness to participate in the survey. Considering their
experience, they were not willing to share the Aadhar card and ration card
details with a fear that their land will be grabbed. After a long persuasion,
villagers accepted to give a collective consent and supported the survey.
As mentioned earlier one of the major issues faced during the initial days of the
survey is the enumeration of households. The reference list provided by the
revenue department is not updated, and it has resulted in confusion. SIA team
innovatively roped in all possible information providers like SHG leaders, elders
in the community who has knowledge of village history along with village
revenue officer and village revenue assistant. Together the team able to
enumerate most of the affected families.
Some of the affected people have migrated to far off places in the past and are
not available for the study. Few individuals, who were staying in the village, were
not available during the survey in-spite of sending repeated reminders. In some
cases land was sold to outsiders of the village and they were not traceable.
37
4 LAND ASSESSMENT
4.1 Total land requirement and the intended use of land for the project For 4x1000 MW NTPC Lalam Koduru Super Thermal Power Project, sea water is
proposed to use for meeting complete water requirement of the project. One of the
envisaged modes of coal transportation from the sea is the construction of dedicated
port with coal storage & jetty. Coal will be conveyed from Jetty to Plant through
Conveyors. To implement the project as envisaged in the Feasibility Report, a Port to
receive coal and a corridor for conveying coal and water (inlet and discharge canal) has
to be provided. Port will require about 500 acres of land which includes part of canal
and coal conveyor. Corridor with Water canal and coal conveyor will require about 200
Acres. Thus, NTPC has requested a total land of about 627 acres as a part of their
requisition.
4.2 Present use of any public, unutilized land in the vicinity of the project
area
The proposed project needs 627 acres of land. Out of the total requirement, 18.5%
(116.35 acres) of land was acquired by APIIC under its earlier acquisition and allotted
to the current project. Nearly 11.25% (70.59 acres) of land is under the control of
Government. Almost 40.8% of the land is near to the coast and does not have any survey
number, indicating that there is no Government or Private ownership of the land.
Around 29.38% (184.24) acres of land is under the ownership of private persons. Of the
total acquisition, less than 1/3rd of land is a private property. The design has been
made to keep land requirements to the barest minimum possible by realigning the
design away from private property and human habitation. The detailed sketch of the
land is available in the land inventory provided in Figure (4).
38
Figure 4 : Map of Z Chinthuva(v), Seethapalem (v), Lalamkoduru (v), Chatimetta (v) Rambilli mandal in NTPC lands
39
S.No Category Extent in acres
A Total land required for the project 627
B Land acquired by APIIC through earlier acquisition 116.35
Extent of Government land proposed for acquisition 70.59
Extent of Private land proposed for acquisition 184.24
Extent of land near the coast (Unknown survey no)
proposed for acquisition 255.82
Total 627 Table 7 : Total land required for the project
Table (8) indicates that there are 140 families losing their own land and 65 families are
losing government land which they are tilling in all the villages. Approximately 1/3rd of
the private land losers are from Lalamkoduru and nearly 50% of the households who
are losing the Government land are from Lovapalem village where the majority of the
PDH reside. Out of the total privately owned land of 184.24 acres, the team has
administered survey for 115 acres and the owners of remaining 70 acres are either not
available or untraceable.
Village name Households loosing
own land Households loosing
Government land Chatimetta 13 8
Kotha koduru (SEZ Colony) 26 10
Lalamkoduru 46 14
Lovapalem 23 31
Peddaetapaplem 2 0
Seethapalem 17 1
Thikkavanipalem 13 1
Grand Total 140 65
Table 8 : Village wise distribution of households loosing own land and govt. land
Name of Village Government Land (In acres) Owned Land (In acres)
Chatimetta 1.48 4.96
Kotha Koduru (SEZ
Colony) 5.04 12.59
Lalamkoduru 11.4 44.58
Lovapalem 17.5 16.17
Peddaetapaplem 0 0.40
Seethapalem 0.64 18.93
Thikkavanipalem 0.12 17.38
Grand Total 36.24 115
Table 9 : Village wise distribution of extent of land surveyed through primary research
40
4.3 Size of holdings, ownership patterns, and number of residential houses
The following table shows the size of private land holdings of the land proposed for
acquisition. The majority of the households (76) hold less than half an acre and there
are 28 families who own on an average half acre to one-acre land. There are only 7
households who own more than 3 acres of land. There are total 6 households who own
irrigated land. Most of the households who own less than half an acre live in
Lalamkoduru, followed by Kothakoduru and Lovapalem. A large part of the land is
acquired from Lalamkoduru, followed by Seethapalem. A majority of the irrigated land
is acquired from Tikkavonipalem.
The following table shows the size of government land holdings of the land proposed for
acquisition. A majority of the households (40) hold less than half an acre of un-irrigated
government land and there are 10 people who own on an average half acre to one acre
of un-irrigated government land. There are only 9 households who own more than 1
acre of un-irrigated government land. There are a total of 6 households who own
irrigated government land, and most of them hold less than half an acre. The bulk of the
households who own less than half an acre live in Lovapalem, followed by Lalamkoduru
and Chatimetta. A majority of the government land is acquired from Lovapalem,
followed by Lalamkoduru. The total irrigated government land is acquired from
Lalamkoduru and Lovapalem.
Table 10 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Total cultivated own land proposed to be acquired (category wise-irrigated & non-irrigated)
41
Table 11 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Total cultivated government land proposed to be acquired (category wise-irrigated & non irrigated)
4.4 Project Displaced Households
In the proposed land acquisition, 42 families are losing their dwelling. Out of the 42
families, 41 families belong to Lovapalem village and 1 family belongs to Chatimetta.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Do you loose the house in the proposed Acquisition?
HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH
No 14 33 55 25 2 19 13 161
Yes 1
41
42*
Grand Total 15 33 55 66 2 19 13 203
Table 12 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents who lose their dwellings
*Total 46 PDHs: During the public hearing 4 more PDHs were identified. The final list is provided in the annexure.
4.5 Nature, present use and classification of land, irrigation coverage and
cropping patterns
It was observed through the primary research that majority of the land proposed for the
acquisition is unirrigated and covered with coastal sandy soils to the maximum extent.
Some of the farmers have open wells or bore wells in their fields, which serves as a
micro irrigation facility. Due to the nature of soil and scarcity of water, food crops are
not cultivated in a commercial set-up rather people produce food crops during the rainy
season for their household consumption purpose. The table below shows that there are
only 6 households that cultivate paddy during the rainy season in almost 5.5 acres.
42
Millets are cultivated in less than an acre by only one household. A majority of the
households (113 HH) cultivate casuarina, followed by cashew plantation (85 HH) and
remaining (32 HH) cultivate coconut. Very few households (3) cultivate vegetables.
Cro
p
Chati metta
Kotha Koduru
(SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Extent (Ac.) HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH
Pa
dd
y
0.4 1 1 0.15 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 1 Total 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 6
Ra
gi 0.78 1 1
Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Ca
hse
w
<0.5 6 8 4 26 1 2 47 0.5-1 3 7 13 23 1.0-2.0 3 3 2 8 >2 2 5 7 Total 6 14 14 43 1 0 7 85
Co
con
ut
<0.5 4 5 17 1 27 0.5-1 1 1 2 >1 3 3 Total 4 0 8 18 0 2 0 32
Ca
sua
rin
a
<0.5 4 9 28 11 2 5 5 64 0.5-1 3 5 12 1 8 1 30 1.0-2.0 1 6 1 4 12 4-Feb 1 4 1 6 >4 1 1 Total 8 15 51 13 2 18 6 113
Ve
ge
tab
les 0.1
1 1 0.05 2 2 Total 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
Table 13 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by area under cultivation to be acquired (Crop wise)
4.6 Land prices and recent changes in ownership, transfer and use of lands
over the last 3 years.
The following table provides the details of land rates in Chatimetta, Lalamkoduru,
Kothakoduru, and Seethapalem. The data shows that land rates for dry land, wet land
and double cropped and for coconut garden are same. Also, land rates for all the three
categories in Chatimetta and Seethapalem are lower than Kothakoduru and
Lalamkoduru rates.
43
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Seethapalem
Nature of Use Land Rate
(Rs. Per Acre) Land Rate
(Rs. Per Acre) Land Rate
(Rs. Per Acre) Land Rate
(Rs. Per Acre)
Dry Land 800,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00 800,000.00 Wet Land-Double Crop 800,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00 800,000.00
Coconut Garden 800,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00 800,000.00
Effective Date: 1st August, 2015 Source: Registration & Stamps Dept. GoAP Table 14 : Details of land prices in Chatimetta, Lalamkoduru, Kothakoduru and Seethapalem.
Though several changes have taken place in the ownership of the lands, this is not
captured in the revenue records and hence the research team found it very difficult to
find the current owner or cultivator of the land. It was found that transactions
happened during the past 25 years were not reflected till date in the revenue records.
44
5 ESTIMATION AND ENUMERATION OF AFFECTED FAMILIES AND ASSETS
For purposes of the Social Impact Assessment, the survey tool has the household as a
unit of focus from the point of view of assessing the project impacts. The survey had
categorized households as Project Affected Households (PAH) and Project Displaced
Households (PDH) according to RFCTLA R&R Act 2013.
The definitions of PAH and PDH are as follows:
Project Affected Households
Households who are losing their income, partially or fully, due to loss of land in the
acquisition are considered as PAHs. The severity of the effect can be further categorized
based on the extent of loss of land under cultivation (either partial or full). If a
household is losing their total land under cultivation, then it is considered as fully
affected else partially affected.
Project Displaced Households
Households losing their dwelling and livelihood due to land acquisition and are
displaced from their habitation are considered as project displaced households
independent of whether they hold any land in the project area. Both PAH and PDH are
directly affected due to the proposed acquisition.
S.No Category Number Comments
1 Project Affected Households 161 Whose income is getting affected
2 Project Displaced Households
(Lovapalem)
42* Who are losing their dwellings &
livelihoods
Total affected households 203
Table 15 : Details of affected households
*Total 46 PDHs: During the public hearing 4 more PDHs were identified. The final list is provided in the annexure.
Name of Village Number of households
Chatimetta 14
Kotha koduru (SEZ Colony) 33
Lalamkoduru 50
Lovapalem 25
Peddaetapaplem 2
Seethapalem 19
Thikkavanipalem 13
Yerakanna Palem 5
Grand Total 161
Table 16 : Village wise distribution of PAH
45
Table (16) represents the village wise distribution of households. It can be observed
that most of the land losers are from Lalamkoduru village which is also a Gram
panchayat followed by Kothakoduru (SEZ colony). All the PDHs are residing on the
outskirts of Lovapalem village.
5.1 Inventory of productive assets
The proposed project needs 627 acres of land. Out of the total requirement, around
29.38% (184.24) acres of land is under the ownership of private persons. Of the total
acquisition, less than 1/3rd of land is a private property. The design has been made to
keep land requirements to the barest minimum possible by realigning the design away
from private property and human habitation. Out of the total privately owned land of
184.24 acres, the team has administered survey for 115 acres and the owners of
remaining 70 acres are either not available or untraceable. The proposed acquisition
leads to the loss of dwellings, farm assets, community assets and other civic amenities.
5.1.1 Loss of Individual Farm assets
Some of the farmers have cattle sheds, tube wells, pumps in their farm fields, which are
going to be lost due to proposed acquisition. A village wise distribution of farm assets is
given below:
Village Name Bore well Cattle shed Fencing Tube well Grand Total
Chatimetta 2 1 3
Lalamkoduru 2 3 1 1 7
Lovapalem 6 15 5 1 27
Seethapalem 2 2 4
Thikkavanipalem 1 1
Table 17 : The distribution of farm assets village wise
A total of 42 farm assets will be affected. Around 64% of the affected assets are from the
Lovapalem village, where people are mostly losing cattle sheds situated adjacent to
their dwellings.
46
5.1.2 Loss of Community assets:
Most of the lands (both private and Government) under proposed acquisition are sandy
soils and contain only horticultural crops. The SIA team has done a transect walk along
the patch of the land which is proposed to be acquired. It was observed that there is a
small pond which will be used for cattle. The pond gets filled with water during rainy
season and remains dry during the summer season. There is a small temple of village
goddess nearby the proposed land. The access to the temple might get hampered due to
the project. Apart from the above-mentioned properties, there will not be much impact
on the community assets of villages.
5.1.3 Loss of Civic amenities:
During the transect walk, it was found that there are two roads connecting different
villages that are getting affected due to proposed acquisition.
1. BT Road between Pudimadaka & Rambilli
There is a blacktop road which is used by the residents of Lalamkoduru,
Seethapalem and Yerakanapalem to reach Atchutapuram which is a nearest
mandal head quarter. Nearly 300 meters of the road will get affected by the
proposed water corridor. There are alternative routes available to reach
Atchutapuram, but the above mentioned road is one of the most used routes by
the villagers.
2. Mud road to Seethapalem
There is a mud road that connects Seethapalem village to Lalam koduru and
Atchutapuram road. This is the only commuting option available to residents of
the village which is surrounded by water on its three sides. Around 300 to 350
meters of the road will be lost due to the proposed acquisition. This will make
the village inaccessible. Seethapalem village has been acquired by APIIC during
previous acquisition and the residents are going to be displaced soon. Due to the
loss of the above mentioned two roads, the mobility of the residents in the
villages will get affected.
47
6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
A detailed socio-economic survey was conducted along with identifying social impacts
of the proposed land acquisition to profile the impacted project area and provide a
baseline against which mitigation measures and support will be measured. For this
purpose complete information related to demographic, social, economic, cultural,
educational, health, living environment and other information such as awareness about
the project, their views, and preferences, their preparedness in case of displacement
were collected.
Visakhapatnam district administration has provided a list of 221 persons who are going
to lose their land due to proposed acquisition. Out of 221 persons, 161 persons who are
losing their land have been covered under the socio-economic household survey. Out of
the remaining 60 persons, 35 persons could not be traced, 12 persons are not available
for the survey during data collection period, 13 persons are dead and their descendants
are not traceable. In addition to the 161 families, the survey is conducted for another 42
families who are losing their dwelling in the proposed land acquisition. In this section,
socio-economic profile of only surveyed 203 families has been presented. During the
public hearing another 4 families were identified as project displaced families and
hence their data is not included in the socio-economic survey.
6.1 Demographic details of the population in the project area
6.1.1 Type of family
The type of family is an important socio-economic characteristic of a household. It
indicates the fabrics of sentimental attachment to the family members, social values,
economic structures and financial burdens. The shift in family pattern from joint family
to nuclear family indicates the transformation of society from agricultural to non-
agricultural society.
The majority of the surveyed families are nuclear (72%) followed by women-headed
families (13%) and Joint families (10%). The absolute number of respondents in a
nuclear family is highest in Lovapalem – the largest village – with 49 families, followed
by Lalamkoduru and Kothakoduru. There are only 2 extended families among the total
surveyed families, one in Chatimetta and another in Lalamkoduru. Two-thirds of
women-headed families are in Lalamkoduru and Lovapalem villages.
48
Extended Joint Nuclear Single person
Women-headed Grand Total
Name of Village N % N % N % N % N % N %
Chatimetta 1 6.7 3 20.0 7 46.7 1 6.7 3 20.0 15 100.0
kotha koduru (SEZ Colony) 5 15.2 25 75.8 1 3.0 2 6.1 33 100.0
Lalamkoduru 1 1.8 5 9.1 39 70.9 10 18.2 55 100.0
Lovapalem 4 6.1 49 74.2 5 7.6 8 12.1 66 100.0
Peddaetapaplem 2 100.0 2 100.0
Seethapalem 4 21.1 12 63.2 3 15.8 19 100.0
Thikkavanipalem 12 92.3 1 7.7 13 100.0
Grand Total 2 1.0 21 10.3 146 71.9 7 3.4 27 13.3 203 100.0 Table 18 : Village-wise Distribution of Households by Type of Family
6.1.2 Gender and Sex Ratio
The data on gender and sex ratio is an important indicator to understand the
participatory share of male and female in the society, which is also an important
indicator for human development index. Among the surveyed population it is observed
that 52% are female and remaining 48% are male. It is observed that female population
dominates in Chatimetta and Lovapalem villages and in rest of the villages female
population is almost equal to the male population. The overall sex ratio is 1064 per
1000 males. There are 47 widowed women in all the affected families.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta palem Seethapalem
Thikkavani Palem Grand Total
Member Sex N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Female
44 55.70 75 50.00 133 50.76 133 53.63 2 50.00 47 48.96 29 49.15 463 51.56 Male
35 44.30 75 50.00 129 49.24 115 46.37 2 50.00 49 51.04 30 50.85 435 48.44 Grand Total
79 100 150 100 262 100 248 100 4 100 96 100 59 100 898 100
Table 19 : Village-wise Distribution of Households by Gender and Sex ratio
6.1.3 Religious and Social Composition
The data on religious and social composition was collected to identify specific religious
beliefs and social affiliations of the people among the surveyed families. This, in turn,
contributes to understanding the needs and preference of the project affected families.
