You are on page 1of 59

Karnataka Land Policy and its

Impact on Land Use


Dr. S.C. Ramesh Kumar
Principal Scientist (Agril. Economics)

National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning


Regional Centre, Hebbal
Bangalore 5650024
scrameshkumar@gmail.com
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 1

NBSS & LUP

Mapping of soil types, their distribution and extent.

Study on soil potentials and limitations for crop production.

Mapping soil fertility for site specific nutrient management.

Evaluation of Soil Heath/ dgradations and monitoring.

Land evaluation

for land policy and optimum land use

planning.

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 2

Land (Agricultural) Policy refers to the set of rules and


regulations related to Land Reforms, Agricultural Trade
Liberalization and Domestic Agricultural Policy that directly
or indirectly influence the use of land.
POLICY INFLUENCES :
Restrictions on land use (eg. Tobacco, Sugarcane)
Encouraging specific actions by prices & subsidies
(eg use of NPK, farm mechanization, micro irrigation)
The Environmental Impact can lead to change in land use,
crop management and status of soil/land resources.
The Economic Impact may alter the costs of production, or
the revenues thereby influence the viability of the farm
enterprise and income and rural livelihood.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 3

Why land Policy is important?


Land is a foundation for economic activity and the
functioning of market and nonmarket institutions.

Institutions dealing with land have evolved over long


periods, and land policies affected by the presence of
multiple market imperfections.
The impacts of existing land policy need to be assessed
and clearly communicated to policy analysts and decision
makers, with positive and negative consequences.
A clear land policy in relation to land potential can
improve the Optimum Land Use Planning.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 4

Challenges in Land Policy ?

What are the policies influencing the land use, land quality
and productivity?

What is the extent of positive and negative impact of


different policies on land resources?

Is it possible to enhance the productivity of land through


various policies measures?

What are the alternate policies options for sustainable


development?

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 5

Drivers of Land Use Change

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 6

How Macro Policy influence Land Allocation ?

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 7

Factors influencing Changes In Cropping Pattern

According to Gulati and Kelley (1999), changes in


cropping pattern within a short temporal span are
likely to be governed more by factors influencing the
socio-economic environment.
Government policies and programmes for crop
production in the form of subsidies, support prices,
tariffs and speed of infrastructure development
influence land use.
Gulati, A. and Kelley, T. 1999. Trade liberalization and Indian agriculture. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 8

Influence of government program on Land use in Punjab

Nick Milham, Jason Crean and Rajinder Pal Singh(2011) The implications of policy settings on land use and agricultural technology adoption in North-West India.
55th Annual AARES National Conference Melbourne, Victoria, 8-11 February 2011

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 9

The National Commission for Farmers (NCF, 2007)


has discussed three major impacts that a Contract
Farming System(CFS)

The first issue is CFS interested in short-term


gains/profit maximization and may, therefore, suggest
practices, which in the long run are not good for the
land/other assets of the producer. The purchaser has the
option of moving on after a few years of exploitation of
an area.

The second issue relates to possible shifts in favour


of export-oriented crops at the cost of crops providing
basic food.
The third is the preference for the larger producers in
choice of partners by the purchaser, ignoring the small
landowners.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 10

KARNATAKA AGRICULTURE
Human population of 52.7 M
( 5.1 % of India)

Livestock population of
30.7 M ( 6.8 % of India)

Urban population 34 %

Literacy rate 67.0 %


The cultivators 29.5 % and
agri. labors 26.4 % to total
workers.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 11

KARNATAKA AGRICULTURE
G. C. Area is 123.07 lakh ha
Kharif season (64%), in Rabi
(30%) and summer (6%)
Irrigation 22 lakh ha (20.5%)
State produces 100 lakh t (5 % to

National Food)
Agricultural contributes 21 per

cent to SGDP .
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 12

Distribution of land holdings in Karnataka 2008-09

Marginal

Small

(< 1 Ha.)

(1-2 Ha.)

Semi
Medium Medium
(2-4 Ha.)

