46

CHAPTER II

HOUSING PROBLEM AND ITS MAGNITUDE IN

INDIA

47

CHAPTER II

HOUSING PROBLEM AND ITS MAGNITUDE

IN INDIA

Introduction

This chapter deals with the importance of housing sector in

the national economy, the investment and different housing

programmes implemented during the different plan periods are

discussed. It has also dealt with the housing shortage at the All

India Level through the analysis of census data. It has dealt with

the countries response to the UN Agenda, by adopting National

policy and institutionalizing the different housing programmes

bringing in the network of established financial institutions for an

equitable economic development.

The problem of housing indeed is a global phenomenon. In

the third world countries the housing problems exhibits most

ugly and shuddering posture. Most of the advanced countries are

facing the housing problem in varying degrees and dimensions.

Neither the capitalist country like United States of America

which is regarded as the most affluent society, nor the socialist

countries of the world have been able to solve the housing

problem. It is of course in the third world countries the housing

problem exhibits its most ugly and abominable posture. As a

result of the population explosion, low income levels, low rate of

addition to the housing stock, inadequate maintenance of the

48

existing housing stock, etc; the housing problem has been

assuming more and more alarming proportions in many

developing countries including India. In the third world, as

reported in The Economic Times (May 21, 1986) ‘Rural-Urban

divide will affect development’ here nearly two–thirds of the

population live below the poverty line, about 100 million people

are estimated to be shelterless. According to Paul Streetan and

Burki (Basic needs, some issues as quoted by Francies

Cherunilan and O.D. Heggade, “Housing in India”, 1987) “over

50 million people in the urban areas of the poorest countries have

less than satisfactory shelter”.

Housing problem

The problems of rural-urban housing have different

dimensions in India. The problems of rural housing is mainly due

to unprecedented growth of population, low levels of incomes,

inadequate development of housing financial markets etc.

However, in the urban areas it is constrained and influenced by

several factors such as, explosive urban population growth

(largely due to rural-urban migration) resulting pressure on

already available land space. Further, this has resulted in the

increase in the urban land values, inadequate house building

materials, and increase in the cost of building materials. Further,

escalation in the urban property taxes, and lack of standard

specifications regarding modern house building activities,

inadequate development of innovative low cost technology to

49

build a low cost house, due to lack of a proper development and

operation of different kinds of housing financial market in the

country.

The nature of the existing housing units for dwelling that

exists in the country in general and urban in particular exhibit

peculiar features. For instance, in the larger urban areas, the

structure or nature of the urban housing units either found

offices-cum-houses, shop-cum-houses, house-cum-restaurant,

clinics etc. A well furnished decent looking housing unit with all

modern amenities of life is very difficult to find in the city,

though housing facilities are available in different forms like on

rent and on lease ownership basis.

The problem of urban housing seems to be alarming in

India during recent years. This is primarily due to the rapid

urbanisation process where industrialisation process results in

creation of ‘urban slums’. The influx of poverty stricken

migrants from rural areas into urban areas has worsened the

housing situation. With there meager earnings from informal

sector, they cannot compete in the urban market for housing.

They collect flimsy scrap materials like tin, cardboard and gunny

bags and build for themselves a ramshackle shelter wherever

they find a vacant site in the crowded city. These unauthorized

habitat lack water supply and sanitation facilities. Being squalid,

they become breeding grounds for diseases, crime and vice. Thus

emergence of larger number of slums and slum population is

50

regarded as the ‘hot bed’ of all urban development problems in

India. In addition to this, increasing employment opportunities

created by software companies located in urban areas in the field

of Information technology and Bio-technology is also causing

housing problems.

Provision of housing facilities to the common man is one of the

right steps towards the goal of social equality. Housing or

shelter is one of the basic necessities of life. Everybody, whether

rich or poor, living in rural or urban area, needs a shelter to

protect his life and property, as also to promote his well being. A

developing country like India which started its nation building

planning process right from the ground level, declared itself as a

democratic and welfare State. It committed itself to the

responsibility of providing conditions best suited to the safety,

security, dignity and improved quality of life of all citizens by

facilitating to have a reasonable shelter to their citizen. In India,

economic planning was initiated in 1951 with a view to

accelerating the over all growth and to improve the living

conditions of the people. In spite of many other sectoral priorities

(related to agriculture, poverty, unemployment, rural

development, class and caste inequalities), rural and urban

development was given due importance and special focus

throughout the national Five Year Plans.

In the words of late Sri Jawaharlal Nehru “A house is not

merely a place to take shelter from the rain or the cold or the

51

Sun. It is, or should be, an enlargement of one’s personality and

if human welfare is our objective; this is bound up with the

house” (The Co-operative, March 1982, Vol. XIX, No. 17).

Further as E.E wood (1940) opines in his book Introduction to

Housing facts and principles “A man working 44 hours per week,

50 weeks in the year, 30 minutes from home, spends from a

minimum of one-third, to a maximum of substantially over two-

thirds of his time at home. Illness or unemployment increases the

fraction”. The World Bank Housing Sector policy paper (1975)

observes that “Housing is important to development in both

economic and welfare terms. It typically constitutes 15 per cent

to 20 per cent of household expenditure. For all but the wealthy,

it is usually the major goal of family saving efforts. Investment

in housing represents up to 20 per cent to 30 per cent of fixed

capital formation in countries with vigorous housing programmes

and it is increasingly recognised as a profitable investment item,

yielding a flow of income. For some of the self-employed,

housing is also the place of work. In countries with substantial

under utilized labour, material and financial resources, housing

can make use of such resources at a low cost. The important

content of housing construction is usually relatively low, so that

multiplier linkages tend to be substantial”.

Housing in the National Economy

The Planning commission, in The Seventh Five Year Plan

Vol. II, document has observed that “In fulfilling the basic needs

52

of the population, housing ranks next only to food and clothing

in importance. A certain minimum standard of housing is

essential for healthy and civilized existence, the development of

housing therefore, must enjoy high priority in a poor society such

as ours where housing amenities are far below the minimum

standards that have been internationally accepted. Housing

activity serves to fulfill many of the fundamental objectives of

the plan, providing shelter, raising the quality of life, particularly

of the poor section of the population, creating conditions which

are conducive to the achievement of crucial objectives in terms

of health, sanitation and education, creating substantially

additional employment and dispersed economic activity;

improving urban-rural and inter-personal equity through the

narrowing down of differences in standards of living and last but

not least, generating additional voluntary savings”.

The United Nations Centre for Human settlements

(Habitat) has also emphasized the role of investment in shelter

and infrastructure development in creating employment

opportunities. Further, the investment in shelter is not only a

social /political strategy but it is also very much of an economic

tool. There are infact valid and well-proven reasons that favors

investment in shelter and infrastructure. “Investment in shelter,

infrastructure and services are investments in construction

activities and provide substantial opportunities for the absorption

53

of labor-especially semi-skilled and unskilled, which might

otherwise have remained idle”.

Housing constitutes not only a basic necessity but also a

crucial economic activity in view of its contribution to the

construction industry. According to the study (2000) (sponsored

by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation) conducted

by The Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, to assess

the impact of investment on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and

employment, housing sector ranks third among the fourteen

major sectors of the economy in terms of the direct, indirect and

induced effect on all sectors of the economy. In terms of income

multiplier i.e. the extent of additional income generated due to

unit increase in expenditure, the construction sector is ahead of

other key sectors like Transport and Agriculture. A unit increase

in the final expenditure on the construction sector would generate

additional income in the economy, as a whole which would be

almost five times as high as the direct income generated within

the construction sector itself. A ten per cent increase in the final

expenditure in the construction sector will result in an increase of

more than Rs.28,000 crores in gross national output.

Incorporation of induced income effects, in addition to direct and

indirect income generation effects, leads to an overall increase of

more than Rs.62,000 crores in national output.

A ten per cent increase in final expenditure in construction

sector will generate a total increase in national income (measured

54

at 1996-97 prices) of Rs.14041 crores, which represents an

increase of 1.20 per cent of aggregate GDP measured at 1996-97

prices. Incorporation of induced income effect increases this

amount to Rs. 34,000 crores which is almost 3 per cent of the

aggregate GDP measured at 1996-97 prices. Only two sectors

(namely other Manufacturing and Construction related

Manufacturing) stand higher than construction sector in terms of

contribution to overall GDP. The, over all growth potential of

increased expenditure in construction sector is significantly

higher than all other sectors of the economy except Agriculture

and Other manufacturing.

An additional unit of final expenditure in construction

sector induces over all employment generation in the economy as

a whole by an extent that is eight times the direct employment

generated in the construction sector itself. A ten per cent increase

in the final expenditure in the construction sector would generate

a total employment of 29,57,000 man days in various sectors.

The correspondence figure for direct, indirect and induced

increase in employment would be 1,13,34,000 man days which

represents more than 2.50 per cent in total employment in the

economy.

From the point of view of its contribution to the total

national economy, in terms of capital formation and employment

generation, the importance of the housing sector hardly needs

any emphasis. Although in absolute terms, there is an increase in

55

the income from residential housing, over the period 1970 to

1985, where the same is expressed as a percentage of total

national income (GDP), it has remained more or less constant

during this period. This is evident from the figures given in the

Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Contribution of Residential Housing to

National Income (at 1984-85 prices) (Rs. in crores)

Year Income from Residential

Housing

National Income (GDP at

Factor Cost)

Col.2 as % of Col. 3

1 2 3 4

1970-71 545 36,452 1.22

1978-79 1,260 87,058 1.45

1979-80 1,339 95,511 1.40

1980-81 1,364 113,846 1.20

1981-82 1,447 130,763 1.11

1982-83 1,489 145,280 1.02

1983-84 1,649 171,713 0.96

1984-85 2,059 189,417 1.09

Source: National Accounts Statistics, January 1987 CSO (As quoted by

NBO, Housing Needs, 1988. p.6).

One of the important contributions of housing to the

national economy is the generation of employment for skilled

and unskilled labourers. According to the 1961 census, the

number of workers employed in building construction, (including

56

residential buildings) was 12.76 lakhs, 13.57 lakhs in 1971 and

21.86 lakhs in 1981. The percentage of workers in building

construction to total workers in construction was about 62 per

cent in 1961 and 61 per cent both in 1971 and 1981. This

represents one per cent of the total work force in the country.

The Economic Advisory Council (EAC) in its release

“outlook for the financial year 2009” states that the over all GDP

growth is projected at 7.7 per cent for the year 2008-09. The

construction sector is projected to grow at 8.5 per cent. The

construction sector contributes 12 per cent (quick estimate). The

quick estimate for the year 2006-07 is at 12 per cent and the

revised estimate accounts to 9.8 per cent from the construction

sector for the year 2007-08. The survey conducted by National

Sample Survey Organisation on employment and

unemployment/Planning commission, the construction sector

share in employment (current daily basis status) accounts to 5.57

per cent in 2004-05 as against 4.44 per cent during 1999-00.

Allocation on housing during plan periods

Even though a number of housing schemes have been

introduced for the target sections, they have not been able to

eliminate the housing shortage because of a number of bottle

necks. The main reason is the priority accorded to the housing

sector in resource allocation during the plan periods.

57

It is significant to note that investment on housing as a

percentage to total investment in the economy has drastically

declined from 34 per cent in First Five Year Plan period to

around 10 per cent during the Eight Five Year Plan. The total

outlay of the Ninth Five Year Plan was Rs 8,59,200 crores and

the estimated outlay on housing was Rs 150,000 crores which

forms around 17 per cent of the total plan outlay (Table 2.2).

The rural housing problem: One reason attributable is the

enormous explosion of the rural population since independence.

The number of dwellings built was not sufficient to match the

population growth. Further more, penetration of the formal sector

and elements of urban life style into rural areas became

increasingly significant and resulted in the breakdown of

traditional social systems and ways of life; this included

traditional building technologies and skills, and led to a reliance

on government programmes and government aid.

Loss of self-reliance and traditional capacities, coupled with the

inability to incorporate modern facilities, is a typical

development problem that tends to lead to poverty. Modern

building materials are often not affordable, yet traditional ones

are viewed with contempt. This dilemma was recognized early

on by the Indian Government and solution was to embark upon a

series of rural housing programmes. Government intervention,

though well intentioned, has probably aggravated the growing

dependence and diminishing self-reliance of the rural

58

population–it may, in effect, have helped to create under

development.