All the surveyed families follow Hinduism and all of them belong to Other Backward
Castes (OBC).
6.1.4 Age Composition
The age composition among all the villages is comparatively high in the (14-35) yrs age
group. The youth in Lalamkoduru and Lovapalem constitute almost 59% of the total
surveyed youth. Members of the age group (35-60) yrs constitute the second major
49
proportion of the population. The working age population i.e. (15-60) yrs constitute
nearly 73% of the total population. The vulnerable age group i.e. (0-6) yrs and (>60) yrs
constitute almost 15% of the total population.
Chati Metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Age wise members N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
0-6 Years 6 7.6 6 4.0 21 8.0 30 12.1 0.0 7 7.3 8 13.6 78 8.7 6-14 Years 11 13.9 17 11.3 22 8.4 46 18.5 0.0 8 8.3 9 15.3 113 12.6 14-35 Years
35 44.3 59 39.3 128 48.9 105 42.3 0.0 39 40.6 28 47.5 394 43.9 35-60 Years 22 27.8 57 38.0 75 28.6 51 20.6 3 75.0 38 39.6 12 20.3 258 28.7 >60 Years 5 6.3 11 7.3 16 6.1 16 6.5 1 25.0 4 4.2 2 3.4 55 6.1 Grand Total 79 100 150 100 262 100 248 100 4 100 96 100 59 100 898 100.0
Table 20 : Village-wise Distribution of Households by Age composition
6.1.5 Marital Status
The marital status of the people who are above 14 years is depicted in the table and
there are no child marriages observed in any of these villages. It is observed that out of
the total surveyed people, most of them (71%) are married, 21% are unmarried and
about 8% are widowed or separated. There are no divorced persons in the village. Some
of the families mentioned their married daughters as their family members and hence
there is an imbalance in the number of male (244) and female (261) married persons
(505).
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ
Colony) Lalam
koduru Lova
palem Pedhaeta
palem Sita
palem Thikkavani
palem Grand Total
Marital Status
Member Sex N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Married F 22 35.5 43 33.9 87 39.7 62 35.6 2 50.0 28 34.6 17 40.5 261 36.9
M 21 33.9 43 33.9 76 34.7 58 33.3 2 50.0 28 34.6 16 38.1 244 34.5
Total 43 69.4 86 67.7 163 74.4 120 69.0 4 100.0 56 69.1 33 78.6 505 71.4 Separated F 2 0.9 1 0.6 3 0.4
Total 2 0.9 1 0.6 3 0.4 Unmarried F 4 6.5 9 7.1 18 8.2 15 8.6 10 12.3 2 4.8 58 8.2
M 8 12.9 19 15.0 28 12.8 19 10.9 9 11.1 6 14.3 89 12.6
Total 12 19.4 28 22.0 46 21.0 34 19.5 19 23.5 8 19.0 147 20.8 Widow F 7 11.3 11 8.7 8 3.7 14 8.0 6 7.4 1 2.4 47 6.6
Total 7 11.3 11 8.7 8 3.7 16 9.2 6 7.4 1 2.4 47 6.6 Widower M 2 1.6 3 1.7 5 0.7
Total 2 1.6 3 1.7 5 0.7 Grand Total
62 100.0 127 100.0 219 100.0 174 100.0 4 100.0 81 100.0 42 100.0 707 100.0 Table 21 : Village -wise Distribution of Households by Type of Migration Status
50
6.1.6 Educational Status
Education provides an opportunity to participate in the process of growth and
development. Education is a basic need and the best indicator of the socio-economic
development of a region. The analysis indicates that out of the total surveyed people,
27% are illiterate and 14.6% are literate without any formal education. 20% people
have completed their education, 24% are currently studying and 7% have discontinued
their education. Most of the people who are presently studying are from Lovapalem,
Seethapalem, and Tikkavanipalem. A large number of illiterate people are from
Kothakoduru, Lalamkoduru, and Peddaetapalem.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta palem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Education Status N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Completed 26 32.9 34 22.7 64 24.4 29 11.7 20 20.8 5 8.5 178 19.8
Currently studying 16 20.3 34 22.7 48 18.3 72 29.0 24 25.0 20 33.9 214 23.8
Discontinued 1 1.3 8 5.3 21 8.0 16 6.5 8 8.3 11 18.6 65 7.2
Illiterate 20 25.3 50 33.3 71 27.1 70 28.2 4 100 15 15.6 13 22.0 243 27.1
Literate but no formal education
11 13.9 18 12.0 38 14.5 34 13.7
24 25.0 6 10.2 131 14.6
Not Responded 5 6.3 6 4.0 20 7.6 27 10.9 5 5.2 4 6.8 67 7.5
Grand Total 79 100 150 100 262 100 248 100 4 100 96 100 59 100 898 100
Table 22 : Village -wise Distribution of Households by Current educational status
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta palem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Education Qualification N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Engineering
7 10.14 5 3.91 6 5.41 6 13.04 1 2.86 25 5.79 Graduate
5 11.63 7 10.14 16 12.50 11 9.91 15 32.61 1 2.86 55 12.73 Higher secondary
3 6.98 4 5.80 19 14.84 6 5.41 3 6.52 3 8.57 38 8.80 ITI
6 13.95 7 10.14 19 14.84 2 1.80 2 4.35 3 8.57 39 9.03 Middle
6 13.95 19 27.54 15 11.72 37 33.33 10 21.74 8 22.86 95 21.99 Post-graduate
2 4.65 3 4.35 6 4.69 2 1.80 6 13.04
19 4.40 Primary
9 20.93 11 15.94 20 15.63 29 26.13 2 4.35 9 25.71 80 18.52 Secondary
11 25.58 14 20.29 30 23.44 22 19.82 7 15.22 9 25.71 93 21.53 Technical diploma
1 2.33 3 4.35 3 2.34 2 1.80 1 2.17 2 5.71 12 2.78 Any other
0.00 1 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.23 Grand Total
43 100 69 100 128 100 111 100 0 100 46 100 35 100 457 100 Table 23 : Village-wise Distribution of Household Members by Educational Level
Note: The table gives educational details of household members who are currently studying, completed and
discontinued.
51
As far as educational attainment is concerned 19% are educated up to primary class,
22% are educated up to middle and 21% are educated up to secondary school level.
Only 18.5 % of people have completed their graduation or engineering. Very few people
(4.4%) have completed their post-graduation. Seethapalem has the maximum
percentage of graduates and post graduates whereas Lalamkoduru has a maximum
percentage of higher secondary and ITI qualified persons.
6.1.7 Health Status
Most common health problems experienced by the respondents are the cold, cough,
common fever, and headache (92%), followed by blood pressure (13%) and malaria
(11%). Less common afflictions are tuberculosis (1%), polio (1.5%) and diabetes (2%)
amongst others.
Village-wise, the respondents’ major health problems are similar and fall into the same
distribution as the above. Most of the population (above 80%) in each of the seven
villages suffer from the common cough-cold-fever-headache symptoms; besides that
blood pressure comes as the second biggest health problem. Malaria is the second
biggest health problem in Lovapalem. One of the reasons is that the village lacks
sanitation facilities and people stay near the sea.
Chatimetta Kotha Koduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam Koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta Palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Household health condition HH %. HH %. HH %. HH %. HH %. HH %. HH %. HH %. Blood pressure
4 26.7 4 12.1 11 20.0 7 10.6 1 6.3 27 13.3 Cold, coughing, common fever, headache 13 86.7 32 97.0 44 80.0 63 95.5 2 100.0 19 100.0 13 100.0 186 91.6 Diabetes
2 3.6 2 3.0 4 2.0 malaria
2 13.3 1 3.0 1 1.8 18 27.3 1 7.7 23 11.3 Polio cases
1 3.0 1 1.8 0.0 1 7.7 3 1.5 Problems related child birth 1 3.0 3 5.5 0.0 4 2.0 Skin Problems
2 13.3 2 3.6 2 3.0 6 3.0 Tuberculosis (TB) 2 3.6 0.0 2 1.0 Any Other
1 6.7 6 10.9 3 4.5 2 10.5 12 5.9 Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 24 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by common health problems
52
6.1.7.1 Treatment in case of illness
Almost 75% of the total surveyed families visit the nearest hospital for treatment in
case of illness. It was observed that Lalamkoduru is a gram panchayat and is the largest
village compared to other villages. In Lalamkoduru, nearly 53% visit hospitals in nearby
towns for their treatment, whereas remaining visit local RMP or PMP for their
treatment.
Among all these villages RMP or PMP is available only in Lalamkoduru, also people in all
these villages have a better access to hospitals in nearby towns. Hence, more than 70%
of the people living in almost all the villages except Lalamkoduru visit the nearest
hospital for their treatment in case of illness. Almost 2% of the total surveyed families
do not visit Doctor or RMP unless it is a very serious health issue. These 2% families
belong to Lovapalem village, where people have very limited accessibility. Only 1% of
the total surveyed families use indigenous treatment methods.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
HH treatment options N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Take the patient to a hospital nearby 13 86.7 25 75.8 29 52.7 57 86.4 2 100 14 73.7 13 100 153 75.4 Take the patient to a local RMP/PMP/Doctor in the village 2 13.3 8 24.2 25 45.5 4 6.1 0.0 5 26.3 0.0 44 21.7 Use indigenous treatment
0.0 0.0 1 1.8 1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.0 won’t attend if it is not serious
0.0 0.0 0.0 4 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.0 Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 1000 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 25 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by type of treatment in case of illness
6.1.7.2 Reproductive and Child Health
Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) care is a very important aspect of maternal health.
Information about the Reproductive and Child Health services provided to mother and
the new-born child was assessed during the study. Almost 80% of the respondents have
stated that they were taken to government or private hospital for delivery. Out of all
these institutional deliveries, 74% were taken to private hospitals or clinics and rest
were taken to government hospitals. Only 1% of the respondents have stated that the
women in the households were attended to by a midwife at home during the delivery.
53
There is no maternal death reported among the families surveyed during last one year.
Only one infant death was reported during last one year in Lalamkoduru among all the
villages surveyed. Low incidence of maternal and infant deaths may be attributed to the
high percentage (80%) of institutional deliveries.
Chatimetta
Kothakoduru (SEZ
Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Peddaeta
palem Seethapalem Thikkavani
palem Grand Total
HH_child delivery N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Delivery occurs at home with mid-wife 1 3.0 1 1.8 2 1.0 Taken to govt. hospital 1 6.7 5 15.2 14 25.5 19 28.8 2 100.0 1 7.7 42 20.7 Taken to private clinic/hospital 10 66.7 19 57.6 29 52.7 36 54.5 14 73.7 12 92.3 120 59.1 Any Other
4 26.7 8 24.2 11 20.0 11 16.7 5 26.3 39 19.2 Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 26 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Management in case of child delivery
Chatimetta
Kothakoduru (SEZ
Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Peddaeta
palem Seethapalem Thikkavani
palem Grand Total
Maternal_death N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 27 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Maternal death in the family during last one year- Excellent
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta palem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Infant_death N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
No 15 100 33 100 54 98.2 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 202 99.5
Yes 1 1.8 1 0.5
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 28 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Infant death in the family during last one year
6.1.7.3 Information about the health centre
Regarding the manageability of the distance to nearest health facility, a majority of the
respondents (69%) felt that the distance is difficult. More than 80% of the respondents
from Chatimetta and Lovapalem felt that the distance to the nearest health center is
difficult. The access roads to these two villages are kutcha roads and there is no
transport facility. Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) is located near the main road and they
have adequate transport facilities. Hence, nearly 45% of the respondents from SEZ
Colony responded that the distance to the nearest health facility is manageable.
54
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta palem
Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
PHC_distance N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Difficult
12 80.0 18 54.5 36 65.5 53 80.3 2 100 13 68.4 6 46.2 140 69.0 Manageable
3 20.0 15 45.5 17 30.9 13 19.7 6 31.6 6 46.2 60 29.6 Walkable
2 3.6 1 7.7 3 1.5 Grand Total
15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100 Table 29 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by feeling towards distance to the health centre
6.1.7.4 Satisfaction with the health treatment
More than three fourth (75.4%) of the respondents stated that they were partially
satisfied with their treatment. The majority of the respondents who are not satisfied
belongs to Lovapalem village. A similar trend is followed among all villages, except in
Chatimetta, where around 40% respondents were fully satisfied with the treatment.
Table 30 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Satisfaction with the treatment
6.2 Income and Poverty levels
6.2.1 Vulnerable groups
As per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, a vulnerable group is defined as women,
children, the elderly, differently abled persons, widows, women-headed households and
other socially/ economically weak groups who would be adversely affected by the
project.
Chatimetta
Kothakoduru
(SEZ Colony)
Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta
palem Seethapale
m Thikkavani
palem Grand Total
PHC_treatment N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Fully satisfied, 6 40.0 10 30.3 10 18.2 12 18.2 1 50.0 3 15.8 1 7.7 43 21.2 Not at all satisfied 6 9.1 1 5.3 7 3.4 Partially satisfied 9 60.0 23 69.7 45 81.8 48 72.7 1 50.0 15 78.9 12 92.3 153 75.4 Grand Total
15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
55
Chatimetta
Kotha koduru
(SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Pedhaeta palem
Sita palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Disability N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Dis
ab
led
Vision 1 50 1 50 2 100 Hearing 3 75 1 25 4 100 Orthopedic
2 20 3 30 2
20 1 10 2 20 10 100 Other Disability 1 25 1 25
2 50 4 100
Total 3 15 4 20 5 25 4 20 1 5 1 5 2 10 20 100 Old Age 6 7.6 16 20.2 25 31.6 20 25.3 2 2.53 8 10.1 2 2.53 79 100 Widow 7 14.3 11 22.4 8 16.3 16 32.6 6 12.2 1 2.0 49 100
Women-Headed families 3 11.1 2 7.4 10 37.0 8 29.6
3 11.1 1 3.7 27 100
Table 31 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Vulnerabilities
Out of the total surveyed families, there are 20 differently abled persons. Most (50%) of
the differently abled persons are orthopedically challenged, and out of the remaining
people, 4 people are hearing impaired and 2 people are visually challenged. It was
reported that out of the total respondents none of the differently abled persons have PH
certificate. Out of all the differently abled persons, one person does not have supporting
aids. There are 4 other people suffering from psychological disorders or paralysis. Out
of all the disabled persons, 5 people are losing their dwelling in the proposed land
acquisition.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Category N N N N N N N N
Disabled 3 4 5 4 1 1 2 20
PH Certificate
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Need Support
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Table 32 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Disability, status of PH certificate, need for supporting aids
PAF PDF Grand Total
Vulnerability No. of persons % No. of persons % No. of persons % Hearing 4 3.4 4 2.7
Orthopedic 7 5.9 1 3.4 8 5.4
Vision 1 0.8 1 3.4 2 1.4
Others 3 2.5 3 10.3 6 4.1
Old Age 65 54.6 14 48.3 79 53.4
Widow 39 32.8 10 34.5 49 33.1
Total 119 100.0 29 100.0 148 100.0
Table 33: Category wise distribution of vulnerabilities
56
There are 79 old age persons among the total people surveyed, and among them, only
49 are getting a government pension. Out of the remaining 30 people who do not
receive a pension, 50% are farmers and agricultural laborers. 5% of the old age people
survive on daily wage employment. People who do not receive a pension and depend on
agriculture as a farmer or laborer are the most vulnerable.
There are 49 women who are widows among all the surveyed families. Majority of the
widows belongs to Lovapalem village and then Lalamkoduru. Out of them 5 women are
daily wage earners, 5 are agriculture labourers and another 5 are self-employed. Out of
these 49 women, 10 are also losing their dwelling. Out of the total surveyed families, 27
families are women headed. Out of these almost two third families belongs to
Lalamkoduru and Lovapalem villages. The average size of the family is five. 11 out of the
27 families are very poor and are living in a hut or semi pucca house. Four families are
losing their dwelling due to the proposed acquisition.
6.2.2 Income and Poverty Levels
Out of all the households surveyed, 83% of the families are engaged in horticulture for
their income, followed by daily wage employment (68%) and livestock (34%). There
are only 9% of total surveyed families are cultivating food crops for commercial
purpose. Only two families are engaged in fishing for earning their income and rest of
them fish for personal consumption purposes. Almost 18% of the total respondents
engage in salaried employment.
Table 34 : village wise distribution of total annual income of the people surveyed from various sources
57
The following table shows the village wise distribution of total annual income of the
people surveyed from various sources. The data clearly depicts that horticulture is the
major source of income followed by daily wage employment, salaried employees (both
private and government) and livestock. A similar trend is not followed across all the
villages. In Chatimetta, daily wage employment is the major source of income followed
by income from horticulture.
In Lovapalem, horticulture is the major source of income followed by fishing. In
Seethapalem, livestock is the major source of income followed by salary from the
employed. In Tikkavonipalem, income from cultivation of food crops is the main source
of income. In Kothakoduru daily wage employment is the major source of income
followed by salaries. As this is a rehabilitated village, most of the families lost their
agriculture land during resettlement. Hence, income from agriculture is least compared
to any other village.
