study of status of common property resources in teliadhad ...source: the villagers in this area...

1

Study of Status of Common Property Resources in Teliadhad Village,

Burhanpur District

Aga Khan Rural Support Programme India (AKRSP(I))

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Background and objectives of the study .......................................................................... 4 2. Section – I – Status of CPR in Teliadhad .......................................................................... 6

2.1 Village Profile –Teliadhad........................................................................................... 6 2.2 Classification of CPR in Teliadhad............................................................................ 10 2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 16

3. Management of Commons............................................................................................... 17 3.1Understanding of Land Laws in Madhya Pradesh...................................................... 17 3.2 Management Practices of Villagers ........................................................................... 19

3.2.1 Understanding of CPR by villagers .................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Decision making authority on CPR .................................................................... 21 3.2.4Role of Administrative Authorities in protecting CPR........................................ 23 3.2.5 Key Findings....................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 26 Glossary ............................................................................................................................... 28

List of Figures

Figure 1 : Level of Survey ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2 : Level of survey category-wise………………………………………………….12 Figure 3 : Level of encroachment………………………………………………………….12 Figure 4 : Type of encroachment and payment of fine........................................................ 15

List of Tables

Table 1 :Demograhic detail………………………………………………………………... 6 Table 2 : Village profile…………………………………………………………………….7 Table 3 : Status of agriculture………………………………………………………………8 Table 4 : Work done by AKRSP(I)…………………………………………………………9 Table 5 : Classification of revenue land in Teliadhad……………………………………..10 Table 6 : Encroachment status on 99 parcels surveyed……………………………………13 Table 7 : Dejure vs. defacto status on 99 parcels surveyed……………………………… .13 Table 8 : Current status of CPR as against 1972-1973……………………………………14 List of Annexures

Annexure 1 : Questionnaire based on Elinor Ostrom’s Principles……………………… 31 Annexure 2 : Schedule for interview with Tehsildar …………………………………… 32

3

List of Abbreviations

AKRSP (I) - Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India)

CPR – Common Property Resources

FPC –Forest Protection Committee

MPLRC – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code

NA – Not Applicable

SDM- Sub-Divisional Magistrate

SDO- Sub-Divisional Officer

VDC – Village Development Committee

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and objectives of the study Rural common property resources are broadly defined as resources towards which all

members of an identifiable community have inalienable user rights. In the Indian context

CPR include Community Pastures, Community Forests, Government Wastelands, Common

Dumping and Threshing Grounds, Watershed Drainages, Village Ponds and Rivers etc. The

first three resources are particularly important because of their large area and their

contribution to people's sustenance."1

At present the percentage of common property land resource in total geographical area of

the country is 15 % as per the NSSO study. If we also include the forest lands in this

definition of CPR, then there is another 23.38 % of the country's geographical area which is

being managed by the forest department and is serving as an important source of livelihood

and ecological buffer for the population.

Efforts to understand CPR their size, status and their contribution started as early as the

1980s, but they were mostly in the form of case studies. The NSSO enquiry (Report no.

452) was one the first attempts to provide comprehensive state and national level estimates

of size, utilization and contribution of CPR. However it still falls short of suggesting

measures required to improve the administration of CPR as well as to facilitate their

development for the coming generations.

Sewamandir an organization based out of Udaipur, had undertaken a study entitled

‘Safeguarding Commons for the next generation with a view to understand the status of

CPR along with the complexities involved in the management of commons across different

agro-climatic zones in the country. The study was conducted through field partners in the

states selected under different agro-climatic zones. AKRSP(I) was chosen as one of the

partners in Madhya Pradesh. This report forms part of the study report undertaken in the

two villages of Amulyakhurd and Teliadhad in the district of Burhanpur in Madhya

Pradesh.

The objectives of the study are:

• the dejure vs. defacto status of the CPR in the villages

• the shrinkage in land area allotted for CPR as compared to a base year (1972-1973)

��

5

• status and management of commons in the villages

1.2 Methods

This report consists of two sections, the first section is on the status of CPR in the village

Teliadhad and the second section is on the management of CPR in this village. For this

purpose the study has been done in two parts; one is a quantitative part and the other a

qualitative part. The quantitative part of the study is used to understand (i) the dejure vs.

defacto status of the CPR in the village and (ii) the shrinkage in land area allotted for CPR

as compared to base revenue settlement year of 1972-73. This was done through a format

which captured the following details:

• �� !��"�!�� "#�

• State of grazing: open, closed (based on visual inspection for boundary walls);

• Total area unoccupied (ha) (based on visual estimate);

• Area of encroachment (ha) (based on visual estimate);

• Age of encroachment: an estimate obtained from local stakeholders when available;

• Use of encroachment: (H) houses on encroached land, (A) agricultural field, (W)

wasteland, (L) livestock enclosures, (U) unenclosed livestock areas (open for

grazing);

• State of vegetation: well-vegetated (WV), sparse (S), scrub vegetation (SV) (based

on visual estimate).

The data was captured through a transient walk in the village, supported by photo

documentation and triangulation with village contact person. For understanding the

shrinkage in land area allotted for CPR as compared to base year of 1972-173, data

obtained from Land Records Department, Madhya Pradesh was used.The qualitative

part of the study was primarily to understand from the villagers the status and

management of commons in the village and to understand the relevant legislations. This

was done through interviews with the villagers on separate occasions based on Elinor

Ostrom’s principles and also through interview with the Tehsildar of Khakhnar, Tehsil.

An understanding of the land laws was developed through a literature review of the

relevant land legislation governing CPR which in the case of Teliadhad is Madhya

6

Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) 1959.