Table 2.2: Plan Outlay on Rural Housing (Rs. Crores)

Plan Periods

Total

Outlay of the

Plan

Outlay on housing Col.3

as % of

Col.2

Col.5

as % of

Col.3 Total Urban Rural

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

First Plan (1951-56)

3360 1150 1140.00 10.00 34 0.87

Second Plan (1956-61)

6750 1300 1287.30 12.70 19 0.98

Third Plan (1961-66)

10400 1550 1546.81 3.91 15 0.21

Fourth Plan

(1969-74)

22635 2800 2797.75 2.25 12 0.08

Fifth Plan (1974-79)

47561 4436 4327.84 108.16 9 2.44

Sixth Plan

(1980-85) 172210 19491 19137.50 353.50 11 1.81

Seventh Plan

(1985-90)

322366 31458 30881.00 577.00 9 1.83

Eight Plan

(1992-97)

798000 82068 77146.00

(92608) 4922.35 10 6.00

Ninth Plan

(1997-2002)

859200 150000* 140733* 9267.16* 17 6.18

*: Estimated figures.

Source: The Planning Commission, Govt. of India, Various Plan

documents.

59

The Rural Housing accounts only for less than 3 per cent of

the total investment on Housing. It has been rightly observed by

the Draft Sixth Five Year Plan (1978-83) Revised document that,

hither to Government approach to this problem has been a

limited, as it was almost exclusively devoted to the urban areas

till the end of the Fourth Five Year Plan Period. It is only during

the last five years that attempts to deal with the rural housing

problems have been made, mainly through the provision of land

sites to land less labourers. From First Five Year Plan to Sixth

Five Year Plan, the allocation on housing was a part of “housing

and urban development” in the total plan allocation of the

economy, which was a part of social sector. However, separate

allocation has been made for housing under social sector in the

total plan allocation from Seventh Five Year Plan onwards.

However, the allocation on rural housing accounted between 9

per cent to 17 per cent from Seventh Five Year Plan to Ninth

Five Year Plan period (Table 2.3).

60

Table 2.3: Investment on Housing during plans, All India

(Rs. Crores)

Plan Periods

Total outlay of the

Plan

Total outlay

on

housing

Col. 3 as

% of

Col. 2

Share in total housing

Public Private

1 2 3 4 5 6

First Plan

(1951-56)

3360 1150

34 250

(21.7)

900

(78.3)

Second Plan (1956-61)

6750 1300

19 300 (23.1)

1000 (76.9)

Third Plan

(1961-66)

10400 1550

15 425

(27.4)

1125

(72.6)

Annual Plans

(1966-69)

6625 1156

17 256 (22.1)

900 (77.9)

Fourth Plan (1969-74)

22635 2800

12 625 (22.3)

2175 (77.7)

Fifth Plan (1974-79)

47561 4436

9 1044 (17.9)

3392 (82.1)

Sixth Plan

(1980-85)

172210 19491

11 1491

(11.5)

11500

(88.5)

Seventh Plan

(1985-90)

349148 31458

10 2458 (7.8)

29000 (92.8)

Eight Plan (1992-97)

798000 77496

10 7750 (10.0)

69746 (90.0)

Ninth Plan

(1997-2002)

859200 150000*

17 9267*

(6.2)

140,733*

(93.8)

Note : Figures in bracket denote percentage to total outlay on housing.

* : Estimated.

Source: The Planning Commission, Govt. of India, Various Plan

documents.

61

Despite such draw backs, there have been noticeable

improvements and expansion in the provision of housing during

the last four decades, particularly in the last phase since 1980.

However, if we look at the total housing activity, it was clear that

private construction, including non-formal housing, has played a

significant role and that the public sector covered only a minor

part of overall construction activities.

Between the First and Sixth Plans, public sector housing

investment grew by a factor of six, from Rs. 250 crores to Rs.

1490 crores. At the same time, private (including non formal)

housing investments increased by a factor of 13, from Rs. 900

crores to Rs. 1150 crores, but the public housing share was

consequently halved from 21.7 per cent to 11.5 per cent despite

public sector efforts. In subsequent Plan Periods from 1985-2002

though the allocation on housing has increased nearly four times

during the Ninth Plan (from Rs 2458 crores in the Seventh Five

Year Plan to Rs 9267 crores in the Ninth Plan Period), the share

of public investment on housing has reduced from 8 per cent to 6

per cent during this period (Table 2.3).

Housing Situation in India

Sources of Data: During the last six decades, data base on

housing is available mainly through the decennial Population

Census conducted by the Registrar General of India, Census

Operations, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of

India. The National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of

62

Planning and Programme Implementation also collect

information on types of dwellings, topology of houses, amenities

etc. conducted in different rounds of surveys covering rural and

urban areas on sample basis. The results of these surveys are

being published in its quarterly journal of Sarvekshana. Besides

these two agencies, National Building Organization, Ministry of

Urban Affairs and Employment periodically collect data on

investment on buildings etc., which are published.

Census Data: In India no separate housing census has been

undertaken, but a systematic way of house-numbering and house

listing have been traditionally carried out a few months prior to

the population enumeration with the basic purpose of preparation

of frame for the latter. Till the 1951 Census, each state was free

to adopt its own House list form. However, it lacked uniformity

in concepts and definitions in the items included in the House list

forms canvassed. With the commencement of the Five Year

Plans, the lack of data on quality and quantity on housing stock

was badly felt. In the 1961 Census, a uniform House listing form

was introduced in all the States. Based on the data collected in

the House list, a few tables giving the purpose for which census

houses are used, the material of the wall and roof, number of

rooms occupied by households, ownership status were prepared.

For the census houses used as industrial establishment; data on

the nature of activity, type of power used and the number of

persons employed in each establishment was also collected. In

63

the 1971 census a similar set of questions was canvassed, except

that the data on establishment was collected through a separate

schedule. However in the 1981 Census, information on the

amenities available to the households was collected through a

separate household schedule canvassed along with the population

enumeration. In the 1991 Census, the data on the amenities

available to households as a part of house listing schedule along

with many more items were collected. To fall in line with the

United Nations (UN) recommendations on the broader aspects to

be covered during a census enquiry, the House listing operations

of Census 2001 saw a major shift, the emphasis being on the

quality of the living house holds rather than just housing.

In Table 2.6 the data on housing stock across rural and

urban areas is presented. It is clear from this table that the

decennial growth rate of construction during 1971-2001 worked

out to be 24.90 per cent in the rural sector and 34.40 percent in

the urban sector. Thus, there had been a considerable increase in

construction of dwellings between 1971-2001.

64

Table 2.4: Population, Households, Occupied Housing Units-

All India (In million)

Census Year

Population 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Urban 62.4 79.1 108.9 159.7 217.6 286.1

Rural 298.5 360.1 438.3 525.5 628.7 742.5

Total 360.9 439.2 547.2 685.2 846.3 1028.61

Households

Urban 12.8 14.9 19.2 29.1 39.52 53.69

Rural 60.6 68.6 78.0 93.5 111.59 138.27

Total 73.4 83.5 97.2 122.6 151.11 191.96

Occupied Housing

Units

Urban 10.3 14.1 18.1 27.2 38.70 52.0

Rural 54.1 65.1 72.7 87.2 108.2 135.10

Total 64.4 79.1 90.8 114.4 146.9 187.1

Source: Census 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001.

65

Figure 2.5: Decennial Growth in Number of Households

(1951-2001)-All India

(In million) Decadal Rate of growth (%)

Year Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

1951 73.40 60.60 12.80 - - -

1961 83.50 68.60 14.90 13.80 13.20 16.40

1971 97.10 78.00 19.10 16.30 13.70 28.20

1981 123.40 94.10 29.30 27.10 20.60 53.40

1991 151.11 111.59 39.52 22.50 18.60 34.90

2001 191.96 138.27 53.69 27.00 23.90 35.90

Source: 1. Housing Statistics – An overview – 1999. National Buildings

Organisation, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment,

Government of India.

2. Census of India – 2001 – Tables on Houses, Household

Amenities and Assets.

66

67

68

Table 2.6: Housing Stock

(Fig. in million)

Area/Year 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Rural 65.2 74.5

(14.3) 88.7 (19.1)

108.2

(22.0)

135.10

(24.9)

Urban 14.1 18.5

(31.2)

28.00

(51.4)

38.70

(38.2)

52.0

(34.4)

Total

79.3

93.0

(17.3)

116.7

(25.5)

146.9

(25.9)

187.1

(27.4)

Note: Figures in bracket denotes decennial growth rate.

Source: Census 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001.

The type-wise classification of housing stock on both urban

and rural areas is given in Table 2.7. Accordingly there has been

a notable increase of pucca houses in urban areas over the period

1961-1981, semi-pucca house mark a process of transformation

from Kutcha to pucca stage. Such structure accommodated

about 24.3 per cent of the urban households in 1981.

69

Table 2.7 : Percentage Distribution of Houses by Type of Structure – All India (1961-2001)

Type 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

Pucca 46.00 13.00 63.80 19.00 64.60 21.10 75.80 33.00 79.20 41.00

Semi-Pucca 35.00 37.00 23.50 37.00 24.30 37.60 15.80 34.20 15.50 35.80

Kutcha 19.00 50.00 12.70 44.00 11.10 41.30 8.40 32.80 5.30 23.20

Serviceable 14.00 38.00 12.70 32.00 11.10 29.00 8.40 22.80 3.30 14.80

Unserviceable 5.00 12.00 - 12.00 - 12.30 - 10.00 2.00 8.40

Source:

1) Housing Statistics – An Overview – 1999, National Buildings Organization.

2) Census of India – 2001 – Tables on Houses, Household Amenities and A

70

The construction of pucca houses shows an increase from 13 to

21.1 percent in the rural area whereas; the percentage of semi-pucca

houses has remained more or less constant at 37 percent during the

above period. It can also be seen that there has been a decline in the

construction of serviceable kutcha houses from 38 per cent in 1961

to 15 per cent in 2001. The unserviceable kutcha houses have

remained more or less constant at 12 per cent till the year 1981, but

decreased to 8.40 per cent in 2001.

Housing shortage (1991-2001) – All India

The problem of housing in India arises from two main sources.

The first is inadequate or deficit dwelling and the second is

deficiency in the supply of new housing units. More than three-

fourths of households are unable to obtain adequate housing. These

households live in physically inadequate housing or sub-standard

units, in shared accommodations and on pavements.

India’s major problem is the fast rate of population growth.

The total population of India as per the 1961 census was 43.93

crores, whereas the same went up to 54.82 crores and 68.33 crores in

1971 and 1981 respectively this shows a net addition of 24.40 crores

during the last two decades. Again between 1981-2001, the

country’s population was 68.33 crores during 1981, 84.63 crores and

102.86 crores in 1991 and 2001 respectively showing a net increase

of 34.53 crores during these two decade period. This has not only

adversely affected country’s economic growth, but has also lowered

the standard of living of the people.

71

‘Housing shortage’ has been defined as the difference between

the total number of households and (a) total occupied houses

(residential and residential-cum-other uses), (b) families in sharing

accommodation, (c) families in inadequate dwelling and (d) families

in pavement dwelling. Housing shortage at the beginning of the year

1961 was 1.52 crores. It went up to 2.36 crores in the beginning of

the year 1985, mainly because the contribution made to the

construction of new houses was insignificant, as per the survey of

the NBO housing shortage has been estimated at 9 million dwelling

units in 1951, 21.1 million in 1981 and 24.7 million in 1985 (of

which 18.8 million was in rural areas and 5.9 million in urban areas)

The organizing efforts of the housing sector, including

evolving housing policy during the 1990’s, have brought a marginal

benefit on the production front. There was a marginal reduction in

the housing shortage at the turn of the century. Between 1991 and

2001, a little over 33 lakh housing units were constructed in the

country–rural areas account for 21.25 lakh units (64.22 per cent) and

urban areas for the remaining 11.84 lakh units (35.78 per cent).

However, in percentage terms, urban areas accounted for higher

growth at 5.28, which is more than the national average of 4.27 per

cent, as compared to 3.87 per cent in rural areas. As a result of the

increase in the stock, the total housing shortage came down to

151.28 lakhs by 2001 from 184.43 lakh units in 1991 (Table 2.8).

Significantly, there has been a fall in the incidence of housing

72

shortage in the total number of households from 12.20 per cent in

1991 to 7.88 per cent in 2001.