The following table shows the village wise distribution of monthly expenditure of the
families surveyed under various heads. The data shows that 87% of the families have
not spent on consumer durables during last one year. 65% of the families spent less
than Rs. 200 per month on entertainment. The amount spent on the festivals is not
Table 35 : the village wise distribution of monthly expenditure of the families surveyed under various heads
58
uniform across the households, around 28% of the families spent on an average Rs.500-
1000 per month and another 21% of the families spent on an average Rs. 1000-2000
per month. 70% of the families spent less than Rs. 300 per month on fuel. 46% of the
families spent less than Rs. 500 per month on health and another 36% spent on an
average Rs. 500-1000 per month. 89% of the families spent less than Rs. 5000 per
month on social functions such as marriages etc. 70% of the families spent less than Rs.
1000 per month on education. Around 75% of the families spent on an average Rs.
1000-5000 per month on food.
Chati metta
kotha koduru
(SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Pedhaeta palem
Sita palem
Thikkavani palem
Yerakanna palem
Grand Total
Expenditure N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Co
nsu
me
r D
ura
ble
s 0 10 66.7 32 97 37 74 61 92.4 2 100 19 100 12 92.3 3 60 176 86.70 <500 1 6.7 1 2 3 4.6 1 20 6 2.96 500-1000 2 13.3 4 8 1 1.5 7 3.45 1000-2000 1 6.7 1 3 3 6 1 7.7 6 2.96 >2000
1 6.7 5 10 1 1.5 1 20 8 3.94 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
En
tert
ain
me
nt <200 10 66.7 20 60.6 30 60 51 77.3 1 50 8 42.1 11 84.6 1 20 132 65.02
200-500 2 13.3 10 30.3 16 32 10 15.2 1 50 10 52.6 2 15.4 3 60 54 26.60 500-1000 3 20 3 9.1 2 4 4 6.1 1 5.3 1 20 14 6.90 >1000 2 4 1 1.5 3 1.48 Total
15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Fe
stv
al
0 2 13.3 2 6.1 2 4 3 4.6 1 7.7 10 4.93 200 2 3 1 50 3 1.48 <500 3 20 4 12.1 10 20 16 24.2 1 50 3 15.8 6 46.2 43 21.18 500-1000 2 13.3 12 36.4 13 26 14 21.2 9 47.4 4 30.8 3 60 57 28.08 1100 1 5.3 1 0.49 1000-2000
2 13.3 4 12.1 13 26 18 27.3 2 10.5 2 15.4 1 20 42 20.69 2000-5000 4 26.7 10 30.3 6 12 10 15.2 3 15.8 0 1 20 34 16.75 >5000 2 13.3 1 3 6 12 3 4.6 1 5.3 13 6.40 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Fu
el
<150 5 33.3 9 27.3 11 22 20 30.3 3 15.8 2 40 50 24.63 150-300 6 40 11 33.3 24 48 24 36.4 2 100 11 57.9 11 84.6 3 60 92 45.32 350-500
2 13.3 5 15.2 7 14 13 19.7 5 26.3 1 7.7 33 16.26 >600 2 13.3 8 24.2 8 16 9 13.6 1 7.7 28 13.79 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
He
alt
h
<500 7 46.7 12 36.4 21 42 34 51.5 1 50 11 57.9 7 53.9 1 20 94 46.31 500-1000 3 20 13 39.4 15 30 20 30.3 1 50 4 21.1 3 23.1 3 60 62 30.54 1000-1500 1 6.7 4 12.1 1 2 6 9.1 0 2 10.5 0 0 14 6.90 1500-2500
4 26.7 4 12.1 13 26 6 9.1 0 2 10.5 3 23.1 1 20 33 16.26 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
59
So
cia
l F
un
ctio
ns <5000 12 80 30 90.9 39 78 63 95.5 2 100 18 94.7 11 84.6 5 100 180 88.67
5000-20000 2 13.3 2 6.1 6 12 3 4.6 0 1 5.3 2 15.4 16 7.88 >20000 1 6.7 1 3 3 6 5 2.46 >1 Lac 2 4 2 0.99 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Tra
nsp
ort
<500 10 66.7 20 60.6 27 54 35 53 1 50 10 52.6 4 30.8 3 60 110 54.19 500-1000 3 20 5 15.2 14 28 18 27.3 1 50 2 10.5 5 38.5 1 20 49 24.14 1000-2000 2 13.3 5 15.2 3 6 13 19.7 0 4 21.1 3 23.1 1 20 31 15.27 >2000 3 9.1 6 12 0 0 3 15.8 1 7.7 0 13 6.40 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Ed
uca
tio
n
<1000 9 60 24 72.7 36 72 49 74.2 2 100 13 68.4 7 53.9 3 60 143 70.44 1000-2000 2 13.3 6 18.2 4 8 12 18.2 0 2 10.5 3 23.1 1 20 30 14.78 2000-5000 3 20 3 9.1 8 16 3 4.6 0 2 10.5 3 23.1 1 20 23 11.33 5000-10000 2 4 1 1.5 0 2 10.5 0 0 5 2.46 >10000 1 6.7 0 0 1 1.5 0 0 0 0 2 0.99 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Ele
ctri
city
<150 10 66.7 16 48.5 29 58 44 66.7 2 100 7 36.8 5 38.5 4 80 117 57.64 150-300 4 26.7 13 39.4 15 30 19 28.8 0 10 52.6 4 30.8 1 20 66 32.51 300-300 0 3 9.1 4 8 2 3 0 2 10.5 4 30.8 0 15 7.39 >500 1 6.7 1 3 2 4 1 1.5 0 0 0 0 5 2.46 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Fo
od
<1000 5 33.3 4 12.1 10 20 15 22.7 0 1 5.3 0 0 35 17.24 1000-5000 8 53.3 27 81.8 35 70 48 72.7 2 100 17 89.5 11 84.6 5 100 153 75.37 5000-10000 2 13.3 1 3 5 10 3 4.6 0 1 5.3 2 15.4 0 14 6.90 >10000 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.49 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Mis
c
<1000 7 46.7 22 66.7 39 78 44 66.7 1 50 6 31.6 8 61.5 2 40 129 63.55 1000-2000 3 20 7 21.2 7 14 7 10.6 1 50 4 21.1 2 15.4 2 40 33 16.26 2000-3000 1 6.7 3 9.1 0 10 15.2 0 2 10.5 0 0 16 7.88 >3000 4 26.7 1 3 4 8 5 7.6 0 7 36.8 3 23.1 1 20 25 12.32 Total 15 100 33 100 50 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 5 100 203 100.00
Table 36 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Monthly Expenses (Expense wise)
Based on their level of income and expenditure families are categorized into four types.
Out of the total surveyed families,
59% mentioned that they are not able to earn enough and have to borrow
frequently.
32% of the families mentioned that they earn enough and manage to take care of
expenses but cannot save.
Only 7% of the families earn enough, manage to take care of expenses and save.
It shows that 59% of the families are very poor and another 32% are vulnerable
and they may fall into the very poor category with one or two income shocks.
60
Chati metta
Kotha koduru
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Earn status_level N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Earn enough, take care of expenses and save 1 6.7 2 6.1 3 5.5 7 10.6 1 5.3 0 14 6.9 Earn enough and manage to take care of expenses 5 33.3 9 27.3 16 29.1 25 37.9 5 26.3 6 46.2 66 32.5 Not able to earn enough and have to borrow frequently
9 60.0 22 66.7 33 60.0 34 51.5 2 100 13 68.4 7 53.8 120 59.1
No response
3 5.5
3 1.5
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 37 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by their current level of income and expenditure
Ration card status of the families also forms an indicator for measuring their poverty. In
Andhra Pradesh households are categorized into White Ration Card holders and Pink
Ration Card holders based on their economic status. White ration card holders are
households which are below poverty line and pink ration card holders are above
poverty line. Out of the total households surveyed, 93.5% of the households are white
ration card holders and 2.5% of the households are pink ration card holders. 4% of the
households do not possess any ration cards. The level of poverty measured through
ration cards is in accordance with the level of poverty measured through their level of
income and expenditure.
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Type of Ration Card
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
White Ration Card
14 93.3 32 97.0 51 92.7 62 93.9 2 100 19 100 10 76.9 190 93.6
Pink Ration card
1 6.7 1 3.0 2 3.6
1 7.7 5 2.5
No Ration Card
2 3.6 4 6.1
2 15.4 8 3.9
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 38 : Village-wise Distribution of Household by Type of ration card
6.2.3 Social Organisation and Cultural Organisation
All the affected households belong to the same social category of Other Backward Caste
(OBC) and some of them were converted to Christianity. There is a fisherman
community in Lovapalem village staying on the outskirts of the village closer to the
coast. There are no significant temple towns and tourist destinations near the affected
region. Major festivals celebrated in the region are Sankanranthi and Ganesh Chaturthi,
61
but the notable one is the festival of village goddess. It was celebrated during July to
September in different villages for 7 days. It is also one of the major expenditure to a
family. In most of the villages, there are festivals committees managed by youth.
6.2.4 Political Organisation
The proposed land acquisition falls into two Gram panchayats (Lalam Koduru and Z
Chintua) whereas the residences are in Lalam Koduru village. A clustere of villages are
politically organized into a Gram panchayat and in turn, the village is organized into
different wards. Sarpanch who is elected representative of GP and ward members are
elected representatives of their respective wards. All the ward members through
indirect election elected a deputy Sarpanch.
6.3 Land use livelihood
6.3.1 Agricultural and non-agricultural use
Out of the total PAF and PDF families surveyed, 82% of the families own land and
mostly (90%) these lands are used for agriculture purpose. Most of the people are
cultivating horticulture crops due to the limited irrigation facilities and due to poor soil
quality.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta palem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Do you own land? N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No 1 6.7 3 9.1 7 12.7 24 36.4 1 5.3 36 17.7
Yes 14 93.3 30 90.9 48 87.3 42 63.6 2 100 18 94.7 13 100 167 82.3
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 39 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Their ownership of land
6.3.2 Quality of land
Soil quality is an important factor in determining the productivity of a land and the
wealth of the farmer. There are 6 types of soils prevalent in Vishakhapatnam district of
Andhra Pradesh; they are Coastal sandy soils, Red sandy loams, Clay loams, Red clay
loams and black cotton soils in the decreasing order of their extent in the proposed land
for acquisition. 60% of the total extent of land is covered with coastal sandy soils. These
soils cannot retain water in their upper layers. Also, these soils are not suitable for
cultivating food crops such as paddy, sugar cane, wheat, sorghum etc.
62
Total Land (acres)
Chatimetta kotha
koduru Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total Soil type wise
N N N N N N N N Black cotton soil
2.4 4.2 6.6 Coastal Sandy Soils
8.39 16.89 64.78 36.26 0.4 6.73 20.93 154.38 Red Sandy Loams
7.09 0.87 30.07 11.77 17.98 67.78 Red clay loams
0.28 6.54 2 8.82 Alluvial Soil Clay Loams 0.68 5.7 0.25 11.719 2.4 20.749 Total 18.84 23.46 105.84 61.749 0.4 24.71 23.33 258.329
Table 40 : Village-wise Distribution of Type of soil by Acreage
Out of the total people surveyed 12% do not practice farming and 74% depends on
rains for irrigating crops. Only 14% of the families stated that they have some irrigation
facility like bore well or open well. As the Bay of Bengal is very near to these lands,
water is available in sufficient levels in all the wells. As most of the farming is rain-fed,
farmers cultivate mostly horticulture crops.
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Irrigation_source N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Do not practice Farming
2 6.1 3 5.5 18 27.3
1 5.3
24 11.8
Tube well/ Bore well
1 6.7
3 5.5 9 13.6
2 10.5
15 7.4
Open Well
2 3.6 6 9.1
1 5.3 4 30.8 13 6.4
Rain fed
14 93.3 31 93.9 47 85.5 33 50 2 100 15 79 9 69.2 151 74.4
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 41 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents’ agriculture land by Source of irrigation
6.3.3 Livestock
Livestock is an integral part of the most of the families in rural India. Out of the total
households surveyed 39% of the households own livestock, a similar trend is observed
in all the villages except in Kothakoduru (24%) and Tikkavonipalem (15%).
Kothakoduru is rehabilitated to SEZ colony which is more urbanized and hence they do
not have enough resources to maintain livestock. It serves as an example of the impact
on livestock due to Rehabilitation of villages.
63
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam Koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta paplem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
livestock _Status N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Yes 7 40 8 24.2 19 34.5 30 45.5 13 68.4 2 15.4 79 38.9 No 8 60 25 75.8 36 65.5 36 54.5 2 100 5 26.3 11 84.6 123 60.6 Not Responded 1 5.3 1 0.5 Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 42 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents who own livestock
Out of the families owning livestock, a major percentage of households have cows
(58%) and buffaloes (37%) and a small percentage (11%) of families cultivate goats.
There is only one family who owns an ox. Horticulture being a predominant farm
activity in the region, there is a very limited use of cattle in the fields. Factors
influencing the livestock are the availability of fodder and market for the produce.
Animal feed is a scarce resource in the affected villages due to the absence of cultivation
of food crops (paddy or sorghum). Presence of a strong market is encouraging people to
take up livestock farming. Visakha Dairy has its strong presence in each and every
village.
The majority of families owning livestock reside in Lalamkoduru and Seethapalem. A
large number of households who won buffaloes are in Lovaplaem. Most of the families
own less than four animals (cows or buffaloes).
No. of Animals
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta Palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
CO
W
No. of Cows HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs
<4 5 4 15 9 0 10 0 43
>4
3 0 3
Grand Total 5 4 15 9 0 13 0 46
OX
No. of Oxen HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs
1
1
1
Grand Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Bu
ffal
oe
No. of Buffaloes HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs
1-4 1 4 1 18
2 26
5-6
1 2
3
Grand Total 1 4 2 20 0 0 2 29
Go
at
No. of Goat HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs
<5 4
2 2
8
>5
1
1
Grand Total 4 0 3 2 0 0 0 9
Table 43 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Number of animals
64
Chatimetta
Kothakoduru
(SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta
Palem Seethapalem
Thikkavani
palem Grand Total
Milch Yes-No N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % NO
9 60 27 81.8 39 70.9 52 78.8 2 100 6 32 12 92.3 147 72.4 Yes
6 40 6 18.2 16 29.1 14 21.2 0 13 68 1 7.7 56 27.6 Grand Total
15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100 Table 44 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents who own milch animals
Out of the total households who own milch animals, nearly (53%) has a production of
500 to 1000 ltrs of milk per year. This can earn an annual income of Rs 20000. Another
20% of the families yield less than 500 ltrs of milk per year earning an annual income of
Rs 5000 to 10000.
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Milk Qnty (Ltrs.)
Income from Milk N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
<500 <=10000 3 50.0 2 33.3 3 18.8 8 15.7%
10K-20K 1 11.1 1 100 2 3.9%
500-1000 <10000 1 16.7 1 2.0%
10K-20K 2 33.3 3 50.0 4 25.0 2 22.2 7 53.8 18 35.3%
20K-30K 4 25.0 1 11.1 5 9.8%
30K-40K 1 6.3 2 22.2 3 5.9%
1000-2000 20K-30K 2 12.5 1 11.1 2 15.4 5 9.8%
30K - 40K 1 16.7 1 6.3 1 7.7 3 5.9%
40K-50K 1 11.1 2 15.4 3 5.9%
>2000 40-50K 1 11.1 1 2.0%
>50K 1 6.3 1 7.7 2 3.9%
Grand Total 6 100 6 100 16 100 9 100 13 100 1 100 51 100.0
Table 45 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by total milk production in a year
Livestock is a major source of income for 28% of families (52). Nearly 55% of families
who own livestock reported that their income will be affected due to the proposed land
acquisition. Loss of fodder (61%) is the major reason for losing their income due to
livestock, followed by loss of cattle shed (20%) and loss of water source for cattle
(15%). Six families in Lovapalem who own milch animals are going to lose their
dwelling. Also, there are 19 families who own sheep are going to lose their residence.
These families shall be supported with alternate livelihood opportunities.
65
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta Palem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Land acq_loss N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No
4 44.4 7 87.5 9 47.3 5 16.7 10 76.9 1 50.0 36 45.5 Yes
3 55.6 1 12.5 10 52.7 25 83.3 3 23.1 1 50.0 43 54.5 Grand Total
7 100 8 100 19 100 30 100 0 0 13 100 2 100 79 100 Table 46 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by affect of land acquisition on livestock
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Livestock Affect- Reasons N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Loss of cattle shed 1 9.1 10 28.6 11 20.4
Loss of fodder 3 100 1 100 7 63.6 18 51.4 3 100 1 100 33 61.1
Loss of water source for cattle
1 9.1 7 20.0
8 14.8
Others 2 18.2 2 3.7
Grand Total 3 100 1 100 11 100 35 100 3 100 1 100 54 100
Table 47 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by reasons for affecting their livestock
6.3.4 Formal and informal work and employment
The data on occupation of household members of the surveyed families indicates that
24% of them are students followed by homemakers (21%) and then followed by
agriculture labourers (8.6%), daily wage earners (7.6%) and farmers (7%). There are
5% unemployed people and 2% people could not engage in any work due to old age or
physical disability. Around 5.6% of the people are private sector employees who work
in the nearby companies.
