INTRODUCTION:

Developmental projects are needed to developing country like India. The development projects are classified into various type industrial, mining, urban, Irrigation projects. Irrigation project is one of them to take off the development of drought prone area.

Therefore, the concept of development induced displacement well known in the process of backward region like Balangir of KBK (Kalahandi, Balangir and Koraput) region of Odisha. The cultivated land (96 percent) in Balangir which is under rained agriculture because of the variability in date of onset of effective monsoon, higher initial and conditional probability of dry weeks are crucial factors for increasing drought vulnerability and risk in the region (Swain and Swain, 2011). Thus, the major irrigation project plays main role in development activities of this region. There are some contemporary problems present in Balangir District which are distress migration, farmer suicide, poverty, and unemployment and drought prone area. Hence, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project is a major irrigation project located near Magurbeda village of Balangir district, Odisha. This dam project situated on Mahanadi riverat a distance of 22 km from Balangir town. The project proposes the construction of a 1410 meter long & 30 m high earth dam, centrally located ogee crested 177 m long spillway, 890 m long and 16 m high, 6 m wide earthen right dyke, 412 m long, 3 m high, 6 m wide earthen left dyke, 16.58 km long Left Main Canal with Head regulator, 23.84 km.(Government of Odisha Department of Water Resources Status Report, 2012).

If LSIP will be constructed, there will be benefited for irrigation facilities and drinking water of 50.000(approx.) families from 189 villages (177 from Balangir District and 12 from Sonepur District). But in the other side, there will be displaced 9212 number of families from 29 villages in tree blocks (for instance, Balangir, Patnagarh and Loisingha) of Balangir District (ibid). The displaced communities will be lost their permanent livelihood, social relation, culture etc. There are some policy measure for displace families which are Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation. Therefore, it is important to study the socio-economic status and implementation of policy measure of the state and central government in order to reduce the distree among the displaced families.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

The following are some review of literature on impact of land aqusition act, displacement and rehabilation policy in India. Agnihotri (2008) has observed that the gender dimensions of displacement have not been closely studied in the state of Orissa. The complex role a woman perform as a food collector, collector of fuel, and water, as a number of children and partner in agricultural activities gets a more than disproportionate blow vis-à-vis men in the process of displacement. This study examine that women has to be placed back in her original place if not at a position of advantage after relocation.

Vandana (2012) studied her paper that the gendered analysis of displacement and resettlement of women of the Bhagirathi valley. She has been discussed based on the experiences of women displaced by the Tehri dam construction. Here, the argument presented that the living condition of displaced women, where critically low level of water supplies, shortage of fuels, and over-utilization of arable lands have deprived them of their livelihoods, cultural identity and sense of wellbeing. Resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) policies exposed the male biases inherent in the insensitivity of the governments towards needs of women.

Drub (2010) reports certain key political issue and lacunae in the existing legislation and policy for land acquisition and suggest legal, moral and policy alternatives regarding displacement due to large project of India. In fact, development-induced internal displacement signifies a violation of human rights as national benefits are sought at the expense of the rights and entitlements of marginalized groups in which displaced people are losing all asset and environment. Moreover, research has found that “involuntary resettlement is associated with increased socio-cultural stress, crime, morbidity, and mortality” (Abuodha, 2002, Muggah, 2003 cited in Philip Honga Young P., Singha Shweta and Ramic Juliane, 2009, pp.222).

Different theoretical models have been devised to study Development Induced Displacements. Cernea (2000) advanced impoverishment risks and reconstruction (IRR) model. This model recognized interlayer eight interlinked prospective risks essential to displacement that includes 1) landlessness2) joblessness 3) homelessness 4) marginalization 5) food insecurity 6) increased morbidity and mortality 7) loss of access to common property 8) social disintegration and disarticulation.

When the implementation of any development projects like irrigation, mining and industry lacks a balance between macro development goals and local residents’ micro needs, impoverishment and loss of livelihood are inevitable results for concerned displaced people. (Skeldon, 1997 cited in PhilipHongaYoung P., SinghaShweta and RamicJuliane, 2009, pp.224)

The Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (ORRP), 2006

The State government of Orissa promulgated the Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (ORRP) in May 2006. This policy also implement in LSIP, Bolangir. This paper analyses the ORRP which fails to meet the basic standards. Clause 5 (a) to (c) of the policy refer to undertaking socio-economic survey for identification of displaced families and preparing their socio-economic base line. The list of displaced families is approved by the respective Rehabilitation and Periphery Development Advisory Committee (RPDAC) and displaying of the approved list at public places like Panchayat, Block and District Magistrate. The ORRP 2006 does not provide for free, prior and informed consent of the affected families before acquisition of the land.