2. Section – I – Status of CPR in Teliadhad

2.1 Village Profile –Teliadhad

Teliyadhad is a revenue village and is located in the Khaknar block of Burhanpur district at

a distance of nearly 83 km from district headquarters of Burhanpur. It belongs to Teliadhad

gram panchayat. It is a tribal village with 168 households primarily dominated by Korku

tribal community. The demographic details of the village are mentioned in the table (please

refer table 1).

Table 1: Demographic Detail Parameter Numbers Households 168 ST 167 SC 0 OBC 1 Gen 0 Other 0 Agri Based 81 Agri based and Labor 73 Labor 14 Retail shop 0 Service 0 Male adult 436 Female adult 463

Sex Ratio 1061 females per 1000

males Source: Primary data collected through PRA

As can be seen from the demographic data, it is a fairly homogenous community with not

much of socio-economic disparities as most of them belong to the Korku tribe and resort to

agriculture and migration. Also majority of them are small farmers i.e 73 % of them belong

to this category (refer table 2). Also the sex ratio of the village with 1027 females per 1000

males is good.

7

Table 2 : Village Profile District Burhanpur Block Khaknar Nearest Market Shekpura Population 963 No. of Households 172 % ST 99 % Literacy rate 46 % Sex ratio 1027 females per 1000 males Cattle population • Cows- 104

• Ox- 245 • Buffalo- 22 • Goats- 119 • Poultry- 144

Land use pattern ( in hectares) Total area

• Private land • Government land • Land under cultivation • Irrigated land • Un-irrigated land • Forest land

702 Ha 465.8 Ha 236.36 Ha 411 Ha 27.52 Ha 405.2 Ha 0 Ha

Main crop Kharif Rabi

Soybean, Cotton, Maize, Sorghum, Pigeon pea Wheat, Onion, Gram

Soil type Yellow and Black soil Topography Undulating Average Rainfall 850 mm No. of Stream 3 Education facility • Primary School- Available

• Middle School- Available within 5 km

• College – More than 10 km Health facility • PHC- More than 3 km

• Anganwadi – Available Credit facility • Credit Co-operative Society-

Between 5km and 10 km • Commercial Bank – Between 5 km

and 10 km

8

The total land area in the village is quite large at 702.6 hectares. Out of which only 15 % of

the area is irrigated; remaining area is under rain-fed farming.

However agriculture is the primary occupation of the people in the village and the major

cropping season is kharif. Major kharif crops grown are soyabean, pigeon pea, sorgum,

cotton and minor millets. Some farmers also grow watermelon and vegetables in the Tapti

riverbed. Cattle-rearing is not a major livelihood option here as they have to walk an

average of 9 km to sell milk in the nearest market. During the lean season, people migrate

to Akola, Dharni and Jalgaon in Maharastra and work as agricultural labourers in

harvesting of sugarcane, cotton and soybean.

Table 3 : Status of agriculture Landless (in number) 5

Marginal farmer (in number) 18

Small farmer (in number) 126

Large farmer (in number) 19

No irrigation facility 130

Pond (in number) 0

River (in number) 1

tubewell 2

well 35

well and motor 0

well and pond 0

Source: Primary data collected through PRA

AKRSP (I) s intervention in the village

The only external facilitating agency present in the region is AKRSP (I). It has been

working in Teliadhad since 2005 and has undertaken plantation work on 30 hectares of

common land .The work done by AKRSP (I) in the region is summarized in the table.

9

Table 4: Work done by AKRSP (I) STATUS OF PHYSICAL PROGRESS

Programme Activity Unit Achievement

Water Resource

Development

• Individual Well

Deepening

• Group Well

• Mobile Engine

• PVC Pipe

Number

Number

Number

Number

2

6

10

176

SWC • Field Bunding

• Boribandh

• Gabion

• Nala bandhan

• Gully Plug

• Farm Pond

Hectares

Number

Number

Number

Number

Number

367

24

9

44

16

1

Agriculture • Sprinklers

• Agriculture

equipment

• Demonstration

• Grass Seeds

• Plantation

• Input Supply

• Horticulture

• Creeper

• Deep Ploughing

Number

Number

Number

Kilograms

Number

Household

Household

Household

Household

5

9

29

30

115000

76

15

3

35

• Goat Rearing Household 14 Animal Husbandry

• Vaccination Number 199

10

2.2 Classification of CPR in Teliadhad There is high incidence of common lands in the village of Teliadhad. The main

classification of CPR in Teliadhad are of the following categories nalla, grasslands,

pasturelands, pathways, abadi (residential area), kalyan (threshing ground), kabristhan

(burial ground) and pashu vishram (cattle resting place) (please refer table 5). There is

overlap between the CPR and village boundary i.e all the CPR in the village is located

within the village boundary.

Table 5: Classification of revenue land in Teliadhad Land Category Area (hectares) % of total

area

% of CPR

Abadi 3.76 0.53 1.59

Kabristhan 0.67 0.1 0.28

Threshing Ground 3.31 0.47 1.40

Pasture 164.74 23.44 69.7

Nalla 20.62 2.93 8.72

Cattle Ground 0.12 0.01 0.05

Pathways 11.9 1.69 5.03

Grasslands 31.2 4.44 13.20

Total Dejure CPR 236.36 34 100

Private land 465.8 66 NA

Total Area 702.67 100 NA

Source: www.landrecords.mp.gov.in

The villagers in this area derive almost all their nistar requirements from within the village

boundary. The villagers have been provided adequate land to meet their nistar. CPR

accounts for almost 34 % of the total area. Further there is a CPR of 236.36 hectares and

there is a household count of 168 households, i.e there is availability of 1.45 hectares of

11

dejure CPR per household, which is greater than the national average of 0.31 hectares of

CPR per household. 2

2.3 Analysis of Data

To make the study and the findings more relevant only those parcels exceeding 0.5 hectares

were covered. Out of the total land area under CPR, parcels exceeding 0.5 hectares were 99

in number and they were surveyed. These 99 parcels accounted for only 20.7 % of the total

number of parcels, however it accounted for 87 % of the total area in acres which implies

that the larger parcels account for majority of the CPR.