Due to the establishment of Special Economic Zone, several companies have started
their operations in the proximity of affected villages. These companies have not
provided employment opportunities to the people living within 10 km from plant
location. Brandix an apparel company employs skilled women.
Most of the women in all the affected villages engage in household works apart from
maintaining livestock. During cropping season, women are engaged in agriculture. Out
of the total agricultural labourers in the surveyed families, nearly one-third are women.
Out of the total daily wage earners, 50% are women. There are certain occupations in
which only women are engaged such as, the sale of fish and private employees in the
Brandix Company. There is a considerable difference in the wage rates for men and
women. Men get on an average wage of Rs, 250 per day whereas women receive Rs. 150
per day.
66
6.3.5 Unemployment
There are 42 unemployed persons out of the total respondents and most of them are
from Lalamkoduru (17) and Kothakoduru (11). There are five families with two or more
unemployed persons. Nearly (65%) of the unemployed, does not have any employment
for more than a year.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Sitapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
No. of Unemployed N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
1 2 100 8 88.9 5 62.5 4 100 2 67.0 1 100 22 81.4
2 0 0 1 11.1 2 25.0 0 0.0 1 33.0 0 0.0 4 14.8
3 0 0 0 0.0 1 12.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.7
Total 2 100 9 100 8 100 4 100 3 100 1 100 27 99.9 Table 49 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Unemployed youth
Table 48 : Village wise distribution of occupation of respondents
67
No. of Members Chatimetta
kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Sitapalem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Period of Unemployment N % N % N % N % N % N % N % < One Year
1 100 4 50 4 33.3 1 25 10 34.5 1-2 Years
2 25 5 41.7 2 50 2 50 11 37.9 2 -4 Years
1 12.5 1 8.3 1 25 1 25 4 13.8 4 -5 Years
1 12.5 2 16.7 1 25 0 4 13.8 Grand Total
1 100 8 100 12 100.0 4 100 4 100 0 100 29 100.0 Table 50 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Period of unemployment
Out of the total unemployed, 50% of the people feel that they have required skills but
there are no enough employment opportunities in the market. 20% people feel the need
for improving their skills for enhancing their employment opportunities. Remaining
people have found mismatch in the salary or place of employment with their
preferences and hence they did not join the available employment opportunities.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Sitapalem Grand Total
Reasons for Unemployment
Mem _sex N %. N %. N %. N %. N %. N %.
I have required skills but no opportunities
F 3 37.5 2 16.7 5 17.2
M 4 50.0 6 50.0 10 34.5
Lack of required skills or poor skills
F 1 8.3 2 50.0 3 10.3
M 1 100 1 25.0 1 25.0 3 10.3
The salary that I was getting was very low hence I quit
M
1 12.5
1 25.0 2 6.9
There are opportunities in towns/cities but I don’t want to leave my village
F
1 8.3 1 25.0
2 6.9
Other F 2 16.7 2 6.9
M 2 50.0 2 6.9
Grand Total 1 100 8 100 12 100 4 100 4 100 29 100
Table 51 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents’ family members by Reasons for unemployment
6.3.6 Youth seeking skill up gradation
Out of the 491 youth 98 female and 117 male are not interested in any sort of skill
training. Out of those who are interested in skill up gradation, a majority (90) of them
are interested in tailoring related training. Around 45 people are interested in computer
related skills. Most of the women are interested in tailoring, computer training, and
nursing courses. Most of the men are interested in a computer course, electrician, and
mechanic courses. Majority of the people who are seeking skill training are from
Lalamkoduru and Lovapalem villages.
68
Skill_dev Gender Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Sita palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Beauty parlor (women)
F
2
2
Carpentry M 3 2 5
Computer operator
F 7 12 4 4 27
M 1 9 5 2 1 18
Dairy F 1 1
M 2 3 5
Driving – Auto/four wheeler
M 2 1 2 1
6
Electrician F 1 1 2
M 2 5 15 1 2 25
Fisheries F 1 4 5
M 12 1 13
Masonry M 1 1 2
Nursing F 2 5 1 8
Nursing Assistant
F
1 1
2
Plumbing F 1 1
M 1 2 3
Repairs of Refrigerator & Air Conditioning mechanic
M
6
2
2 10
Spray painting M 1 1
Tailoring F 6 8 17 14 1 3 49
Tailoring/ cutting
F 2 5 9 22 3 41
M 1 1
Two Wheeler & Motor mechanic
F 1 1
M 2 4 1 4
1 12
Wielding (gas, electric)
M
3 2 2
7
Wireman M 3 3 6
Other Trainings
F 1 1 4 5 11
M 10 2 12
Not Interested in skill development
F 8 14 29 20 17 10 98
M 12 19 33 26 16 11 117
Grand Total 39 91 154 133 40 34 491
Table 52 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by type of technical qualification desired
Out of 276 people interested in skill training, 125 people have expressed their
interest in government jobs while another 125 have expressed their interest in
employment with NTPC. Nearly 55 people have shown interest in private
employment and remaining are willing to take up self-employment.
69
Chati metta
kothakoduru (SEZ
Colony) Lalam
koduru Lova
palem Sita
palem Thikkavani
palem Grand Total
Job Preference N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Govt. 12 40 22 40.7 46 35.4 39 35.8 6 50 125 37.20 NTPC
6 20 22 40.7 45 34.6 44 40.4 5 41.7 3 33.3 125 37.20 Private
6 20 10 18.5 23 17.7 15 13.8 1 11.1 55 16.37 Self-Employment 5 16.7 13 10 8 7.3 1 8.3 4 44.4 31 9.23 Others 1 0.9 1 11.1 2 0.60 Do not know 1 3.3 3 2.3 2 1.8 6 1.79 Total 29 96.7 54 100 127 97.7 106 97.3 12 100 8 100 336 100.00
Table 53 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Kind of job expected after skill development training
6.3.7 Migration
People in the affected villages migrate primarily in search of livelihood as well as for
other reasons such as education etc. It is observed that out of the total surveyed
households, around 15% families have reported migration for livelihood. Though
migration of household members is observed among all the villages, it is more
prominent in Lalamkoduru, Kothakoduru, and Lovapalem villages. The migration is
mostly (77%) seasonal.
Chati metta
Kotha koduru
(SEZ Colony)
Lalam
koduru Lova
palem Peddaeta
palem Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Migration_ status N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Migration - No
13 86.70 28 84.84 43 78.18 61 92.42 2 100 15 78.94 11 84.60 173 85.22 Permanent
1 6.65 3 5.46 2 3.03 1 7.70 7 3.45 Seasonal
1 6.65 5 15.16 9 16.36 3 4.55 4 21.06 1 7.70 23 11.33 Grand Total
15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100 Table 54 : Village -wise Distribution of Households by Type of Migration Status
6.3.8 Livelihood preferences
Due to proposed land acquisition, 68% of respondent’s livelihood is being affected
whereas 32% of respondents remain unaffected. More than 50% of the households are
affected across all the villages except in Seethapalem.
70
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Is your livelihood affected due to the proposed Acqusition N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No 4 26.6 14 42.4 14 25.4 19 28.8 10 52.6 4 30.7 65 32.1
Yes 11 73.4 19 57.6 41 74.5 47 71.2 2 100 9 47.4 9 69.3 138 67.9
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 55 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents whose occupation is getting affected due to proposed land acquisition
Out of all the respondents, 47% are interested in taking up new livelihood activities
such as farming milch animals, farming goats or sheep, home based businesses, and
horticulture.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam Koduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Interested in taking up new livelihood? N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No 7 46.7 18 54.5 28 50.9 32 48.5 2 100 11 57.9 10 76.9 108 53.2 Yes 8 53.3 15 45.5 27 49.1 34 51.5 0.0 8 42.1 3 23.1 95 46.8 Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 56 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by their interest in taking up new livelihood activities
6.3.9 Food security
Out of the total surveyed families, only 22 households cultivate paddy and one family
cultivates sugarcane and another family cultivates millets. 41% of the families who
cultivate paddy produce less than 1000 kg, another 27% produce between 1000 kg to
2000 kg and the remaining 32% produce more than 2000 kg. The data reveals that
majority of the families who produce paddy use it for consumption. Out of the total
surveyed households, 22 households (11%) will be affected due to loss of production of
food crops due to the proposed acquisition. The other households are going to be
affected due to loss of their horticulture lands, loss of access to grazing lands for their
milch cattle which directly contributes to their access to income and thereby their food
security.
71
Chatimetta kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta paplem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Production N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Pad
dy
Null 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
<1000 1 50.0 2 100 1 12.5 2 33.3 3 75.0 9 40.9
1000-2000 5 62.5 1 25.0 6 27.3
2000-3000 2 25.0 1 16.7 3 13.6
>3000 1 50.0 3 50.0 4 18.2
Grand Total
2 100 2 100 8 100 6 100 0 4 100 0 22 100
Suga
rcan
e Null 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
4000 1 100 1 100
Grand Total
0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100
Rag
i
Null 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
130 1 100 1 100
Grand Total
0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 1 100
Table 57 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Total Production of food crops (crop wise)
6.4 Access to credit
It was found that there are many families whose financial situation is poor and often
need to borrow money. Out of the total families, almost 96% have a saving account
either in the bank or in a post office. In spite of having a savings account, families
seldom borrow from formal sources.
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Do you have saving bank account in a bank or post office? N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No
1 6.7 6 10.9 2 3.0 9 4.4 Yes
14 93.3 33 100 49 89.1 64 97.0 2 100 19 100 13 100 194 95.6 Grand Total
15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100 Table 58 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents who have a saving account in a bank or post office
Out of the total respondents, nearly 78% people borrow money for their needs and
among them, an overwhelming percentage (96%) of families take credit from informal
lending sources such as money lenders, landlords, friends, and relatives. 55% of the
families borrow from their employers. Nearly 80% families access credit from the banks
through SHGs. Apart from the loans taken through SHGs, there are very few families
who have borrowed from banks.
72
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Peddaetapalem Seethapalem Thikkavanipalem
Grand Total
Do you borrow money from any source? N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % No 3 20.0 6 18.2 13 23.6 14 21.2 2 100 3 15.8 4 30.8 45 22.2 Yes 12 80.0 27 81.8 42 76.4 52 78.8 0.0 16 84.2 9 69.2 158 77.8 Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 59 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by borrowing money
Source of Borrowed Money Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta paplem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Employers (Govt. or Private)
6 14 27 25 0 12 4 88
Informal Lending Source (money lender/Landlord/ Friends/Relative)
12 25 41 51 0 16 7 152
Formal Lending Source (Bank/co-operative bank/ corporate bank)
9 24 36 38 0 16 4 127
Other 7 15 28 29 0 12 4 95
Table 60 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Source of Borrowed Money
Over one-third of the people borrowed money at an interest rate less than one rupee
and the majority of the people borrowed money at an interest rate of Rs. 1.5 and 2.
Twenty-two percent of the people borrowed money at a rate more than 24% . The
majority of the people in Lalamkoduru, Seethapalem and Tikkavanipalem borrowed at
an interest rate less than 12%.
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Rate of interest N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Rs. 0-1 3 25.0 6 22.2 21 50.0 7 13.5 9 56.3 6 66.7 52 32.9 Rs. 1.5-2 3 25.0 15 55.6 11 26.2 34 65.4 7 43.8 2 22.2 72 45.6 Rs. 2-3 6 50.0 5 18.5 9 21.4 11 21.2 0.0 1 11.1 32 20.3 Rs. 3-5 0.0 1 3.7 1 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.3 Grand Total 12 100 27 100 42 100 52 100 0 0.0 16 100 9 100 158 100
Table 61 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Rate of Interest
73
6.5 Factors contributing to local livelihoods
6.5.1 Industrial setups
There is an SEZ nearby the affected villages, which contain large apparel manufacturing
industries. These industries provide wage employment and daily wage opportunities to
the villagers. Most of the young women were employed in the apparel companies.
During the lean season, most of the men will work as daily wage laborers. Men were
employed in heavy weight lifting activities and some exclusively work as Hamalis on a
daily basis. The educated youth was also employed as supervisors and managers based
on the qualification and experience. Daily labor and wage employment in the factories
are the major contributors to the livelihoods of people in the affected area.
6.5.2 Strong dairy linkages
In spite of the limited availability of fodder, people are engaged in cattle farming
because of strong market linkages. In each of the affected villages, there are milk
collection units run by Visakha dairy. The collection vans collect milk from the
aggregation point. Vans come to the village in the morning and evening. The money is
paid based on the fat content in the milk. Presence of dairy has encouraged people to
take up livestock farming.
6.5.3 Presence of sandy soils
Horticulture is the main source of income to the affected family. Owing to the proximity
of the sea, most of the area is covered with sandy soil, which is good for the cultivation
of commercial crops like cashew, casuarina, and eucalyptus. More than 80% of the
people involved in the cultivation of these plantations. Some of these plantations have a
gestation period of three to five years with little or no maintenance. Considering the
scale of yield, most of the middlemen and small factory owners come to the farms to
purchase the produce.
6.6 Regional Dynamics and Historical change process
This part of the report investigates people response to the acquisition and history of
change in terms of lifestyle and employment options. Due to the proximity to the coast,
a large number of factories and SEZs were established over a period. Most of the
affected families are aware of land acquisition and some of them lost lands in previous
acquisitions by the government. One of the affected villages (Seetapalem) was acquired
completely by APIIC in its previous acquisition and the villagers are waiting for
relocation.
74
Due to previous acquisitions, most of the agricultural laborers started working as daily
wage laborers at the factory floor. Over a period, there has been a change in the
employment pattern due to the advent of industries. Some of the people were not
cooperative to the survey due to their bitter experience with previous acquisitions.
Issues like improper compensation, land grabbing, and false promises were made
during the previous procurement processes.
6.7 Quality of living environment
6.7.1 Housing condition
The type of house is classified into Hut, Semi-Pucca house, Pucca house and others.
Significantly, those respondents who have a pucca house constitute the highest
percentage in general (53%), followed by those who have Semi-Pucca houses (28%),
and Hut (19%). This pattern is observed in all the villages. Exceptionally, respondents of
Lovapalem have the highest percentage of semi-pucca houses (38%) and huts (37%).
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Type of Dwelling N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Hut (village hut) 2 13.3 6 18.2 5 9.1 24 36.4 1 7.7 38 18.7
Pucca 11 73.3 23 69.7 32 58.2 17 25.8 2 100 12 63.2 11 84.6 108 53.2
Semi Pucca 2 13.3 3 9.1 18 32.8 25 37.9 7 36.8 1 7.7 56 27.6
Others 1 3.0 1 0.5
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 62 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Type of house
The ownership status of the house of the respondents shows that most of them (87%)
have their house in the own land. There are few respondents staying in an own house in
Govt. land (8%) and rest are staying in rented house (4%). Similar pattern is observed
in all the villages except in Peddaetapalem, where 50% of respondents stay in own
house in own land and 50% in rented house.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
House Ownership N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Own house in Govt. Land
6 18.2 2 3.6 7 10.6
1 5.3
16 7.9
Own house in own land
14 93.3 22 66.7 50 90.9 59 89.4 1 50.0 18 94.7 13 100 177 87.2
Rented 1 6.7 3 9.1 3 5.5 1 50.0 8 3.9
Others 2 6.1 2 1.0
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 63 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Ownership status of house
75
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta Palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Number of rooms in the house N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
1 5 33.3 8 25.0 10 18.2 24 36.4 1 50 2 10.5 1 7.7 51 25.2
2 1 6.7 7 21.9 23 41.8 25 37.9 1 50 11 57.9 6 46.2 74 36.6
3 5 33.3 8 25.0 9 16.4 11 16.7 1 5.3 5 38.5 39 19.3
4 3 20 7 21.9 8 14.5 4 6.1 5 26.3 27 13.4
More than 4 1 6.7 2 6.3 5 9.1 2 3 1 7.7 11 5.4
Total 15 100 32 100 55 100 66 100.1 2 100 19 100 13 100 202 100
Table 64 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Number of rooms in their house
The water sources in the study area are classified into common water tap, independent
tap, public hand pump, and public well and others. Among all the categories of water
sources, the common water pump is reportedly used by the highest percentage of the
respondents (58%), followed by the independent tap (15%) and public hand pump
(11%). A considerable percentage of people in Lalamkoduru, Lovapalem and
Seethapalem depends on public well (8%).
