EVAlUATION aTUDY IElilel NO.

4&

LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES

, IN
MAHAl.ASHTRA
A TECRNO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION S,TUDY

r~

, -631.706

, NABPtR'D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- - - - !_ _ __

~.

AND

h""nr\L

..~K FOR AGRICUl~'tJRF

DEVELOPMENT

DfPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND RESEARCI:t

BOMBAY

1995

LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES

IN
MAHARASHTRA
'A TECENO-ECONOlv1IC EVALUATION STUDY

NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH
BOMBAY

1995

r.

'....:

~-

,.
I.

i..

~"~I:'..;....It.."'# ."._._".-.... :""'-"....- - - - \

t\ ~.: :. ",
~; c.:: ')~)

,-> : :-. :

'~

r
,,

I
I

J.\

, ,.

:~:-:-;O"3l

r .'
L

O_

."

~,

r;

;.

.
, ..
_.

_"

",~
__

~.
'_;

.apt. 11181 .
<

"~C'~'"

.....

~~ ~~

.,~

... -_

F"OREIJORD

National Bank hss bean supporting construction of s large number of

lift irrigation units through refinance assistance in the state of
I'Iaharashtra sinca sixties.
The flow of refinance assistance recorded
significant increase in the wake of the recommendations of the
Irrigation Commission of Maharashtra (1962) for large scale installation
of lift irrigation units. Based on the feedback received from time to
time on the working of the schemes, National Bank had made a number of
policy changes.
Nevertheless, several problems still persisted
affecting the parformance of the schemes.
As such, National Bank
commissioned in 1994 a techno-economic evaluation study to critically
examine various aspects of implementation of the schemes.
The study observed that the implementation of the schemes was
beset with many operational problems.
tor instance, for want of
technical expertise at the level of the Irrigation Societies and the
financing banks, most of the lift irrigation structures were over
designed creating not only larger irrigation potential than was actually
required but also raising the investment cost.
IJhile designing the lift irrigation systems, the water
distribution system was practically lost sight of, which resul.ted in
reduced coverage of irrigable area and wasteful use of scarce irrigation
water. No less vexed was the managerial problem arising out of almost
complete absence of cohesion amongst the members of the Societies.
!o cap it all, lack of timely follow-wp and supervision by the financing
banks witA~~sed considerable time and cost overruns ultimately affecting
the financial viability of the investment under the schemes.
The
accrual of benefits from the investment was of a lower order because
of frequent voltage fluctuations causing recurrent burning of electric
motors and consequent disruption in operation of the schemes. Upsabandi
(temporary ban imposed by the state Government on water lifting) was
another addition in the list.

:r:

Nonetheless, the beneficiaries were observed to have realised

substantial income from such investments through favourable changes
in the cropping pattern, increase in crop intensity and yield of crops.
These benefits accrued not only from the lift irrigation schemes proper
but also from the private wells which were dry prior to the execution
of the lift irrigati~n schemes and got recharged and became operational
thereafter.
The recharging of the wells, though per se a welcome
change, posed a threat to the viability of the lift irrigation schemes.
The cost attributed to recharging of wells in the command area of the
schemes was, however not paid for by the beneficiaries.
In fact,
demand for watar from the schemes proportionately declined as a result
of recharging of the wells.
This calls for devising an appropriate
price mechanism which should take into account the indirect benefits
of recharging the wells in the command area of the lift irrigation
achemes.
Despite the fact that the members of the lift irrigation societies
realised substantial increase in their income, the repayment performance
was unsatisfactory due to several factors, including the ad-hoc
procedures adopted by the lift irrigation societies in raising
demand.
I feel that the various observations and recommendations made in the
report deaerve careful consideration of the concerned project entities.

NATIONAL BANK fOR. AGRICULTURE

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
BOMBAY

S.K. Kalia
Planaging Director

6, Play 1995

ii

CREDITS
Overall Direction
Dr. H. P. Singh, Chief General Manager, DEAR
Dr. A.K. 8andyopadhyay, General Manager, DEAR
Consolidation, Editing & rinalisation
Shri Virnal Kishor, Deputy General Manager
Drafting of Report
Dr. A.S. Patil, Assistant General Manager
Dr. K.J.S. Satyasai, Manager
rield Investigation & Data Analysis
DEAR
Dr. K.P. Deq, Deputy General Manager
Dr. A.S. Patil, Assistant General Manager
Dr. K.J.S. Satyasai, Manager, DEAR
Shri R.S. Mar, Manager, DEAR
TSD
Shri S. Hazarika, Deputy General Manager
Shri S.K. Gupta, Assistant General Manager
ICD
Shri M.K. Ghadge, Deputy General Manager
Shri A. Sekhar, Manager

iii

ABBREVIATIONS

LI
LISls
IaLP
PDC

MSCARDB

0&1'1

OCCB

fSL
UL
HfL
NABARO

I'ISCB

CBs
I'ISEB
fRR

NIl
PERT
CPI'I

HYVs
DEAR

TSD
ICO
ICA

Lift Irrigation
Lift Irrigation Society/Scheme
Water Lifting Permission
Main Distribution Channel
Maharashtra State Co-operative Agriculture
and Rural Development Bank Ltd.
Operation and Maintenance
District Central Co-operative Bank
full Supply Level
Low water Level
High flood Level
National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development
Maharashtra state Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Commercial Banks
Maharashtra State Electricity Board
financial Rate of Return
Net Incremental Income
Programme Evaluation and Review Techniqua
Critical Path Method
High Yielding Varieties
Department of Economic Analysis and Research
Technical Services Department
Investment Credit Department
Irrigated Command Area

iv

CON TEN T 5
Page No.
1

Summary and Conclusions

The l'Iain Report
Chapters

14

Introduction

II

Objectives, Sample Design

and Msthodolqgy

III

Implementation of Schemes

IV

Cost of Investment and

its Financing

Economics of Investment

VI

Repayment Performance

16

23

39

45
65
78-111

Appendix

112-129

Annexures I to XIV
List of Reports published by the National Bank

SU~ARY

AND CONCLUSIONS

1.

Lift Irrigation (lI) constitutes an important source of

irrigation in Maharashtra.
Ho",ever, the implementation of the
II schemes over a period have thto",n up various problems. The
present study uas undertaken to study the technical, financial,
implementation and organisational aspects of these schemes,
besides, assessing the economic impact.