The housing problem has three dimensions, firstly the most

critical is of inadequate housing which refers to a structure

constructed with building materials other than burnt brick, stone,

cement, metal sheets for wall and tiles, slate, curve gated iron,

zinc/asbestos sheets, cement concrete for roof–non standardized

building materials. These types of dwellings require frequent

rebuilding at short intervals. Further, they are life threatening and

dependent on climatic conditions (GOI, 1988). The second major

aspects of housing problem is crowded housing which is mainly due

to disproportionate growth in the new housing units vis-à-vis

households. The third category of the housing problem is pavement

dwellings. Families are generally in-migrants, who have migrated

from rural areas to urban areas. In the absence of shelter at their

destination, these families take shelter on pavements available in

public places, public buildings, etc. (Table 2.8)

73

Table 2.8: Housing shortage –All India (1991-2001) (Figures in lakhs)

Households and Housing Shortage by

Types

1991 2001 Changes

Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

No. of Households

1511.11 1115.88 393.23 1919.64 1382.72 536.92 408.53 266.84 143.69

Total Housing Shortage

184.43 137.23 47.20 151.29 115.98 35.31 -33.14 -21.25 -11.89

a) Families in Shared Dwelling

38.97 31.14 7.83 48.02 31.73 16.29 9.05 0.59 8.46

b)Families in inadequate

Dwelling

140.26 103.07 37.19 95.65 80.79 14.87 -44.61 -22.28 -22.32

c) Families in

pavement Dwelling

5.20 3.02 2.18 7.62 3.46 4.15 2.42 0.44 1.97

Note: Figures in parentheses are the decadal growth rates.

Source: Census of India (1991), Housing and Amenities, Occasional Paper 2 of 1993. (2001), Table on Houses,

Household Amenities and Assets.

74

Housing shortage across States

“Housing for all” is to provide affordable and adequate

housing to all citizens of the country by 2010. In pursuance of this

goal, the Government of India have taken several initiatives

through implementing housing programmes with financial

assistance as well several measures taken for easy access to

housing finance to the low and middle income group. Besides,

improving availability of land, building materials and technologies

for the families particularly rural poor and low income groups.

Over the years all states in the country have been implementing

housing programmes for the benefit of houseless households in

the country. The results of implementation of several housing

programmes has resulted in reducing the housing problem in some

of the states. However, it is not uniformly distributed and the

housing shortage has not come down as expected. A brief account

of housing problem in different states as it existed by 2001 has

been discussed in this section. It should be noted it is not a intra-

state study, to compare the programmes implemented vis-à-vis

achievements over the periods.

In order to understand the seriousness of the housing

problem across the states, it is important to examine the incidence

at the National level. Not withstanding the considerable efforts to

arrest the problem of housing, the incidence remains a challenge,

especially in rural areas, owing to inadequate housing

development efforts. The Census data for 1991 is comprehensive,

75

for calculating the housing shortage by source in rural and urban

areas across the states. It has separately identified families in

sharing accommodation, families living in inadequate dwelling

units and families living on pavements, and worked out the

housing problems for 1991. But the 2001 Census data do not

provide houseless households living pavements in rural and urban

areas. In the absence of data on the families living on pavements

in 2001, the ratio has been worked out with the help of 1991 data,

although the incidence would have increased enormously during

the 1990’s. Taking the three different components, the incidence

of housing shortage for rural and urban areas in each of the state

and Union Territories has been presented. On the basis of the

overall incidence of housing shortage, numerical ranks have been

assigned to each state and union territory for 1991 and 2001, with

a view to highlight the changes taking place in the housing sector

at the state level.

The housing shortage across the states has been presented in

Table 2.9. The ranking has been done on the basis of the number

of shortage in terms of houses in the states. A little over 33 lakh

housing units have been constructed between 1991 and 2001 in

the country–rural areas account for 21.25 lakh units (64.22 per

cent) and urban areas for the remaining 11.84 lakh units (35.78

per cent). However, in percentage terms, urban areas account for

higher growth at 5.28 per cent which is more than the national

average of 4.27 per cent, as compared to 3.87 per cent in rural

areas. As a result of the increase in the stock, the total housing

76

shortage came down to 151.29 lakhs by 2001 from 184.43 lakh

units in 1991. Significantly, there has been a fall in the incidence

of housing shortage in the total number of households from 12.15

per cent in 1991 to 7.88 in 2001.

77

Table 2.9: Housing Shortage across States & Union Territories. (Figures in lakhs)

Sl.

No. State and Union Territory

Total Housing Shortage Rank

1991 2001

Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total 1991 2001

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Andhra Pradesh 11.19 7.71 18.90 8.77 1.86 10.63 3 7

2. Arunachal Pradesh 1.12 0.10 1.22 0.11 0.03 0.14 19 25

3. Assam 22.44 1.38 23.82 5.20 0.57 5.77 2 10

4. Bihar 40.96 2.66 43.62 19.34 1.41 20.75 1 1

5. Chattisgarh* - - - 1.83 0.38 2.21 - 17

6. Goa 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.07 0.16 24 24

7. Gujarat 2.65 2.26 4.91 6.96 7.97 14.93 11 4

8. Haryana 0.30 0.51 0.81 1.36 0.52 1.88 21 17

9. Himachal Pradesh 0.16 0.05 0.21 0.39 0.05 0.44 23 21

10. Jharkhand* - - - 2.69 0.60 3.29 - 13

11. Jammu and Kashmir** - - - 1.06 0.30 1.36 - 18

12. Karnataka 4.26 2.47 6.73 4.86 1.76 6.62 9 8

13. Kerala 3.46 2.42 5.88 4.78 1.10 5.88 10 9

14. Madhya Pradesh 2.90 1.16 4.06 3.95 1.24 5.19 12 11

15. Maharashtraq 6.60 2.48 9.08 8.35 3.40 11.75 8 5

16. Manipur 0.89 0.35 1.24 0.17 0.05 0.22 18 23

17. Meghalaya 1.47 0.09 1.56 0.24 0.06 0.30 16 22

78

18. Mizoram 0.37 0.07 0.44 0.02 0.03 0.05 22 27

19. Nagaland 0.89 0.13 1.02 0.11 0.05 0.16 20 24

20. Orissa 6.85 2.55 9.40 9.65 1.04 10.69 7 6

21. Punjab 0.44 1.00 1.44 1.70 0.90 2.60 17 15

22. Rajasthan 1.11 1.10 2.21 3.36 0.85 4.21 15 12

23. Sikkim 0.12 - 0.12 0.08 - 0.08 26 26

24. Tamilnadu 3.18 7.13 10.31 1.64 1.56 3.20 6 14

25. Tripura 1.92 0.33 2.25 0.53 0.08 0.61 14 20

26. Uttar Pradesh 12.51 4.76 17.27 16.15 3.33 19.48 4 2

27. Uttaranchal* - - - 0.57 0.19 0.76 - 19

28. West Bengal 10.85 3.46 14.31 11.82 3.40 15.22 5 3

29. Andaman & Nicobar 0.18 0.04 0.22 0.03 0.02 0.05 23 27

30. Chandigarh - 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.17 0.18 25 23

31. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.01 - 0.01 27 29

32. Daman & Diu 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.01 - 0.01 28 29

33. Delhi 0.11 2.39 2.50 0.13 2.29 2.42 13 16

34. Lakshdweep - - - - - - - -

35. Pondichery 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.01 0.03 0.04 22 28

All India 137.23 47.20 184.43 115.98 35.31 151.29 - -

Per cent in Total

Households 12.26 11.84 12.15 8.39 6.56 7.88 - -

Note: * Newly Formed States ** Census was not conducted in 1991. Source: Census of India (1991) ,

Housing and Amenities, Paper 2 of 1993 and Census of India (2001)Tables on Housing, Household

Amenities and Assets Series 1.

79

The falling incidents of housing shortage in the country has

been very well reflected in a number of states, especially in North-

Eastern states (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya,

Mizoram and Nagaland), which were known for pathetic housing

conditions. It may not be an exaggeration to say that most of the

North-Eastern States have achieved exemplary performances in

housing production and have successfully mitigated the problem of

housing shortage to a very large extent. The share of these North-

Eastern states, which was 17 per cent of the total shortage of the

country in 1991, has been reduced to around 5 per cent in 2001.

Mizoram leads the success, mitigating its share by 88.64 per cent

followed by Nagaland (84.31 per cent), Manipur (82.26 per cent),

and Meghalaya (80.76 per cent), Assam (75.78 per cent) and

Arunachal Pradesh (70.49 per cent). That apart, states like Tamil

Nadu, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh have also successfully mitigated

the housing shortage by 68.96, 52.43 and 43.76 respectively, by

2001. If this tempo is kept up in these states, the housing shortage

be wiped out totally, housing surplus could be brought about in the

coming years. Further, a few of the Union Territories (Dadar and

Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and Pondicherry) have also joined the

group of such states, which have shown signs of eliminating

houselessness totally from their state. In states like Karnataka,

Kerala and Sikkim there was a marginal improvement in the

situation.

However, the downtrend in housing shortage is not a common

feature spread all over the country. Rather it was confined to one

80

region and to a few other states. Unfortunately, the rest of the

country, the housing problem has either become aggravated or has

remained unchanged. In ten major states (Gujarat, Hariyana,

Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra, Orissa, Punjab,

Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal), the housing shortage has

not increased steeply, from 63.70 lakh units in 1991 to 86.39 lakh

units in 2001, but the incidence, as a percentage of the total shortage

in the country, has gone up from 34.54 to 57.10 per cent. This

works out to an average shortage of 8.00 lakhs per state as against

4.32 lakh units per state in the country. Thus these states have come

to be known as the most affected states, with inadequate and

incompatible public action. Further, Bihar continuous to occupy top

position in terms of the total shortage at 20.75 lakh units in 2001,

although there was a substantial increase in the stock during the

1990’s. In the case of Goa and Kerala, development efforts have

had hardly any impact on their housing problems, whereas, there

was a marginal reduction in housing shortage in states like

Karnataka, Sikkim and Delhi.

Finally, it is evident from the table that though urban areas

have fared better in bringing down the incidence of housing shortage

in most of the states, the plight of the rural areas remains dismal. In

most of the major states, there has been a spurt in the incidence

(Maharastra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,

Karnataka and Kerala). Then the casual/marginal attitude of these

states towards rural areas has resulted in increasing the rural share of

81

the incidence to around 56 per cent in 2001 as against 36 per cent in

1991.

Deprivation of Amenities

Another serious dimension of the housing problem relates to

housing amenities like drinking water, sanitation, lighting and

drainage connection. From the view point of good health and decent

dwelling, the development of housing amenities assumes greater

importance, since housing and amenities do influence human

welfare; it is expected that these goods are developed

simultaneously. In other words, connections for safe drinking water,

sanitation, lighting and drainage should be ensured if at all

development initiatives are aiming to achieve a good standard of

living. Unfortunately, the debate pertaining to development of

housing amenities, together with house construction (Habitat 1996),

particularly with reference to rural areas, has hardly claimed the

attention of housing policy makers in. A disintegrated approach

(development of housing and housing amenities at different time

sequences) is predominant even now in rural areas, more so under

the social housing schemes, which are the only source of living

improvement for poorer sections. Thus, a faulty approach has been a

major factor in the deficiency of these services, especially in rural

areas. The deprivation of amenities across rural and urban areas (all

India Level) has been presented in Table 2.10.

82

Table 2.10: Deprivation of Housing Amenities in India 1991-2001 (Figures in Crores)

Year Area Total No.

of

Households

Households Deprived of

Safe Drinking Water

Good Sanitation

Electricity Drainage All the Four Amenities

1991 Total 5.13 5.90 (39.00) 10.27 (67.88) 8.49 (56.11) na 8.22 (54.33)

Rural 11.16 5.15 (46.15) 9.27 (83.06) 7.52 (67.38) na 7.31 (65.53)

Urban 3.97 0.75 (18.89) 1.00 (25.15) 0.97 (24.43) na 0.91 (22.84)

2001 Total 19.19 4.24 (22.09) 12.20 (63.57) 8.47 (44.14) 10.29 (53.62) 8.80 (45.86)

Rural 13.83 3.71 (26.83) 10.80 (79.09) 7.81 (56.47) 9.10 (65.81) 7.85 (56.80)

Urban 5.36 0.53 (9.89) 1.40 (26.12) 0.66 (12.31) 0.66 (12.31) 0.95 (17.63)

Note : Figures in parentheses are percentage of the total.

Source : Census of India (1991), Housing and Amenities, Occasional Paper 2 of 1991 (2001), Table on Houses,

Household Amenities and Assets.