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Water Supply N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Common water tap
9 60.0 27 81.8 36 65.5 20 30.3
12 63.2 13 100 117 57.6
Independent tap
2 13.3 4 12.1 1 1.8 17 25.8
6 31.6
30 14.8
Others 4 26.7 2 6.1 5 9.1 3 4.5 2 100 16 7.9
Public hand pump
4 7.3 19 28.8
23 11.3
Public well 9 16.4 7 10.6 1 5.3 17 8.4
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 65 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Water supply facility
The table shows the availability of toilet facility to the respondent households in the
study area. The facilities are categorized as common, independent and open defecation.
46% households have stated that they defecate in open areas, an equal percentage
of respondents have independent toilets and the remaining 8% of respondents use
common toilets. The majority of respondents from Chatimetta (60%) and Lovapalem
(58%) defecate in open areas. Respondents from Kotha Koduru (68%), Lalamkoduru
(47%), Seethapalem (47%) and Thikkavanipalem (62%) use independent toilets.
76
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Toilet Facility N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Common 1 6.7 1 3.0 5 9.1 5 7.6 3 15.8 1 7.7 16 7.9
Independent 5 33.3 22 66.7 26 47.3 23 34.8 9 47.4 8 61.5 93 45.8
Open defecation 9 60.0 10 30.3 24 43.6 38 57.6 2 100 7 36.8 4 30.8 94 46.3
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 66 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Toilet facility
Electricity connection to a household is one of the necessary components of their
lifestyle. This facility is categorized into permanent connection, temporary connection,
no electricity and others. 86% of respondents have a permanent connection. 8% of
respondents still do not have electricity facility. The majority of respondents who do not
have electricity facility reside in Lovalapalem (69% i.e. 11 out of 16).
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Electricity Facility
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
No electricity 2 13.3 1 3.0 2 3.6 11 16.7 16 7.9
Others 1 3.0 1 1.8 2 1.0 Permanent connection
12 80.0 28 84.8 50 90.9 52 78.8 2 100 17 89.5 13 100 174 85.7
Temporary connection
1 6.7 3 9.1 2 3.6 3 4.5 2 10.5 11 5.4
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 67 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Status of electricity connection
In rural areas people mostly depend on firewood for cooking; we can see the same in
the present study. Most of the respondents (77%) have mentioned that they depend on
firewood for cooking, in spite of having a gas connection. Out of the total families, 69%
of respondents use gas cylinders, 10% use kerosene stove and 3% use gobar gas for
cooking. This pattern is seen in all villages expect in Kotha Koduru (48%), Seethapalem
(59%) and Thikkavanipalem (43%) majority of respondents use gas cylinder as a
source of fuel.
Chatimetta Kothakoduru
Lalamkoduru Lovapalem Peddaeta
Seethapalem Thikkavani Grand
Total (SEZ Colony) paplem palem
Fuel N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Firewood 14 50 24 44.4 41 48.2 60 59.4 2 50 8 27.6 7 30.4 156 76.8
Gas cylinder 13 46.4 26 48.1 36 42.4 37 36.6 1 25 17 58.6 10 43.5 140 69.0
Gobar gas 1 1.9 1 1.2 1 25 2 6.9 2 8.7 7 3.4
Stove (Kerosene) 1 3.6 2 3.7 7 8.2 4 4 2 6.9 4 17.4 20 9.9
Others 1 1.9 1 0.5
Table 68 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Type of fuel used for cooking
77
6.7.2 Acquisition of dwellings
In the proposed land acquisition, 42* families are losing their dwelling. Out of the 42
families, 41 households belong to Lovapalem village and the other belong to Chatimetta. (*Later during public hearing 4 more households were identified as project displaced families)
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Do you loose the house in the proposed Acquisition?
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
no 14 93.3 33 100 55 100 25 37.9 2 100 19 100 13 100 161 79.3
yes 1 6.7 41 62.1 42 20.7
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 69 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Status of acquisition of house under NTPC project (yes/no)
Out of the 42 dwellings majority (31%) are constructed with mud walls and thatched
with tiles, 26% of the houses are constructed with cement walls and thatched with tiles.
It can be observed from the data that 505 of the dwellings are constructed with mud
walls and another 43% are constructed with cement walls.
Chatimetta Lovapalem Grand Total
Construction Material N % N % N %
Mud walls & thatched tiles 13 31.71 13 31.0
Cement walls & thatched tiles 11 26.83 11 26.2
Mud walls & thatched by asbestos 8 19.51 8 19.0 Cement walls & thatched by asbestos 7 17.07 7 16.7
Mud floor 1 100 0 1 2.4
Any other 2 4.878 2 4.8 Grand Total 1 100 41 100 42 100.0
Table 70 : Village -wise Distribution of Respondents by Construction materials used
6.7.3 Public service infrastructure
6.7.3.1 Public distribution system
Nearly all the families are purchasing food items from PDS, except few families in
Lalamkoduru, Lovapalem, and Tikkavanipalem. Nearly 97% of respondents stated that
Rice is the main item received through the PDS. More than 85% of the respondents
stated that they received Dal (86%), Kerosene (97%) and Sugar (96%) through this
system. Only a small percentage of people (35%) have received wheat from the PDS.
78
Chati metta
Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova palem
Peddaeta palem
Seetha palem
Thikkavani palem
Grand Total
Items purchased from PDS N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Dal 15 100.0 28 84.8 52 94.5 53 80.3 19 100.0 7 53.8 174 85.7 Kerosene 14 93.3 33 100.0 53 96.4 63 95.5 2 100.0 19 100.0 12 92.3 196 96.6 Rice 15 100.0 33 100.0 53 96.4 63 95.5 2 100.0 19 100.0 12 92.3 197 97.0 Sugar 15 100.0 33 100.0 53 96.4 61 92.4 2 100.0 19 100.0 12 92.3 195 96.1 Wheat 7 46.7 7 21.2 17 30.9 30 45.5 6 31.6 5 38.5 72 35.5 Any other 2 6.1 13 23.6 1 1.5 2 100.0 1 5.3 19 9.4 Total 15 100.0 33 100.0 55 100.0 66 100.0 2 100.0 19 100.0 13 100.0 203 100
The percentages are calculated out of the total households in each village
Table 71 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Items purchased from PDS
More than three-fourth of the respondents (76%) from all the villages stated that they
are not satisfied with the quantity of food grains they receive through the PDS. Across
villages, we can see slight variation in levels of satisfaction with Lovapalem being on the
higher side (83%) compared to Lalamkoduru (65%).
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Is the food Quantity from PDS Sufficient
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
No Ration Card 2 3.6 3 4.5 1 7.7 6 3.0
no 11 73.3 25 75.8 36 65.5 55 83.3 2 100 14 73.7 12 92.3 155 76.4
yes 4 26.7 8 24.2 17 30.9 8 12.1 5 26.3 42 20.7
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 72 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Satisfaction with the quantity of food items in PDS
More than half of the respondents (59%) from all the villages stated that they are not
satisfied with the quality of food grains they receive through the PDS. Across villages,
we can see slight variation in levels of satisfaction with Peddaetapalem being on the
higher side (100%) compared to Chatimetta (33%).
Chatimetta Kothakoduru (SEZ Colony) Lalamkoduru Lovapalem
Peddaeta paplem Seethapalem
Thikkavani palem Grand Total
Satisfied with Quality of food from PDS
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
No Ration Card 2 3.6 3 4.5 1 7.7 6 3.0
No 5 33.3 17 51.5 26 47.3 43 65.2 2 100 14 73.7 12 92.3 119 58.6
Yes 10 66.7 16 48.5 27 49.1 20 30.3 5 26.3 78 38.4
Grand Total 15 100 33 100 55 100 66 100 2 100 19 100 13 100 203 100
Table 73 : Village-wise Distribution of Respondents by Satisfaction with the quality of food items in PDS
79
6.7.3.2 Anganwadi
Out of the 67 children (Aged 0-6 years) from the surveyed households, 32 people are
attending Anganwadi. Children who are not attending Anganwadi are mostly from
Lovapalem and Lalamkoduru. Distance from the centre is the primary reason for not
attending Anganwadi.Nearly 50% of the families stated that Anganwadi is not present
or far from their habitation. 14% of the households get their food delivered at home
because of which they do not send their children to Anganwadi.
Status of children attending Anganwadi
Attending Status Reasons for Not Attending
Grand Total
Attending Not
Attending
Anganwadi deliver food at home
Any other It is not
functional
It is very far from
the home
No anganawadi
in the village
Village N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %. Chatimetta 3 9.38 2 5.71 1 20.00 1 7.14 2 5.7 kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
2 6.25 4 11.43
2 14.29
2 25.00 4 11.4
Lalamkoduru 9 28.13 11 31.43 4 80.00 5 35.71 1 1000 1 12.50 11 31.4 Lovapalem 12 37.50 15 42.86 4 28.57 6 85.71 5 62.50 15 42.9 Sitapalem 2 6.25 3 8.57 2 14.29 1 14.29 3 8.6 Thikkavani Palem
4 12.50
0 0.0
Grand Total 32 100 35 100 5 100 14 100 1 100 7 100 8 100 35 100
Table 74 : Village -wise Distribution children below 5 years attending anganwadi
80
7 SOCIAL IMPACTS
7.1 Background Various measures have been taken by the implementing agency to ensure minimum
impacts on the surrounding communities. The project design was aligned to avoid
residential spaces, commercial entities, and productive agricultural lands during
acquisition. In spite of creating a thoughtful plan and design, there are unavoidable
impacts, which will be created due to the proposed acquisition. A meticulous study of
these impacts is necessary for designing a comprehensive mitigation strategy. This
section discusses an approach in identifying social impacts and tries to understand the
same at various stages of the project.
7.2 Impact on Physical Resources
This section summarizes the loss of resources like land, farm assets, and dwellings due
to proposed acquisition. Table (75): Indicates overall project impacts. Total 627 acres of
land shall be required before commencing the project. Of the total land required, only
184.24 acres is a privately owned land. Nearly 42 households are losing their farm
assets due to proposed acquisition. Out of the total 207 affected households, 46 families
are going to be displaced from their current location.
S.N
o
Village Name Private
land
(acres)
Governm
ent land
(acres)
Farm
assets
Total
PAH
Total
PDH
Loss of
residence
(In Own
land)
Loss of
residence
(In Govt
land)
Vulnerable
people
1 Chatimetta 4.96 1.48 3 14 1 1 0 19
2 Kotha koduru 12.59 5.04 0 33 - - - 31
3 Lalamkoduru 44.58 11.4 7 55 - - - 43
4 Lovapalem 17.5 16.17 27 25 41 35 6 44
5 Peddaetapaplem 0.40 0 0 2 - - - 4
6 Seethapalem 18.93 0.64 4 19 - - - 16
7 Thikkavanipalem 17.38 0.12 1 13 - - - 7
8 Total 115 36.24 42 161 42 36 6 164
Table 75 : Snapshot of direct impacts
7.3 Approach in identifying the social impacts
Income and dwelling of a family are the two major parameters, which are getting
affected due to proposed acquisition. Among the affected families, most of the
households are losing only income and some are losing dwelling and income. The
approach followed in this section is to identify the severity of impact on the households
using the above two parameters and streams of income (single or multiple). The degree
of severity will be calculated based on the quantum of loss in the income.
81
7.3.1 Calculating severity of Impact
7.3.1.1 Income method Income from the proposed land acquisition is considered and the same as a percentage
of total income is calculated to estimate the severity of the impact. While estimating the
impact, sources of income are considered as families with the single source are more
vulnerable compared to households with multiple sources of income.
Families can be segmented based on the level of income loss and loss of dwelling as
follows:
Households whose percentage of income loss is less than 30% of their total
annual income is considered to have low impact
Households whose percentage of income loss is more than 30% and less than
60% of their total annual income are considered to have moderately affected
Households whose percentage of income loss is between 60% and 100% of their
total annual income are considered to be severely affected
Households who are losing their dwelling, home stead (with kitchen garden,
cattle shed, chicken coops and coconut trees) and access to common property
resources (like grazing lands) irrespective of income loss are considered to be
adversely affected
Percentage loss of income due to land acquisition out of the total income
Single source of income Multiple Sources of Income
Name of Village <30% 30-60% 60-100% <30% 30-60 60-100%
Chatimetta 14 1
kotha koduru (SEZ
Colony)
1 27 4 1
Lalamkoduru 1 36 5 8
Lovapalem 3 1 44 12 6
Peddaetapaplem 2
Seethapalem 17 1 1
Thikkavanipalem 1 9 3
Yerakannapalem 5
Total 3 1 3 154 26 16
Table 76 : Village wise distribution of respondents based on no. of sources of income and percentage loss of income
Legend: Green- Low impact, Yellow- Moderate Impact, Red- Adverse impact
Table 76 indicates that distribution of people according to the loss of income and
number of sources. It can be observed that there are only seven households who have a
single source of income and out of them only three families are losing more than 60% of
income. It can also be observed that people with multiple sources of income and losing
60-100% are having agriculture as their primary source of income. As the proposed
acquisition is going to have a direct affect on the agriculture, these families will have a
greater impact even though they have multiple sources of income.
82
7.3.1.2 Loss of dwelling
Families, who will be losing their dwelling, are designated as project displaced
households, as their present place of stay is going to be submerged due to proposed
acquisition. Most of the PDHs have subsistence sources of revenue from their
homestead. Hence, a loss of dwelling is going to create a direct impact on the household
income, living standard and sense of identity. People who are dependent on the
subsistence farming are also going to have a higher degree of impact compared to
families who has multiple income sources. For the purpose of analysis, people who are
losing their dwelling (irrespective of their income loss) are considered severely
affected.
Nearly 46 households are going to be displaced, out of which 40 families have houses in
their own land whereas 6 families are staying in a house constructed in government
land.
7.4 Qualitative observations
This section of the report presents various impacts associated with project life cycle.
These impacts are estimated through qualitative observations made during the pilot
phase and data collection. Project impacts are analyzed considering various stages of
the project lifecycle
7.4.1 Pre-Construction Phase
7.4.1.1 Delivery of services
In Lovapalem most of the services such as education, health and transport are not
available at present and hence the proposed relocation site should ensure these
services. In remaining villages, proposed acquisition does not cut through residential or
commercial spaces; there will not be any severe impact on the delivery of services like
health, education, transport etc. Due to the loss of the only road to Seethapalem village,
mobility of villagers to outside areas will be completely restricted. The village will then
turn into an island as it is surrounded by water on its three sides. APIIC acquired
Seethapalem village in its previous acquisition and the residents of the village are
waiting for relocation. Alternatives should be considered to prevent the interruption to
services until the relocation of the village. The relocation of displaced families in
Lovapalem village should be done at the pre-construction phase to prevent the
disruption of services to their community.
83
7.4.1.2 Impact on Livelihood
There will be a direct loss of income to all the land losing families due to loss of land and
agriculture. This will result in reduced economic opportunities to those families who
are heavily dependent on agriculture. The affected families will be forced down the
poverty ladder if they are not provided with sufficient employment avenues. During the
community interactions at the SEZ colony, women indicated that male members of the
families are addicted to alcohol out of depression due to loss of income in previous
acquisitions. This has increased the incidence of domestic violence in such households.
7.4.2 Construction Phase
7.4.2.1 Displacement and Relocation
Families who are residing on the outskirts of Lovapalem village are going to be
displaced as it falls under submerged portion of the project. These families have to be
relocated to a location of their choice after giving sufficient settlement options. All the
PDHs have a facility for a small kitchen garden, horticulture around their residences,
which is serving as a supplementary source of income. It is suggested that resettlement
site should have similar characteristics which otherwise will have a greater impact on
the income and lifestyle.
7.4.2.2 Influx of migrant workforce
It was estimated that there will be a need for 2000 workforce (both contractual and
permanent) during the construction phase. The workforce will be supplied by
registered contractors with NTPC. The contractors not only source people from the
nearby villages but also from far off places. There is a possibility of tension between
local people and outsiders. As the migrant workforce will be recruited for NTPC work,
there will not be any major impact on the existing livelihoods of local people.
7.4.2.3 Impact on livelihoods
There will be enhanced opportunities for local people (both unskilled and skilled labor)
during the construction phase due to workforce requirement. This can create a positive
impact in terms of increasing the average income of a household.
7.4.2.4 Health Impacts
The proposed project is on the outskirts of all the nearby villages and free from
residential areas except the displaced families. There will be minimal human
interference in the project site. Thus, there will not be any major health impacts during
construction phase. However, in the public hearing people expressed concerns about fly
84
ash damaging their crops and fly ash and concern about pollution of sea water leading
to overall reduction in marine resources. This matter needs to be carefully looked into
from the point of view of mitigation as well communication of appropriate information
to people in the coastal line adjacent to NTPC sites.
7.4.3 Operation Phase
7.4.3.1 Impact on Livelihoods
The present project may not require large manpower after construction. But the
construction of water and coal corridor project will make 4000 MW NTPC thermal
power plant operational. Thus creating a lot of livelihood opportunities to the people.
Qualified persons from the affected families can exploit these opportunities with proper
facilitation and skill development. Also, NTPC R&R policy state that organization is
committed to creating livelihoods by awarding petty contracts, vehicle hiring, courier
services, newspaper vending etc. This can create a positive impact in terms of livelihood
options to the local community.