(4-10 Ha.)

Large
(>10 Ha.)

%
%
% % %
%
%
%
%
Region
No. Area No. Area No. Area % No. Area No. Area
Karnataka 48.2 13.3 26.6 23.2 16.9 28.0 7.3 25.9 1.0 9.6
Large number are marginal land holdings
Contributing 40 % of food production

Page 13

Trends in Avg. land holdings in Karnataka


3.50
3.2

Kolar

2.98

3.00

Karnataka

2.73
2.41

1.63
1.15
1.04

1995-96

1.21
1.15

1.36
1.28

1.50

1.74

1.46
1.35

1980-81

1.95

1990-91

1.72
1.82

1976-77

2.13
1.6
1.61

1.81
1.74

1.88
1.86

2.50
2.00

Bangalore

1.00
0.50

2005-06

2000-01

1985-86

1970-71

0.00

Shrinking farm size


Page 14

Environmental stress-48 %
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 15

Karnataka Agricultural Policy 1995 (revised in 2006)


Achieving a
growth rate of 4 %
per annum

Increasing
employment and
income of
farmers

Conservation natural resources


and provide better production
environment through minimizing
natural resource depletion
/degradation
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Access to factor market


and quality of the inputs
supplied to the farmers
Page 16

Land Policy BEFORE 1991


Karnatakas land reforms:
1) Conferring ownership on erstwhile tenants and
2) Redistribution of surplus lands available in excess of ceiling
to the deserving.
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act (1970) ceiling on total holding
i) 4.05- 8.10 ha for irrigated lands with two crops OR
ii)10.12-12.14 ha in case for irrigation lands with single crop OR
iii) 20.85 ha for dry land by the individual farmers with exception
to plantation crops.

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 17

Land Policies AFTER 1991


The 1995 Land Reforms Amendment: REVERSE TENANCY
Agricultural land cannot be purchased or inherited by anyone whose
income from the non-agricultural source exceed Rs.2 lakhs.

Provision to lease in agriculture land for aquaculture for a period of 20


years in the districts of Dakshina, Kannada and Uttar Kannada up to 40
units (around 220 acre).
Up to 180 acres of D class land can be leased to a housing project; up to
21.6 acres can be leased for educational institution.

Up to 108 acres of D class land can be leased to a housing project.

Up to 108 acres of D class land can be leased for horticulture,


floriculture and agro based industries.
Source :(KSLUB 2001)., GOK
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 18

Land Policies AFTER 1991


Special Economic Zones and Industries ( 2009)
SEZs can preferably be established in waste, karab, dry and
single crop land. Use of agricultural land to be kept to the
minimum.
Utilization of agricultural land is subject to the Government of
India guidelines issued from time to time.

Resettlement and Rehabilitation plan in line with the guidelines


issued by the Government of India from time to time.
Source :Dept. Agriculture, GOK

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 19

Source :Dept. Industries ,GOK

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 20

Land Policies AFTER 1991


Karnataka Land Policy for Renewable Energy Projects(2009-14)

Targeted potential of 4200 MW during the policy period about


12000 Ha of various categories of lands like
Government Barren lands,

Revenue lands,
Private lands,
Panchayat lands and
Forest lands necessary in different districts of the state.
Necessary amendments to section 79(a), 79(b) and 80 of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act was made.


Source :Dept. Agriculture, GOK

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 21

Karnataka Sate Biofuel Policy 2009

Revenue Department & Forest Department to


identify and declare the uncultivable waste land in the
State both under government and private hands/owners th
is list is to be prepared Grama Panchayatwise.
Land can be allotted to the industry on lease basis.
The allotment of Government land on lease will be
processed by inviting tenders from entrepreneurs.

