Three Blocks, One Action Plan: Reading a Chhattisgarh District Profile
A district planning cell in Chhattisgarh is finalising its annual action plan for three blocks of the same district and has placed the following profile before the committee. Block X: forest cover is 62% of geographical area; tendu leaf plucking and mahua collection engage about four-fifths of households; there is no canal command; the Scheduled Tribe population is 71%; only 9 of 24 habitations have all-weather road connectivity. Block Y: four coal mining leases and two thermal power units operate within 20 km; 45% of the population is urban; per-capita electricity use is far above the state average; paddy area is shrinking as land is acquired. Block Z: forest cover is 11%; tank irrigation is assured; paddy is double-cropped on 78% of net sown area; a regulated mandi and a paddy procurement centre function at the block headquarters. The committee must classify the blocks, match one intervention to each, and dispose of a representation from a sarpanch of Block Z who claims his panchayat must be excluded from tribal sub-plan funding because the block's ST population is below 50%.
1. Classify Blocks X, Y and Z by their most probable agro-economic and administrative character within Chhattisgarh, and identify the single figure in each profile that drives your classification.
Read the worked answer
Block X - forest-fringe tribal belt (the pattern seen in Bastar division and in the Scheduled Area blocks of the northern Sarguja belt).
The decisive combination is 62% forest cover with a 71% ST population and near-total dependence on tendu and mahua. High forest cover plus absence of any canal command plus very poor road connectivity is a structural forest economy, not a temporary lag. A plains block cannot show this combination.
Block Y - energy/industrial belt of the Korba–Raigarh type.
The decisive figure is the concentration of four mining leases and two thermal units inside 20 km, reinforced by 45% urbanisation and above-average per-capita electricity use. Shrinking paddy area is a consequence of land acquisition for mining, not of agro-climatic weakness.
Block Z - central plains, the state's rice-bowl pattern (Mahasumund, Janjgir-Champa, Raipur rural type).
The decisive figure is 78% of net sown area under double-cropped paddy with assured tank irrigation, supported by a regulated mandi and a procurement centre.
Caveat: these indicators make a classification consistent with a region; they do not prove the district. The gazetteer and the administrative notification must be checked before the plan is finalised.
2. Match one intervention to each block from a development menu (irrigation, MFP value addition, connectivity, air-quality monitoring, resettlement compliance, procurement logistics). Justify each by tying it to that block's binding constraint.
Read the worked answer
Block X - minor forest produce value addition plus all-weather connectivity.
The binding constraint is that income depends on tendu and mahua sold largely unprocessed, and that two-thirds of habitations are cut off in the rains. A canal intervention would fail on two counts: there is no command area, and forest land cannot be broken up for irrigation. Processing (leaf-plate units, mahua-based products) and road links attack the actual constraint. Recognition of community forest resource rights also gives the harvesting a legal basis.
Block Y - resettlement and rehabilitation compliance, with ambient air and water monitoring.
Land is being lost to mining, so paddy support prices cannot restore the displaced household's livelihood. Monitoring of air and water is needed because two thermal units and four leases sit inside 20 km. Skilling for non-farm work completes the package.
Block Z - procurement logistics and storage, plus tank and canal efficiency.
Here the constraint is not production but handling: double-cropped paddy has to be weighed, stored and moved within a narrow window. Desilting of tanks and lining of channels protects the second crop.
A common mistake is to give every block the same irrigation-centric package. The justification must name the constraint, not the sector.
3. The sarpanch of Block Z argues that because the block's ST population is below 50%, his panchayat must be excluded from tribal sub-plan funding. Is the claim correct? What exactly should the office verify before replying?
Read the worked answer
The claim cannot be accepted as it stands, and it cannot be rejected on the block figure either.
- Eligibility is not decided by impression. Tribal sub-plan and Scheduled Area funding flows are tied to areas notified under the Fifth Schedule and to the eligibility clauses of the specific scheme. Whether the block lies in a notified Scheduled Area is a question of fact to be answered from the notification, not from the ST percentage alone.
- The block figure masks the panchayat. A block-level average of, say, 40% can coexist with a panchayat that is ST-majority. Eligibility is often assessed at habitation or panchayat level.
- ST-specific components survive. Even in a non-ST-majority block, ST-specific components can be spent on ST habitations, so blanket exclusion is wrong in principle.
Office action: check (i) the Fifth Schedule notification for the block, (ii) the scheme guideline's own eligibility clause, and (iii) panchayat and habitation-level ST data; then reply in writing citing the clause relied upon. Deciding by assertion would create an audit objection later.