In Clause 7 of the Policy refers to “Procedure prescribed by the government” in acquisition of land. In Clause 10 (a) & (b), the Policy provides for ex-gratia compensation up to a maximum of one standard acre “if the encroachment is unobjectionable”. In Clause 17, the Policy does not make it mandatory to include representatives of the displaced families and NGOs RPDAC. In Clause 21, the Policy provides that effective participation of the displaced communities will be ensured in the process. But, there is no clearly defined mechanism for ensuring such “effective participation” of the aggrieved people. Provision for granting of free homestead land of 1/10th acre in the resettlement habitat to each displaced family “subject to availability” of land has been envisaged. If land is not available, it provides for compensation of Rs 85,000. The ORPP also provides for house building assistance of Rs 1.5 lakh for each displaced family and a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 2,000 to each displaced family for a period of one year. For the rehabilitation purpose, this policy was implemented in the concern the project.

Problem of the Statement:

The LSIP started since 2001, but several problems arise due to such major irrigation project. The problems have been faced by the displaced families since 2004 till date. The Rehabilitation &Resettlement Policyis not implementing properly and displaced families has loss their home, land, environment and cultural identity, how they would be rehabilitated and compensated the same whatever they have evacuated. While the government confirmed the Dam location for the construction, at the time merely Khuntapali village reinforced to the Odisha Government, this village received compensation for land and home through the R&R policy 1894 in 2004. But, this khuntapali village are still residing in the same village without relocation. In course of time, Kaindapali, Pardhiapali, Khagasabhal and Badtelenpali started receiving the compensation package for the land and home. It is found from field that in receiving the compensation package for land and the other property of these villages are not completed.

The people did not aware about the policy and programme of the government which related to the Land Acquisition Act, R&R policy. Moreover, the displaced families they have received compensation package through old policy, now they are demanding new act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act,2013 for implementation in rehabilitation and compensation package. The long 18 year they have not been displace despite their initial support to the Odisha Government. As a result, they are deprived from all social welfare and development programme from the state and central government.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

The following objectives of the study should be kept in mind before and during the displaced people or families are given.

1. To find out the implementation of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy measures and their impact on the social-economic life of the displaced persons in LSIP, Balangir.

2. To know the problem encounter of displaced families in policy implementation in the project.

METHODOLOGY:

The present study is exploratory in nature and simple random sampling method for collection and interpretation of data. The universe of the present study that belongs from 29 submerges villages of Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir district. The sample size 100 household from five submerge villages (Khuntapali, Pardhipali, Kaindapali, Khagasabahal, and Santelenpali) as per the number of population comes under the sample survey. There were 38 sample household from Khuntapali village with population was 1338 with 626 families. Then 20 sample household was taken from Khagasabahal that population was 986. The next 16 sample household was Pardhiapali where the populations were 559 with 92 families. There were 16 sample household from Badtelenpali where the population was 775 with 496 families. Finally, there were 10 sample household from Kaindapali village where as the population was 763 with 643 families. To reach at the specific objectives of the study, Interview, participatory observation method has adopted by us. For this study, the interview guide was prepared and used, open and closed ended questions for data collection. The out of the total 100 respondent female represents 30 percent and the remaining70 percent were male.

Land Acquisition Status of the Lower Suktel Irrigation project:

The status of land acquisition, money compensation and ex-gratia amount were payment to fifteen villages only from 2004 to May 2017. There were no complete to money compensation and others related things about project. But the project work has been continuing.

Table No-1 List of Land Acquisition Status of LSI Project

Sl No	Name of the Village	Area		Land compensation
1	Paradhiapali	279.48		Paid do do do do do
2	Koindapali	496.23
3	Khuntapali	938.38
4 5	Kokhal	254.42
	Kutensilet	143.09
6	Chudapali	525.47
7 8	Barapita	140.74		do do
	Kankara	410.25
9 10	Dhulusar	392.3		do do do do do
	Brapudugia	269.36
11	Santelenpali	247.16
12	Pudhmund	197.86
13 14 15	Garjan	331.00
	Badtelenpali Khagasabahal	421 438	do do

Source- Lower Suktel Irrigation Office Balangir, 2017

In the above table no. 1 mentioned that 15 villages already got money compensation for land acquisition and 1 village (Garjan) which the payment was processing but the respondents said that they did not satisfied regarding money compensation from land acquisition act, 1894 and Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006. For one acre irrigation land, they have compensated 86 thousand (one of the respondent reported) in 2004, at the time it was less amount as compared to other part of the district. The total 29 village is going to be submerging in this project.