Figure 1 : Level of Survey Further a category-wise understanding of the parcels reveal that most of the parcels of

pasture and grasslands have been covered in the survey as they are mostly exceeding 0.5

hectares. In terms of coverage in area apart from pathways, more than 85 % of the total

area of other land categories, has been covered under the survey.

2 Report no. 452: Common Property Resources in India ,Jan-June 1998,NSSO 54th Round, pp 16

��

20.7

86.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

��

��

12

The survey revealed the following dejure vs. defacto status of the parcels. As can be seen

from the table, 66 % of the total dejure CPR is only defacto CPR; which implies there is

encroachment to the tune of 34 % (please refer table 6).Most of the encroachment is on

land allotted for grazing land and pastures on which encroachment is 45 % and 34%

respectively(please refer figure 3).

The encroachment is most often than not for agricultural purposes. Apart from the CPR

within their village, they also resort to the nearby forests for collection of fallen firewoods.

So in a way the nearby forests also act as the defacto commons for the villagers thereby

increasing the size of the defacto CPR. However it is difficult to assess the size of this de

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ! ��

��

��

�

��

�� "��

��

��

� ��

��

�� ! ��

��

��

��

��

Figure 2 : Level of survey category-wise

Figure 3 : Level of encroachment

13

facto commons as they are widely spread out and villagers access more than one

compartment of the nearby forests.

Table 6: Encroachment status on 99 parcels surveyed Dejure CPR (in

acres)

Area encroached Area unoccupied

Pathways 11.95 3.5 8.45

Nalla 45.2 13.1 32.1

Pasture 405.98 265.07 140.91

Burial ground 1.675 0 1.675

Threshing ground 4.85 0 4.85

Residential area 9.05 0 9.05

Grasslands 33.55 15.12 18.43

CPR 512.25 172.67 339.58

% of dejure CPR 100 % 33.8 % 66. 2 %

Table 7: Dejure CPR vs. Defacto CPR based on 99 parcels surveyed Dejure CPR (in acres) Defacto CPR (in acres)

Pathways 11.95 8.45

Nalla 45.2 32.1

Pasture 405.98 265.07

Burial ground 1.68 1.68

Threshing ground 4.85 4.85

Residential area 9.05 9.05

Grasslands 33.55 18.43

CPR 512.25 339.58

% of dejure CPR 100 % 66. 2 %

During the course of the survey and interactions with the villagers, two types of

encroachment practices had emerged. A trend can be identified between the type of

14

encroachment and payment of fine of encroachers. The villagers refer to one type of

encroachment as kabsa/cover and the other as minhai/adhikraman. Kabsa/cover is a

practice of encroachment in the village in which the farmers extend from the agricultural

land in which they have patta to the nearby CPR. This is most often than not in areas less

than 3 acres. One can see that out of the encroachers who practice this kind of

encroachment very few i.e. close to zero farmers pay fine (please refer figure 4). Minhai

refers to that agricultural practice in the village in which farmers identify CPR which are

not adjacent to their agricultural land and start encroaching those CPR by cultivating those

lands. Minhai is used as a term by the villagers to refer to that group of people in the

village who were encroachers and were allotted pattas at the time of revenue settlement in

the year 1984-1985. Hence once can see that the villagers foresee a relation between

encroachment and allotment of lands in the future in this practice of encroachment. Further

out of 20 encroachers practising minhai, 17 i.e. 85 % of those following this practice in the

village was found to be paying fines which further reiterate this proposition (please refer

figure 4). On further probing the villagers on the nature of encroachment and its relation

with the payment of fine, villagers said that in case of minhai the villagers come forward

and voluntarily pay fine to the patwari; while in the case of the practice of cover the

villagers do not pay any fine. They said that in case of adjacent CPR its easier to prove and

claim that the encroacher was using some part of the CPR; however in case of minhai they

said that since the CPR is situated far away they will not be able to prove that they had

encroached upon that land and was using the land. Hence they pay voluntarily pay fines to

the patwari with the hope that when the next settlement is done that they would be given

patta on that land.

15

��

0 5 10 15 20 25

#$��

% ��

��

� � ��

&��$�� $��'��(�)��

&��$�� '��(�)��

Figure 4 : Type of encroachment and payment of fine Status of CPR – Present Status vs. 1972-1973

The land area in the village of Teliadhad is quite huge. The figures in the table below

reveal that the area of the village has been extended by 30 ha. However the area under CPR

has shrunk by 11 % as compared to 1972-1973. But out of the total area, the land allotted

for CPR was 40 % in 1972-1973, which is at present 34 % of the total area (please refer

table 8). So though the total area in ha has shrunk by 11 % as compared to 1972-73, CPR as

per cent of total area is still covers around 34 % of the total land area.