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 22

Institutional Setup in Karnataka


Karnataka State Land Use Board (SLUB) established in
1975 in order to issue guidelines for different department to
prepare perspective land use plans and to review and
monitoring the land use pattern for agriculture sector only.
Sectoral planning for implementation of

Agricultural
Horticulture
Animal Husbandry
Fisheries
Karnataka State Land Use Board (KSLUB, 2001): Perspective Land
Use Plan for Karnataka 2025 Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.
How much it is implemented ? and What is the impact ?
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 23

Institutional Setup
Ministry of Forest
Water Resources
Mining
Electricity
Public Work Department
Commodity Boards

Urban Development Policy: After 74th constitutional


amendment act came into force, the municipalities are being
declared as planning authorities having jurisdiction over
municipal limit.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 24

Policies implemented in Karnataka after 1991


Policies/
Programs

Objectives

Globalization of
agriculture sectors
(WTO)

Improving the efficiency (+) Area under high value


Resources allocation and crops & increasing income.
increasing farm income
(+) ground water depletion
and degradation of land.
Agricultural growth rate
to exceed 4%
(-) Crop diversification
per annum
(+) Soil nutrient use
(+) degradation of soils

Increasing in food
production
(NFSM, NHM
RKVY, OPE)

( + )= Increase

Likely Impact

( - )=Decrease

Source :Dept. Agriculture, GOK

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 25

Policies implemented
Policies

Objectives

Likely Impact

Dry Land Development


(Sujala, IWDP, RVP etc)

Management of land (+) Better soil and water


and water resources conservation adoption
on watershed basis
(+) Area under
horticultural and high
value crops

Irrigation Development
Savalu-Javalu
Jalasamvardana Yojane

Increasing area under


irrigation and
(-) Degradation of soils
efficient water use
(+) Cropping intensity and
yield

Source :Dept. Agriculture, GOK

Page 26

Policies implemented
Policies

Objectives

Likely Impact

Agricultural Price
Support (MSP)

Ensuring remunerative
prices

(+) or (-) Change in land


use and management

Agricultural Input
Subsidies
(Fertilizer Policy,
Rural electrification)
Forest development
(JFPM, Farm
forestry)

Encourage optimum use


of resources

(+) or (-) Change in the


intensity of soil nutrients
use
(+) Efficient input use
Diverting agricultural
land for forestry use.

Conservation and
expansion of forest

(+) increasing
biodiversity
Source :Dept. Agriculture, GOK

Page 27

Policies implemented
Policies

Objectives

Likely Impact

Agricultural Credit
policy (3 % interest)
Agricultural Labour
policy (MGNREGA)

Increase farm
investment
Increase rural
employment and income

(+) improved
land management
(-) labour availability and
shift in land use from
annual to perennials crops.

Source :Dept. Agriculture, GOK

Page 28

Policies implemented
Policies

Objectives

Likely Impact

Urban and
infrastructural
development
(KIADB Land Bank)

Providing housing and


better amenities

Diversion of good
agricultural land for non
agricultural use
(-) water resources for agil.
(+) soil and water pollution
Diversion of forest land for
industries and mining
Mining pollution affect
agricultural yield

Industrial and mining Providing employment


Expansion.
and increasing state
(Commodity Specific income
industrial zones)
Decentralization in
planning
(PRI institutional
support)

Bottom up approach for Participation of local


planning and
people in allocation of
implementation of
resources
programs

Source :, GOK various reports

Page 29

Land Policy Stressed Greater Concern for


Conservation of Resources and Enhancing Land
Productivity

After New Economic Policy (1991)


a significant changes has been noticed in
land use and land productivity
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 30

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 31

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 32

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 33

Impact of Policy on Soil Resources


Change in land use
Karnataka State (10 Agro-Climatic Zones)

Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka

Magadi taluka representing Eastern Dry Zone

Kuthanagere & Rajanukunte Micro Watersheds

12/13/2012

Page 34

Sorghum on deep soil

Sorghum on shallow soil

Soils Chemical
Characteristics

Soils Physical
Characteristics
for classification

Soil color
Mottling
Drainage
Soil depth
Soil texture
Coarse fragments
Structure
Concretions/nodules