2.

Seven schemes (five from the Krishna basin and one each from the
Godavari and the Tapi basins) were selected for the study.
A total of 90 beneficiaries ",ere selected randomly covering
30 each from three II schemes selected for impact analysis. The
unirrigated segment of the sample land holding ",as considered
to represent the "without project" situation.
Wherever ",ells
",ere existing in the command area of II scheme in the predevelopment stage, due adjustment ",as made "'hile computing the
incremental income.
The agricultural year 1992-93 ",as taken
as the reference year of the study.
Technical Aspects

3.

The actual irrigation requirement for sustaining the cropping

pattern ",as found to be lo",er by 30 per cent than the design
norms used, leading to over-designing of the scheme and violation
of Water Lifting Permission (WLP).

4.

Annual siltation rates ",ere not taken into account "'hile

designing intake atructure located in the back ",ater of dame.

5.

The Irrigation Department restricted the lifting of ",ater for

irrigation pur~6ses (i.e. Upssbandi) from the Krishna river to
the extent of 50 per cent, not",ithstanding the unconditional L~P
given to the LI Societies. This restriction severely affected
the operation of lift Irrigation Schemes.
1

6.

After

the

completion

of

construction,

test

runs

were

not

conducted for eliminating the faults.

7.

The chak size of the distribution outlet was found to be unduly

large leading to poor water management which resulted in water
logging problems in the commend area of the LI schemes.

8.

Sump wells were designed for a retention period of 5 minutes

which \Jas found to be on the higher side entailing unnecessary
expenditure.
Similarly, ~lain Distribution Chamber (MDC) was
designed for a retention period of 2 minutes instead of the
desired retention period of 1 minute.
Implementation Aspects

9.

The construction period varied from t\Jo years (Yeshoba Khore ~iS)
to seven years (Nimshirgaon LIS).
Apathy of contractors,
organisational deficiencias, major design changes, external
factors, 1ege1 problems, lack of coordination among various
project entities were the main reasons for delays in completion
of schemes.

10

The financing agencies submitted proposals for rephasement

and additional refinance due to cost escalation following delays
in the implementation of LI schemes.
The contingency amount
provided at the time of sanction at the rate of 3 per cent of the
cost of civil, electrical and mechanical Yorks, excluding the
distribution system, and at the rate of one per cent of the cost
of distribution system, was found to be inadequate to offset such
escalation.

11.

No doun payment was collected from the member~ of LI Society by

the co-operative banks.

12.

Banks debited contribution towards share capitel to loan

accounts of LIS beneficiaries resulting in finanCing for the
2

project

as

wall

as

for

subscription' towards

share

capital

(MSCARDB in Rajendra LIS).

13.

The interest rate charged differed betueen commercial and

co-operative banks. Commercial banks treated LI Society as the
principal borrower (Mahalaxmi LI Scheme) and charged 15 per cent
rate of interest whereas the co-operative banks treated
individual beneficiaries as borrowers and, hence, charged rate
of interest according to the loan amount and the interest often
uorked out to less than 15 per cent (Nimshirgaon LI Scheme).

14.

The stipulated repayment period of LIS uas 12 years (maximum

of 15 years), including gestation period of 23 months..
Tha
demand for repayment uas raised from third year onuards,
i.e., even prior to the completion of the scheme which was
contrary to the basic assamption that loan instalments would be
repaid out of incremental income.
Moreover, for refinance at
bank's level repayment schedule for refinance was worked out for
each drawal separately as against the suggested procedure of
drawing it for the entire bank loan (Amode LIS). As a result,
while releasing the refinance under eech drawal subsequently, the
instalments had to be adjusted according to the due dates.

15.

I'ISCARDB edopted fixed due date of 01 July, irrespective of the

date of flotation of debentures.
I'ISCARDB would have obtained
additiona~ grace period of 6 months to 18 months over and above
the grace period allowed in the scheme by following due dates
suggested by National Bank.
Levy of Water Rates

16.

The water charges covering 0&1'1 expenses worked out to Rs. 12.77,
Rs. 7.06. and Rs. 7.02 per acre-inch of weter in Nimshirgaon,
Amode and Mahalaxmi LI schemes respectively while the corresponding economic water rates covering both O&M expenses and loan
3

repayment commi tments 1J0rked out to Rs. 45.28, Rs. 65.82 and
On an average, the !Jater charges
Rs. 41.43 per acre-inch.
!Jorked out to Rs. 2,351, Rs. 1,846 and Rs. 2,613 per irrigated
acre which accounted for 47, 23 and 47 per cent of incremental
income derived from Nimshirgaon, Amode and Mahalaxmi LI schemes,
respectively. Thus, the beneficiaries !Jere able to pay economic
water rates out of the incremental income generated.
17.

Weter rates for different crops were fixed arbitrarily !Jithout

reference to the volume of water utilised by each member. The
water charges proposed to be collected from the farmers could not
fully cover even O&M expenses in Nimshirgaon LIS. In Amode and
Mahalaxmi schames, on the other hand, the demand raised for
water charges could fully cover the O&M expenses, besides
covering 11 and 15 per cent of annual equated instalment,
respectively.

Operational Aspect.
18.

Sugarcane occupied 65, 73 a~d 38 per cent of the gross irrigated

area in Mahalaxmi, Amode Bnd Nimshirgaon LIS respectively
compared to the stipulated 15 per cent in the IJLP resulting in a
situation that only a part of the CCA of LIS could actually be
irrigated.

19.

Most of the LI Societies did not have on their roll any technical
and managerial stafr.
The technical consultants helped LI
Societies in this regard. However, 1n the schemes sponsored by
the sugar factories, the technical staff of the co-oparative
sugar factory helped the LIS (Mahalaxmi LIS, Sangli), in
planning, implementation and day to day operations.

20.

Sugar factories in general provided technical and managerial

support through their staff, particularly for formulation,
execution and smooth running of Lift Irrigation Scheme.
In
exigencies,
suger
factories provided funds for repair!

replacement of motors, distribution system and other works. On

the contrary, inspi te of the commitment of providing technical
expertise and managerial staff, the sugar factory did not
involve itself in the implementation of Rajendra LI Scheme,
Pune.
21.