Table 8: Status of present CPR as against 1972-1973 1972-73 Present % change in area

as against 1972-

73

Total area 672.036 702.6 4.5 %

CPR 265.51 236.3 (11) %

Private 406.526 465.8 15 %

Source: Govt. record

16

2.4 Conclusion There is considerable area under CPR in the village and the villagers have been provided

adequate land to meet their nistar. CPR accounts for almost 34 % of the total area. Further

there is a CPR of 236.36 hectares and there is a household count of 168 households, i.e

there is availability of 1.45 hectares of dejure CPR per household which is greater than the

national average of 0.31 hectares per household. 3

The largest land category of CPR is pasture land which accounts for almost 70 % of the

CPR and it is almost 35 % of the land allotted under agriculture. According to the rule

under MPLRC it is required that minimum of 2 % of the agricultural land should be

allotted by the SDO and in this case it is much higher than that. The next in category is that

of grasslands which accounts for 13 % of the CPR. However the rate of encroachment in

these categories is also the highest at 35 % in case of pasture land and 45 % in case of

grasslands. This maybe due to a large expanse of land available for pasture, the quality of

which is poor and also because there does not exist enough livestock as it is not considered

an alternate livelihood option by the villagers.

The encroachment is low in case of pathways and none in case of residential area. This

maybe because land allotted for these purposes are minimum and well-occupied, hence

there is not much room for encroachment and the villagers too said that they resisted

encroachments in these categories.

There are two types of encroachment practices in this village called mihai and cover. There

is a relationship between the type of encroachment and payment of fines as can be seen

above. Minhai refers to that agricultural practice in the village in which farmers identify

CPR which are not adjacent to their agricultural land and start encroaching those CPR by

cultivating those lands. Minhai is used as a term by the villagers to refer to that group of

people in the village who were encroachers and were allotted pattas at the time of revenue

settlement in the year 1984-1985. Hence once can see that the villagers foresee a relation

between encroachment and allotment of lands in the future in this practice of

encroachment. This can also be seen from the fact that 100 % of those paying fine are from

this practice and 85 % of those who practice minhai also pay fine voluntarily. Cover is a

practice of encroachment in the village in which the farmers extend from the agricultural

3 Report no. 452: Common Property Resources in India ,Jan-June 1998,NSSO 54th Round, pp 16

17

land in which they have patta to the nearby CPR. This is most often than not in areas less

than 3 acres. One can see that out of the encroachers who practice this kind of

encroachment very few i.e. close to zero farmers pay fine.

The area under CPR has shrunk by 11 % as compared to 1972-73. But out of the total area,

the land allotted for CPR was 40 % in 1972-1973, which is at present 34 % of the total area

(please refer table 8) as the total land area has decreased by 30 hectares. So though the total

area in ha has shrunk by 11 % as compared to 1972-73, CPR as per cent of total area still

constitutes 34 % of the total land area. This maybe attributed to increase in land allotments

for private cultivable land in 1984-1985 when the next settlement happened. Also there is a

legislative backing for this reduction in the form of rules which were incorporated to

reduce the size of pasture land of the total land area from 5 % of the abadi or agricultural

land to 2 % of the abadi or agricultural land.4

3. Management of Commons

3.1Understanding of Land Laws in Madhya Pradesh The primary law governing land in Madhya Pradesh is the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue

Code (1959). The Code consolidates all the previous legislations related to land revenue,

amends the law relating to land revenue and prescribes the powers of the Revenue officers,

rights and liabilities of holders of land from the State Government, agricultural tenures and

other matters relating to land.5 In Madhya Pradesh, (a)ll lands belong to the state

government including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests

reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the state

government. 6 Land classification in the revenue records are on the basis of land-use or

nistar (in case of un-occuped land) for which land is allotted.

Land in Madhya Pradesh is divided into two categories i.e. occupied land and unoccupied

land. Occupied land refers to that land which is held in abadi7, by a bhumiswami8,

4 Protecting and Conserving Commons for common good- Needs a fresh legal perspective, pp 12 5 Protecting and Conserving Commons for common good- Needs a fresh legal perspective 6 Section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, (1959) 7 Defined under section 2 (a) as ‘area reserved from time to time in a village in non- urban area for the residence of the inhabitants thereof or for the purposes ancillary thereto’. 8 Defined under section 158, MPLRC, 1959

18

government lessee or a tenant and everything else is unoccupied land. As the law stands

since 1964, record of unoccupied land is to be prepared and maintained for every village

setting out the land set apart for exercise of nistar rights.9 Nistar refers to the necessities in

carrying on the business of living. 10 Land is set apart for meeting their residential

requirements, grazing, threshing, burial etc. The power to allot land for meeting these nistar

of people lies with the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).The first draft of the record is to be

circulated in the villages to ascertain the wishes of the residents in the village and then the

record is finalized.11 The land allotted for above mentioned purposes cannot be used for

any other purpose other than the one for which it has been allocated, without the sanction

of the collector12. This is to say that once land has been allotted for a particular purpose like

grazing, the gramsabha or the panchayat does not have the right to divert it for any other

purpose. This could lead to irregular use of land as more land may be allotted for a

particular purpose for a long period of time than what is required. Also it undermines the

power and flexibility of the gram sabha and gram panchayat to undertake those activities

which maybe more relevant and useful for the villagers. Panchayat Raj Act of MP provides

that the State Government can vest certain property in Panchayat subject to such conditions

and restrictions as the state government may think fit to impose on such property13. This

clearly shows that no powers vest with the panchayat with respect to common lands. They

have limited authority over the commons and that too for limited time period. However

they have been vested with an important duty, i.e. in case of encroachment, the gramsabha

has to pass a resolution for eviction. On receipt of the resolution of the Panchayat the

Tehsildar takes action to remove such encroachment and levies fine on the encroacher

within 30 days of receiving the resolution and informs the panchayat of the action taken by

him.14 This clearly shows that the panchayats in Madhya Pradesh have been provided with

an onus of eviction of encroachers without any powers or authority over the common land.