83

As can be seen from the Table 2.10, though there has been a

considerable drop in the number of households deprived of the major

housing amenities in relative terms, in absolute terms the deprivation

level has increased in both rural and urban areas. For example, the

number of households deprived of all four amenities has increased to

8.80crores in 2001 as against 8.22 crores in 1991, although, in

relative terms, the deprivation percentage was reduced to 45.86 from

54.33. If this is the overall scenario, the deprivation of individual

amenities is even more disturbing. Though the scale of deprivation

has been arrested to some extent in the case of drinking water, and

has remained unchanged in the case of electricity, it has, over the

years, been aggravated in the case of good sanitation. More than half

the households in the country are not connected with drainage

facilities. Thus, it only indicates that the efforts that have gone into

the provision of drinking water have been missing in the

development of other equally crucial amenities. However,

notwithstanding the progress that was achieved in arresting

deprivation in housing amenities, rural areas continue to experience

a higher order of deprivation, especially with regard to good

sanitation and drainage facilities. Hence, the scale of deprivation is

much more than the average – over 79 and 65 percent of households

in rural areas have not been connected with good sanitation and

drainage facilities respectively. Finally, it may not be out of context

to note that households deprived of these basic housing amenities

largely consist of vulnerable groups with challenging occupations

and low incomes. Thus it is obvious that these households, in the

84

absence of well-developed/connected amenities, have been using

unsafe water for drinking, are exposed to hazardous means of

lighting, and live in filthy environments, especially in rural areas

In a recent nationwide household survey conducted by The

National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in the Ministry of

Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India,

between July 2002-December 2002 on housing conditions in India.

A sample of 97,882 households spread over 4,769 villages and 3,538

urban blocks in the country had been surveyed to obtain information

regarding the conditions of the dwellings in which the rural and

urban population of the country live and the number, size, structure,

cost and financing of residential constructions undertaken by the

households. The result of the survey is:

(a) Houses by Types: In urban areas, 77 people in every 100

households lived in pucca structures, 20 in semi-pucca structures and

only three in katcha structures.

In urban slum areas, 67 per cent of the dwellings were pucca.

Rural areas of Delhi and Haryana, urban slums in Mizoram,

Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, and urban areas (excluding

the slums and squatter settlements) of Sikkim, Delhi, Uttaranchal,

J&K and Gujarat reported the prevalence of more pucca structures

than the rest of the country.

85

The States of Tripura, Manipur and Chattisgarh were found to

be well below the national average in terms of prevalence of pucca

structures.

The floor area available to the average rural household was 38

Square metres while the average urban household had 37 square

metres. This survey also reveals that the average household size in

rural areas was 5.15 and in urban areas 4.47.

19 out of every 100 structures in the rural areas and 11 in the

urban areas were “in bad condition and required immediate major

repair”.

92 per cent of rural households and 60 per cent of urban

households owned the dwelling units.

(b) Water and sanitation facilities: Nearly 15 per cent of the

dwellings in urban slums and squatter settlements, 63 per cent of

dwelling units in other urban areas, and 11 per cent of the units in

rural areas had facilities of drinking water, toilet facilities and

electricity for lighting within their premises.

At the other extreme, none of the three facilities were available

within the premises of about 30 per cent of dwelling units in rural

areas, 11 per cent of dwelling units in urban slums and squatter

settlements, and 4 per cent of dwelling units in other urban areas of

the country.

86

About 97 per cent of rural and 99 per cent of urban dwellings had

drinking water within half-a-kilometer of their premises.

Residents of around 76 per cent of rural and 18 per cent of urban

dwellings did not have access to any toilet facilities.

In the combined statistics for the rural and urban areas, the

percentage of households lacking this facility was the highest in

Chhattisgarh (82 per cent), followed by Orissa (80 per cent), Bihar

(79 per cent), MP (77 per cent), Jharkhand (76 per cent), Rajasthan

(72 per cent), and UP (72 per cent).

(c) Home extension and new constructions: About 25 per cent of all

rural households and one in seven urban households had undertaken

some form of construction activity during the last five years.

In rural areas, 41 million constructions had been initiated and

34 million completed, while in urban areas, 8.5 million constructions

had been initiated and 7.2 million completed during this 5-year

period.

8 million constructions had been initiated and completed in

UP alone, followed by: West Bengal (4.8 million), Tamil Nadu (4.7

million), Andhra Pradesh (4.1 million), Maharashtra (3.1 million)

and Bihar (3.1 million).

Compared with an earlier NSS survey conducted in 1993 on

constructions completed during the 5-year period between 1989 and

87

1993, this current survey reveals that the number of completed

constructions had doubled.

The number of completed constructions during the 5-year

period 1989-93 was only about half the number initiated and

completed during 1998-2002 in both rural areas (17.5 million against

34 million) and urban areas (3.6 million against 7.2 million).

Comparison with the earlier survey also shows a fall in the

percentage of katcha constructions in rural India from 45 per cent to

40 per cent and a rise in the percentage of pucca constructions from

34 per cent

In urban India, there was a fall in katcha constructions from 18

per cent during 1989-93 to 12 per cent during 1998-2002 and a rise

in pucca constructions from 64 per cent to 74 per cent.

(d) Constructions expenditure patterns: On an average, a rural

household spent about Rs. 1.13 lakh to construct a new pucca house

with an average floor area of 42 sq-m., and about Rs.21,000 to alter

or repair a pucca structure involving work on 29sq-m of floor area.

Households in urban areas other than the slums, on an

average, spent about Rs. 2.63 lakh to build a new pucca dwelling

unit with an average floor area of 53 sq-m.

In urban slums, it cost about Rs.80,000 to build a new pucca

house with an average floor area was 24 sq-m.

88

About 72 per cent of expenditure on residential construction by

households was on materials alone. Another 21 per cent was spent

on labour.

Rural households financed around 66 per cent, and urban

households 62 per cent, of their construction costs from their own

sources.

In urban slums and squatter settlements, moneylenders

financed 15 per cent of all construction costs. However, in other

urban areas, moneylenders financed only 4 per cent of the total

construction costs. In the rural areas, moneylenders financed 9 per

cent of all construction costs.

Rural Housing

The housing in rural areas is by and large deplorable. A large

number of the available housing in rural India are kutcha or

unserviceable which need to be replaced or substantially renovated.

The sanitary and other facilities are far away from houses since

Indians prefer court-yard houses. In the court-yard houses they raise

families, rear children, carry on the routine domestic chores and

engage in social interaction, they also keep their domestic animals in

and around the houses; hence, the rural houses are perennially filthy

and unhygienic.

As the Environmental hygiene Committee observes: “the

village houses offer some sort of shelter against sun and rain to

dwellers, but they have no latrines, no protected water supply and no

89

public cleaning. Men and cattle live in close proximity: mosquitoes

and flies swarm and rats abound in the huts and hovels−the interior

of the houses is generally roomy but the surroundings are dirty”.

The housing problem of rural is more or less connected with

the housing problem of the agricultural and plantation labourers,

since they constitute the majority in the rural areas. The housing

condition of plantation workers is pathetic because most of the

houses are unserviceable kutcha house that are far away from the

place of work. Added to this, they do not have any transport facility.

All India Rural Household Survey (1960) conducted by The

National council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER)

maintains that: “the housing problem of agricultural labourers also

constitutes a significant portion of the rural housing problem as their

numerical strength is growing at a faster rate. These sections of the

rural community belong to the lowest strata of income which is a

handicap with regard to obtaining a shelter”.

Rural housing has been badly neglected by the Government.

An examination of the financial resource allocation under the Five-

year plans indicates that rural housing has not received its due

priority as it is evident from the Table 2.2 & 2.3.

Though the Government has launched many housing schemes

in the country to mitigate the housing problem during the plan

periods, most of the schemes are urban oriented. In 1957 and in

1971 two rural housing schemes were introduced to solve the

90

housing problem in the rural areas. But these two schemes could not

achieve the expected result due to financial constraints and the low

priority accorded by the state governments. One of the notable

features of the above table is the under utilization of the funds

allocated to rural housing during the plan period, except in the

Annual and Fourth plan period.

Urban Housing

Urban housing is more complicated than the rural housing

problem, since the urban centers are growing at a faster rate by

attracting rural migrants. In India urbanization is caused

predominantly by push factors like agricultural stagnancy and the

resultant poverty of rural areas. The housing problem in the urban

centers is mainly to the housing problem of industrial workers and

slum dwellers, as a result of the growing number of industrial

workers during the phase of Industrialization.

In the industrial centers the cost of housing is higher and this

prevents the industrial workers from having their own houses, since

their income is very low. It is impossible for the industrial workers

to save for a house. That is why the majority of them resort to live

in slums and pavements. The Royal Commission on Labour (1931)

has described the housing conditions of the Indian workers thus, “In

the urban and industrial areas cramped sites, the high value of land

and the necessity for the worker to live in the vicinity of his work

have all tended to intensify congestion and overcrowding. In the

busiest centers the houses are built close together, cave touching

91

cave, and frequently back to back in order to make use of all the

available space. Indeed, space is so valuable that, in place of streets

and roads, narrow winding lanes provide the only approach to the

houses. Neglect of sanitation is often evident by heaps of rotting

garbage and pools of sewage, while the absence of latrines enhances

the general pollution of air and soils. A house, many without plinths,

windows and adequate ventilation, usually consists of a single small

room, the only opening being a doorway, often too low to enter

without stooping. In order to secure privacy, old kerosene tins and

gunny bags are used to form screens which further restrict the

entrance of light and air. In dwellings such as these, beings are born;

they sleep and eat, live and die”.

Total urban population as per the census of 2001 is 285.35

million, which constitutes 27.78 per cent of the total population.

Total population of the country increased by 21.34 per cent in 1991-

2001, whereas urban populations grow by 31.36 per cent during the

same period.

The major urban concern is the growing gap between the

demand and supply of basic infrastructure services like safe drinking

water, sanitation, sewerage, housing, energy, transport,

communication, health and education. Increased urbanization is

accompanied by severe environmental problems, which adversely

affect the quality of life of the people. The Report of the Steering

Committee on urban development, Urban Housing and Urban

Poverty for the 10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007) Government of

92

India, Planning Commission observes that areas need consideration

include urban governance issues which special focus on the urban

poor and slum dwellers, urban transport and housing.

The census of 2001 has demonstrated that urban centers, now

numbering 5161 in the country, are continuing to grow at a faster

pace than rural areas. The rate of urbanization in the country is

steady rather than speedy, and India is still among the countries with

a low level of urbnanisation. The impact of growth of population on

urban infrastructure and services is in most instances adverse. While

admittedly the cities with higher rates of growth would have faced

inadequacies of financial and other resources to cope with increasing

demands on services. Even cities with moderate rates of growth

found the where with all to meet the minimum of expectations of

urban residence in terms of basic necessities like water supply

sanitations, drains, roads etc. The institutional arrangements which

are in position to ensure that the cities catch up with the backlog of

inadequacies as well as meet growing needs. Strengthening the

decentralized ULB structure identified as a priority task of the 10 th

Plan.

Housing Policies and Programmes:

Housing programmes and policies in India can be divided into

two distinct periods. They are: Pre-plan period: period I (1947-

1956), and Plan periods (1956 and onwards): as period II. Again

period phase 3 (1960-69), phase 4 (1970-79), phase 5 (1980-90).

The period between phase 2 to phase 5 may be considered as prior to

93

the declaration of National Housing Policy. As regards the housing

programmes specially the rural housing sector attracted much

attention in terms of institutional linkages and housing finance areas

from 1992 onwards (Eight, Ninth and Tenth Plan Periods 1992-

2007).

Housing Programmes and Policies – Successive Plan Periods.

Pre-Plan Period I Plan Periods II

First & Second Plan

(1951-61) Phase 1

Third & Fourth

Plan (1961-70)

Phase 2

Fifth & Sixth Plan

(1970-80) Phase 3

Seventh & Eight Plan

(1980-90) Phase 4

Ninth Plan (1992-97)

onwards Phase 5

Pre-plan period (1947-1956):

In the absence of adequate construction activity by the weaker

sections due to low income and hike in the cost of building

materials, Government participation in the construction activity with

its own housing schemes for low and middle income groups, for

both rural and urban areas, is inevitable in a country like India. As

Francis Cherunilam and O.D. Heggade opine: “Government

participation in housing generally involves provision of subsidised

(and in some cases even free) housing to the poor section, devising

housing schemes for various categories, development of layouts and

94

provision of infrastructural facilities, development of financial and

materials market for housing research and development”.

In India, Government participation in housing started even

before the commencement of planning. The activities of the Central

Government in the sphere of housing were confined to provide

houses for their employees, particularly in essential services like

communication and transport and to housing the refugees from

Pakistan, following the partition of the country. In this direction, the

Indian Railways had constructed 2,75,917 houses by 1951, of which

as many as 2,97,535 houses were meant for low paid employees.