The role of consultants proved to be crucial starting from the

planning till the execution of the Schemes.
The role of
consultants was pro-active in Mahalaxmi LIS, Sangli, whereas it
fell short of expectations in other schemes.

22.

The role played by contractors was found to be unsatisfactory.

In some schemes (Rajendra LI Scheme) contractors were found to
be closs associates of the consultants which was found to be one
of the important factors responsible for delaying the scheme
implementation as well as affecting quality of work.
Cost of Investment and its Financing

23.

The actual cost incurred amounted to Rs. 130.26 lakh (4 per cent
higher than the sanctioned outlay), Rs. 135.29 lakh (equal to the
sanctioned outlay) and Rs. 281.08 lakh (58 per cent higher than
the sanctioned amount) in respect of Mahalaxmi, Awasari and Amode
LI schemes, respectively. In Nababpur LI scheme, cost incurred
was Rs. 258.97 lakh (higher by 33 per cent than the sanctioned
amount). In Nimshirgaon LI scheme, the total cost incurred was
Rs o 300.74 lakh reflecting an increase of 14 per cent in the
sanctioned outlay.
For meeting this shortfall, the Society
borrowed Ra. 37 lakh from Sugar factory at 6 per cent per annum.
Actual total cost incurred on Rajendra LI Scheme wae Rs. 121.47
lakh, 8n increase of about Rs. 1"5 lakh.

24.

In the case of Mahalaxmi, Nababpur-Siddhapur and Nimshirgaon

LI schemes the sponsoring sugar factory contributed funds towards
the down payment and shortfall in the funds as and when required.
5

The DCCB met the shortfall of as much as 58 per cent from its
oun funds in Amode LI Scheme.
25.

The

total

cost

of

investment

on

Nimshirgaon,

Mahalaxmi

and

Amode LI schemes at reference year (1992-93) prices uas estimated

at Rs.

710.14

lakh,

Rs.

220.67

lakh,

and

Rs.

440.79

lakh,

respectively.
Economics of Investment
26.

The overall average size of holdings uas 4.24 acres of which

3.09 acres (72.88%) uere irrigated in the post development stage.
The benefited area through LI shemes uas 2.08 acres (49%).

The

remaining area weB irrigated through wells and other sources.

27.

The cropping pattern under irrigated conditions in Mshalaxmi,

Amode and Nimshirgaon LI schemes uas dominated by sugarcane;
sugarcane and banana; and sugarcane and soybean, raspectively.
AS much as 92, 88 and 76 per .cent,

r~spectively,

of the gross

cropped area on the sample farms of these schemes waa under

commercial crops leaving only 8, 12 and 24 per cent of gross
cropped area under cereals and pulses.
28.

On the other hand, cropping pattern under rainfed conditions

was dominated by coarse cereals (jowar and bajra) followed by
oUseeds

(soyabean

and

groundnut).

Pulses

(Nimshirgaon and

Amode LI schemes), tobacco and cotton (Mahalaxmi and "Amode LI

schemes) uere also important unirrigated crops grown in the
command areas of the LI schemes.
29.

lJith the introduction of irrigation facility, the intensity of

cropping

(weighted)

increased

to

245

per

cent

for

all

the

three schemes as a whole from 104 per cent in the pre-development

situation.

The cropping intensity jncreased to 201 per cent,

300 per cent and 267 per cant on saf11Jle farms of Nimshirgaon,

Amode and l'Iahalaxmi LI schemes, reepectively

compared to 100

per cent to 112 per cent in the pre-development situetion.

The

higher cropping intensity in the case of Amode and l'Iahalaxmi LI

schemes was attributed to the higher proportion of area under
annual crops (sugarcane and banana) in their command areas.
30.

The yield of crops grown in the benefited area of sample farms

was observed to be higher by 2 to 3 times in comparison to the
yield of crops grown in rainfed area in the case of crope like
hybrid jowar, soyabean, groundnut and gram in Nimshirgaon and
Mahalaxmi LI schemes.

In the

case of

Amode LI Scheme, the

increase in yields was not significant.

31.

The overall gross income, cost of cultivation, farm business

income and net income were Rs.

16,185, Rs. 7,376 (Rs.

without imputing the value of family

Rs.

labour),

Rs.

6,211

9,974 and

8,809, respectively under pre-development situation.

This

amounted to 370 per cent, 289 per cent, 456 per cent and 469 per
cent increase over pre-development si tuatj on in the ssme order .
Conaiderable variation was observed in the msgnitude of these
parameters acrDSS the schemes due to differences in cropping
pattern, cropping intensity, level of input use and yield levels
of the crops on benefited and non-benefited portions of the
holdings.
32.

The per acre cost of cultivation on benefited area was higher

by 359, 503 and 222 per cent in the case of Nimshirgaon,
Mahalaxmi

and

AmodB

LI

Scheme,

respectively

as compared to

rainfed cultivation in respective areas.

33.

Increase in farm business income was of the order of 439, 536

and 447 per cent in the Nimshirgaon, Mahalaxmi and Amode LI
Scheme

areas,

respectively

benefited areas.

as

compared

to

reepective

non-

34.

The net income per acre of benefited area worked out to

Rs. 7,666, Rs. 8,097 and Rs. 10,074 indicating an increase of
420 per cent, 536 per cent and 487 per cent over that in
'without' project situation in the case of Nimshirgaon, Mahalaxmi
and Amode LI schemes, respectively.

35.

Incremental income per acre of benefited area was Rs. 7,806,

R~. 6,904 and Rs. 8,358 (including the imputed value of family
labour) in the case of Mahalaxmi, Amode and Nimshirgaon LI
schemes, respectively.
This was mainly. on account of higher
proportion of area allocated to commercial crope like sugarcane,
banana, groundnut, etc., in the benefited area.

36.

The annual 0 & M cost amounted to Rs . 4.90 lakh, Rs. 4.96 lakh,
and Rs. 17.33 lakh for Mahalaxmi, Amode and Nimshirgaon LIS,
respectively. Establishment charges and energy charges were the
two major components accounting for 84 per cent, 80 per cent and
62 per cent of the total 0 & M costs in respect of Nimshirgaon,
Mahalaxmi and Amode LI schemes, respectively. Of the total 0 & M
cost. fixed cost (salaries and electricity charges at flat rate)
accounted for 56 per cent to 74 per cent.
financial Viability

37.