The collector while allocating land for grazing and development of grass reserves has to

maintain atleast 2 % of the total abadi or agricultural land of the village. This percentage

9 See Ramanathan ,Usha. (2002) ,Common Land and Common Property Resources 10 See Ramanathan ,Usha. (2002) ,Common Land and Common Property Resources 11 Section 233 and 234, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 12 Section 237, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 13 Section 62, M.P Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Samaj Adhiniyam, 1993 14 Section 248, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959

19

was 5 % earlier. 15 The Rule 3 of the rules framed under section 237, framed in 1999

provide for minimum 5 % allocation. 16. However vide another amendment in 2000, 5 %

was reduced to 2 %, but this change was not mentioned in the rules mentioned above.17

This shows that the legal provisions are being made in such a way that the CPR especially

for free grazing and grass reserves is being reduced.

However there is a contradictory provision also in the code wherein it is mentioned

explicitly that provisions should be made for among other things, free grazing of the cattle

used for agriculture and if there is not enough land available for meeting this nistar, the

collector has to provide for land outside the village boundary to meet this nistar. The term

free grazing has to be kept in mind and that too for cattle used for agriculture purpose. This

provision in itself could be a potential threat on the quality of grazing land.

3.2 Management Practices of Villagers The management of CPR in the village by the villagers was studied using Elinor Ostrom’s

eight principles. These eight principles are listed below:

These eight principles are:

• Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un entitled parties);

• Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted

to local conditions;

• Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators to participate in

the decision-making process;

• Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the

appropriators;

• There is a scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate

community rules;

• Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap and of easy access;

• The self-determination of the community is recognized by higher-level authorities;

• �� $�� %��$��&��

��'�(�� )�� *

15 Protecting and Conserving Commons for common good- Needs a fresh legal perspective, pp 11 16 Rules under section 237 framed vide notification no. F-2-28-VII-Section 8-97, part 3 dated 8-3-1999 17 Protecting and Conserving Commons for common good- Needs a fresh legal perspective, pp 12

20

3.2.1 Understanding of CPR by villagers There exists a clear understanding in the minds of the villagers as to what constitutes de

jure CPR in their village and who has access to them. There are around 222 parcels of CPR

in the region allotted to meet the various nistar of the villagers. As per the nistar patrak of

the village only villagers from Teliadhad are entitled to access the CPR which falls in the

revenue boundary of this village. But within the village there are no clearly defined

boundaries in case of any of the CPR as a parcel; barring one hillock of 30 hectares being

protected by Village Development Committee (VDC) constituted by AKRSP (I) in the

region.This parcel has been treated by AKRSP(I) using the VDC. The VDC has formed

rules and sanctions and has defined users, their rights, time of appropriation and sanctions

in case of non-compliance (please refer box 1).

As per the nistar patrak of the village only villagers from Teliadhad are entitled to access

the CPR which fall in the boundary of this village, however villagers from the nearby

villages like Khermaal, Gondhri etc. have also started deriving benefits from the CPR of

this village in recent times. There are conflicts when villagers from outside appropriate

these CPR which are brought to notice during the Korgu panchayat.

There is a considerable rate of encroachment in the village to the tune of 34% (please refer

table 6) and the encroachers are from the village itself. Most of them know the areas of

CPR in the village, the area encroached upon and the name of the encroacher. However

there seems to be no conflict amongst the villagers with regard to that as they say that they

do not want to get into dispute with fellow villagers and most of the villagers have some

government land in their possession. But the villagers said to have shown some resistance

when villagers from other villages have started using the CPR allotted to them. Cases of

internal conflicts were reported in the interview only in case of encroachment on a hillock

which the villagers have protected with the help of AKRSP (I) (please refer box 1).

Moreover in those CPR which are free from encroachment, there is no real management

system of the village CPR and all are sites of open grazing.

The main source of water in the village is a community well, 5 hand-pumps, a community

pond and a perennial stream. Three out of five hand pumps are in dilapidated condition,

however not much efforts are made to repair them; the community well is the source of

water round the year.

21

3.2.2 Decision making authority on CPR The entitlement of accessing the CPR is decided by the district administration in

consultation with the gram panchayat and is provided in a document called the nistar

patrak. However this is followed in letter and not in spirit as villagers do not understand

what a nistar patrak is and they do not recall any gram sabha held for making this

document. The power to allot land for meeting these nistar of people lies with the collector.

The land allotted for above mentioned purposes cannot be used for any other purpose other

than the one for which it has been allocated, without the sanction of the collector18. Hence

it can be seen that no CPR not even the pasture land vests with the panchayat and they also

do not have any power to allot or divert land. According to them the land allotment is done

by the revenue department and the responsibility of eviction of encroachers also exists with

the revenue department who issues notices for fine from time to time. The villagers have

not framed any rules for management of commons other than for 30 hectares of CPR on

which plantation activity was undertaken by the villagers with the help of AKRSP (I). They

have also formed an institution and rules and regulations for protecting this land (please

refer box 1). During the interview the villagers said that most encroachers are small farmers

and cultivate out of economic compulsions. They said that most often they did not want to

take action against the encroachers who are their fellow citizens and disturb the social

capital.

3.2.3 Uses of villagers from CPR

The main requirements of the villagers from common lands are mostly for firewood and for

grazing of livestock. But the livestock population in the village is quite low, to the tune of

490 cattle heads. Ideally with the given livestock population and the land available for

grazing; the village should be able to meet its entire grazing requirements from the village.

However a discussion with the villagers revealed that they sometimes have to buy fodder

from outside; as the availability of grass on the land is less and the agri-residues available

with them are enough to last only one season. As can be seen from the table below there is

a great degree of encroachment in the pasturelands and the encroachments are mostly for

agriculture. An interesting trend that can be observed is that majority of the encroachers are

18 Section 237, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959

22

small farmers and some of them are even marginal farmers who extend their cultivation

from their farmlands to the nearby grazing lands. It can be seen from the above that the

some of these lands allotted for grazing are culturable and hence is suitable for agriculture.