Rehabilitation Assistance Payments:

Table No.2 of village where 1^st phase Rehabilitation &Resettlement Assistance paid-4 village

(1) Pardhiapali (2) Koindapali (3) Kutensilet (4) Kakhal

Name of Village	No. of Affected families as per survey	No. of families for whom Proposal Submitted for Sanction to DoWR	No. of families Sanctioned	No. of families disbursed	No. of families Evacuated	Final Disbursement
Pardhiapali	348	223	207	200	35	35
Koindapali	528	336	336	318	112	112
Khuntapali	626	399	-	-	-	-
Kakhal	270	210	156	152	-	-
Kutensilet	213	214	140	138	22	22
Khagasabahal	315	-	-	-	-	-
Santelenpali	399	-	-	-	-	-
Podhmund	184	-	-	-	-	- -
Chudapali	885	-	-	-	-	- -
Barapudugia	367	-	-	-	-	-
Barpita	283	-	-	-	-	-
Kankara	287	-	-	-	-	-
Dhulusar	536	-	-	-	-	-
Total	5241	1382	839	808	169	169

Source: Public Information Officer, Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Office, Bolangir, 2017

Note-DoWR is department of water resourced, Odisha Government.

In the above table 2, 3 villages already has evacuated but not all families, from the village of Paradhiapali, Koindapali and Kutensilat, there were 35 number ,112 and 22 number of families, respectively, constructed their home at allotted land by the government. From our field work, it was revealed that 377 families have reimbursed the 1 instalment rehabilitation package to Khuntapali village. Fourteen villages has been completed the survey for rehabilitation and resettlement, it is paradox that all evacuated families are not residing at allocated place, still now they are living at their formerly village. It is noted that currently, price of sand, cement, rod and the other material are hiking in market, so as it was very tough to construction the house with limited amount of rehabilitation package.

Present position of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Assistance proceeding of different villages:

There are twenty nine numbers of villages going to be affected by LSIP, Balangir. 4(1) Notification was issued Under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition (LA) Act 1894 for 29 numbers of villages. Award under Section 11 was passed only for 15(Fifteen) numbers of villages and payment of compensation made. Out of 15(Fifteen) numbers of villages for which award under Section 11made and compensation paid, physical possession was landed over for 9 (Nine) numbers of villages namely, Pardhiapali, Kakhal, Khuntapali, Barpudugia, Kankara, Barpita, Santelenpali and Podhmund. For 6(Six) numbers of villages for which compensation paid but physical possession was not handed over are Garjan, Chudapali, Khagasabahal, Koindapali, Dhulusar and Badtelenpali.

For 14(Fourteen) number of villages through notification under the LA Act,1894 has been made, no 6(1) Declaration could be made for which said proceeding under old Acquisition Act,1894 has lapsed. The 14 (Fourteen) villages are Bijapati, Saragadapali, Kuniapali, Tusurabahal, Tabalbanji, Kapilbahal, Kuchhabahal, Bhudimuhan, Banchhorpali, Budhabahal, Dunuripali, Bhattapali, Dumerpitta, Antapali. For these village, there are some steps taken for fresh Acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in above 14(Fourteen) numbers of villages.

The Calculation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Amount:

The amount of rehabilitation and resettlement was calculated by Special Land Acquisition Officer of Lower Suktel Irrigation Project office. The amount comes under the new act which is Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006. The rehabilitation package was calculated under the 4^th biennial revision of the rehabilitation grants in monetary terms, Rural Development &Water Resourced Department Resolution No.22127, date.28.07.14.

1-Assistance for self-relocation=Rs.85, 000

2-House building Assistance=Rs.2, 55, 000

3-Assistance for agriculture land=Rs.3, 40, 000

4-Maintanance Allowance=Rs.40, 000

5-Transportation Allowance=Rs. 3,400

6-Temporary shed=Rs. 17,000

Total=7, 41,200

The above information regarding the rehabilitation grants to the displaced families is total seven lakh forty one thousand, two hundred rupees in which consist of house building assistant, assistant of agriculture land, maintenance allowance, transportation allowance and temporary shed which is meagre amount to sustain and fulfil of all requirement. In the year 2018, Khuntapali and Paradhiapali village displaced people received the same rehabilitation package, as per theOrissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006.Current value of 2018 the 1 acre irrigation land in the periphery areas of the Balangir town is more than 3 lakh rupees.