The fRR worked out to 20, 29 and 15 per cent (with imputed vaiue
of family labour), at beneficiary level for Mahalaxmi, Amode and
Nimshirgaon LIS, respectively. The LI schemes in Kolhapur and
Sangli districts yielded low and moderate rates of returns while
in Jalgaon district it yielded high rate of return. The low rate
of return in the case of investment in Nimshirgaon LI Scheme was
on account of high investment cost and smaller benef i ted area
than envisaged.

38.

Gross income per ecre-inch of water applied was Rs. 659 in Amode
LI Scheme which waa over two and a half times of that obtaining

in Nimshirgaon and Mahalaxmi LI schemes. Net income per acreinch of water also showed the same trend. The per acre quantity
of water pumped IJas 28 inches in Amode LI Scheme as compared
to 63 and 52 inches in Mahalaxmi and Nimshirgaon LI Schemes,
respectively.
fll'l.:'ther, in both Nimshirgaon and Mahalaxmi
schemes, the water pumped was f~r in excess of the requirement.
In all the LI schemes, sugarcane occupied lowest rank in the
matter of productivity (net income) per acre-inch of water used
while giving the highest net income per acre. Vegetables, gram,
soyabean and other pulses on the other hand occupied top ranks in
terms of productivity in the schemes studied.
Repayment Performance
39.

The repayment period of 9 years, 10 years and 13 years apart from

23 months of grace period was fixed by the banks for repayment in
Nimshirgaon, Amode and Mahalaxmi LI schemes, respectively.

40.

The recovery performance of Nimshirgaon LI Scheme was poor.

During 1989-90, the recovery was 15 per cent whereas in the other
years it was less than one per cent. The recovery percentage
und9r LI schemes financed/implemented by MSCARDB District branch
in Kolhapur district was also poor. For Amode LIS, the recovery
position of OCCB in respect of LI schemes sa~ctioned by the bank
as well as the Amode Branch was consistently poor during the
period 1988-93.
The actual irrigation started in 1990-91,
whereas the demand was raised from 1988-89, resulting in
accumulation of overdues.
This indicated need for fixing
rational repayment schedules coinciding with the commencement of
actual irrigation.

41.

In the case of sample beneficiaries of Nimshirgaon LIS, none of

the beneficiaries paid even a single instalment.
The various
reasons for default were cost overrun, smaller area brought under
irrigation,
steep increase in the cost of investment,
9

unwillingness of farmers having wells in command area to pay

wster charges though benefiting from lift irrigation due to
percolation.
42.

In the case of Mahalaxmi LI Scheme, repayment performance of

sample beneficiaries varied from year to year.
The recovery
though very poor (18.41 per cent) during the initial years (198991), improved during subsequent years and reached a level of
72.51 per cent in 1991-92. In 1992-93, however, it came down to
52.12 per cent. Though the recovery performance of about 60 per
cent of sample beneficiaries was satisfactory, the overall
recovery performance WBS poor because of high share in terms of
average amount of default of the remaining 40 per cent of the
beneficiaries.

43.

In respect of Amode LIS, the proportion of sample beneficiaries

wi th no recovery wss es high as 64 per cent in 1989-90 , which
declined to 29 per cent in 1992-93. The recovery performance of
72 per cent of sample beneficiaries was not consistent over the
period. The recovery improved from 34 per cent in 1991-92 to 39
per cent in 1992-93. The poor recovery was mainly on account of
irrational repayment schedule adopted by the financing bank.
RecOlllllendations

A.

Technical Aspects

44.

The pre-sanction field appraisal should be made mandatory in the

case of all large Lift Irrigation Schames (with financial outlay
above Rs. 100 lakh).

45.

The National Bank may sponsor studies to work out ths irrigation
water requirement of various crops grown in the State across
different agro-climetic zones. Use of proper irrigation water
requirement norms for planning achemes will lead to better

10

designi~g

of the schemes and also prevent violation and misuse of

WLPs.

46.

The

de~ign

norms for

intake structure located in the back water

of dams should take into account the annual siltation rates.

Where the

intake

pipe becomes very long while providing for

siltation, lowering of water level at the jack \Jell/sump well

upto 0.5 meter should be resorted to create differential head for
the required discharge and the diameter of the intake

pipe may

be suitably selected.
47.

The National Bank should take into consideration the practice of

'Upsabandi'

by

the

Irrigation

Department,

at

the

time

of

sanctioning the schemes.

4B.

It should be made mandatory to release at least 10 per cent of

the cost of rising mains only after successful testing of the

pipes for the designed discharge.
49.

The maximum chak size of the distribution outlet should not be

more than 8 ha.

This would lead to better water management and

avoid water logging problems.

50.

The design norms for rectangular sumpuell

suugested for future

schemes should be such that the width of the sumpwell along the
direction of flow should be between 2 meters to 3 meters, and the
length of the sump well should not be more than length of the
pumphouse.
51

The depth of the sumpwell should be governed by the following

criteria
(a)

The clearance between the bottom of the sumpwell and the

bottom

of

foot

~alve

would

be

0.5

meter;

(b)

The

submergence of the foot valve should be 1 meter from low

water level (L.IJ.L.) in the case of sumpwells being used

l'

in head works or full supply level (F.S.L.) in the CBse of

sumpwells used for subsequent stages; (c) The height of
the sumpwells should be such that there is a free board of
0.5 meter above HFL/FSL.
52.

The main distribution chamber (M.D.C.) is at present designed for

a retention period of 2 minutes. It is suggested that MDC should
be designed for a retention period of 1 minute.

B.

General Aspects

53.

Grace period, although extended recently to 35 months instead of

the earlier norm of 23 months, should be scheme specific
depending upon size, complexity of the terrain, design and other
problems.

54.

Advance to the contractors should be released depending on the

order placed for the materials instead of releasing amounts in
lumpsum, based on total cost.

55.

The repayment schedule should not be worked out for each drawsl
separately. Instead, it should be drawn for the entire bank losn
initially.

56.

The repayment schedule should be based on the income generated

through the activity. Since income generated during the initial
years is relatively low, the demand should be lower during this
period and
therefore, the practice of equated instalment
followed by financing banks may be replaced by graded
instalments.
The repayment period should be extended suitably
wherever the flow of benefits are delayed because of time overrun including delays in energisation, subject however, to a
maximum loan period of 15 years.