Similarly, the Department of posts and Telegraphs and the Ministry

of Defence had also made their contribution to their respective

employees by constructing 22,340 houses up to 1949 in various parts

of the country.

The Bombay State also made an effort in 1921 to establish a

Development department to acquire land and to organise the supply

and distribution of building materials and to construct 50,000

tenements to mitigate the growing shortage of houses in Bombay

city. As the construction cost proved very high, the Development

Department was forced to close down after it had built only 15,000

tenements out of the targeted 50,000 tenements. Again, the workers

who were occupant of these tenements were not able to pay even the

rent. Later, the Bombay Government during 1949 established a

special Housing Board with a view to build houses for industrial

workers and other low income groups. Up to 1952, the Board had

95

constructed 7,000 tenements for industrial workers and 9,000

tenements for low income groups. In India, before the

commencement of planning, there had been no legislative act to

enunciate the strategies of the Government Housing Policy to tackle

the housing problem. However, there were some State Governments

which had passed certain acts to mitigate their urban housing

problem, such as the Bombay Rent Restriction Act of 1939 which

was enacted in 1942 as the Bombay Rent Restriction Order. This Act

was to protect the tenants from the landlords. Similarly, in the

Labour Ministers’ conference held in 1947 it was agreed upon that

industrial housing should be a responsibility to be shared by the

States, industry and labor. The conference passed “The Industrial

Truce Resolution, which recommended towards the improvement of

the standard of living of the workers, by devoting its immediate

attention to the problem of housing of industrial labour. It also

recommended that, the cost of such housing should be shared in

suitable proportions between the Government, employees and

labour, the share of the labor being given in the from of a reasonable

rent.”

In addition, the Ownership Flats Act was passed by the

Government of Maharastra in 1948 to control and regulate the sale

of flats. In the same year the Bombay Town Planning Act was

passed to provide legislative sanction to prepare plans for urban

centers. Similar town planning legislation was also introduced by

other states. Some of the State Governments took steps to establish

96

Metropolitan planning Boards, among whose functions housing

problems were included.

It is clear from the preceding paragraphs the participation of

the Government in housing before planning was satisfactory in some

states, whereas in a majority of states such participation was either

half-hearted or was completely lacking. One of the serious

drawbacks during this period was that the bulk of the supply had not

been able to keep up with the demand.

Plan Periods

Phase 1 (1951-61):

After the commencement of planning, the Governments (both

Central and States) have assumed a significant role in the field of

housing. As the First Five-Year plan observed: “In these times, the

State cannot afford to confine its role in this field to planning and

regulation. Private enterprises are not in a position to do the job so

far as low income groups are concerned. They cannot afford to pay

the economic rent for housing accommodation of even the minimum

standards. The state has, therefore, to fill the gap and assist in the

construction of suitable houses for low and middle income groups

both in urban and rural areas as part of its own functions. This

would involve a large measure of assistance which may take the

form of subsidies on a generous scale and the supply of loans on a

somewhat low rate of interest”.

97

The Government declared in its First Five Year Plan: “For

years to come the bulk of building activity will still have to be

undertaken by private enterprises”. The outlay on housing which

was 34 per cent to total outlay in the First Five Year Plan period

brought down to 19 per cent during the Second Five Year Plan. This

indicates that the government gave low priority to housing schemes

resulting in lower outlays allocated to the states under the Social

Housing Schemes. This meant mainly urban housing and

development, including the construction of new industrial towns.

Despite a number of policy statements, village development, rural

housing and land for rural housing were not at issue. Instead, urban

standards and values were officially proclaimed for villages resulting

in an urbanized policy for rural housing programmes in the 1960s.

The Report of The Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, in the

year 1955-56 observed that “Housing could not be given high

priority in the First Plan. Nevertheless, a beginning was made in

First Five Year Plan and the State took on itself to a limited extent,

the responsibility of providing housing facility for the people, which

till then was almost entirely a private enterprise”.

In the Second Five Year Plan the Housing policy was

primarily and programmes aimed to eradicate the problem of slums,

besides taking up a bunch of other schemes like (a) Village-housing

schemes, (b) Land acquisition and development and (c) Plantation

Workers’ housing schemes. To avoid or to control the growth of

slums, the Second Five Year Plan emphasised the need for stricter

98

enforcement of the Municipal bye-laws and master plans. For this

purpose, sufficient powers to control with respect to the use of land

had to be given to municipalities and local bodies. To arrest the

slum problem, emphasis was laid on housing for the Economically

Weaker Sections. The Policy emphasised on providing “Sites and

Services”, with sufficient financial assistance. Under this policy, the

beneficiaries covered are to be given a loan up to an extent of Rs.

3,000/- repayable over a period of twenty to twenty five years, with

a reasonable rate of interest. The achievement of these Housing

Schemes was not up to the expectations, as they had to face the

problem of non–availability of land at a reasonable rate.

The Working group on Housing for the Fourth Five Year Plan

pointed out that “the overall rate” of construction in both urban and

rural areas was only about 2 houses per 1000 persons against the

recommended norm of the expert body of UN of 10 houses per year

per 1,000 population”. The Planning Commission observed in its

report as the unit costs were high and that with the constraint of

resources it was not possible for public operation to touch even the

fringe of the problem.

It is clear from the report of the Ministry of Works, Housing

and Supply, that “Provision of adequate housing for the vast

population of this country is one of the main tasks undertaken jointly

by the Central and State Governments even though under the

Constitution the subject of housing falls within the state

competence”. The Government of India declared the National

99

Housing Policy and prepared to enter into the field of housing in a

more responsible way. Allocations of funds under the plans were

the main sources of finance to the public operations in the field of

housing and such allocations were also meager when compared to

the housing problem. To fill up the gap, the Fourth Plan envisaged

to create a proper institution for housing finance. The Central

Government established the Housing and Urban Development

Corporation (HUDCO) as a Government owned company which was

a significant development during this plan period. The corporation is

to assist and finance the several housing programmes taken up by the

State Governments and State Housing Boards to undertake housing

activities in their respective States. Apart from this, the Government

also sponsored the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to provide

financial assistance to the housing sector on the guarantee of the

State Government. Further the Fourth Plan also enunciated land

acquisition policy which was as follows: “large scale acquisition and

development of land by public authorities on the periphery of

growing urban township is a necessary pre-requisite for orderly

development as means for an adequate impact on low and middle

income housing”.

The major lacuna up to the period was lack of proper attention

to renovate the existing housing stock. In order to fill the gap, Fifth

Plan emphasised the need for preservation and improvement of the

existing housing stock in addition to the extensive provision of

housing sites to the land less labourers to the tune of 19% of the total

100

investment in housing sector. Emphasis was also made to continue

the schemes to provide houses on subsidised basis and to support

HUDCO and housing boards to sub serve their objectives in this

regard.

Phase 3 (1970-80): The Fifth Five-year Plan stated that: “The role of

housing in economic development, both as an end and a means, is an

important one; as an end, housing is an essential ingredient in the

basic requirements of civilized living; as a means, besides adding to

national income, housing is a strong motivator of savings and plays

an important part in the generation of employment”.

The objectives of the Fifth Five Year plan with regard to

housing were: (a) Preservation and improvement of the existing

housing Stocks, (b) Provision of housing sites to four million

landless labourers as a part of Minimum needs programme, (c)

Extension of support to institutional agencies such as HUDCO and

Housing Boards under the governments to enable them to provide

assistance to schemes for the benefit of low and middle income

groups, and (d) Intensification of research for the development of

low cost building materials.

The planning Commission observed that “One of the main

impediments in the way of increased activity is the non-availability

of land at reasonable prices. It is universal experiences that if

housing plots are available at reasonable prices, large sections of the

community are willing to undergo considerable privation and

101

inconvenience in order to construct and own houses. A proper

strategy for the housing sector cannot, therefore, be thought of in

isolation and unrelated to a well-formulated land policy”.

The Draft Sixth Plan, 1978-83 (revised) observed that

“hitherto, Government approach to this problem has been a limited,

it was almost exclusively to the urban areas till the end of the Fourth

Plan it is only during the last five years that attempts to deal with the

Rural Housing problems have been made, mainly through the

provision of land sites to land less labourers”.

The housing policy during the Sixth Five Year Plan was to

continue all the existing housing schemes in general and the

allotment of house sites to landless agricultural labourers in

particular, since the HUDCO and General Insurance Corporation

(GIC) had entered into rural housing schemes and had begun to

provide assistance for construction in rural areas.

Phase 4 (1980-92): In addition to the continuance of the existing

housing schemes, the Seventh Five Year Plan envisaged the role of

the public sector in housing the people, in mobilising resources on

an adequate scale, in continuing to provide subsidised housing to

cover (a) the rural poor, (b) the economically weaker section and (c)

slum dwellers in the Urban areas, through acquisition and

development of land in urban areas.

During this plan period the financial institutions such as the

HUDCO and Housing Development and Finance Corporation

102

(HDFC) were strengthened. While the former was required to

concentrate on the provision of subsidised finance to poorer sections

of society, the latter was expected to continue to cater to the clientele

coming largely from a fairly affluent section of the society.

The Seventh Five year Plan proposed that the housing

authorities and Housing Boards should concentrate on land

acquisition and its development in urban areas instead of going in for

direct construction of housing. The Plan also observed that “the time

has come for the Government to set before itself a clear goal in the

field of housing and launch a major housing effort: not so much to

build but to promote housing activity through the supply of financial

infrastructure such that every family will be provided with adequate

shelter within a definite time horizon. As far as possible, the public

sector should not assume direct house construction except in the case

of weaker sections of society. This is not to minimize the role of the

government - Government has to play an active role through

developing necessary delivery system, in the form of a housing

finance market and take steps to make developed land available at

right places and at reasonable prices”.

One of the draw backs of then existing housing finance system

was inadequacy of long term finances for the construction of house

activities in the country. This point was also brought out in the Draft

Seventh Five Year Plan “the biggest weakness of the housing sector

is the non-availability of long term finance to individual households

on any significant scale”. To fill this gap the R.G. Saraiya

103

Committee (1971) and R.C. Shah Committee strongly recommended

the need for the national housing bank to provide long term finance

to individual households for house construction activity. After a

considerable time gap as per the recommendations, The National

Housing Bank (NHB) on the lines of National Bank for Agriculture

and Rural Development (NABARD) was established during the

Seventh Plan Period. This is a subsidiary institution of the Reserve

Bank of India to promote housing finance through a refinance

mechanism to banks, housing finance companies and other

institutions. Also it functioned as the supervising and regulatory

body for housing finance companies.

The National Housing Bank’s primary responsibility is to

promote and develop specialized housing finance institutions, for

mobilising resources and extending credit for housing. Its other

functions are (1) To extend refinance facility to housing finance

institution and scheduled banks, to provide guarantee and under

writing facilities to housing finance institutions, to formulate

schemes for mobilization of resources and extension of credit for

housing including economically weaker sections of the society.

The HUDCO continued to play an important role in providing

subsidised housing for the poorer sections through the state

Governments. During this period it was also proposed to increase the

equity of HUDCO from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 135 Crores and to invest

about Rs.800 crores during this period in the housing programmes.

104

Hitherto there was no clear-cut housing policy to solve the

gigantic housing problem. But in the Seventh Plan all efforts were

made to evolve the long awaited National Housing Policy to mark

the “International Year of shelter for the Homeless.”

An important development in the Eight Plan was the bringing

out of a consensus in the approach to human settlements

developments. The National Housing Policy (NHP) provided the

basic approach, the economic reforms stimulated the process and the

preparatory process for the Habitat II Conference brought together

the key actors through the National Steering Committee, Key

Groups of human settlement managers, NGOs and CBOs, private

sector and the National Human Settlement Forum, which crystalised

and endorsed the National Report.

Phase 5 (1992-97 and later periods): This phase consists of Ninth

Plan and later periods. During the Ninth Plan special attention of

households at the lower end of the housing market were given major

emphasis. Groups belonging to people below the poverty line,

SC/ST, disabled, freed bonded labourers and women headed

households were given priority. Government will, as a facilitator,

create an environment in which access to all the requisite inputs will

be in time, inadequate quantum and an appropriate quality and

standards.

The total Public assistance under Social Housing Schemes

benefiting 1.41 crores families from their inception (since the early

105

1950’s) up to 1995-96, barely touches the fringe of the housing

problem in rural areas. Another disappointing feature is the public

resource allocation during the Five Year Plan Periods. Of the total

investment (Rs 3,09,715 crores) on housing between First and Ninth

Five Year Plan, only one-tenth (Rs.15,257 crores) have been made in

rural housing. In other words, rural areas could account for only

4.93 per cent of the total investment in housing during the entire plan

period.