Livestock is not reared with any income earning objective in mind, as most of them are bull

and oxen which is reared for ploughing and obtaining dung. Even among the landless; the

major source of livelihood is agriculture labour and migration. This shows that for the

villagers, livestock rearing is not an alternative livelihood option, hence there is no

incentive for them to protect the pasture lands or impose any sanctions on the same. There

is excess grazing land in the village which is being encroached upon.

The second major use for which the villagers depend upon the commons is for fire-wood.

They use a blend of agricultural residues, firewood and cow dung to make fire. They

procure fallen firewood and forest produce from the nearby forests.

BOX 1 – Case of Community Protection of CPR The main activity carried out by AKRSP(I) in the region is that of the plantation work undertaken on a hillock measuring 30 hectares. This hillock is associated just adjacent to the abadi area (land allotted for residence) and hence is under close supervision of the villagers. There are various species of trees and grass planted on the hillock .There is no physical protection of the hillock rather it is protected through social fencing. This is carried out through the Village Development Committee (VDC). AKRSP(I) while initiating work in any region , forms a social institution called the Village Development Committee (VDC) which comprises elected members from amongst the village.This committee has formed rules and sanctions with respect to the protection of the hillock in Teliadhad. The VDC’s work is closely co-ordinated with the functioning of the sar panch and that of the chief of the Korku panchayat (the traditional institution of the Korku tribe). There is homogeneity in the membership of this VDC as most villagers are from the same socio-economic background. There are clear rules for grazing like INR 50 would be imposed per cart of grass cut and there is a time for cutting the grass i.e prefereably in the months of October and September so as to allow sufficient time for regeneration of grass etc. There are sanctions imposed on the people with respect to anyone found violating the rules with respect to cutting either trees or grass. The sanctions are of the nature of fines where in, they are asked to deposit INR 500 for excessive cutting of grass and INR 1000 for cutting of trees. If they are not in a position to submit the fine amount entirely, they are asked to submit an amount equivalent to 1/10th amount and someone which is most often the sar panch stands as the guaranteer who ensures that the people pay the remaining amount on time. This collected fine then goes into the VDCs account. The villagers have been closely following the rules and norms and they have faced the consequences of not following the norms. The year before last, there was an instance of a villager by-passing the norms and cutting a tree. This incident was reported to the VDC and the VDC called for a meeting wherein they had invited a staff of AKRSP(I) as well to mediate the proceedings. It was decided upon by the VDC that he pay 1/10 th of the fine amount immediately and then pay the remaining at a later date. After this exercise was carried out the the sar panch and the staff of AKRSP(I) forgot about the incident. However it set a bad example to the villagers and they too took to the same act seeing that the penalty imposed was not being collected. This incident was immediately reported to the staff in AKRSP(I) who came to the scene immediately and averted a crisis. The sarpanch extended his co-operation to the staff and told him that he was free to take any action he wanted. The violators were asked to pay the fine amount immediately or were threatened to be taken to the police station. They paid the amount and settled the issue and now the villagers do not indulge in any such activity and they are protecting the plantation very well.

23

3.2.4Role of Administrative Authorities in protecting CPR The villagers during the interview said that neither the panchayat nor the villagers took any

interest in preventing encroachment or in initiating eviction of encroachers from the

concerned sites. The villagers and the Tehsildar replied that the issue of encroachment is

identified by the patwari with the help of a kotwari in the village. The patwari goes around

the CPR with the village khasra and the map and identifies the encroacher who is

sometimes available on the site itself. The names are noted and brought to the Tehsil office

from where the notices are issued against the name of the encroacher who then has to pay a

fine. If he does not pay fine then the report goes to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)

and then he can even be put in jail.

During the interviews and survey it however emerged that the villagers voluntarily come up

and pay fines in case of the encroachment practice of minhai, wherein they identify a CPR

which is not adjacent to their lands encroach upon it. Moreover out of the 35 encroachers in

this village, only 17 pay fine and that too in the case of minhai type of encroachment where

in the villagers associate encroachment and payment of fines with getting pattas and

ownership on those encroached lands at some point in the future, during the time of which

the receipts of payment of fine may be useful. Also on verification of the patwari’s case

list, it was revealed that the number of encroachers who are being fined in a year is very

less as compared to the actual number of encroachers in the village. On being asked on the

issue of there being more than one encroacher on a particular parcel and only the name of

a single encroacher being reported, the tehsildar transferred the responsibility of reporting

such names to the encroacher against whom the charges were issued.

As per the MP Land Revenue Code (1959), the panchayat in case of encroachment has to

pass a resolution within 30 days to the tehsildar, who has to then pass an order for

eviction.19However in Teliadhad; no such resolutions have been passed to evict

encroachers. According to MP Land Revenue Code (1959); the right to divert any land

allotted for a particular purpose vests with the collector and not with the panchayat. This

allotment of land happens during the time of settlement and cannot be changed without the

19 Sec 248, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959

24

prior sanction of the collector. 20This could be a reason why the panchayat is not pro-active

in passing resolutions against the encroachers trespassing in the grazing land. Also it was

said during a discussion at the tehsil office that eviction attempts are never initiated at the

tehsil level here, they say as most are poor farmers and also sometimes there are political

pressures to not disturb encroachments on CPR. Sometimes there are cases of encroachers

remaining encroachers for as long as up to 50 years.

There is apathy on the situation of encroachment both from the government agency and

from the panchayat and payment of fines is mostly in case of minhai wherein encroachers

see some benefit in payment of fines.