Shrink-swell properties
13/12/2012

Soil Survey and Mapping

Sodicity

NBSS&LUP 2012

Soil pH
EC
CEC
Soil Organic carbon
Available N
Available P
Available K
Available Fe
Available z
Available Cu
Available Mn

Sheet erosion
Page 35

FARM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY:

Indicators of Change:
Land use and productivity

Input use intensity


On-farm investment
Farm technology change

Livelihood security
* Exit from agriculture
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 36

GIS on bio-physical and socio-economic data

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 37

Identification of Stakeholders
Land Category
1.Forests
Reserved
Protected
Unclassified
2. Not available for
cultivation
Land under non-agricultural
use
3. Barren & unculturable
land

Definition

Depart
ment

Type of
Controls

Forests include all lands classed as forest under any legal enactment dealing with forests or
administered as forests.

Forests

This category included all lands occupied by buildings, roads & railways or under water, e.g. rivers &
canals, & other lands put to uses other than agricultural.

Revenue

Proprietorship,
Management, Use
Regulation, Control
over Access
Proprietorship, Use
Regulation

4. Permanent pastures &


other grazing land

This category covers all barren & unculturable lands, including mountains, deserts, etc. which
cannot be brought under cultivation, except at a high cost, is classed as unculturable, whether such
land is in isolated blocks or within cultivated holdings.
This category covers all grazing lands whether they are permanent pastures or meadows or not.
Village commons & grazing lands are included under this category.

5. Miscellaneous tree crops


and groves

Under this class is included all cultivable land which is not included under the net area sown, but is
put to some agricultural use.

6. Cultivable wasteland

Revenue

Proprietorship, Use
Regulation

Agriculture

Indirect Regulation

8. Fallow land other than


current fallow land

This category includes all lands available for cultivation, whether taken up for cultivation or not
taken up for cultivation once, but not cultivated during the current years & the last 5 years or more
in succession. Such lands may be either fallow or covered with shrubs & jungles, which are not put
to any use.
This class comprises cropped areas, which are kept fallow during the current years only. For
example, if any seedling area is not cropped again in the same year, it may be treated as current
fallow.
This term denotes the net area sown under crops & orchards, counting areas sown more than once
in the same year only once.

Agriculture

Indirect Regulation

9.Net Sown Area

Net sown area (including area under miscellaneous tree crops) and current fallow

private
property
resource

non-owners do not
have access

7. Current fallows

?
Panchayat

?
Use Regulation

Source :Chopra, Kanchan and Purnamita Dasgupta.( 2002)

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 38

Land Use Changes at State Level


Land Use
Forests
Non Agricultural Use
Barren and Uncultivable
Permanent Pastures
Miscellaneous Trees
Cultivable Waste Land
Fallow Lands
Current Fallow Lands
Net Sown Area
Gross Cropped Area
A. Sown More than Once
TGA

1991
3075
1192
801
1097
316
445
431
984
10709
12393
1683
19050

% to
TGA
16.14
6.26
4.21
5.76
1.66
2.34
2.26
5.17
56.22
65.06
8.84

(Area in 000 ha)

Change
2009 % to TGA
3072
16.13
1375
7.22
788
4.13
923
4.85
290
1.52
413
2.17
513
2.69
1482
7.78
10195
53.52
12368
64.93
2173
11.41
19050

1991-2009
-2.96
183.42
-13.43
-173.36
-26.16
-32.26
81.39
497.72
-514.37
-24.45
489.92

Source :DES, GOK


13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 39

Cropping Pattern Changes at State Level


1991

2009

6000
5436.342

5,372

6,273

7000

Area (000 ha)

5000

4000
3221.122
2,088

3000

2000

1753.835

1000

0
Cereals and Millets

13/12/2012

Pulses

NBSS&LUP 2012

Oilseeds

Page 40

Land Use Change in Eastern Dry Zone(5)

Land Use
Forests
Non Agricultural Use
Barren and Uncultivable
Permanent Pastures
Miscellaneous Trees
Cultivable Waste Land
Fallow Lands
Current Fallow Lands
Net Sown Area
Gross Cropped Area
A. Sown More than Once
TGA
13/12/2012