National Housing policy

The union Ministry of urban Development in March 1987

prepared a comprehensive draft National Housing Policy and

accorded high priority to the development of the housing sector,

particularly in respect of affordable housing for the disadvantaged

families. Simultaneously, encouraged the middle income group

housing programme. It was expected that this will ensure the low

income group house units do not get diverted to higher income group

households. Investments in housing will also stimulate economic

activity and thereby create substantial additional employment

opportunities. The broad objectives and the strategies as envisaged

by the National Housing Policy are:

1. To encourage investment in housing, thereby increasing the

overall housing in the country,

2. To motivate and help the houseless population to secure for

itself affordable shelter in the shortest span of time possible,

106

3. To maximise housing efforts by eliminating constraints and

by developing an efficient and accessible system for the

delivery of inputs,

4. To improve the environment of human settlement in order

to raise the quality of life through the provision of

drinking water, sanitation and other basic services, and

5. To promote repairs, renovation expansion and upgradation

of the existing housing stock.

The avowed objectives of the National Housing policy may be

defined as follows:

1. Houses should be made available to the houseless at a

reasonable cost that they can afford,

2. Expansion of the programme of house construction,

particularly for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

and Low Income Groups (LIGs),

3. Increasing access to housing finance,

4. Prevent the growth of slums and basic facilities in

existing slum settlements, and

5. Providing adequate Incentives for individuals

and groups of individuals for house building programme.

The strategies suggested to achieve the above objectives are,

through (a) Making available developed land at reasonable cost for

house construction, (b) Developing a viable and accessible

107

institutional system for the provision of housing finance, (c) To

make available, building materials at a reasonable cost, (d)

Encouraging the small scale sector units for the production of

standardised building materials, (e) Giving impetus to co-operative

and group housing activities, as well as institutionalization of non-

governmental organizations, (f) In order to remove constraints in

housing activities, the relevant laws and regulations wherever

necessary will be subjected for modification, (g) Providing security

of tenure to households in Urban and Rural areas, (j) Improving and

upgrading construction skills, and (i) Encouraging the production of

building materials based on local resources and of standardized, low

cost building materials and components.

Although the long awaited National Housing Policy has set

forth laudable objectives, the policy is lagging behind in assigning a

clear role to the state and local Governments. In its view that

housing is a local activity and would require the involvement of

those Government nearest home. Another drawback of the National

Housing Policy (NHP) was ignoring the private sector, though the

private sector has a major contribution to make to the construction

activity, both in urban and rural areas. However, the policy failed to

suggest in clear terms methods of co-ordination between the various

agencies who are involved in different housing programmes. Such

measures would have avoided the duplication of jobs and wastage of

scarce resources.

108

This was followed by another housing policy in 1992, which

got Parliament approval in August 1994. It was expected that this

policy could attempt to address unattended issues or the loop holes

that existed in the previous policy and in housing sector planning. It

was also believed that this policy could give a direction to different

players of housing development, specially in the context of New

Economic Policies and related measures initiated in the country from

the year 1992 onwards.

But this policy was also attacked on the grounds similar to

National Housing Policy of 1987. Although this policy did attempt

to influence the government to create a facilitating environment

specially in encouraging the entry of private sector, but by and large

the efforts remain more or less soft hearted. The measures that were

initiated during the early 1990s were mostly in increasing the

housing stocks in the owner occupation sector by giving fiscal

concessions and other benefits to the individual house builders.

Well defined attempts to organize a sound housing financial system,

catering to the needs of the common man (economically weaker

sections, lower income groups, etc.) both in rural and urban areas

and many other facilitating measures were still missing. It is with

this background the National Housing and Habitat Policy of 1998,

prepared and adopted by the government of India.

The India National Report – 1996 had stated that meeting the

existing housing shortage was a priority. The National Housing and

Habitat Policy (1998) is a conscious effort to redefine housing from

109

a mere physical asset, to a more dynamic concept of sustainable

living habitat. The process of fine tuning the definition of ‘adequate

shelter’ is still on. “It is increasingly being recognized to encompass

adequate physical and social infrastructure, use of energy saving

and cost effective building materials, provision of a good clean

living environment, and other such parameters. The emphasis is,

therefore, on a human settlement technology that would enable

sustainable development.

The short term action plan outlined in the Indian National

Report, 1996 emphasised up gradation of housing stock in both

urban and rural areas by enhancing its durability, providing better

amenities and services, and reducing congestion in the existing

housing stock. The UNCHS Habitat Agenda of 1996 lays emphasis

on removing hindrances–legal, administrative, institutional, financial

and gender-biased hindrances in gaining access to basis shelter

needs. The National Housing and Habitat Policy (1998) reveals

therefore, a conscious shift and, talks of the practical aspects of

providing housing by involving various stakeholders, the corporate

and co-operative sectors, housing finance institutions and research

institutions, with government playing the role of a facilitator in the

process.

The major operational programme included was to provide 2

million additional dwelling units, predominantly for the poor, each

year, in pursuance of the National Agenda for Governance (1998).

The rolls of various stakeholders including the Central and the State

110

Governments were clearly defined. The need to protect the interest

of women, particularly women–headed household was recognized.

The objective has been achieved ‘Housing for All’ by the end of

Tenth Plan (2007).

The Government of India seeks to achieve the target of

‘Shelter For All’ through a facilitating approach principally in three

areas: (1) Legal reforms, (2) Transfer of technology, and (3) Fiscal

incentives and enlarging the resource base.

It has been estimated that the cost of providing 16.76 million

houses in urban areas as identified in the Ninth Plan Working Group

Report on Urban Housing would be enormous – around Rs. 12,150

crore at 1997 prices. Of this, 15.02 million (EWS/LIG) houses for

the poor would require Rs.6000 crores. The government believes the

task of providing nearly all the EWS housing (10.04 million units)

and many of the LIG houses could be done through pro active

facilitatory action by the government, through the State Government

and the State owned parastatal agencies and co-operative societies.

The task of providing and mitigating housing shortage of others

would largely devolve on the private sector, which would also be

offered incentive in the form of facilitating legal reforms, fiscal

incentives and transfer of technology.

The policy also seeks to impose a social mandate on the private

sector, advising them to provide a specified percentage reservation

for the poor, in their projects. These units will be cross-subsidised to

111

make them affordable to the poor. They will be well integrated with

the MIG/HIG units to provide for social integration within

communities. However, the Government is clear that it would not be

possible for 15.02 million EWS/LIG houses to be cross-subsidised in

this manner. The onus of the major percentage of the shelter

delivery for the poor will rest with the government. To make shelter

affordable and accessible to the poor, the government on one hand

seeks to make cost effective houses for them, and on the other seeks

to increase the purchasing power of the poor, by linking economic

growth to employment for the poor. The health of the housing and

construction sector is seen as a major index of the health of the

economy as it is one of the largest providers of employment to the

poor.

Housing Programmes

The social housing scheme has been classified into two

categories on the basis of their nature and coverage. There are social

housing schemes for rural areas and social housing schemes for

urban areas. The social housing schemes are as follows:

I Rural Areas:

1. Subsidised Housing schemes for plantation workers (1956):

This Scheme was introduced in 1956, under section 15 of the

Plantation Labour Act 1951 (Provision of rent-free residential

accommodation for eligible workers). Under the scheme, the central

Government pays 50 per cent loan and 37.5 per cent grant for the

construction of houses co-operatives of plantation workers will be

112

given financial assistance upto 90 per cent of the approved cost of

the project (65 per cent loan and 25 per cent subsidy. During the

plan period only 10,491 housing were constructed. One of the

serious drawbacks of this programme is the inability of the planters

to furnish adequate security for the loan. To make it easier for

planters to avail of the loan, the Government should relax the

security condition.

2. Village housing project scheme (1957): This scheme was

introduced in the Second Five Year plan period (1957) as a centrally

sponsored scheme, to create a healthy environment in the rural areas.

The scheme was later transferred to the State sector during the Third

Five Year Plan. Under this scheme the beneficiaries were given loan

facilities up to 80 per cent of the house construction cost. By the end

of 1985, 1,59,522 houses were constructed at the cost of Rs.7.97

crores, at the rate of Rs 5,000 per unit. On an average 5,697 houses

were constructed, at the cost of Rs. 28.48 lakhs per year. The reason

behind the slow progress of the programme has been the low priority

accorded by the state governments to the scheme.

3. Provision of house sites-cum-hut construction for landless

workers in rural areas (1971): This was introduced in the year 1971,

as per the recommendations of the State Minister’s Housing and

Urban Development Conference held in 1970. This is a centrally

sponsored scheme, which consisted of providing houses and house-

sites to landless agricultural labourers in the rural areas. Under this

scheme 100 per cent assistance was given to State Governments to

113

meet this purpose. By the end of 1985, 54,30,000 house sites had

been distributed under this scheme,(on an average of 3,84,857 sites

per year). This clearly shows that the Government effort had not

touched even the fringe of the problem. The planning commission

observed that “It appears that the Government, during the plan

period, has been pre-occupied with urban housing and has almost

neglected rural housing, thinking that it will take care of itself”.

II Urban Areas:

The Urban Housing Schemes are of two types, viz. (A)

Subsidised Housing Schemes and (B) Non-subsidised housing

schemes.

(A) Subsidised Housing Schemes : 1.The Subsidised Industrial

Housing Scheme and Integrated Subsidised Housing Schemes:

These were introduced during the First Five Year plan, in 1952 to

meet the housing needs of the low paid industrial workers (whose

income did not exceed Rs.350 per month) and of the economically

weaker sections of society. By the end of the year 1985, 2,57,183

houses were constructed, (on an average of 7793 per year) indicate

that the achievement of the scheme was not satisfactory. The factor

contributing to the slow progress of the scheme was the fixation of a

monthly income of Rs.350 for the beneficiaries of this scheme. If

the monthly income crossed Rs.350 then the labourer had to vacate

the house or he had to pay an uneconomical rent. Secondly, the

houses constructed for industrial workers were far away from the

place of work. The National Commission on Labour has observed

114

that “ the low priority given by the State Governments to housing

projects, non - utilisation of even small financial allocations made,

scarcity of land in urban areas, high cost of building materials and

adequate capacity of workers to pay even subsidized rents”.

2. The slum clearance and Improvement Scheme was

introduced in 1956 by the Government of India, to rehabilitate slum

dwellers in the urban areas. Under the scheme 87.5 percent of

approved cost (50 percent loan and 37.5 percent as subsidy) would

be given by the Central Government to the beneficiaries, whose

income did not exceed Rs.350 per month. The remaining 12.5 per

cent was to be financed by the State Governments.

According to the 1981 Census, India had a slum population of

28 million which constituted to 17.50 percent of the urban

population. About 1,15,480 families had been shifted and re housed

by the end of 1980 (on an average of 4811 families per year). The

rate of growth of the programme was only 0.33 per cent leaving the

remaining 99.67 per cent still had to be re-housed. The estimate of

slum population during 1991 census was 45.7 million slum dwellers

accounting for 21.5 per cent of the population. According to the

2001 census, there are 40.6 million persons living in slums in 607

towns/cities and they account for 22.8 per cent of population of these

cities.

However, the latest census data also reflect the problems

inherent in not having an accepted definition of slums and absence

115

of proper listing of slum settlements in the urban offices concerned

with slum improvement and civic amenities

While demographic data on slum populations and on civic

amenities to slum dwellers from the census are still awaited, there

appears to be no change in the basic level or improvement in the

features of settlements despite several decades of programmes for

the environmental improvement and upgradation of slums. There is

cause to wonder whether “cities without slums” is a slogan about an

objective, which, however desirable, is believed to be unreachable,

or whether it is a serious planning and urban development concern.

Certainly the degree of effort to upgrade slums to a more habitable

level, does not indicate a serious effort in this direction.

Various Central Government Schemes – National Slum

Development Programme (CSDP), Swarna Jayanti Shahri Rozgar

Yojana (SJSRY), VAMBAY, Night Shelters, Two million housing

Scheme, Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme (AUWSP),

Low-cost sanitation – provide a wide range of services to the urban

poor including slum dwellers.

It is clear from the analysis that the progress made by the

programme is not satisfactory, the main reason for this being the

non-availability of cheaper alternative land for re-housing the slum

families. Secondly, there is the unwillingness of slum dwellers to

shift their families to new locales. It has been rightly observed that:

“One of the most important causes for the persistence of slums in

116

India is socio-psychological or cultural which has three dimensions.