The house building assistant is Rs.2,55,000 which is too meagre amount for house building in the periphery area ofBalangir town and it is like a Government of India housing programme like Prime Minister AwasYojana-Gramin scheme. Out of the total rehabilitation package is Rs 7,41,200, one of the respondent revealed that Odisha government are reimbursing the amount in three instalment by which the displaced families are facing the problem a apprehension of unable to make house construction. In April 2018, the first instalment of amount Rs, 2, 72,000 and 3, 50,000 of rehabilitation package were compensated, respectively and at the same who choose home land plot were reimbursed former amount and later amount was provided who not opted home land plot of which was surveyed in 2004. Therefore, people of Khuntapali are demanding that to provide home land plotfor all household. In this situation, Government are unable to take final decision regarding distribution for home land. Consequently, after receiving the amount the displaced families may spend in the other activities. In Khuntapali village total household are 626, but due to some discrepancy, only 377 household have received the rehabilitation package in April, 2018 and the respondent revealed that when the rest of the household would be compensated of rehabilitation package which they did not discern and expected.

This study provides the information of Lower Suktel Irrigation Project as well as current status of the project in 2017. The policy of any government to check and measure some problem of affected people. But persisting the problem of displaced families are inadequate compensation and rehabilitation package therefore the question raised here that why did the displace people not satisfied their present policy measure that is discussed in the following.

RESULT:

The following are discussing about socio economic status of the respondents, their livelihood pattern and the problems faced the affected families during the LSIP.

Table No-3 educational status of the respondents

Village	Illiteracy	Lower/ Upper Primary	10^th	+2	+3 Above	Total
Khuntapali	08	05	10	09	06	38
Paradhiapali	05	09	01	-	01	16
Kaindapali	03	04	02	01	-	10
Khagasabahal	15	03	01	01	-	20
Badtelenpali	14	-	02	-	-	16
Total	35	21	16	11	07	100

Sources: field survey

In the above table 3mention that LSI Project area, near about35 per cent were illiterate, 21 per cent had education of lower and upper class 16 percent had studied 10^th standard, 11 per cent had studied up to intermediate and only 07 percent studied on higher education. During displacement the education level has not increased in these regions, because they stressed in tension due displacement. Most of them after finished the 10^th and intermediate standard they were going to marries. The illiteracy is 35 percent among the respondents which highly impact on the saving of the compensation amount. They spend the money compensation in marriage, chit fund, etc due to lack of awareness and education. Most of the female member do not aware related to dam. They said that they did not know about dam and policy provision.

Economic and Social Status:

Table No-4 Economic and Social Status of the Respondent

VILLAGE	APL	BPL	OTHER	TOTAL	SC	ST	OBC	OC	TOTAL
Khuntapali	20	05	13	38	-	-	32	06	38 16
Paradhiapali	12	04	-	16	-	-	15	01	38 16
Kaindapali	07	03	-	10	04	-	06	-	10 20
Khagasabahal	08	10	02	20	08	02	-	-	10 20
Badatelenpali	10	06	-	16	-	10	16	-	16
Total	57	24	15	100	22	12	55	11	100

Source – field study

Table No-5 Occupational profile of five sample submerge villages

Occupational distribution of the five villages (percent)
Village	Agriculture	Labour	Services	Others	Total
Khuntapali	23	05	02	8	38
Paradhiapali	08	08	0	0	16
Kaindapali Khagasabahal	07	02	01	0	10 20
Kaindapali Khagasabahal	01	17	01	01	10 20
Badtelenpali	08	06	0	02	16 100
Total	27	28	04	11	16 100

Sources: field survey

The table 4 shows that economic status of the family in the sample household, almost 57 percent the BPL holders comes under the villages, and 24 percent household comes under the APL, and only 15 percent household neither BPL and nor APL. They depend on the forest product and agricultural labour. They directly and indirectly depend on forest product like Harda, Badhunkhuti, Mahul, Kathi, Behera, Sal Leave etc. these are the daily uses for them. They will loss forest product completely due to dam. Similarly the 55 percent of the respondent are OBC category and 22 percent are schedule caste category, so as OBC are mostly engaged in agricultural work and Scheduled Caste people are mostly untouchable caste, their livelihood activities are labour class.