3.2.5 Key Findings The encroachment rate is high at 34 %. It can be attributed to the high presence of common

lands amidst a small segment of population of 168 households. Ideally the presence of such

a vast expanse of dejure CPR is not supposed to be putting much pressure on the quality of

CPR as there is enough available for everyone’s need. However here barring one hillock of

on which AKRSP(I) has done work, there is very little attention paid on the commons by

the villagers. Also there is negligence on the part of the villagers to manage the commons

and stop encroachment because of (a) poor quality of the land on which encroachment is

done (b) indifference to encroachment because of huge expanse of common land and (c)

low livestock population as compared to the land available under pasture. This situation

can be best described as "what is common to the greatest number has the least care

bestowed upon it" (see Ostrom 1990). The villagers are very well aware that the CPR

falling within their revenue boundary is closed for use by other villagers and that only the

villagers of this particular village is entitled to use the CPR. They also resist encroachment

by villagers from outside this village in that case. The CPR in this sense has clearly defined

boundaries with effective exclusion of un-entitled parties (villagers from outside

Teliadhad); however the missing piece in the management of commons in this village

seems to be the absence of multiple layers of nested enterprise. There is considerably large

number of scattered parcels of CPR accounting to 222 parcels in this village, but the 20 Section 237, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959

25

villagers have not been organized into multiple layers of nested enterprise with small CPR

at the base. There is only one nested enterprise in the form of a VDC constituted by an

external agency managing 30 hectares of CPR. The other parcels of CPR are left un-

attended and do not form part of a nested enterprise.

This indifference to encroachment can also be attributed to the fact that the decision

making authority in case of CPR is a centralized force in the form of a district

administration as all land vests with the state government. It appears from the discussions

with the villagers that they do not even involve or consult the villagers in case of making

the nistar patrak, though there are provisions in MPLRC which insists that the draft of the

nistar patrak be shared with the villagers.

Further the encroachment of villagers on the common land is for agriculture which implies

that increasing land under agriculture is a priority for the villagers rather than preserving it

for grazing. The incremental benefits from agriculture are greater even if they have to pay a

fine. This shows that more land is allotted than what is required for grazing and there is no

incentive for the villagers to preserve the grazing land as the livestock count is very less

and it is not perceived as a viable livelihood option by the villagers. This shows that if

more land is allotted to meet a particular nistar of the people than what is required; there is

no incentive for the villagers to protect the CPR for that purpose and the villagers no longer

pay attention to preserve the CPR. Also since there is no power with panchayat to allot or

divert the land use of the CPR, to that extent where there is excess of land allotted for a

particular purpose lies defunct. Unless the monetary incentives for preserving the commons

are greater than the penalty that the villagers have to pay; there is no way that they would

think about preserving the commons as their most pressing and basic needs are met from

the additional income earned through encroachment. Though the hillock on which

AKRSP(I) has worked on does not provide grass to last the entire year, still it is being

managed well, because the land is developed and villagers can see benefits from protecting

it. This implies that once a common land is well developed and villagers start getting

tangible benefits from it; they take responsibility for protecting the CPR. Also unless

alternative livelihood activity is developed in the village and markets are found for the

same, conservation of commons would still be a distant dream.

26

There is also no incentive on the part of the panchayat to pass resolution for eviction as the

panchayat have been allotted a responsibility without any authority of allotment or

diversion of CPR. Many a times the number of people paying the fine as obtained from the

patwari’s case list and the number of encroachers do not match. The actual number of

encroachers is greater than the reported numbers. This does not just underestimate a

particular situation but also stands as a potential obstacle for the encroachers to obtain legal

entitlements later on as the case list becomes the means of verification at the time of

issuing pattas.

3.3 Conclusion Management of commons can be done either through the state through centralized control

and administration or through institutions of people or through private individuals by

giving them their entitlements. Centralised regulation does not seem to be very effective as

can be seen from the Teliadhad experience where in there are many parcels of common

land which is left unattended to and there is no wasteland development activity which has

been undertaken there, barring AKRSP(I)s work. The regulation through the revenue

department also is not very effective in checking encroachment and they in many cases are

apathetic towards the same as can be seen from the number of encroachers reported in the

case list and the actual number of encroachers.

The lesson learnt from the Teliadhad experience is that mere availability of dejure common

land does not ensure the effective use of these commons. This is so because availability of

large expanse of common land without any effective institution at the local level (be it the

PRI or any other institution of people) there would be an apathetic attitude towards the

management of the commons; rather it would be encroached upon by private individuals

for activities which give them immediate and more tangible benefits like income from

agriculture; which further only increases the pressure on commons.

Collectivization of people into institutions and using these institutions to manage commons

seems to be the only way to manage commons. However when there are large number of

parcels of CPR in the village, till the time they are organized into nested enterprises with

clearly defined boundaries and users on each CPR (each member has stakes in the

management of the resource) and multiple layers of nested entreprise, there is no incentive

for them to manage it. Conservation and management of commons has to be directly or

27

indirectly related to their livelihoods and has to give them either real or perceived benefits.

In the above case; the villagers understand that the protection of the plantation has helped

them meet their needs of fodder and fuel and it has helped check water and soil erosion.

Further local administration has to be given more powers and their capacities have to be

built in order to better manage the commons. The experience in Teliadhad shows that

involving the panchayat in the management of commons yields better results.