57.

Efforts should be made to improve the recovery of the loan under

the Schemes.
forging effective co-ordination among the LI

12

Society, financing bank, sponsoring agency (Sugar ractory) is

prerequisite for this.
58.

rarmers whose wells (in the command area) get recharged due to LI
schemes should also share the cost of the scheme by means of
payment of suitable water charges.

59.

In view of the finding that the incremental income generated was

sufficient to cover economic water rates, the LI Societies should
be advised to collect the economic water rates from the
beneficiaries.

60.

Operational expenses for the first year should be included in the

preliminary and pre-operative expenses and form part of the
project outlay.

61.

Land levelling and development costs in the command area should

be included in initial estimates of LI Schemes.

13

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the state of Maharashtra nearly 87 per cent of the
cropped area depends upon rainfall receiving inadequate or
uncertain rains even during the main crop season.
The
Irrigation
Commission
of
Maharashtra
(1962),
therefore,
suggested large scale installation of Li ft Irrigation units on
rivers, rivulets, reservoirs, etc.
1.2

Since then a large number of Lift Irrigation (LI) Schemes have

been taken up on a co-operative basis with institutional credit
support.
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Agricultural and
Rural Development Bank (MSCARDB), Maharashtra State Co-operative
Bank (MSCB), and Commercial Banks (CBs) are playing an important
role in supporting such schemes with financial assistance. Sugar
factories in thA state are also playing a pivotal role in
providing technical support in management of Co-operative LI
Societies.

1.3

The implementation of a large number of schemes in the State has

thrown up problems pertaining to operational, technical and
financial aspects.
For instance, water lifted from rivers was
sought to be carried over long distances.
Defective/faulty
designs or systems designed with excess discharge than
required resulted in the steady rise in the cost.
Several
operational
constraints
have
also
been
encountered
in
implementing these schemes resulting in time and cost overruns.
Wi th the increase in cost of development and the restrictions
imposed by the state Government on the acreage to be devoted to
sugarcane cultivation, the viability of the investment has been
adversely affected.

14

1 .4

The present study was undertaken to probe into the proble'Tls

encountered during various stages of development of Lift
Irrigation Schemes.

Association of Shrl. P. K. ChaTterJee. GM. TSD. Shrl V. SrinIvasan. GM. ICD.

Shrl. E. Shanmugem. DGM. ICD and Shrl. B. Javaraman. AGM. DEAR. at various stages
of the study Is gratefully acknowledged.

15

CHAPTER II
OBJECTIVES, SAMPLE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The Objectives
i)

To identify the constraints facad by the LI societies and

rinancing Banks in the formulation and implementation of the LI
schemes.

ii)

To study the time-lag in the implementation of LI schemes and

consequential cost over runs.

iii}

To identify reasons for cost escalation and to examine the

control exercised by Financing Banks in ensuring adherence to
cost norms.

iV)

To critically evaluate the role played by the consultants/

contractors and the Board of Directors of LI society in execution
of schemes, subject to the approved cost
constraints and
time frame.

v)

To ascertain the extent of adherence to technical parameters,

provisions of Water Lifting Permission (WLP), cropping pattern,
etc., stipulated in the sanction of the schemes.

vi)

To estimate cost per unit of water lifted and the benefits.

vii)

To determine the costs and benefits in the farm enterprise

of beneficiaries and assess the financial viability of LI
schemes.

viii)

To study the repayment performance of both LI Society and

the benficiaries and to identify reasons for default in repayment, if any.

r UNIV

""'TY
,",-;--:-""-~,
.",1.
,
.~.
U'I\

(jP:;VF.

c.

1""
,
:
.fl,,..r:S
..
. . . ". L,:

,."."":

~.

16

Rpf~

11181

Sample Design
Selection of Districts,
2.2

r~nBncing

Agencies and Schemes

The information available on the functi~ning of LI schemes in the

state as collected from 'the Regional Office, Pune, revealed that
the performance of the schemes depended upon the location, the,
sponsoring agency and the size of the scheme. These aspects were
kept in view while selecting schemes for the study.
The LI
schemes in the state were conc!,!ntrated mainly in 11 districts
covering the three river basins, viz., Krishna, Godavari and
Tapi. The major financing agencies were Maharashtra State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (MSCARDB),
Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank (MSCB) and Commercial Banks
(CBs).
The financial outlays of the schemes sanctioned varied
widely between Rs. 11 1akh and Rs. 517 1akh.
Selection of
schemes was restricted to those having financial outlays between
Rs. 30 1akh and Rs. 425 1akh to minimise the 'size effect' and
focus sharply on the procedural and operational problems
encountered. In all, 13 shemes, i.e., eight from Krishna basin,
three from Godavari basin and two from Tapi basin were selected
for the study.
Of these, six, four and three schemes were
implemented by MSCARDB, MSCB and CBs, respectively.

2.3

Of the 13, seven schemes. (five from Krishna basin and one each
from Godavari and Tapi basins) were selected for indepth study

Kolhapur. Sangll. Satara. Solapur. Puna. Ahmednagar. Nashlk. Aurangabad. Dhul

Jalgaon and Jalna.

InItIally a scheme Impl_nted by MSCARDB was selected for the study In' Pune
distrIct. Since Its performance was V8rY'"'poor, In order to callpare the 'role of
ImplementIng agency, consultants, atc., the scheme sanctIoned to BOM In the same
area .es also covered during the study.

17

of technical, implementatio~ and operational aspects, and impact

assessment of the investments. The list of schemes selected for
these two levels of analyses is given in Annexures I end II.

Selection of Sample Beneficiaries

2.4

A total of 90 beneficiaries were selected covering 30 each from

the three LI schemes selected for impact analysis*. The sample
beneficiaries were selected randomly.

2.5

Since a part of the land holding of individual beneficiaries was

unirrigated, either in the command area or outside the command
area, the unirrigated portion of the land holding waa considered
to represent the "without project" situation.