Occupational distribution of sample household:

The occupational distribution in the research study is very necessary because occupation of a family draw the economic status or standard of living.

The table 5 shows that occupational distribution of five villages in the Khuntapali, Pardhiapali,Kaindapali, Khagasabahal, Badtelenpali, all five villages highest 28 percent people work in labour, next 27percenpeople are engaged in agriculture, only 04 percent are employed in services and 11 percent acting in others sectors(shopkeeper, carpenter, tailor master etc) respectively.

Table No-6 Income distribution of the five sample submerge villages

Income distribution of the five villages (percent)
Village	Rs.0-50,000	50,000-1,00,000	1,00,000-1,50,000	Above 1,50,000	Total

Khuntapali	-	-	36	02	38
Paradhiapali	-	01	15	-	16 10
Kaindapali	08	02	-	-	16 10
Khagasabahal	-	02	18	-	20 16
Badtelenpali	-	01	-	15	20 16
Total	08	06	69	17	100

Sources: Field Survey

Among the five village’s69 percent people their annual income is1, 00,000 to 1,50,000. These income categories of people did not want leave their native place because they predicated their livelihood style with the displaced people of Hirakud Dam and others. Those who engaged in agriculture, annually they are cultivating the myriad of farming such as the rich, gram crops, groundnut, sugarcane, wheat and vegetable like brinjal, tomato, parable, ladyfinger, and so on. These vegetable and crops were marketing at the district headquarter by the displaced families. They would lose all there cultivation and its price for in the market. Only 8 percent of the respondents have annual income less than 50,000 per annum.

As a minor forest product Kendu/Tendu Leaves (KL/TL) is one of the most important sources of income for displaced rural people living in and around forests in Balangir District. The Forest Rights Act that categorically mentions kendu leaf as a Minor Forest Product. Dash (2009) noted that the kendu leaf of the Balangir District is traded as the best kendu leaf throughout India. He quoted “KenduLeave is a major source of income here, it is very important that people get right prices and in time, so that over a period of time they stop migrating as alternative livelihood support could be made available in their village/ Panchayat. Moreover, examples have to be created where this adhoc grant money could only be used for creation of alternative livelihood support options including agricultural development through improved drought proofing agricultural practices’’. In the displaced families region, there are proliferations of the shrub of the kendu leave, they are depending on it. It would be uncountable loss of their livelihood without its substitute. They are depending upon for their livelihood the other a Minor Forest Product such as mahua flowers, mahua seeds, Jhuna, char and so on. They would lose all these minor forest product without its alternative livelihood resource.

Awareness of the Peopleon the Land Acquisition, money compensation, Resettlement and Rehabilitation of the Dam Project:

Education with knowledge is the chariot of awareness. Literary activity thrusts worldly knowledge into the human being. However, those completely outside the purview of intellectual activities have less wisdom to interpret and understand the forthcoming problems.

Table No- 7 respondent’s view on awareness and need of the LSI project

Aware	Frequencies			Percentage
	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total
Yes	14	01	15	93.33	6.66	100
No	56	29	85	68.88	34.11	100
Total	70	30	100	-	-	100

Sources: field survey

The above table 7 show that the 93.33 percent of male replied the Dam should not need here, instead of constructing the major irrigation project; the government should construct many small check dam for irrigation facility. The 68.88 percent of the female respondent responded that they do not want this Dam because they would lose everything for this (land, forest and livelihood)

Table no 8, Respondent’s view on the attitude of Project’s bureaucrats and political leader

Attitude of the official person	Frequencies	Percentage
Helpful	10	10 90
Not-helpful	90	10 90
Total	100	100

Sources: field survey

As per the above table 8, the respondents from the five sample villages were asked to state that whether the officials were helpful or not? Considering the total sample respondents, the data shows that more than 90 percent of displaced families asserted that they did not get any official’s help. The attitude of bureaucrats indifference toward the displace person. 90 percent respondents said that the bureaucrats did not work properly in matter of money compensation. The project officers are behaving like rude to them.

Cooperation of NGOs and Civil Society with displaced communities:

The role of NGOs in before and during-displacement periods are an important aspect of the resettlement process in the LSI Project.