First, the slum dweller does not fully realize the repercussions of the

subhuman conditions; he lives in, on his health, efficiency,

productivity and mortality. This may be termed as the factor of

ignorance, fortified by superstition and resulting in a resignation to

‘fate’. The second is reluctance to change the prevailing conditions,

and even where state or external action improves his material

environment, his unwillingness to pick up the thread and forge

ahead. This may be termed as factor of personal indifference and

habit of public dependence. Thirdly, the resident’s inability or

unwillingness to co-operate among themselves in facing the evils,

and to keep on collectively trying to improve. This is the factor of

mutual destruct and misplaced self-interest.

(B) Non-subsidised housing schemes: These include (1) LIG

Housing Scheme (2) MIG Housing scheme (3) Rental Housing

scheme for State Government employees and (4) Land acquisition

and development scheme.

1. The Low Income Housing Scheme was started in 1954 to

provide long term house building loans at a reasonable rate of

interest to persons whose income did not exceed Rs.7,200 per year.

Under the scheme, loan will be given up to 80 per cent of the cost of

construction, including land cost, subject to a maximum of Rs

14,500 per unit. Now under the scheme the income range for

eligibility for LIG housing is Rs. 701 to Rs.1500 per month. The

117

ceiling fixed for the cost of the house was Rs 30,000, while that for

the Government loan was Rs 23,500.

By the end of 1985, 3,74,856 units of such houses had been

constructed under the scheme, on an average of 12092 per year.

Needless of say that, the performance of the programme is

unsatisfactory. The planning Commission observed that, on account

of high land prices and lack of suitability developed sites, progress

in the construction of houses under this scheme has not been as rapid

as was hoped for”. Also, the majority of the individuals in the low

income group cannot afford to meet the remaining 20 per cent of the

cost of the house.

2. The Middle Income Housing Scheme was introduced in

1959, financed by the Life Insurance Corporation, through the state

governments. Under this scheme, loan will be given up to 80 per

cent of the cost of the house, to persons whose income ranges

between Rs.1501 and Rs.2500 per month. The ceiling cost of the

construction was fixed Rs 75,000. Under this Scheme 75,665 houses

were constructed by the end of 1985, on an average of 3065 houses

per year.

3. The Rental Housing scheme for state Government

Employees was introduced in the year 1959, to solve the housing

problem of the low paid employees and the middle income group of

the State Government Employees. Some 58,195 houses were

118

constructed under this scheme, by the end of 1985, on an average of

2328 houses per year.

4. The Land Acquisition and Development scheme was

introduced in 1959, to enable state Government to acquire and

develop land in urban areas and to make it available at reasonable

prices to house builders. The very objective of this programme was

to stabilise land prices and to develop colonies. As on June 1982,

some 34,97,798 acres of land had been acquired. On an average of

1,52,078 acres of land per year. The land developed as on 1982 was

about 18,80,254 acres, on the average of 81,750 acres of land per

year.

It is clear from the above analysis that the acquisition of land

is much higher than the development of land. As such, much of the

acquired land remains undeveloped; Added to this, there is

significant under-utilisation of the developed land due to the

inadequate allocation of funds to this programme. It has been rightly

observed that “the rate of utilisation of the acquired land is much

less than the rate of acquisition both in the public and private sectors

with the result that much of the acquired land remains unutilized for

a long period”. As prof. Minhas (1970), The Poor, the Weak and the

Fourth Plan, in Fonseca (Ed.), Challenge of Poverty in India has

observed “Experience in many centers shows that those who have

foreign income and black money, take part actively in auctions and

are benefited while really needy people for whom this scheme has

been formulated are relegated to the background”.

119

To sum up, though the country implemented many social

housing schemes to solve the housing problem and to improve the

environment of the settlements of low, middle income groups and

economically weaker sections of the society, the physical

achievements are not up to the mark due to inadequate finance and

the low priority accorded to the housing sector by the Central and

State governments. Further, the social housing schemes like

subsidized Industrial housing and the housing scheme for plantation

workers have not touched even the fringe of the housing problem of

these two classes. The factors attributed to the slow progress of

these schemes are the fixation of a monthly income of Rs.350 in

order to be eligible for the allotment of a house; if the monthly

income exceeds this amount then the tenant has to either vacate the

house, or has to pay an uneconomical rent. Another negative factor

that has vitiated the success of this housing scheme is the distance of

the houses from the place of work. Thirdly, under the LIG and MIG

housing schemes it would be desirable to sanction loans that would

cover the entire cost of the house, since the beneficiaries of these

schemes being in the low and middle income brackets are very often

not able to contribute even to the extent of 20 per cent of the total

cost of construction, as they are expected to do under the existing

scheme. Further, most of the housing schemes are urban-oriented

and there is a need for the extension of these programmes to rural

areas, since the housing problem in the rural areas is very acute.

Apart from this, there must be a comprehensive policy to prevent

120

dissuade migration from rural areas to urban centers so that the

problem of slum could be solved to some extent and voluntary and

other agencies like co-operatives should be encouraged to take part

in the process of solving the housing problem. The Government

should educate the people about health and environment and make

them take part in the policies and programmes of the Government.

Housing Finance

Housing Finance is considered to be a challenging task before

any government because of its long-term nature and requirement of

massive investment. 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s can perhaps be

described as the once in which institution building in the field of

human settlement financing took place. However, the actual impact

of these initiatives varied from state to state. A major problem that

continued to daunt the government efforts was related to providing

housing finance to a vast majority of low-income families whose

housing needs were acute. Further, apart from low-income, the flow

of income in regard to many families, particularly those working in

the informal sector, was uncertain and irregular which added another

dimension to the problem of loan recovery, such families required a

long period of payment and soft terms of loan which was not

available from institutions run on commercial principles. It was in

this context that the government decided to establish HUDCO as a

sectoral institution for comprehensively dealing with the problem of

growing housing shortages, raising number of slums and for

fulfilling the pressing needs of the economically weaker section of

121

the society. The establishment of HUDCO during 1970 was aimed at

accelerating the pace of construction and elimination of housing

shortage and for orderly development of rural areas as well urban

centers. In the context of India, financing weaker and disadvantaged

group was more challenging. As such the Housing Financial System

(HFS) was not ready to extend the benefits to such clients. The

World Bank Working Paper (1984) “Housing and Financial

Institutions in Developing Countries,” has observed that “India is an

example of a yet undeveloped housing finance system operating in a

centralized environment of close government control and relying on

the capital markets rather than directly on the public for its

resources. At present the greatest proportion of housing financial

needs (over 95%) are met through informal arrangements. National

Institutions are just in the process of expanding their activities

throughout the states. The capital market of India operates under a

system of credit allocation and light regulations by the Reserve Bank

of India.” The HFS consists of two institutions at the nation level

namely, (1) the Housing and Urban Development Corporation

(HUDCO), and (2) Housing Development Finance Corporation

(HDFC), is a public agency serving the lower income groups

drawing long-term resources essentially from two nationalized

insurance companies as well as benefiting from some budgetary

inputs whereas the HDFC serves the population of income higher

than the groups serviced by (HUDCO). It is mobilizing its resources

from the regulated capital markets.

122

Generally speaking, HFS of India falls under two sources, viz.,

formal and informal. Formal ones include budgetary support of

Central, State and Union Territories, plus resources from General

Financial Institutions (GFIs) such as Life Insurance Corporation

(LIC), General Insurance Corporation (GIC) and commercial banks,

plus House Finacial Institutions (HFIs), the National Housing Bank

(NHB), HUDCO, HDFC, Housing Cooperatives and specialized

subsidiaries of various banks and companies. Informal HFS are

primarily found in the private sector. In a study made by Mulk Raj,

(“Housing Affordability …” in R.N.Sharma (ed.), Indo-Swedish

Perspectives on Affordable housing, Bombay, TISS, 1994, P.127)

has observed “despite a rapid growth in the HFS over years,

resources from the formal sources constitute only around 16 per cent

of the total investment in housing sector because of its weak

financial base which can be attributed to lack of popular

participation through household savings for housing. Further, all the

above institutions excepting government have confined their

activities for financing building construction activities (i.e.,

construction of houses). The governments in certain cases extend

finances and land acquisition operations for less privileged in rural

areas.

Renu S.Karnad “Housing finance and the economy; Regional

Trends South Asia: perspectives” presented at the 25th World

Congress on International Union for Housing Finance, held at

Brussels June 2004 observes, while South Asia is the 2nd fastest

123

growing region, it continues to remain one of the Poorest regions in

the world. The region’s large and growing urban population is

spurring governments to think their strategies on housing related

activities. A clear emerging issues is that private capital is

imperative to create permanent and supportive housing solutions. He

also observes that the housing finance sector in India has undergone

unprecedented change over the past five years. The importance of

the housing sector in India can be judged by the estimate that for

every Indian rupee invested in construction of houses, Rs. 0.78 is

added to the gross domestic product of the country and real estates

sector is subservient to the development of 269 other industries.

This sector is also the 2nd largest employment generator in the

economy.

The total number of houses that would be required

cumulatively during the Tenth Plan period (2002-2007) was

estimated at 22.44 million dwelling units. However, this official

estimate was based on the 1991 Census and unofficial estimates peg

the current housing shortage in India at 40 million units. Further, the

Tenth Five Year Plan estimated an outlay of INR 7,263 billion to the

housing sector, of which the contribution envisaged from public

institutional sources, was only INR 4,150 billion. Therefore,

substantial contribution from private sector is absolute necessary to

tackle the growing housing shortage.

124

Home Loan Disbursements (In Rs. crores)

Year HFCs Banks Total

Growth over

previous year (%)

1999-2000 9812.03 9911.35 19723.38 -

2000-2001 12637.85 9787.24 22425.09 13.70

2001-2002 14614.44 14744.85 29359.29 30.92

2002-2003 17832.17* 33840.5 51672.7 76.00

* Provisional figure. Source: National Housing Bank (NHB)

HUDCO As a Social Institution

At the beginning of the Fourth plan it was realized that the

site and service programme along with environmental improvement

of slums would be a better solutions to ameliorate housing problems

in comparison to earlier strategy of providing formal housing.

HUDCO was expected to play a leading role in formulating and

implementing these policy shifts. The Fifth plan witnessed the

emergence of symbiotic relationship between HUDCO and urban

authority like Housing Board, Slum Improvement Boards and Co-

Operative Societies. During Sixth and Seventh Plan period it

expanded its operations significantly in some of the less developed

states. It became powerful vehicle for carrying out the mandate of

the National Housing Policy in both rural and urban areas.

HUDCO has emerged as the single largest institution meeting

the housing requirements of all categories of population in the

125

country as of now, and also ranks among the largest facilitators of

housing delivery in the world. As per Census 2001, the housing

shortage in the country was 31.1 million. Of this, a substantial

proportion was estimated to meet the requirements of weaker

sections and low income groups in the rural and urban areas.

Financing of housing projects for the weaker sections and low

income groups do not give competitive rate of return, and as such

fail to attract adequate private investment.

As of how, there are 46 recognised HFCs in India.

Commercial Banks also have been lending for housing more actively

in the recent past. The quantum of housing finance provided by these

institutions has grown by 30-40% over the last 2-3 years. However,

the reach to the poor has been marginal. The Housing Finance

Companies (HFCs) and Commercial Banks (CBs) mainly cater to

the middle and higher income group categories of population. As per

the latest Reserve Bank of India (RBI) report on Trends and

Progress, although scheduled Commercial Banks as well as housing

finance companies have led the robust growth in credit to housing

sector since the late 1990s, but the housing needs of the poor and

low income groups have remained unaddressed. It is precisely this

unmet need which makes HUDCO`s role and relevance more

significant. With more than 55 per cent of its entire housing portfolio

funds utilized for supporting the weaker section and low income

category, HUDCO proved to be only institution of this kind in the

country. With the increasing shortage of housing and declining

126

quantum of financial support from other financing institutions,

HUDCO has been one institution for comprehensive techno–

financing and affordable assistance for ensuring the housing delivery

in India.