1991
154.9
194
106.6
158
42.6
23.3
27.9
111.5
763.6
826.1
62.5
1582

% to
TGA
9.79
12.26
6.74
9.99
2.69
1.47
1.76
7.05
48.27
52.22
3.95

NBSS&LUP 2012

(Area in 000 ha)

Change

2009
151.6
237.9
103.6
22.1
133.1
35.1
119
36.8
738.2
766.5
28.3
1582

% to
TGA 1991-2009
9.58
-3.3
15.04
43.9
6.55
-2.99
1.39 -135.93
8.42
90.54
2.22
11.75
7.52
91.11
2.33
-74.71
46.66
-25.43
48.45
-59.67
1.79
-34.24

Page 41

Cropping Pattern Change in Eastern Dry Zone(5)


1991

2009

600
535
500
432

Area (000 ha)

400

324
300

200

165

86

100

64

0
Cereals and Millets

13/12/2012

Pulses

NBSS&LUP 2012

Oilseeds

Page 42

35000
30000

25440

40000

33506

Land Use Changes in Magadi Taluk( Area 355912 ha)

2000-2001

2010-2011

25000

194

204

10

38

2605

2567

161

576

415

5149

6158
1009

3210

4251

1041

5000

655

1000

10000

6248

7596

15000

Area (ha)

Land Use
Change

20000

-10000

-8066

-5000

-345

-1348

-15000
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 43

Land Use Change In Kuttanageri (250 ha)


100%

2
1

90%

80%
Per cent to total area

10

0
1
Clay
20

Slight(< 5t/ha)
100%

Sandy clay

70%
6
2

50%

Sandy Clay
Loam
Loamy Sand

40%
30%

21

20%

22

Sandy Loam

10%

Per cent to total area

90%

60%

Moderate (5- 15 t/ha)

80%
70%
60%

18

29

50%
40%
30%
20%

16
12

10%

0%
Baseline-1996
Present level-2012
Time (Years)

1992
13/12/2012

Severe(15-40 t/ha)

0%
Baseline-1996
Present level-2012
Time(Years)

1998

NBSS&LUP 2012

2012

Page 44

Change in land use in Rajanukunte watershed(550 ha)


Land use / land cover

Ragi
Paddy
Total food crops
Vegetables
Flowers
Guava
Grapes
Mango
Coconut
Banana
Total horticultural crops
Eucalyptus
Casurina
Total agro-forestry
Fallow land
Total cultivable land

Change 1980-2002
(in ha)
Total
Annual
change
-185.59
-8.44
3.96
0.18
-181.63
-8.26
-24.97
-1.14
6.28
0.29
31.94
1.45
69.26
3.15
-1.35
-0.06
34.9
1.59
18.03
0.82
134.09
6.1
-11.75
-0.53
-12.95
-0.59
-24.7
-2.37
-17.66
-0.8
-89.91
-4.09
Page 45

NPK(Kg/ha)

Change in fertilizer use


900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

1980

Cereals

Fruits

Vegetables
Crops

2002

Flower

Mean

Page 46

Change in Irrigation Sources


1980

Source

2002

No. in Area
use

Change

No. in Area

irrigated(ac) use

No. in Area

Irrigated
(ac)
use

irrigated(ac)

Open well
Marginal farmers

2.5

-2

-2.5

Small farmers

8.75

-6

-8.75

Large farmers

-3

-5

Marginal Farmers

27

40.8

38

56

11

15.2

Small Farmers

26

56

55

86

29

30

Large farmers

52

171

111

180

59

9.5

Tube well

Page 47

Changes in soil erosion

Erosion
Slight
Moderate
Sever

1980 2002
(%) (%) Change
-2.3
36.8 34.5
8.9
56.3 65.2
-6.6
6.9
0.3

Page 48

Changes in soil pH in Rajanukunte watershed


pH class
Strongly acid
(5.1 - 5.5)
Moderately acid
(5.6-6.0)
Slightly acid(6.16.5)
Neutral
(6.6-7.3)
Slightly alkaline
(7.4-7.8)