Table No-9 Cooperation of NGOs and Civil Society towards displaced families

Variable	frequencies	Percentage
Satisfied	05	05
Unsatisfied	15	15
Don’t know	80	80
Total	100	100

Sources: field survey

The following table 9 shows that as per the response received; only 05 per cent of LSI Project affected were satisfied with the co-operation of NGOs. And 15 percent did not satisfy to the works of the organisation. According to the respondents of Kaindapali village, they did not belief to the activities of NGOs. Most of them 80 percent respondents did not know about the work of NGOs. Because rural people are innocent and they do not want to know about the role of NGOs and others dam related matters. They engaged only in the agriculture field. And most of them were agricultural labourers and worker so that they have no time to discuss in this matter.

The two civil society organisation which are Budi AnchalAgragamiSangha (BAAS) and Budi Anchal Sangram Parisad (BASP) are working for the right displaced people, they are the registered organisation, where they participate in various discussion about the LSI Project. BAAS is working in affected areas and its head office is located at Dhulusar village for underpinning to Government administration. The respondent replied that any kinds of meeting of the Organisation are not held regularly. About the members, president and secretary, the people are not aware. Surprisingly, this organisation reinforces the district administration in receiving compensation and rehabilitation package. On the other hand, BASP is working to oppose to the construction of the Dam and its head office is located at the Dunguripali village. They are demanding to construct many the small check dam for irrigation facility in the District. They organised the meeting, seminar regarding the right of the displaced families.

Satisfactory of displaced families with their money Compensation:

Payment of compensation to the affected people is one of the important aspects of displacement. Many studies have focused on inappropriate payment of compensation by the project authorities and subsequent wastage of the compensation money by the displaced person. The opinion of the respondents at the level of satisfaction is presented in the following table:

Table No-10 satisfaction and non-satisfaction of money compensation of the respondents

	Frequencies	Percentage
Satisfied	30	30
Unsatisfied	70	70 100
Total	100	70 100

Sources: field survey

In the above table 10 shows that 30 per cent of the respondent expressed satisfaction, because they saw large amount money in their hand. So they fall on the temptation with money. Before displacement, they had large amount of land and forest area but they did not use properly. Therefore, they satisfied with money compensation. While the other 70 per cent of the respondent expressed dissatisfaction. In fact, they felt that threats determined according to the market value. The high quality of land paid only 66,000 rupees so that they are dissatisfaction. Most of the forest area hold by the people were came to know that these forest area were government’s properties. By the way, finally most of the respondents were not satisfied the money compensation and faced different problem which the following paragraph.

Problem encounter of the displaced people while receiving Compensation:

The displaced people have been faced many problem at the time of receiving compensation. Here the question arise that how the displaced people faced the problem while receiving compensation.

Table No-11 the respondent faced problem while receiving money compensation

Difficulties	Frequencies	Percentage
Loss of time Bribe	80	80
Loss of time Bribe	20	20
Total	100	100

Sources: field survey

As per the above table 11 shows that there was 80 percent of the respondent answer the schedule’s question that they loss the time at the time of getting compensation. The rural people depend upon the agricultural field, so that they have no time to spend in receiving compensation. They focus on only their daily work. On the others hand, 20 percent respondent informed that the officers asked to bribe to paid money compensation. The Dalal (middle men) also supported to the corrupt officer. In this way, the problem encounter by the displaced people were faced in many way like loss of money, bribe etc. Along with they have not getting basic facility from the government since 2004 which found in the below paragraph.

The facilities which are getting from the Government policy and programme:

The government plays the major role to provide basic facilities to the people. Here, my study area, the project affected person did not get such type facilities which are discuss in the following paragraph and table.

Table No-12 basic facility by the government to the displaced families during displacement

Policy and Programme by the Govt	YES	NO
PMAY	-	√
MGNREGA	√	-
PM FasalBimaYojana	-	√
PradhanMantriKrishiSinchayeeYojana	-	√
Watershed programme	-	√
DDU GKY	-	√
Swachha Bharat	-	√
ASHA	√	-
Health Card (RSBY)	√	-
JananiSurakshaYojana	√	-

Sources: field survey

The table 12 show that the basic facility of the government should be providing to all, and this is the fundamental rights of the common people. But, the project affected people/displaced family of LSIP were unable to get basic opportunity from the government. The farmer also did not get the basic need from the government such as Mandi Card, Insurance etc. The people of the project region did not basic facility like under the Swachha Bharata (e.g. toilet facility). Under Indira AwassYojana, they are not registered as a beneficiary because they are displaced families. These types of social welfare programmes have not provided by the government to the displaced family because of they were getting money compensation since 2004. Similarly the landless also faced many problems in the project affected area.