7.4.3.2 New Patterns of Social Organisation
People of all the affected villages belong to the same social category. The fisherman
community called Vaada Balija, are staying on the outskirts of Lovapalem village. These
people are going to be displaced from their current place of stay due to proposed
acquisition. An R&R site will be proposed by the district administration to rehabilitate
the affected people. There might be a chance of friction between communities in the
newly relocated site due to the presence of people from various social categories.
7.4.3.3 Environmental degradation
Open Circulating Water system (OCWS) will be used for cooling the turbines in the main
plant. In OCWS, water will be drawn from the nearest source and will be sent through
condensers to cool the turbines and then discharged back to the source. One of the
major concerns in this type of technique is the higher discharge temperatures that can
affect the aquatic life and small marine creatures like fish. In most of the cases
chemicals, Sodium hypochlorite will be used to prevent corrosion caused by sea water.
A higher usage of these chemicals can raise the PH of the water body proving
detrimental to the marine ecosystem. A detailed effect of the operations can be
examined in Environment Impact Assessment study of the main plant.
7.4.3.4 Gender based impacts
In majority of the households, women members are also actively participating in the
workforce to support family income. Most of the women work as daily wage
85
laborers in the nearest apparel factories while some work as agriculture laborers during
the cropping season. During the community interactions with the women who were
rehabilitated in the SEZ colony, it was mentioned that there was a loss of income due to
relocation of families. They also pointed out that the cash compensations had actually
led to an increase in the dowry rates for their daughters. Many families have exhausted
the compensations within no time. At present, they have lost their lands, their
homestead and cattle and a sense of belonging and community. The effects are more
pronounced in the case of elderly men and women, as they had lost their economic
autonomy and the possibility of earning independent income through raising milch
cattle, goats and chicken. Men and women above the age of 40 years have found
themselves lacking any employable skills hence not productive. There is an overall
increase in alcoholism.
Families living on the outskirts of Lovapalem village experience remoteness of the
village. There is no public infrastructure like roads (both connecting and internal),
schools, hospital and Anganwadi center. It is expected that the new proposed relocation
site for the displaced families will have the necessary infrastructure. This can create an
overall positive impact on the lifestyle especially to women, children, and elderly
persons.
86
8 SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT PLAN
8.1 Background In spite of having thoughtful design and plan, there are unavoidable impacts, which are
likely to be created due to the proposed acquisition. A well designed and people-centric
mitigation plan will address the impacts and reduces the friction with the local
community. The implementation of SIMP requires the involvement of various agencies
at different stages of project life cycle. The present section deals with various agencies
involved and their roles and responsibilities.
8.2 Institutional arrangement
This section summarizes various institutions involved in the process of acquisition and
implementation of Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP)
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
National Thermal Power Corporation
District Administration of Visakhapatnam district
NGOs
Independent Evaluation Agency
Grievance Redress Committee
8.2.1 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
APIIC is a Government of Andhra Pradesh undertaking started to promote
infrastructural facilities and industrial development of the state. APIIC is going to
undertake the present acquisition. The land will be given to NTPC after the acquisition
for building water and coal corridor project. APIIC in consultation with NTPC kept
displacement of households to a bare minimum. APIIC, along with district
administration, should ensure that there will be smoother acquisition with proper
awareness to the targeted communities. APIIC should also be responsible for the
implementation of mitigation measures.
8.2.2 National Thermal Power Corporation
NTPC is going to construct water canals to support the operations of its new 4000 MW
plant in the proposed land after the acquisition. NTPC will be spearheading the
implementation of social impact management plan. NTPC shall also be responsible for
coordinating with various stakeholders involved in the implementation of SIMP. NTPC
will be guided by its R&R policy, which will have additional commitments apart from
the provisions, mentioned in RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013. It is assumed that NTPC will
undertake any emerging needs of the affected people or communities apart from the
mitigation measures mentioned in this section.
87
8.2.3 District Administration (DA) of Visakhapatnam district
District administration will be assisting APIIC in the acquisition of land. The
administration is involved in creating the awareness and ensuring proper
communications to all the affected families throughout the project life cycle. One of the
major tasks of the administration is to provide relocation sites to the displaced families.
The cost of these units will be borne by NTPC. The administration should also play an
active role in targeting eligible government schemes towards affected families.
8.2.4 Overall Strategy for Rehabilitation & NGO facilitation
An overall strategy that addresses the needs and concerns of individuals of all age
groups need to be evolved in order to enable a smooth transition. NGOs can play an
active role in the implementation of rehabilitation activities. During relocation, they can
help the displaced families in acquainting with the new conditions, providing
orientation towards managing finances, conducting necessary surveys and periodic
consultations. In post-relocation phase, they can help in identifying the needs and
aspirations of the affected families, imparting skill development on employable skills.
NGOs can also help women members of the family to start home-based enterprises to
offset the loss caused due to relocation. NTPC has to indentify a credible NGO to enable
the process and supplement their efforts in developing the affected communities. They
can also conduct a midterm assessment of the activities and provide inputs in
improvising the implementation plan.
8.2.5 Independent Evaluation Agency
An Independent evaluation agency may be taken on board by NTPC to evaluate their
rehabilitation efforts at the end of implementation period.
8.2.6 Grievance Redressal Cell
A Grievance Redressal Cell (GRC) is suggested to address any of the queries or
complaints of the project affected/displaced families. The cell will be headed by the
project administrator and composed of Divisional Revenue Officer (RDO), Mandal
Revenue Officer (MRO), officials from CSR department of NTPC, officials of APIIC, R&R
officer, and Women representative from the affected households and a representative
from a local body.
88
The responsibilities of the GRC are i) to resolve any problems arising due to land
acquisition ii) Recording and prioritizing the grievances of PAFs (Project Affected
Families) or PDFs (Project Displaced Families) during relocation phase iii) Informing
affected families on developments of grievances filed with GRC iv) Issues which are not
under the purview of GRC shall be directed to competent authority.
8.3 Relocation and Resettlement Site
The proposed acquisition is going to displace some of the households from their place of
residence who need to be relocated. The primary activities involved in the relocation
are the identification of resettlement site, which can keep the existing living conditions
intact, and ensure all required amenities.
During the community interactions, it was found that most of the residents would like
to be settled in a similar location, which can keep their homestead intact. The present
set up not only provides them pleasant living conditions but also supplements the
household income. Based on the survey, it was found that there 42 families who are
going to be displaced. These families should be rehabilitated as per the provisions in
RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013. District administration will provide residential spaces to the
displaced families whose cost will be borne by NTPC.
Figure 5 : Process of Grievance redressal
89
8.3.1 Resettlement Options
The basic philosophy of the present acquisition is to avoid displacement to the
maximum possible extent. In the event of displacement, the families shall be
rehabilitated in a similar environment. The present conditions are not only pleasant but
also provide a supplementing source of income. Following are the desirable
characteristics of the proposed Resettlement site:
The allocated plot should have sufficient space for construction of a residence, a
small kitchen garden or cattle shed.
The residence plot should also have enough space to plant horticultural plants
like coconut or cashew.
The proposed site should have access to all the public services like health,
education, Anganwadi centre etc.
The proposed site should also demarcate a dedicated space for the construction
of a temple for village goddess.
Additional public spaces like community hall, a library, angandwadi centre,
children’s play area, playground for common sports for youth, space for women’s
training and activities need to be provided. As these spaces are not present in the
current place of stay, provision of these facilities will be an add-on to the
community.
Common lands dedicated to the cultivation of fodder should be made available at
the new site. About 5 to 10 acres may be dedicated for community green belt
with plantations to recreate grazing spaces and open spaces.
District administration in coordination with APIIC should provide a minimum of two
relocation sites with the desired characteristics to the displaced families.
8.4 Implementation schedule
The implementation of SIMP will be planned as per overall implementation schedule of
the project. As a first step, all the affected families (both PAHs and PDHs) shall be paid
100% compensation after proper evaluation by a technical team as mentioned in RFCT
LAR&R Act, 2013. The compensation should be paid before the commencement of civil
works i.e. during pre-construction phase. Monitoring & evaluation and grievance
redressal shall be carried throughout the life cycle of the project. The SIMP has three
broad phases of implementation i) Preparation of a detailed plan ii) Implementation
phase iii) Monitoring and Evaluation.
90
S.No
Stage
of im
pleme
ntati
on
910
1112
12
34
56
78
910
1112
12
34
56
78
910
1112
APr
e- SI
MP i
mplem
entat
ion Ph
ase
1Ide
ntifi
catio
n of la
nd an
d not
ifica
tion r
egard
ing th
e sam
e
2Co
nstit
ution
of SI
A tea
m
3Pr
epara
tion o
f sur
vey t
ools
and p
rojec
t plan
3No
tifica
tion r
egard
ing SI
A stu
dy
4So
cio -e
cono
mic c
ensu
s of a
ffecte
d fam
ilies
5Su
bmiss
ion of
draft
SIA r
epor
t and
prep
artion
of SI
MP pl
an
6No
tifica
tion o
n pub
lic he
aring
and s
ubmi
ssion
of te
lugu b
rief
7Pu
blic h
earin
g
8Su
bmiss
ion of
final
SIA re
port
BSIM
P Imp
lemnt
ation
phas
e
1Es
timati
on of
value
of as
sets
and c
rops
by an
expe
rt te
am
2Di
sbur
seme
nt of
comp
ensa
tion t
o affe
cted f
amilie
s
3Sh
iiftin
g of a
ffecte
d peo
ple to
R&R s
ite
4Im
pleme
ntati
on of
inco
me re
storat
ion ac
tiviti
es
5Sk
ill de
mand
estim
ation
6Sk
ill tra
ining
to th
e int
eres
ted y
outh
7Em
ploym
ent w
ith N
TPC o
r any
othe
r orga
nisati
on
8Ca
pital
supp
ort t
o any
self e
mploy
ed pe
rsons
9Gr
ievan
ce re
dres
sal
CM
onito
ring a
nd ev
aluati
on ph
ase
1Int
erna
l mon
itorin
g
2Ex
tern
al mo
nitor
ing
2016
2015
2017
Figure 6: Implementation schedule of the project
91
8.5 Impact mitigation measures
Around 80% of the affected families are losing only income and rest 20% are losing
their residence and income. This section of the report outlines various measures to be
adopted by NTPC to mitigate the impacts created due to the proposed acquisition. The
primary focus of the impact mitigation strategy is to restore the income of the affected
families to a normal level without losing the sight on the welfare of displaced people at
the rehabilitation site.
Rehabilitation & Resettlement Cell
A Rehabilitation and Resettlement Cell (RRC) is suggested to ensure necessary
infrastructure and services to the project affected and displaced families. It is suggested
that the RRC work on the mitigation strategies suggested in the report. The members of
this team should take care of the youth, women, elderly and the overall community
development. Stated below are the indicative responsibilities of the Cell. NTPC and the
Government may also direct the cell to look in to other activities. The Cell and the
activities could be part of NTPC’s CSR activities.
The responsibilities of the cell include
i. To ensure all the families get their benefits as per the act.
ii. To ensure skill development training and employment opportunities to all the
unemployed youth.
iii. To provide guidance and counseling to vulnerable groups, children, youth,
women and senior citizens in coping with the transition.
iv. To provide financial literacy and financial management training to all the
families.
v. To ensure all the necessary facilities and services in the relocated site.
vi. To ensure that all the families get homestead land at relocation site.
vii. To ensure a healthy environment with green coverage at the relocated site.
Approach
A lifecycle approach is followed in analyzing the mitigation measures to each of the
affected families. After a careful understanding of the impacts due to proposed
acquisition across the vulnerable groups namely children, women, youth and elderly,
corresponding mitigation measures were proposed as per the indicated choices.
During the study, it was observed that the children belonging to the displaced families
in Lovapalem have to walk through the difficult terrain to attend school. Also,
households having educated youth preferred a job from NTPC or similar organization.
Old age people mentioned that they are interested in taking up livestock as a livelihood
option. Women members of the affected families are interested in taking up household-
based enterprises. A comprehensive plan to identify skills, resources, and nearby
92
markets shall be prepared after a detailed study. Present suggestions are made
considering the basic data collected during the socio-economic census.
Life Cycle representation of Impact mitigation measures
In the following representation, intended positive impacts and mitigation measures
corresponding to each stage of a life cycle are indicated. A detailed explanation of each
activity is mentioned thereafter:
Figure 7: Lifecycle analysis of impact mitigation measures
8.6 Income restoration
During the study people from the age group of (15-35) were asked to indicate their
preference for new livelihoods and skill needs. From the Table (76) it can be observed
that 39 families out of 95 respondents (61%) are interested in taking up livestock
farming. It was also observed that there is a strong presence of milk dairies in all of the
affected villages. This could be one of the motivating factors for the people to take up
livestock farming. Most of the active elderly people in the family are involved in cattle
farming and provide income support to the family.
93
In the table (78), it was observed that majority of the displaced families are interested
in taking up the livestock rearing and none of the displaced families have indicated their
preference for cultivation of horticulture or home-based enterprises. It was observed
that most of the women and men of the displaced families work as wage laborers.
Elderly people who are staying at the home are involved in the livestock management.
Name of Village
Aqua
culture
Farming
buffalos
Farming
goats/sheep
Home based
businesses horticulture
Others
(specify)
Grand
Total
Chatimetta 2 2 1 3 8
kotha koduru
(SEZ Colony) 9 1 2 2 1 15
Lalamkoduru 5 5 3 9 5 27
Lovapalem 8 21 2 3 34
Seethapalem 1 7 8
Thikkavanipalem 1
2 3
Grand Total 8 39 10 7 19 12 95 Table 77: Village wise distribution of livelihood preferences
Name of Village
(group)
Aqua
culture
farming
buffalos
farming
goats/sheep
Home based
businesses horticulture
Others
(specify)
Grand
Total
PAH 1 24 9 7 19 10 70
PDH 7 15 1 2 25
Grand Total 8 39 10 7 19 12 95 Table 78 : Category wise distribution of livelihood preferences
Table (79) & (80) indicates skill preferences of the members of the affected people in
the age group of (15-35). There are 394 people in the age group in all the affected
villages. Out of which 253 people indicated their preferences on different types of skills
they are interested. Nearly 35% of the people are interested in tailoring and related
activities and 18% people are interested in taking up computer related training. Some
of the popular vocational courses like Electrician, Mechanic, and Wielding etc were also
indicated during the survey.
Table (80) indicates that around 25% of people from displaced families are preferring
support in fishing and related activities which is their traditional means of livelihood.
Also, 40% of them want training on tailoring and related activities.
Table (81) represents gender wise distribution of skill preferences. It can be observed
that a large number of young women and girls have indicated their preference
94
compared to their male counterparts. Also, most of the women expressed their interest
in taking up skill development training on computer courses and tailoring. Activities
which involve hard labor like mechanics and welding only male members have
indicated them their preferences.
Type of skill Chati
metta
kotha
koduru
Lalam
koduru
Lova
palem
Sita
palem
Thikkavani
palem
Grand
Total
Beauty parlor
(women)
2 2
Carpentry 3 2 5
Computer
operator
1 16 17 6 4 1 45
Dairy 2 4 6
Driving –
Auto/four
wheeler
2 1 2 1 6
Electrician 3 6 15 1 2 27
Fisheries 1 16 1 18
Masonry 1 1 2
Nursing 2 5 1 8
Nursing
Assistant
1 1 2
Plumbing 2 2 4
Repairs of
Refrigerator
&Air
conditioning
mechanic
6 2 2 10
Spray painting 1 1
Tailoring 6 8 17 14 1 3 49
2 5 10 22 3 42
Wheeler &
Motor
mechanic
2 4 1 4 1 1 13
Wielding (gas,
electric)
3 2 2 7
Wireman 3 3 6
Grand Total 253
Table 79 : Village wise distribution of skill preferences
95
Type of Skill PAH PDH Grand Total
Beauty parlor (women) 2 2
Carpentry 3 2 5
Computer operator 40 5 45
Dairy 2 4 6
Driving – Auto/four wheeler 5 1 6
Electrician 27 27
Fisheries 4 14 18
Masonry 2 2
Nursing 7 1 8
Nursing Assistant 1 1 2
Plumbing 4 4
Refrigerator & AC mechanic 8 2 10
Spray painting 1 1
Tailoring 38 11 49
Tailoring/cutting 30 12 42
Wheeler & Motor mechanic 10 3 13
Wielding (gas, electric) 6 1 7
Wireman 5 1 6
Grand Total 195 58 253 Table 80 : Category wise distribution of skill preferences
Skill type Male Female Grand Total
Beauty parlor 0 2 2 Carpentry 5 5
Computer Operator 18 27 45
Dairy 5 1 6
Driving 6 0 6
Electrician 25 2 27
Fisheries 13 5 18 Masonary 2 2
Nursing 0 10 10 Plumbing 3 1 4
AC & Fridge repair 10 0 10
Spray painting 1 0 1
Tailoring and cutting 1 90 91
Mechanic 12 1 13
Wielding 7 0 7
Wireman 6 0 6 Total 114 139 253
Table 81 : Gender wise distribution of skill preferences
96
8.7 Summary of Impacts and Benefits
8.7.1 Project Impacts
The following table summarises the impacts of proposed acquisition in various villages.