2.6

A specially designed schedule was canvassed and the inform~tion

was recQrded for ~he agricultural year 1992-93. The field survey
was
undertaken in September-October
1993.
The valuation of
.
.
inputs and o:utputs, therefore, was done at 1992-93 prices.
Methodology and Analysis

2.7

The data were collected from, (i) the lift irrigation societies/
implementing agency, (ii) the financing agencies, and (iii) the
beneficiaries and also from some of the non-beneficiaries.
Pre-designed schedules were canvassed to beneficiaries (lI
Society members), financing agencies, LI Societies, sugar

;hou~h seven LI SChemes were proylslonally selected for 1mpact analysis. It was
obsery"d durIng conduct' of study, tha"t benefits had stabIlised In the case of
three schemes only. 'Thus. "three schemes. vIs N'mshlrgn"n I., Kolhapur dIstrIct.
Mahalaxml I" Sangll dIstrIct and Amode In Jalgaon distrICT were covered for
Impact analysIs and studyIng other aspec"ts while remainIng sch. . .s were covered
for studying technlca' and ImplementatTon aspects.

18

factories, consultants and contractors and Engineers of the State

Irrigation Department. Important information and issues emerging
out of the discussions with office bearers and operational staff
of sugar factories, contractors, consultants, engineers of
Irrigation Department, etc., were duly recorded. Information was
collected from the Lift Irrigation Societies (LIs) on problems/
constraints faced by them in implementation of schemes with
special reference to Water Lifting Permission (WLP) , investment
cost, irrigated area, cropping pattern, water charges, procedure/
basis adopted for fixing water rates, water management practices,
operation and maintenance expenses, role of sugar factory and so
on. From financing agency, information regarding loan disbursement, supervision and follow-up, role played in implementation of
LI Scheme, terms and conditions of loan, repayment performance of
the borrowers, etc., were collected.
2.8

The data with regard to various parameters such as land holding,

benefited area, cropping pattern adopted on benefited and
non-benefited area, u~e of inputs, output of different crops,
cost of inputs and prices of output, etc., were coliected from
the sample farmers. To estimate the returns from investments,
the data collected from the sample beneficiaries were used and
the per acre gross return, farm business income, net return and
net incremental income were worked out.

2.9

The cost of cultivation included expediture on seeds (own/

purchase~),
manures and fertilisers, pesticides, wages for
permanent and casual labour, irrigation charges, maintenance cost
of bullocks/tractors, hiring charges of bullocks/tractors,
interest on short term credit, taxes (land revenue, cess), etc.
The total cost of cultlvation was worked out by including the
imputed value of family labour as well as excluding it.

19

2.10

The financial viability of the investment was assessed in terms

of Financial Rate of Return (FRR).
This was attempted at
beneficiary as well as at LI society level.

2.11

In the case of schemes where wells were existing in their command

areas and part of the area was benefited through existing wells
during the pre-development situation, the data in respect of
costs and returns for different crops from rainfed .8nd irrigated
area in the post development stage were used to simulate the
cost/income estimates of pre-development situation. Accordingly,
the estimated net income per acre of rainfed and irrigated area
in the pre-development stage was used to derive Net Incremental
Income (NIl) from the incremental benefited area after implementation of LI Scheme.

2.12'

The cost of investment included expenditure incurred on civil

works (intake well, jack well, pump house, rising main, gravity
main, distribution system., etc. ) mechanical and electrical
equipments and pre-operative expenses ~.( contingency ans a~ency
charges, MSEB energisation charges, crop compensation, purchase
of land, etc.'). The cost of investment. at reference year prices
was estimated, considering the quantum of different types of.
material used for construction and the District Schedule of Rates
(DSR) prevailing during the reference year.
Productivity of Irrigation Yater

2.13

Productivity of irrigation water can be expressed in terms of the

ratio of, output/income to quantity of water used. This is an
important indicator in view of the need to maximise the returns
from limited water resources. Productivity of water was worked
out for individual crops as well as for the scheme as a whole in
respect of Nimshirgaol'), . Plahalaxmi and Am ode LI schemes.
The
gross income and net income was worked out for the total area
including area irrigated both by wells and LI schemes in view of
20

the fact that prior to implementation of LI schemes, the

scheme area was largely rainfed as most of the wells were dry.
\Jells become operational again with the execution of the LI
~chemes as a result of recharge from the LI schemes.
The measure
of productivity used here, thus, is comprehensive" as it
captures both direct and indirect tangible (output) eff,cts of LI
schemes.
Crop-wise estimates of productivity of water have
been worked out as "a ratio of net income to normative water
As such these
requirement and not the actual water use.
estimates are not precise but rather indicative.
Water Rates
2.14

The basic principle in fixing" water rates is that the annual

O&M expenses and loan repayment including interest commitments
for the LI scheme" should be fully met out of the water charges
collected from the beneficiaries. Ei ther of the following two"
patterns, as suggested by the Working Group on Lift Irrigation
Schemes*, could be" followed in fixing water rates.
Pattern 1

2.15

Individual beneficiaries be treated as bOJ;rowers (as done by

MSCARDB in Nimshirgaon LIS) and hence loan amount may be
apportioned among them in proportion to their land holding
falling within the command area of LI scheme.
Operation and
Maintenance charges should be collected in accordance with the
irrigation water provided to the farmers

. . Report of tile Workl"g Group

011

LFft rrrrg."tfon Sch_s 1991.

p. 49.

21

NABARD Bombay

Pattern 2
2.16

The Ll Society be treated as the principal borrower (as done by

BOl in Maha1axmi LIS) and entire loan is recovered from it. The
society in turn collects loan instalment (including interest)
and Ot!cM charges ("rom its members (beneficiaries). These charges
are to be ideally distributed in accordance with the volume
of water used by each member. For this purpose, water rate per
unit of water should be computed covering both loan (including
interest) and O&M charges.
The water rate so arrived at is
known as economic water rate.

2.17

Though Pattern 2 is ideal as it induces farmers towards more

economic use of water, it is beset wi~h practical difficulties.
Measuring the volume of water pumped out for use by each of the
member farmer poses operational problems. Further, water losses
during conveyance have to be taken care of and should be included
as additional charge. On the other hand, water charges per unit
area irrigated may induce wastage of water and, thus, is not an
ideal method. Alternatively, water charges may be worked out on
the per irrigation (of standard number of hours) basis separately
for crops like sugarcane, banana and other crops assuming the
depth of each irrigation to be 7.5 cms for sugarcane and banana
and 5 cms for other crops.
Water rates in the present study
have been computed with respect to volume, area and number of
irrigations.