As there is a substantial gap between the demand and supply

in housing and infrastructure requirement, the issue of adequate

provisions needs a concerted and comprehensive approach, which

involves all the stakeholders in the delivery. Thus, there is a need to

involve as many possible institution of both formal and informal

nature in this process. Availability of funds, internal technical

stability of process and system of project conception,

implementation and monitoring, all form important components

required in the delivery process

HUDCO is the pioneer techno–financial institution to

introduce the affordability criteria, to enable the housing solutions

offered to the EWS and LIG families, acceptable/feasible. It has also

demonstrated that shelter solutions within reasonable cost ceilings

are actually possible, through appropriate innovations in planning,

designing, technological options and financial engineering. These

objectives are amply demonstrated in a number of low cost / low

income housing projects implemented by HUDCOs borrowing

clients such as Housing Boards, Development Authorities, Slum

Clearance Board and Housing corporations etc. Over the years,

HUDCO has emerged as a market leader in financing several

projects covering both urban and rural areas. It has extended a

127

financial assistance of Rs.35,754 crores for the implementation of

21-53 projects for a divert basket of sectors which includes Utility

infrastructure (water supply, sanitation, sewerage, drainage, solid

waste management, roads, bridges etc;), Social infrastructure

(schools and colleges, health facilities covering hospitals, health

centers, recreational facilities such as stadium, parks etc;) and

Commercial infrastructure (shopping/commercial complexes,

technology park and entertainment centers and industrial

infrastructure. The India Infrastructure Report has highlighted that

HUDCO has contributed about 85 per cent of funding for the urban

infrastructure development in the country.

During its more than three and a half decades of existence it

has extended assistance for 150.93 lakh dwelling units both in urban

and rural areas. The financial assistance covers the housing needs of

every section of the society, with special emphasis on the weaker

sections and the deprived. About 92 per cent of the 150.93 lakh

houses financed by HUDCO are for the benefit of Economically

weaker sections and Low Income Categories. Thus, HUDCO is

emerged has a unique institution of social relevance in the country.

(EWS 74.53%, LIG 17.13%, MIG 5.86% and HIG 2.48 %.) The role

of HUDCO in house financing has been presented in Annexure.

Rural housing did not receive much attention during the first

25 years of planning. The rehabilitation programmes of the Ministry

of Refugees Rehabilitation provided, until around 1960, housing to

about 5 lakh households, mainly in Northern India. A Village

128

Housing Scheme was also launched in 1957 as part of the

community development movement, under which loans were

provided to individuals and co-operatives, subject to a ceiling of Rs

5,000 per house and 67,000 houses were built under this scheme by

the end of the Fifth Plan (1980). The Estimates Committee in its 37th

Report (1972-73), expressed distress at the unsatisfactory conditions

of kutcha housing in rural areas and the apathy of the Government.

In response to this, the Housing Sites-cum-Construction Assistance

Scheme was launched as a Central Scheme in the Fourth Plan which

was later transferred to the State Sector in April 1974, on the

recommendation of the NDC.

Under the IAY housing programme from 1985-86 to 1996-97,

it was estimated that 37.16 lakh houses will be constructed with an

investment of Rs.5038 crores. The IAY programme has been

recognized as a positive support activity that has provided to the

homeless poor in rural areas a feeling of security and has facilitated

their integration in the emerging social milieu. An evaluation of the

programme by the Planning Commission (1993) has brought out a

high satisfaction rate, with 84 per cent of the beneficiaries being

satisfied with their houses. States have accepted as a major activity

and almost every year since its inception, the annual targets have

been exceeded. The programme received a major thrust in the Eighth

Plan, particularly in 1995-96, when the outlay was substantially

enhanced from Rs.437.69 crores in 1994-95 to Rs.1368.34 crore in

1995-96. During the Eighth Plan period, the total allocation was Rs

129

3821.73 crore, utilizing Rs.3781.63 crore (99% of allocation) 26.21

lakh houses were built (86.7% against the target of 30.22 lakh).

The Ninth Five Year Plan document observed “Housing has

been always a people`s activity and continued to be so during the

Ninth Plan period both in urban and rural areas. Special attention on

household at the lower end of the housing market identified for such

support for example people below the poverty line, SC/ST, disabled,

freed bonded labourers, slum dwellers and women-headed

household. It was also decided to have minimum adequacy norms to

be evolved which include per capita living space, structural

durability, access to drinking water with minimum quantitative and

qualitative norms, sanitation facilities and connectivity.

Governments as a facilitator, create the environment in which access

to all the requisite inputs in time, in adequate quantum and of

appropriate quality and standard. All housing delivery systems, such

as the co-operatives, private sector, community groups, and peoples’

self efforts will be stimulated to make their contributions to new

housing stock as well as up gradation and renewal of the existing

staff. It also resolved to encourage the formation of new co-

operatives from the planning stage of the housing programme and to

maintain a high continuity rate of the original members.”

130

Institutional linkages

In view of increasing responsibility of the government,

especially for the development of core sectors of the society, it has

not been in a position to wholly finance the housing activities. Thus,

it has created and sponsored specialized public institutions to finance

housing activities. Currently, it has become mandatory on the part of

a few public sector institutions to set aside a portion of their

investible funds exclusively for housing. Life Insurance Corporation

of India (LIC) is one such obligatory institution which has been

playing a crucial role in financing the state government’s social

housing schemes. The Report on the Working Group on the Role of

the Banking system of RBI, 1978 has observed that, (1) LIC a

leading source of borrowing not only for the state governments but

also for the Cooperative Apex Housing Societies, and (2) Similarly,

the GIC of India, is required to advance 35 per cent of resources as

loans to state governments for housing for loans, bonds, debentures

and preference share of HUDCO out of its total investment in the

economy. Furthermore, even though commercial banks were

entrusted with the social obligation of financing housing, their

attitude till early 1980s was essentially profit – oriented. But during

mid 1980s the Reserve Bank of India in its Annual Report 1988-89,

reiterated the essential role of banking sector in house financing and

fixed the sub-target : (a) At least 30 per cent of the allocation should

be reserved for direct lending. Of this, at least of (15%) should be

disbursed in rural and semi urban areas, (b) further 30 per cent of the

131

allocation may be channelised by way of term loans to house finance

companies, housing boards and other public housing agencies, and

(c) the balance of 40 per cent of the allocation should be provided in

the form of subscription in the guaranteed bonds and debentures of

the NHB and HUDCO.

However, the report of RBI 1978 Financing for Housing

Schemes has observed in spite of such sub-targets, the commercial

banks were hesitant to enter into the housing activities which hold

good even today. They are: (a) the legitimate use of bank credit is

considered to be limited to finance the working capital needs of

commerce, industry and trade, (b) banks do not like to tie-up their

resources, which are mainly short term in nature, to long-term uses

like housing, and (c) owing to legal and other practical problems,

banks find it difficult to realize the of security in the event of default.

One of the notable developments in the HFS is the spurt in the

institutional activities both in public and private sectors. HUDCO

being a central government organization has been concentrated on

weaker sections of housing programmes, both in urban and rural

areas since it inception. Where as the HDFC, being the leading

sector organization catering to the housing finance need of those

who have the repaying capacity especially the high income groups.

On the other hand, NHB which is expected to be an apex, prudent,

strategic bank and leader in the system has remained as an

undetermined institution.

132

All the above institutions are excessively depending on capital

market for their financial resources and none of these institutions has

been systematically able to tap the potential source of household

savings, fully towards housing. The declared objectives of the NHB

are: (1) promote savings for housing, (2) establish a net work

(offices) of housing finance outlets, and (3) encourage flow of credit

and real resource to the common man. But none of these objectives

has been met successfully. The reasons are quite obvious. The Draft

Housing Policy, May 1990 of Ministry of Urban Development,

Government of India has observed, firstly, the clients under its

savings promotion programme are mostly the white collar job-

holders and business people operating in urban areas. This does not

mean that low income groups and people in rural areas are excluded

but they have not been motivated for house related savings and

refinancing facilities. It has turned out to be an optional for them to

come under the purview of NHBs operations in the absence of such

motivation. Second, the excessive dependence on commercial banks

for its operations of savings mobilization and refinancing has

constrained the NHB from fully achieving the above objectives. On

account of these, the intended objective of mobilising Rs.1000 crore

per annum under its Home Loan Account (HLA) has not been

materialized. The Annual Report of 1992-93 reviews the

performance of the NHB from 1989-1993. Between July 1989 and

June 1993, NHB has been able to mobilize only Rs.308.87 crore

from 6.45 lakh account holders. This works out to be an average of

Rs.77.22 crore per year which is just 7.7 per cent of what was

133

targeted. As has been mentioned, another setback to the operation of

HLA scheme is that commercial banks are not showing expected

participation in mobilization of savings as the HLA scheme of NHB

is comparatively flexible with regard to interest rate both for saving,

refinancing and other terms and conditions than that of the house

relating schemes of commercial banks.

This chapter has dealt with the housing sector at the All India

Level in the National economy, the investment and different housing

programmes implemented during the plan periods are discussed.

Besides, it has also dealt the country’s response to the UN Agenda,

by adopting National Policy and institutionalizing the different

housing programmes in the country for the over all development. It

also gives an account of housing finance and the network established

for an equitable economic development. The next Chapter III

discusses “Housing the poor” in Karnataka State.

134

Annexure: Role of HUDCO, NHB and Other Agencies in Housing Sector in India.

Housing Scheme Focus and Target Funding Pattern

and Agencies Implementing Agencies Physical Achievements

Urban Areas

Valmiki-

Ambedkar malin

Basti Awaas

Yojana(2001)

To provide shelter

and upgrade the

existing shelter for

the urban slum dwellers living

below poverty line.

Govt. of India 50

% Subsidy and

State Govts. 50%

(Subsidy for loan from HUDCO or

other Fis).

State govts. through their

Slum Development Board

and reputed NGO’s

An amount of Rs.74 Crores was spent

in implementating the scheme by

state governments.

Housing Scheme

for Economically

Weaker Sections.

To provide to the

economically

weaker sections in

urban areas.

Central and State

Govts. Refinance

of National

Housing Bank,

Cooperatives and

others.

State Govts. Through

Housing Boards.

650592 housing units were

constructed between 1996-7 and

2001-2.

Housing Schemes

for Low income

groups.

To provide to low-

income group

families in urban

areas.

Central and State

Governments.

State Govts. Through

Housing Boards.

104488 housing units were

constructed during the same period.

Environment

Improvement of

Urban Slums.

To ameliorate the

degrading

environmental conditions and to

improve

infrastructural

Central Govt.

under National

Slum Develop ment Programme.

State Govt. with

HUDCOs

State Govts. through their

Slum Clearance/Development

Board.

As many as 1.72 Crore slum families

covered during the same period.

135

amenities in slums. assistance.

Night Shelter and

Sanitation for

Footpath

Dwellers.

To provide shelter

and amenities to

footpath dwellers in

all urban areas.

Central

Government and

HUDCO.

Through State

Govts. @ 50%

ratio.

State Governments with the

support of local bodies.

115 schemes under different stages of

implementation to provide 17000

beds, 29000 washing and cleaning

units, 2147 baths and 1928 urinals.

Building Centers and Training

Extension.

Impart training to artisans in low cost

construction skills

and providing

building materials

and components by

utilizing

Agro0Industrial

wastes.

Government of India Grant of Rs.

15.12 Crores to

these centers.

National network of Nirman Kendras.

436 Centers have become functional and about 2.10 lakh construction

workers and artisans trained.

Indira Awaas

Yojana (1985-86)

To provide

assistance to construct Houses for

SCs/STs, freed

bonded households

(60%) and non-

SCs/STs. (40%)

including families of

Ex-service persons,

Physically and

Mentally challenged

Government of

India 80% and State

Governments

20%.

Panchayati Raj Institutions. Over 49 lakhs housing units were

constructed during the period 1997-98 & 2001-2.

136

persons.

Samagra Awaas

yojana (1999-

2000)

Integrated

development of

housing and housing

amenities and

habitat development

with information,

education and

communication, for

the poorer sections.

Government of

India and central

assistance of

Rs.25 lakhs to

each block with

10% contribution

from the people.

Panchayati Raj Institutions Not Available.

Pradhan Manthri

Gramodaya

Yojana-Gramin

Awaas (2000-01)

To achieve

sustainable human

development.

Government of

India provided

Rs. 280 Crores

during 2001-02.

Panchayati Raj Insitutions. Not Available.

NABARD’s

Refinance (2001-

02)

Construction of new

houses and

renovation of existing houses.

NABARD. Eligible agencies registered

under NHB.

Not Available.

Two Million

Housing

Programme.

(1998)

20 lakh (13 in rural

and 7 in urban

areas) houses every

year for EWS. LIG

families.

Public Sector

Banks and

Housing Finance

Companies.

PSBs and HFCs in

coordination with local

bodies.

13.47 lakhs units were reportedly

constructed till 2001-02.

Source: National Housing Bank (2002), Report on Trend and Progress of Housing in India, Mumbai.