Parameter Chati
metta Kothakoduru (SEZ colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova Palem
Pedhaeta Palem
Sita Palem
Thikkavani Palem
Loss of dwelling
Loss of public infrastructure
Loss of land
Impact on Public services
Table 82: Village wise summary of project impacts
8.7.2 Project Benefits
The following table summarises the benefits to the affected families due to the proposed
project.
Parameter Chati
metta Kothakoduru (SEZ colony)
Lalam koduru
Lova Palem
Pedhaeta Palem
Sita Palem
Thikkavani Palem
Compensation to Land and Crops
Rehabilitation to R&R site with house and plot
Improvement of Public services
Skill development
Bridge courses
Table 83: Village wise summary of project benefits
8.8 Proposed Activities
8.8.1.1 Placement linked training to youth
Most of the youth who are aspirational are looking for permanent employment options.
Also RFCT LAR&R Act 2013, Second Schedule, Sl.No 4, P.No.40 states that “The
appropriate Government shall ensure that the affected families are provided with the
following options where jobs are created through the project, after providing suitable
training and skill development in the required field make provision for employment at a
rate not lower than the minimum wages provided for in any other law for the time
97
being in force, to at least one member per affected family in the project or arrange for a
job in such other project as may be required”. It is the responsibility of district
administration and the implementing agency NTPC to ensure employment to the
members of affected family.
A residential training should be provided with the help of an expert agency according to
the preferences of the people. The training should also provide placement and post
placement support to the trainees. The cost of training and placement shall be borne by
NTPC.
8.8.1.2 Bridge courses to aspiring youth
Placement linked training will be useful to people who have required qualifications but
do not possess necessary skills. In case of youth, who do not have qualification and
skills, they should be provided with an opportunity to enhance their education
qualification along with their skillset. To serve this twin objectives, the interested youth
shall be enrolled in the bridge courses (preferably computer oriented) which will help
them to integrate with mainstream education/skill training system. At the end of the
course, students shall be able to choose their career options according to their
preference.
8.8.1.3 Support to livestock and Self-employment
Livestock is one of the main sources of income to the affected families. The proposed
acquisition is going to have a direct impact on the availability of fodder which in turn
will have an impact on the livestock. It is proposed that as a part of community
development programs of NTPC, land should be developed at an accessible location to
grow fodder. NTPC may also provide a fixed one-time capital support to each family
who are interested in taking up livestock farming or self-employment. To avoid non-
serious persons, a matching grant can be provided to fund the asset rather than
providing cash payment. The implementation can be done with help of an active NGO in
the local region.
8.8.1.4 Improving the agricultural productivity
Table (81) Indicates that nearly 59% of farmers are losing their total land under
cultivation whereas 41% of them are going to have a partial loss of the land due to
proposed acquisition. Also, Table (77) indicates that 20% of the people prefer to take up
Horticulture as their livelihood option. To compensate the income to the partial land
losing families, it is suggested to provide training on new methods of productive
cultivation techniques. The cost of the training shall be borne by NTPC.
98
Name of Village <10% 10-20% 20-50% 50-60% 60-90% Total Land Grand Total Chatimetta 2 2 6 1 4 15
Kotha koduru 1 2 2 25 30
Lalamkoduru 4 3 8 6 5 25 51
Lovapalem 3 2 8 1 2 31 47
Peddaetapaplem 2 2
Seethapalem 2 2 2 12 18
Thikkavanipalem 5 3 5 13
Grand Total 10 14 29 10 9 104 176
Table 84 : Village wise distribution of percentage loss of land
8.8.1.5 Skill training to Women
Some of the women in the affected families are working in the apparel factories in the
surrounding region. Working women shall be provided with a training which will
enhance their monthly income as well as help in the progression of their career. Some of
the women are involved in occasional works in the farm fields or stay at home as home
makers. These women shall be given household enterprise development training
coupled with capital support to launch their enterprises. The activity can be
coordinated by an expert agency. The cost shall be borne by NTPC.
8.8.1.6 Integration of Government schemes
NTPC with the help of district administration should ensure eligible basic entitlements
from the government to all the affected families. The provision of these entitlements
will supplement the income of the affected household. Out of 203 households, only 20
families are having MGNREGA job cards. Possession of a job card provides an
opportunity for 100 days of wage employment. This can supplement the income of a
family. It is advisable to investigate other relevant schemes which can be targeted
towards affected families.
8.8.1.7 Commitment of NTPC CSR funds for affected communities
As a policy, NTPC is committed to the development of communities in the periphery of
its project site. It is suggested that NTPC should intensify its CSR spending to the
affected communities to restore their income level, standard of living and sense of well
being. A long-term engagement, at least for a period, not less than 3 years should be
committed. A clear engagement plan shall be developed in meeting the needs of all
the stakeholders in the affected communities. It is important that communities are
settled and do not nurture ill-being and discontentment for the broader well being of
society and its stability.
99
9 ANALYSIS OF COST AND BENEFITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACQUISITION
Analysis of costs and benefits helps in deciding the viability of a project. Traditional
cost-benefit analysis has tended to emphasize the economic costs and benefits. As
projects are often driven by the economic imperative to generate jobs and growth,
social and environmental costs and benefits are often treated as secondary or neglected.
The following section brings out various economic, social and environmental costs and
benefits observed in this project.
The present land acquisition is for the construction of water and coal corridor for
supporting the operations of the 4000 MW plant location. The primary objective of the
present plant is to reduce the prevailing energy demand and power shortages in the
state. Out of the total required land, less than 1/3rd of land is private property. The
design has been made to keep land requirements and displacement to the barest
minimum possible by realigning the design away from private property / human
habitation. In spite of the careful redesign of the project, there are certain costs incurred
on the people, which are mentioned below. S.No. Tangible Costs Intangible Costs 1 Loss of land Impact on people’s health 2 Loss of dwellings Impact on environment 4 Loss of homestead land Disruption of social structures 5 Loss of income from land Reduction and change in consumption patterns 6 Loss of individual assets Loss of sense of autonomy and esteem 7 Loss of public infrastructure Loss of access to services 8 Loss of source of rearing livestock Overall change in living styles 9 Reduction in overall income Change in intra-household consumption and
distribution patterns
Table 85: Nature of Costs in the project
The costs can be further segregated into economic, social and environmental costs as
mentioned in the below table. Some of the costs can be quantified while others are of
qualitative nature. The costs are identified from the view point of affected households.
Nature of Cost Type of Cost Quantifiable (Yes/No)
Economic Cost
Loss of Land Yes Loss of dwelling Yes Loss of subsistence opportunities No Loss of income Yes Loss of farm assets Yes Loss of Livestock No Loss of public infrastructure No Increase in household expenditure No Cost of resettlement (involves shifting, constructing new house etc)
Yes
Social Cost Loss of belongingness and aesthetic experience No Cost of integrating into new location No
Environmental Cost Loss of health due to pollution No Loss of marine life No
Table 86: Segregation of costs according to type
100
9.1 Methodology
Costs that can be quantified are estimated using the existing data sources which include
socio economic census and revenue records. While estimating the costs, gross quantity
of assets is considered which then was multiplied by the average cost of the asset. For
example, while estimating the cost of private land, total acres of private land is
considered which then multiplied by the average market value of land from the past
three years. In case of immeasurable costs, qualitative impacts or benefits are
mentioned. As the costs and benefits are estimated using socio-economic census and
secondary data, the analysis mentioned in this section is indicative in nature but not
absolute. It is suggested to conduct a detailed evaluation of the assets as per the
provisions in RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013.
9.2 Description of Costs
A detailed description of each cost is explained below and corresponding benefit as per
the provisions of the act is indicated.
9.2.1 Economic Costs
9.2.1.1 Loss of Land
A total of 627 acres land shall be required for the construction of water corridor. Of the
required land, 184.24 acres is privately owned land. From the socio-economic census,
nearly 140 families are losing 115 acres of private land whereas 65 households are
losing nearly 36.24 acres of government land. Land details of the families who are not
present during the study are not captured.
Benefits:
As per the provisions mentioned in the RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013 compensation is
provided for the land. The compensation for land is equal to the market value of the
land multiplied with a factor. The factor may be between 1.00 (one) to 2.00(two) based
on the distance of project from urban area, as may be notified by the district
administration.
9.2.1.2 Loss of Dwellings
Out of 42 PDHs, 41 are from Lovapalem and the other one is from Chatimetta village. Of
those affected families, 36 households have their house constructed in own land while
the remaining 6 families live in a house constructed in government land. There are 21
kutcha, 17 semi-pucca, and 4 pucca houses. According to people’s estimate, the cost of
all these dwellings is around Rs. 1,25,00,000. Four more PDHs were identified during
101
the public hearing.
Benefits:
As per the provisions mentioned in the RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013 the following
compensation will be provided for the people who are losing their dwellings during the
land acquisition process.
1. If the house is constructed on own land, then the compensation is paid for the
land attached to the house as well as to the value of the assets attached to the
land. The compensation for land is equal to the market value of the land
multiplied with a factor. The factor may be between 1.00 (one) to 2.00(two)
based on the distance of project from urban area, as may be notified by the
district administration. The compensation for the house is provided based on the
valuation of the assets attached to the house by a surveyor.
2. If the house is constructed on govt. land, then the compensation is paid for the
building and the assets attached to it.
3. Apart from providing the compensation for the loss of dwellings, the act also
requires the concerned authority to provide a constructed house in the
resettlement site as per the Indira Awas Yojana specifications. Provided further
that if any affected family in rural areas so prefers, the equivalent cost of the
house may be offered in lieu of the constructed house.
9.2.1.3 Cost of Resettlement
The project displaced families incur an economic cost in moving from their present
place to the new place and in arranging all the necessary goods and services for their
family.
Benefits:
As per the provisions mentioned in the RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013 the following
compensation is provided for the people towards their rehabilitation and resettlement. 1. Each affected family which is displaced from the land acquired shall be given a
monthly subsistence allowance equivalent to 3000/- per month for a period of
one year from the date of award.
2. Each affected family which is displaced shall get a one-time financial assistance
102
of 50,000/- as transportation cost for shifting of the family, building materials,
belongings and cattle.
3. Each affected family shall be given a one-time Resettlement Allowance of
50,000/- only
4. The stamp duty and other fees payable for registration of the land or house
allotted to the affected families shall be borne by the requiring body (i.e. NTPC).
9.2.1.4 Loss of Subsistence opportunities
Nearly (41) all the displaced households have a space for kitchen garden which is used
for the cultivation of vegetables and other horticultural crops useful for their daily
consumption. The same space is also used to provide shelter to cattle. It is also useful
for them for all the social gatherings. It improves the green coverage surrounding their
homes. Hence, loss of homestead land is not only an economic cost but also a social cost
for the affected families.
Benefits: 1. As per the provisions mentioned in the RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013 all the families who
have homestead land will get the due compensation for the loss of their homestead
land.
2. It was also suggested that under the Social Impact Management Plan, all the project
displaced families should be provided with the homestead land sufficient for
growing vegetables, fruits and for constructing shed for their cattle.
3. Also to meet their day to day food needs, as per the act each affected family which is
displaced from the land acquired shall be given a monthly subsistence allowance
equivalent to 3000/- per month for a period of one year from the date of award.
9.2.1.5 Loss of income from land
It was observed through the primary research that majority of the land proposed for the
acquisition is Un-irrigated and covered with coastal sandy soils. Some of the farmers
have open wells or bore wells in their fields, which provides irrigation facility. Due to
the nature of soil and scarcity of water, food crops like paddy is cultivated only during
the rainy season and mostly the produce is used for household consumption. It was also
observed during the SIA study, that majority of the households (113 HH) cultivate
casuarina, followed by cashew plantation (85 HH) and remaining (32 HH) cultivate
coconut. Very few households (3) cultivate vegetables.
103
These lands are one of the major sources of their income and also they contribute to
their annual food needs. Acquisition of these lands causes loss of income to these
families. This loss may be varied across the families depending on the proportion of
land that they are losing out of the total land that they own.
Benefits:
1. Choice of Annuity or Employment to offset the loss of Income: As per the provisions
mentioned in the second schedule of RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013, the appropriate
government shall ensure that affected families are provided with the following
options:
a. Where jobs are created through the project, after providing suitable training
and skill development in the required field, make provision for employment
at a rate not lower than the minimum wages provided for in any other law for
the time being in force, to at least one member per affected family in the
project or arrange for a job in such project as may be required. or
b. One time payment of five lakhs rupees per affected family. Or
c. Annuity policies that shall pay not less than two thousand rupees per month
per family for twenty years, with appropriate indexation to the Consumer
Price Index for Agricultural Labourers.
2. Improving the agricultural productivity: The SIA study indicates that nearly 59% of
farmers are losing their total land under cultivation whereas 41% of them are going
to have a partial loss of the land due to proposed acquisition. Also, the study
indicates that people have shown interest in taking up horticulture as their
livelihood option. To compensate for the loss of income due to loss of cultivable land,
it is suggested under the Impact Mitigation Plan to provide training on new methods
of productive cultivation techniques. The cost of the training shall be borne by
NTPC.
9.2.1.6 Loss of farm assets
Some of the farmers have cattle sheds, bore wells, tube wells and fencings in their farm
fields which are going to be affected due to proposed acquisition. Around 64% of the
total affected assets (42) are from the Lovapalem village, where people are mostly
losing cattle sheds situated adjacent to their dwelling.
104
Benefits:
1. As per the provisions of the act, along with the compensation for land, the
compensation is also paid for the assets attached with the land or buildings.
2. Also as per the provisions of the act, each affected family having cattle or having a
petty shop shall get one time financial assistance of such amount as the district
administration may, by notification, specify subject to a minimum of twenty-five
thousand rupees for construction of cattle shed or petty shop as the case may be.
9.2.1.7 Loss of public infrastructure
The proposed land acquisition affects two roads, interrupting service delivery to several
villages. 1. BT road between Pudimadaka & Rambilli: The black top road used by the
residents of Lalamkoduru, Seethapalem and Yerakanapalem to reach
Atchutapuram which is a mandal head quarter is getting affected as the proposed
water corridor cuts across the existing road. Though there are alternative routes
available to reach Atchutapuram, the road in question is one of the mostly used
routes by the villagers. It causes of disruption to the transport services as well as
affects access to health and educational services.
2. Mud road to Seethapalem: The mud road that connects Seethapalem village to all
the other villages is getting affected. This is the only available route to
Seethapalem village from any other village in the region. Nearly 300 to 350
meters of the road will be damaged. This makes village into an isolated place and
causes disruption of all the services to the village.
Benefits:
NTPC has mentioned during their meeting with the SIA team that they will construct a
bridge over the proposed canal in the above two cases in order to sustain the transport
and other public services.
105
9.2.1.8 Loss of livestock
Livestock is an important source of income for an almost 52 families which are around
28% of total affected families. The proposed acquisition is going to affect the fodder &
water availability and cattle sheds, which in turn reduces the income from the cattle. An
exact quantification of the impact is not possible using existing data.
Benefits: 1. It was proposed under the Impact Mitigation Plan to provide a common property
resource to all these families for raising the fodder.
2. Further, a water resource for cattle should be provided in the grazing land.
3. As per the act, a minimum of Rs. 25,000 shall be provided for construction of
cattle shed per household.
9.2.1.9 Increase in Household Expenditure
It was observed during the previous land acquisition projects in the surrounding areas,
when farmers got huge money as compensation, they tend to increase their spending.
They spend more on improving their lifestyle. This includes spending on home
appliances, vehicles, clothes, food items etc. It was observed during the interactions
with women, that due to increased cash with the people, the spending on weddings has
increased drastically. This financial imprudent behavior has reduced their earnings
drastically after some time and pushed them in to poverty.
Benefits:
It was suggested in the SIMP to engage an agency in working with the affected families
in ensuring financial discipline. NTPC should provide required financial and technical
support.
9.2.2 Social Costs
This section summarises various social costs involved due to proposed acquisition.
These social costs cannot be quantified but can have substantial impact on the
household status.
9.2.2.1 Loss of belongingness and aesthetic experience
The 41 families living in Lovapalem village, are losing their dwellings and will be
relocated to resettlement site. They are very much attached to their surrounding
106
environment in the village. There is a high chance that resettlement may create
disturbances in the existing social structures in the following ways.
1. At present, the arrangement of their dwellings follows certain undeclared
understanding, such as all the cousins live together etc. But in the proposed
resettlement area it may or may not follow the same arrangement. This may lead
to change in relationships among the people.
2. In the existing resettlement site, houses are separated by compound walls. It is
assumed that the resettlement site, which is going to be allocated to PDHs, will
have a similar layout plan. The loss of connection between the families might
result in weakening of social cohesion in the community.