28

Glossary Abadi – Area reserved from time to time in a village in non- urban area for the residence of

the inhabitants thereof or for the purposes ancillary thereto

Adikraman - Encroachment

Allotment of land – Assigning rights on land for a particular use

Appropriation-

Bhumiswami- Tenure holder of land ; the only category of land-holder under MPLRC

Common Property Resources- Rural common property resources are broadly defined as

resources towards which all members of an identifiable community have inalienable user

rights

Dejure Common Property Resources- A resource is considered a dejure common property

resource only when the group of people who have the right to its collective use is well

defined, and the rules that govern their use of it are set out clearly and followed universally

Defacto CPR – The coverage of CPR was extended to include resources like revenue land

not assigned to panchayat or a community of the village, forest land, or even private land

in use of the community by convention. The definition also extends to include land left

behind after encroachment on which community members have inalienable user rights.

Diversion of land – land-use from one existing use to another

Encroachment of land – To gain unlawfully of the land, property or authority of another

Gram Panchayat- The lowest tier of the Panchayat Raj Institution which can comprise more

than one revenue village; it is constituted based on population and population cannot be

less than 1000

Gram Sabha – Body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a

village comprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level

Inalienable rights- Rights which cannot be surrendered or transferred to someone else

Jurmana- Fine

Kalyan- Threshing Ground

Kabristhan- Burial ground / Cemetry

Khasra – Plot/Survey

Kotwari- A person part of the Korgu panchayat who has traditional authority in the village

29

Korku - Korku is a scheduled tribe (ST) community predominantly found in East Nimar

(Khandwa and Burhanpur), Betul and Chhindwara districts of Madhya Pradesh and

adjoining areas in Melghat region of Maharastra in India speaking the Korku language,

which is a member of the Austroasiatic language family.

Korku panchayat -Traditional representative body of the Korku community headed by a

chief known as a Patel and ten to twelve other members which plays a decisive role during

traditional occasions like festivals, marriages etc. and during inter and intra-village

conflicts

Nalla- Streams following through the village which can be both perennial and seasonal

Nested entreprise- An enterprise nested within larger enterprises; in short an institution is

part of a greater institution

Nistar Rights- Rights necessary to carry out those activities which are necessary to carry

out the business of living

Nistar Patrak- A record of rights in abadi area and unoccupied area

Pashuvishram – Resting ground for cattle and sheperds

Pasture – Land allotted for grazing in a village

Patta – Record of land lease

Patwari- Lowest official of revenue department posted at the village level

Patwari’s Case list- List containing details of encroachers on government land along with

the survey number, area of encroachment and fine levied on the encroacher

Private land- Land with the bhumiswami which is most often than not used for agriculture

Sub-Divisional Officer- Officer in charge of the revenue division who may either be an

Assistant Collector or District Deputy Collector

Tehsil- Administrative zone in a revenue area which is smaller than the district

Tehsildar- Revenue officer in charge of tehsil

30

List of references

(2011): “Protecting and Conserving Commons for Common- Needs a fresh legal

perspective – An Analysis of the State of Madhya Pradesh”. June, available at

http://commons.fes.org.in/pdf/protecting_and_conserving_commons_for_common_good-

madhyapradesh.pdf

Ramanathan, Usha (2002): “Common Land and Common Property Resources”. Land

Reforms in India. Volume 7.New Delhi: Sage. June, available at

http://www.ielrc.org/content/a0204.pdf

NSSO (1999): “Common Property Resources in India”,54th Report, June available at

http://mospi.nic.in/rept%20_%20pubn/452_final.pdf

Jodha, N.S. (1989):“Depletion of Common Property Resources in India: Micro-Level

Evidence” Population and Development Review

Vol. 15, Supplement: Rural Development and Population: Institutions and Policy, pp.261-

283

Ballabh, Pankaj et al (2004): Land Community and Governance, Sevamandir Publications

Ostrom, Elinor (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action, Cambridge University Press

31

Annexure -I – Questionnaire based on Elinor Ostrom’s Principles

1) What are the common property resources in the village and how are they used?

* Are there a clear understanding of the boundaries around the CPR’s and

boundaries in relation to who have access to the resources (user and/or owner

right conflicts)

* Is there any conflicts over access to the CPR, both internal (village) and external

(between villages)

* Overlap between village and resources location

2) Who defines the boundary, rules, sanctions and access right of the CPRs?

* Leadership, corruption, conflicts and familiarity with changing external

environments

* The homogeneity of identities, social norms and interests within the village

* Social/economic independence between the different groups

3) What are the main purposes of the CPRs in the village? (grazing, fuel wood, timber..

etc.)

* What is the general level of dependence upon the CPR

* Fairness in allocation of resources

4) What is the role of administrative authorities in protecting the CPRs?

* In relation to locally constructed rules of access and management

* The ease of implementing and in enforcing sanctions.

* The process of implementation and institutional management

5) What are the methods applied by villagers for improvement of the CPRs?

* Level of sanctions

32

* Accountability in following the rules/norms

* Past successful management experiance

6) Who plays pivotal role in the development of CPRs and what is the level of

participation in decision making?

* Decision making is independent from external governance

* Accountability of officials towards the community

7) What is the source of water in the village and how it is maintained?

8) What are the institutions for development activities in the village and what is their role

in the same?

* Levels of aid/compensation from external governance to the community for

conservation activities.

* Local levels of assigning the process, provisions and general self-governance

9) What are the coping mechanisms used by the villagers in difficult situations?

* Change in conduct and management in times of drought and other hard

situations.

10) What is the cropping season in the village?

* �� )��(��$��$��

Annexure – II – Schedule for interview with Tehsildar

�" +�(��$��,�

-" . ��,�

/" ��0��$��)��

�� ,�

33

1" . ��0��(��) ��

��,�

2" 3��,�

4" ��(��,�

5" ��$�� &�� 2�6��2�6�

��-�6�'�(��,�

7" . �� $��)��(��,�

study of status of common property resources in teliadhad ...source: the villagers in this area...

Documents