22

CHAPTER II!

IMPLEMENTATION

or

SCHEMES

7his chapter covers the implementation aspects of the sample LI

Schemes, such as, extent and reasons for. time over-run, role of
different agencies invf\lvsd in the implementation of LI Schemes,
problems faced in- loan recovery, collection of yater charges and
other operational matters. Based on the findings of the study,
suggestions have been made to improve the implementation of the
LI Schemes.
Grace period
3.2

The implementation of the sample schemes varied from two years

(Yeshoba Khore LIS) to seven years (Nimshirgaon LIS).
It was
observed that a time period of 1B months Y8S taken for the
preparation of plan and estimates by the Consulting Engineer,
actual sanction of the scheme by the financing bank and the
formation of Lift Irrigation Society. Hence, National Bank may
c,?naider allowing scheme specific grace period depending upon
size, complexity and technical perameters l!ke number of stages,
length of rising main, etc.

3.3

Following reasona yere mainly

implementation of the schemes.

found

responsible for

delayed

i)

Apathy of contractors to proceed with awarded work due to

old DSR and thsir expectation of revision and getting york
done through the system - of 30 per cent advance payment
delayed the work, e.g., Rajendra LIS (contractors treated
LIS as captive buyers of their services).

ii)

Delay in supply_ of pipes/machinery by contracting firms

e.g., Rajendra LIS.
23

 ..

)
1.1\.

Sho.: ':.~ge of construction material like cement, pipes and

paucity of skilled staff or work-Force e.g., Rajendra LIS.

iv)

Due to insufficiency of own funds, wDrk~ like land

level ing, land shaping and distribution system remained
incomplete, e.g., Veshoba Khore LIS.

v)

Change of Management of lIS due to some perso~l disputes

among office-bearers of society, e.g., Rajendra LIS.

vi)

Lack of supervision by the financing bank due to shortage

of staff, e.g., Rajendra LIS - MSCARDB

vii)

Delay in loan disbursement by the benks, e.g., Rajendra

LIS.

viii) Shortage of technical staff with bank and l.IS,

Raj andra LI S.

e.g.,

ix)

Delay due to indecision by Board of Directors pf LIS, e.g.,

RajandraLIS and Yeshoba Khore LIS.

x)

Working capital available for first 12 to 18 months was

inadequate to meet even the pre-operative works for
launching the schemes.

xi)

Poor resource position of MSCARDB - at branch level, at

the time Qf disbursement of loan, e.g., Veshoba Khore LIS.

-xii)

Major changes in technical design after scheme sanction,

e.g., Nimshirgeon LIS.

External factors
xiii) Natural calamities -

heavy

rains and floods requiring

dewatering at the jackwell site, e.g., Nimshirgaon LIS.

24

xiv)

rour per cent work-on-contract tax levied by Government of

Meharashtra, e.g., Awasari LIS.

Legal
xv)

Backing out of some of the beneficiaries resulted in

reduction of actual area under commann and consequent rise
in unit cost, e.g., Nimshirgaon LIS.

xvi)

Delay in collection of land mortgage deeds, docume"ntation

of NOe from other banks and disputed land title in the case"
of some of the beneficiaries.

xvii) Dispute among

Nimshirgaon.

beneficiaries

and

the

Society,

e.g.,

Coordination problems
xviii)Lack of co-ordination between contractors taking
and electrical works, e.g., Rajendra LIS.

~p

civil

xix}

Delay in energisation by MSEB, e.g., Yeshoba Khore LIS.

Electricity connections made available" from two different
feeder lines lea.ding to fluctuations, lou voltage, etc.,
e.g., Nimshirgaon LIS.

xx}

Delay in construction of rising main across highways,

railway lines, Government rorest Land, "etc., in the case of
large schemes, e.g., Nimshirgaon LIS.

xxi)

Ban on lifting the water during certain periods of the

year. It is an indirect way of suspension of Water Lifting
Permission.

25

xxii) Ban on lifting the water during certain periods of the

year. It is an indirect way o~ suspension of Water Lifting
Permission.
xxiii)Delays due to disputes in purchase of land by the LI
Society for construction of jacklJell/SlJrnplJell, main
d~livery chamber, etc., e.g., AlJasari LIS.
3.4

The National Bank has since increased the grace period :to 35
months which may well take care of the above aspects. The grace
period should be scheme specific depending on the size,
complexity of the terrain, design and other problems.

3.5

Besides the external factors affecting the implementation of the

schemes, lack of proper planning in the form of implementation
schedules and effective monitoring is also responsible for the
delays and cost overruns. PERT/CPM methods may be made mandatory
in case of complex and large LI Schames for effective monitoring.
Contingencies

3.6

As per the existing norms, National Bank is providing for

contingencies in the project cost on the following basis.
i)

Not more than three per cent of the cost of civil,

electrical and mechanical works, excluding the distribution
system.

ii)

Not more than one per cent of the cost of distribution

system.

In almost all the schemes studied, ae stated earlier, banks had

submitted repnasement proposals, sanctioning of which would
again take 3 to 6 months resulting in further delays and
consequent escalation in cost.

26

Terms and Conoitions

Down Payment
3.7

As majo~ity of the beneficiaries were small farmers, 5 per cent

down payment was stipulated in the scheme.
In reality, it was
. observed that no down payment was collected except for the
schemes financed by Ba~k of India and Bank of Maharashtra. The
co-operative banks in general did not collect any down payment.
Share Capital

3.B

LI Sociaty had to contribute five per cent of' the outlay towards
subscription of the share capital of DCC8 or MSCARDB from their
own resources.
However, it was observed that the bank had
debited the loan accounts of LIS. beneficiaries for making
contribution towards share capital. The bank had fi"anced for
the proj~ct a~ I.Ie11 as for subscription of share capital, e.g.,
Rajendra L.IS financed by MSCARDB.
Rate of Interest

3.9

Different rates of interest were charged by commercial and cooperative banks. Commercial banks treated LI Society as the
borrower (Mahalaxmi LI Scheme) and charged 15 per cent interest
whereas the co-operative banks treated individual beneficiaries
as borrowers and, hence, charged interest according to the loan
liability of the individual borrowers which was generally lower
than 15 per cent (Nimshirgaon LI. Scheme).
Repayment Related Aspects
Repayment Period

3.10

As 23 months gestation period was stipulated in the schemes, the

loan in the case of LIS schemes was to be repaid in 12 (I.e.
27

10+2) years (with maximum period of '15 years).