3. At present old age people engage in livestock farming and hence they have
economic independence which enables them to live with self-respect.
Observations from the existing relocated site reveal that there is no space for
cattle shed and fodder. Due to the absence of opportunities, elderly people are
often made to stay at home losing their economic independence and self-respect.
9.2.2.2 Cost of integrating into new location
As mentioned earlier due to the relocation there is a chance of reduced cohesion
between people. Also the relocation will make displaced families to live with people
from various castes and social status. It will create a pressure on the families to match
the requirements of new community which in turn will increase the household
expenditure. An exact quantification of this cost is not possible.
9.2.3 Environmental Costs
After completing the construction of water corridor NTPC will commence its plant
operations. Environment pollution is one of the major concerns expressed by the
affected people during public consultations. There are certain costs which will incur at
family level due to the loss of present environment. A detailed analysis of
environmental costs can be examined in EIA report conducted for main plant by IIT-
Chennai.
107
9.2.3.1 Loss of health due to pollution
During the construction phase of the project, the air pollution caused by the vehicles
and dust generated by construction activity will have a slight impact on the health of
people living in the surroundings. Also, the pollutants released by the plant during its
operation can have a substantial impact on the health of the families surrounding the
plant. It will, in turn, incur an additional expenditure to a family. NTPC ensured that it
will follow the international standards in design and operations which will have
minimum effect on the surrounding environment.
9.2.3.2 Loss of marine life
Due to the plant operations, hot water will be released into the sea after cooling the
turbines. It is feared by the local fishermen that it will increase the temperature of sea
water destroying marine life which will have a direct impact on the economic
opportunities of the people. This might reduce the household income of the fishermen
community. NTPC mentioned that there are treatment systems in place as a part of
design to cool the water before releasing the water into the sea.
9.3 Benefits
Most of the losses will be compensated as per the provisions in the RFCT LAR&R Act,
2013. Additionally, interested members of affected families will be provided placement
linked training and employment as per the provisions. Also as mentioned in the SIMP,
interested women will be provided entrepreneurship development training to start
household enterprises with one time capital support from NTPC. The benefits are
quantified, wherever required, using standard denominations. It is suggested to create a
detailed household wise entitlement plan as per the provisions of the act by an expert
agency or local NGO.
PDHs does not have proper public infrastructure at their present place of stay. It is
assumed that the PDHs will be benefited from the improved infrastructure at the
relocated site.
108
9.4 Estimating the cost of R&R
This section presents an overview of consolidated costs of R&R plan. The cost of public
infrastructure is not taken into account. All the costs are indicative in nature and shall
be updated and adjusted after a detailed evaluation of a competent authority. The total
cost of R&R plan is compared against the cost of the project.
S.No Cost Description Quantity Rate Total Amount
A Assets
1 Cost of the private land 184.24 ac. 800,000 147,392,000
2 Cost of Farm assets 42 25,000 1,050,000
3 Cost of Dwellings 46 271,739 12,500,000
4 Cost of Crops 151.24 ac. 24,479 3,702,204
B Allowances as per RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013
1 Transportation Allowance to PDH 46 50,000 2,300,000
2 Subsistence allowance @ 3000 per month for one year to PDH 46 36,000 1,656,000
3 Resettlement Allowance 46 50,000 2,300,000
4 Annuity or employment @ 5 lakh per affected family 207 500,000 103,500,000
C Training and Capacity Building as a part of SIMP
1 Placement linked training to youth 253 25,000 6,325,000
2 Entrepreneurship training to women 50 20,000 1,000,000
3 One time assistance or matching grant to Livelihood activities 95 50,000 4,750,000
4 Productivity training to farmers 150 10,000 1,500,000
5 Bridge courses to dropout youth 50 50,000 2,500,000
D Monitoring and Evaluation of SIMP implementation by an independent agency 1 2,000,000 2,000,000
E Total Cost of the project (A+B+C+D) 292,475,204
Table 87: Detailed cost of R&R
9.5 Conclusion
It was observed that throughout the project that there are no adverse social costs. All
the costs mentioned above are met through RFCT LAR&R Act, 2013 or through SIMP.
The measures suggested in the act and management plan will address all the possible
impacts. The cost of implementing the measures in comparison with the project cost is
very minimal and hence, the project is viable.
109
ANNEXURE -1
List of head of the families of Project Displaced Households (PDHs)
S.No. Surname
Name of the member
Name of Village
Type of Family
Type of Dwelling
Ownership of land
1 Merugu Mutyalarao Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca no
2 Merugu Koteswari Lovapalem Nuclear Hut no
3 Kandipilli Chittibabu Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca no
4 Ganagala KodandaRao Lovapalem Nuclear Hut no
5 Kovviri Bangari Lovapalem Nuclear Hut no
6 Ganagalla Nookaraju Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca no
7 Reddi Paidamma Chatimetta Nuclear Hut no
8 Ganagala Kasubabu Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca yes
9 Ganagalla Chinnayya Lovapalem Nuclear Hut no
10 Bondhu Ammoru Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca yes
11 Bondhu Dhanamma Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca yes
12 Bondhu Muthylamma Lovapalem Women-headed
Semi Pucca yes
13 Merugu Muthyala rao Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca yes
14 Paleti Prasad Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca yes
15 Paleti Prakash rao Lovapalem Nuclear Hut yes
16 Sodipilli Kotamma Lovapalem Women-headed
Semi Pucca yes
17 Kandipilli Ganesh Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca no
18 Merugu Merugu durgayya Lovapalem
Nuclear Hut yes
19 Merugu Kanakaraju Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca yes
20 Merugu Jagga Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca yes
21 Chodipalli Bangaru Chitti Lovapalem Single person
Hut no
22 Bondu Muthyalu Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca yes
23 Bondu Masenamma Lovapalem Nuclear Hut no
24 Merugu Chandramma Lovapalem Joint Semi Pucca yes
25 Mailapaila Nallama Lovapalem Joint Hut yes
26 Merugu Bangaramma Lovapalem Single person
Hut no
27 Kari Bangaram Lovapalem Women-headed
Hut yes
28 Kanidipilli Paidamma Lovapalem Single person
Hut no
29 Kandipilli Nookaraju Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca no
30 Kandipilli Laxmi Lovapalem Women-headed
Hut no
31 Koviri Chinna Lovapalem Nuclear Hut yes
32 Kovvuri Kodhandarao Lovapalem Nuclear Hut yes
33 Bondu Bala Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca no
34 Gangalla Jagga Lovapalem Nuclear Hut no
110
35 Ganagalla Sattemma Lovapalem Nuclear Hut no
36 Chelluri Naagaraju Lovapalem Nuclear Hut yes
37 Mailapalli Mutyalamma Lovapalem Nuclear Hut yes
38 Sodipilli Gangaraju Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca no
39 Sodipilli Sathyam Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca no
40 Sodipilli Chinabbayi Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca no
41 Bondu Appakonda Lovapalem Single person
Hut no
42 Ganagalla Kodhandarao Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca yes
43 Sodipilli Nukamma Lovapalem - Semi Pucca -
44 Gangalla Mashenamma Lovapalem - Semi Pucca -
45 Chelluri Bhulokharao Lovapalem - Semi Pucca -
46 Perla Sathyarao Lovapalem - Semipucca -
*Highligthed names are added after the petition by the villagers during Public hearing
ANNEXURE-2
List of head of the families of Project Affected Households (PAHs)
S.No. Surname
Name of the member Name of Village
Type of Family
Type of Dwelling
1 Lalam Satayam kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
2 Ruthula Narayana murthy Seethapalem Joint Semi Pucca
3 Ruthala Srinivasa rao Seethapalem Nuclear Pucca
4 Lalam Naraasinga rao Lalamkoduru
Women-headed
Semi Pucca
5 Lalam Nagayamma Lalamkoduru
Women-headed
Pucca
6 Lalam Gnaneswari Lalamkoduru Joint Pucca
7 Thikkada Nookaraju Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
8 Merugu Raju Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
9 Ruthala Ruthala narsinga rao Seethapalem Joint Pucca
10 Ruthala Ramanamma Seethapalem Nuclear Pucca
11 Ruthala Narayana murthy Seethapalem Nuclear Pucca
12 Ganagala Raju Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
13 Ganagalla Kodanda Lovapalem Joint Semi Pucca
14 Ganagalla Krishnaveni Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
15 Ganagalla Laxmi Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
16 Lalam Dorababu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Joint Pucca
17 Lalam Nookanaidu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Semi Pucca
18 Lalam Appalanaidu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
19 Lalam Appalanaidu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
111
20 Gorli Naga appalaraju Chatimetta
Women-headed
Pucca
21 Ruthala Venkataramana Seethapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
22 Danthuluri Venkataramanaraju Seethapalem Nuclear Pucca
23 Ruthala Venkata ramana Seethapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
24 Reddy (urapa) Kondala rao
Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
25 Reddi Reddi Narasimhulu Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
26 Merugu Nukaraju Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
27 Chelluru Bhulokarao Lovapalem Women-headed
Pucca
28 Lalam Venkatalakshmi kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
29 Chelluru Bhulokarao Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
30 Lalam Sriramamurthy Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
31 Ruthala Narayanamma kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Women-headed
Pucca
32 Uppina Narayanamma Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
33 Ruthula Sethamma kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Single person Pucca
34 Lalam Satyam kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Joint Pucca
35 Lalam Sanyasamma Chatimetta
Women-headed
Hut (village hut)
36 Lalam Naresh Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
37 Lalam Applanaidu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
38 Lalam Applanaidu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Hut (village hut)
39 Lalam Dhemudu Chatimetta Nuclear Semi Pucca
40 Ruthala Rudra teja Seethapalem
Women-headed
Pucca
41 Penki Apparao Lalamkoduru
Women-headed
Pucca
42 Palleti Polayya Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
43 Paleti Polarao Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
44 Korangi Appalaraju Chatimetta Nuclear Pucca
45 Yeripelli Demudu Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
46 Kasireddi Ramana kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Joint Pucca
47 Ganagalla Danayya Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
48 Kasireddi Lakshmi kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
49 Merigi Nookaraju Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
50 Merigi Rajanna Thikkavanipalem Nuclear
Hut (village hut)
51 Merigi Nookalamma Thikkavanipalem Women-headed
Pucca
52 Lalam Sannibabu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Women-headed
Pucca
53 Lalam Satyam kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
112
54 Lalam Satyannarayana Chatimetta Nuclear Semi Pucca
55 Merugu Muthyalu Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
56 Merugu Devudamma Lovapalem Joint Semi Pucca
57 Lalam Tathalu Lalamkoduru Nuclear
Hut (village hut)
58 Lalam Sanyasi rao Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
59 Lalam Mangaveni Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
60 Dantaluru Jaganatha raju Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
61 Chilluvuthu Narsimha murthy raju
Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
62 Arjilli Devudamma Lovapalem Nuclear
Hut (village hut)
63 Chelluri Nookaraju Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
64 Ch Sathynaarayana Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
65 Chelluri Mallikarjumna Lovapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
66 Merugu Satyarao Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
67 Merugu Mahalaxmi Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
68 Merugu Chandar Rao Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
69 Merugu Nagaraju Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
70 Lalam Ganesh kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Others
71 Lalam Appalaraju Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
72 Lalam Bhavani kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Joint Hut (village hut)
73 Lalam Srinu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Joint Hut (village hut)
74 Rajana Chinnabayi Lalamkoduru Joint Pucca
75 Dharmireddy Ramana babu
Chatimetta Extended Pucca
76 Chodipilli Nookalamma Lovapalem Women-headed
Semi Pucca
77 Danthuluri suryanarayanaraju Seethapalem Nuclear Pucca
78 Lalam Tathilu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Hut (village hut)
79 Varri Suneetha kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
80 Chelluri Kodhandamma Lovapalem Single person
Hut (village hut)
81 Merugu Ammoru Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
82 Merugu Muthyalu Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
83 Lalam Appalakonda kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
84 Merugu Rajayya Thikkavanipalem Nuclear Pucca
85 Lalam Venkatrajulu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
86 Lalam Nayanappa kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
87 Kandipalli Savitri Chatimetta Joint Pucca
88 Ganagalla Mani Lovapalem Nuclear
Hut (village hut)
89 Lalam Thathayyalu kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
113
90 Lalam Appalakonda Yerakannapalem Joint Pucca
91 Lalam Venkanna kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Hut (village hut)
92 Pedapati Prvathi Lalamkoduru Joint Pucca
93 Padhapati Narasihamurhy Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
94 Yandra Pothuraju Chatimetta Nuclear Pucca
95 Pinninti Apparao Lalamkoduru Nuclear
Hut (village hut)
96 Lalam Ramana kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
97 Ruthala Ramarao Seethapalem Joint Semi Pucca
98 Lalam Mulaiah kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Hut (village hut)
99 Lalam Ammaji kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
100 Ganagala Kasulu Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
101 Ganagala Tatayya Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
102 Ruthala Satyavathi Seethapalem Nuclear Pucca
103 Andiboina Chinnababu Chatimetta Joint Pucca
104 Ruthala Satyanarayana Seethapalem
Women-headed
Pucca
105 Chellri Laxmi Lovapalem Women-headed
Semi Pucca
106 Chinthakayala Pentayya Lovapalem
Nuclear Hut (village hut)
107 Lalam Lakshmana Chatimetta Joint Pucca
108 Yandra Nookaraju Chatimetta
Women-headed
Pucca
109 Pinninti China demudu Lalamkoduru Nuclear
Hut (village hut)
110 Lalam Demudu Yerakannapalem Nuclear Pucca
111 Pinninti China apparao Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
112 Visamsetti Prasad Yerakannapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
113 Lalam Appalakonda Yerakannapalem Nuclear Pucca
114 Danthuluri Jogiraju Seethapalem Joint Pucca
115 Ruthala Lakshmi Seethapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
116 Ruthala Raju kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Semi Pucca
117 Ruthala Venkataramana Seethapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
118 Lalam Shankar rao kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
119 Palleti Pentamma Lovapalem Women-headed
Semi Pucca
120 Masarapu Suribabu Seethapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
121 Masarapu Satyam Seethapalem Nuclear Pucca
122 Lalam Simhachalam kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Semi Pucca
123 Lalam Thathababu Yerakannapalem Nuclear Semi Pucca
124 Lalam Venkanna kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
125 Ruthala Sathyavathi Seethapalem
Women-headed
Pucca
114
126 Ruthala Nageswar rao kotha koduru (SEZ Colony)
Nuclear Pucca
127 Lalam satyanarayana Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
128 Lalam Narasinga rao Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
129 Lalam Murali Krishna Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
130 Lalam satyanarayana Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
131 Kasireddi
Satibabu satyanarayana
Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
132 Kasireddi
Kasireddi madhavarao
Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
133 Yamala Apparao Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
134 Kasireddy Laxmi Lalamkoduru
Women-headed
Pucca
135 Kasireddy Narayanamma Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
136 Lalam musalayadora Lalamkoduru Nuclear Semi Pucca
137 Lalam Sarojini Lalamkoduru
Women-headed
Pucca
138 Lalam Sanyasamma Lalamkoduru
Women-headed
Pucca
139 Lalam Apparao Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
140 Kasireddi Apparao Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
141 Lalam Abhiram Lalamkoduru
Women-headed
Pucca
142 Yalamanchili
Sanyasamma Lalamkoduru Women-headed
Pucca
143 Pinninti Venkatalaxmi Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
144 Pinninti Muthyalamma Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
145 Paila Manga Lalamkoduru Joint Semi Pucca
146 Kolli Ramulamma Chatimetta Single person Pucca
147 Kolli Ramani Chatimetta Nuclear Pucca
148 Kolli Gurilakshmi Chatimetta Nuclear Pucca
149 Ruthala Ramu Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
150 Lalam Ramayamma Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
151 Kolli Pothuraju Lalamkoduru Extended Semi Pucca
152 Panchadharla Parwathalu
Lalamkoduru Women-headed
Hut (village hut)
153 Panchadharla Mutyalamma
Lalamkoduru Women-headed
Hut (village hut)
154 Kolli Sanyasirao Peddaetapaplem Nuclear Pucca
155 Ruthala Sanyasi Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
156 Kolli Bandamma Peddaetapaplem Nuclear Pucca
157 Sodipilli Gangaraju Lovapalem Nuclear Pucca
158 Lalam Apparao Lalamkoduru Nuclear Pucca
159 Kalla Sridevi Lalamkoduru Nuclear -
160 Rayee Lakshmi Lalamkoduru Nuclear -
161 Kasireddy Ganesh Lalamkoduru Nuclear -
115
ANNEXURE-3
The Third Schedule
Provision of Infrastructural amenities
116
!['llf crc=cn - NRPC · Request Detail 1 NTPC [ DELHI ] Anta(NTPC)-Swaimadhopur ... NTPC [ DELHI ] Anta(NTPC)-Lalsot(RVPNL) 2(220 kV) Powergrid Continuous. Annual Bay …](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/5acd10827f8b9a93268d2ca5/llf-crccn-detail-1-ntpc-delhi-antantpc-swaimadhopur-ntpc-delhi-.jpg)