Table No 13 Utilization of money compensation by the respondents of LSI Project

Way of spending the Compensation money	Frequencies	Percentage
Investment on agricultural land	38	38
Spent on construction of house	10	10 13 30
Spent on son/daughter and brother/sister marriage Investment money to start new livelihood/business	13 30	10 13 30
Domestic asset purchased	45	45
Invested in shares and debenture Ritual activities of family	53	53
	44	44
Spent on education of children Lavish and wasteful expenditure	20	20
	28	28
Put the money in fixed deposit	30	30

Sources: field survey

The table no. 13 shows that for various reasons like scarcity of irrigated land, the land for land could not be adopted, and cash compensation was paid for acquired properties. Since the greater part of the rural economy was based on the barter system, people were not well accustomed to managing cash. The most important question that arises; here is whether the displaced persons could use their compensation amount properly by acquiring productive assets and/or for self-employment purposes. Such utilization expected to minimize the effect of displacement as their economic living. As a result, their economic condition deteriorates bringing negative consequences on their future living. The study revealed that 53 percent of respondent spend their money in chit fund namely seashore company which has disappeared after four year working in this region. After getting compensation their ritual practice increased therefore, 44 percent of respondents were utilised their compensation money in ritual activities of family.

CONCLUSION:

In this paper we have presented the displacement policy in Odisha by analyzing the various data and identify the key challenges which are land acquisition, survey assets, money compensation, Resettlement and Rehabilitation. This paper identified 85 percent of displace people were not awareness their policy measure due to not proper transparency the displacement policy. 70 percent of the respondents reported that they dissatisfied their money compensation and they demand proper democratic process to get fair compensation. The study highlighted that the governmental programmes like crop insurance, for infrastructure development and watershed development has not been implemented since 2004 to up till now. Thus, the policy of Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation which is most important to keep sustain life of the displace people. The systematic removal of the displace people is need a democratic manner whereas to give a fair compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation. The policy of Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation which is most important to keep sustain life of the displace people. So, the policy measure is very much essential in order to get proper benefit the displace persons.

REFERENCES:

1. Agnihotri, A. (2008). Resettlement issue in water resources development: An empirical study of the lower Suktel irrigation project, Orissa, Social Change, Sage Publication, Vol.38, No.4, pp.645-660.https://doi.org?10.1177/004908570803800405.

2. Cernea, M.M, (2000).Impoverishment Risks, Risk Management, and Reconstruction: A model of Population Displacement and Resettlement”. Available from https://commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Impoverishment--Risk Management-and-Reconstruction.pdf

3. Dhru, A. K. (2010).Acquisition of land for ‘development’ projects in India: The Road Ahead. Research foundation for Governance, Gujurat, pp.1.57, http://www.rfgindia.org/publications/LandAcquisition.pdf

4. Nihar Dash, N.(2008-09). A Study on Kendu Leaf based livelihood and possible institutional alternative with special focus on FRA, in Major Kendu leaf Potential areas of Odisha, 1st draft report, pp-2-3, Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar, available from http://www.vasundharaodisha.org/Researchpercent20Reports/Kendu/draft.pdf

5. Peter, D., Anders, S. (2009). Translation and inscription in development projects: Understanding environmental and health care related organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 Issue: 5, pp.480-493, https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810910983451.

6. Swain., M. & Swain, M. (2011).Vulnerability to Agricultural Drought in Western Orissa: A Case Study of Representative Blocks. Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 24 pp 47-56. Available from- Google scholar.

7. Vandana, A. (2012). Forced Displacement: A Gendered Analysis of the Tehri Dam Project in India. Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA, pp.1-22. www.rlarrdc.org.in/.../ Apercent20Genderedpercent20Analysispercent20ofpercent20thepercent20Tehripercent20Dam.

8. Ibid

9. Young, P., Hong, P., Singh, S., & Ramic, J. (2009). Development induced impoverishment among involuntarily displaced populations, Comparative Social Welfare, Vol.25, Issue.3, pp.221-238, DOI: 10.1080/17486830903189972. Available from https://www.tandfonline.com/

10. ibid

Received on 25.01.2019 Modified on 02.03.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(2):402-410.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00068.8