1980 2002
(%) (%) Change
0

38.3

38.3

7.1

11.4

4.3

17.5

19

1.5

57

23.8

-33.2

0.6

7.4

6.8

Page 49

Decline in Soil organic Carbon(SOC)

1980 2002
% to % to Change
Total Total (%)

SOC
Low
( < 1 kg m-2 ) 10.5 13.5
Medium
(1-2 kg m-2) 31.9 30.4
High
( > 2 kg m-2) 57.7 56.1

-1.5
-1.6
Page 50

Estimated cost for lime amendment for acid soils


Area Total Lime Total Cost per
pH class
(ha) requirement Cost(Rs)
ha
Strongly. acid (5.1 - 5.5) 160.24
84927 161362
1007
Medium acid (5.6-6.0)
47.68
14304
27178
570
Slightly acid (6.1-6.5)
Total

79.64
288

15928
115159

30263
218802

380
761

Page 51

Change in Farm Household Income


Source

1980
Income
(Rs)
%

2002
Income
(Rs)

Change
Income
(Rs)
%

Crop production

10000.24

33.54

15301.80

41.09

5301.56

6.92

Agril Labour

2794.61

9.37

3098.67

8.32

304.06

-0.40

Sheep rearing

4948.57

16.60

5251.36

14.10

302.79

-2.11

Dairy enterprise

6949.08

23.31

9116.13

24.48

2167.06

0.94

Sericulture

1890.94

6.34

0.00

0.00

-1890.94

-6.31

Business

1795.13

6.02

2732.67

7.34

937.54

1.02

Govt Service

1263.07

4.24

1514.67

4.07

251.60

-0.12

Rural artisans

174.60

0.59

223.69

0.60

49.09

0.06

Total income

29816.23

100.00

37238.99

100.00

7422.76
Page 52

Sustainable Farm Household Income(Rs)= (FHI- COSD)

=(7422-761)
Sustainable Farm Household Income(Rs)= 6661 Per ha.
FHI= Farm Household Income
COSD= Cost of Soil Degradation

Page 53

Soil and Climatic requirements

Ex anti Impact Assessment of Land Policy on Oil Palm

Crop Requirement
Annual rainfall
Soil Depth
Soil Texture
Soil Drainage
Soil Slope
Soil pH
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Optimum condition
2000 to 4000 mm
>75 cm
Loam
Well drained
<5%
5.6- 7.5
Page 54

Taluka
Aurad
Basavakalyana
Bhalki
Bidar
Humnabad
BIDAR Total

Not suit
Suit_ini
Suit_lii
1225
0
857
337
1053
38
630
250
480
494
4245
1119

0
0
0
0
0
0

Project Cost - Cultivation of Oil Palm ( Rs 82600 /ha)


Year 1
Total
expenditure

45000

Year 2
10500

Year 3

Year 4

12400

Source : NABARD

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 55

14700

State wise area under oil palm cultivation (2004) Source :WWF- India

12/13/2012

Page 56

The exiting land policies promoting diversion of land from


agricultural use to non agricultural purposes.
The land use changed from cereals crops to horticultural crops.
The ecologically favorable land use like area under forest,
permanent pastures, miscellaneous trees and groves are declining
faster rate.
The area under fallowing is increasing due to speculative buying by
the absentee landlords around urban centres.
The area under net sown is reducing fast indicating farmers are
shifting from farming to non farm employment.

The present land policies are promoting short term gains in


farm income and in the long run it can leads to food
insecurity and land degradation.
12/13/2012
Page 57

How NBSS&LUP Contributing for LUP ?


Science based Land Use Planning and Policies analysis.
Use of models, scenario building to understanding
potential impact of policies.
Application of Web-based Land Use Planning Tools for
decision on land use.
Bottom up approach village-Panchayath- District- State.
Convergence of different department priorities for
effective implementation land policies.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 58

THANK YOU

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 59