As the scheme

implementation was delayed beyond two years, the repayment \Jas

rescheduled in the caS8 of Nimshirgaon LIS. The financing bank
continuod to fix the repayment as initially envisaged i~ the
original scheme.
In view of delayed implementation and the
resulting time leg in generation of incremental, income, the
members of lift irrigation society defaulted to the banks.
3.11

The repayment schedule was to be drawn for the entire bank loan
initially.

Thereafter, while releasing the refinance under each

dralJal, the instalments lJere to be adjusted according to the due

dates. However, in tho case of Amnde LI 5, repayme.nt schedule was
worked out for each drawaJ. separately.
Repayment of Instalments and Reschedulement of Loan'

3.12

The completion of LIS ae observed during the study toak three to

four years as against two years period sanctioned by National ,
The National Bank' raised the demand from third year
Bank.
onwards which amounted to demanding the instalments even before
the completion of tl'te scheme anc the banks in turn raised the
demand ag~inst the same from LI Society. The LI Societies were
not in a position to repay the instalments as the farmers did
not realise any income p~ior to the commissioning of the scheme.
The banks repaid the instalments to National Bank out of their
own resources to avoid default.
This affected the financial
position of the financing bank. It !Jas observed from the Action
Plan submitted, by MSCARDB that they had paid B sum of Rs. 14.91
crore, ~lthough there were no recoverle~ from the benefici~riel
due to, non-completion of the schemes.
NABARD at times raised
demand for .the repayment of instalments even before release of
entire amount of refinance sanctioned under the scheme.
This
resulted in 8imultaneous recovery of instalments on the one hand
and disbursement of refinance on the other.

2B

3.13

One of the rea~ons for such ~ situation uas ascribed to

sanctioning of short period of two years for implementation".
Whenever Nationl Bank allows extension in the grace period on
account of technical/non-technical reasons, the due date for
repayment of instalments should also be rescheduled.
Procedure for Drawing of Repayment Schedule

3.14

It was observed that soma agencies were drawing repayment

schedule on the basis of the drawal application, as against the
suggested procedure of drawing repayment schedule for the entire
scheme and adjusting the same according to the release
of refinance in stages.
The procedure to be adopted fpr
drawing the repayment schedu~.e is explained in Annexure I I I with
illustration.
Due Dates Adopted by MSCARDB

3.15

It lJas ob~erved that P1SCAROB was adopting a fixed due date of

01 July, irrespective of the date of flotation of debentures and
NAP~RD also approved the same.
It is suggested that NABARD may .
advise the bank to adopt the due dates indicated vide our
circular No.NB.POD.II/POP/S4S0/16/B7-88 dated 12 April 1988. The
due dates to be adopted are furnished below :

As the Natlona! Bank Is at present allowIng ~hree years for Implemen~atlon and.
demand will be raIsed from fourth year onwards. The sl~uatlon of demanding
the Instelmen~s prior to the full dfsburs8f118nt of ieflnanc3 may not arIse
In fUTure.

~hus.

.29

Due Dates

Date of floatation
01 July - 31 December

Next 31 July and/or 31 January of

the second following year.

01 January - 30 June

Next 31 January and/or 31 July of

the followingyear.
After

providing

period

where

for

usuai

eligible

and

grace
with

reference to the recovery season in

the state and adequate cushioning
period for collection from ultimate
borrowers and use of proceeds for
repayment to Nationl Bank.
If MSCARDB adopts the above due dates, it will get additional
grace period of 6

mont~s

to 18 months over and above the grace

period allowed in the scheme and additional

two years
special
.
.
grace period allowed to MSCARDB.

At present, funds of MSCARDB

are locked up in the overdues.

If the revised due dates are

adopted by them the bank will get additional grace period and the
same will halp the bank in augmentation of the resources.
Levy of Water Rates
3.16

As per the terms and conditions of sanction, the water rates

were to be determined so as to cover all costs, i.e., inclusive
of the amortization commi truents and the operation and maintenance
costs associated with lifting the required quantity of water.
The estimates of water

rates worked out

concepts are given in Table 3.1.

30

based on different

Table 3.1
Water Rates in the Lift Irrigation Schemes
LI Schemes

Particulars
Nimshirgaon

Amode

I'Iahalaxmi

17.33
44.14

4.96
41.25

4.90
25.03-

12.77

7.06

7.02

45.28

65.82

41.43

1,846.00
,

2,613.00

.119.20

109.30

23.00

46.70

9.70

8.61

i)

Water rate per

2,351.00
irrigated acre (Rs. )
Water rate for each
114.10
irrigation (Rs.)
Water rate as percentage
46.50
of incremental income
Damand raised against
13.80
actual water charges
in 1992-93 (Rs. lakh)
Percentage of (h) to (a)
79.63

195.~15

175.71

I nt.....st raTe t'I 15 per c.enT

a)
b)

c)
d)

e)
f)
g)

h)

3.17

O&M charges (Rs. lakh)

Annual instalment
including interest I 10~
(Rs. lakh)
Water rate per.acre-inch
that covers item (a) (Rs.)
Economic water rates per
~cre inch that cover
item . ( a) & (b)

The annual instalment including interest rste of 10 per cent

works out to Rs. 44.14 lakh and Rs. 41.25 lakh for Nimshirgaon
and Amode LI Schemes. For Mahalaxmi LI Scheme, the interest rate

31

of 15 per cent* was charged and the instalment worked out to

Rs. 24.03 lakh. In working out the instalment, total investment
cast at historical prices was taken into account. Operational
and Maintenance Costs worked out to Rs. 4.90 lakh, Rs. 4.96 lakh
and Rs. 17.33 lakh in Mahalaxmi, Amode and Nimshirgaon LI
Schemes, respectively. Using the actual quantity of water pumped
as the denominator, the water charges that cover O&M charges
(Pattern 1 as explained in Chapter II) worked out to Rs. 12.77,
Rs. 7.06 and Rs. 7.02 per acre-inch of water in Nimshirgaon,
Amode and Mahalaxmi LI Schemes, respectively.
Economic water
rates (Pattern 2 as explained in Chapter II), on the other hand,
worked out to Rs. 45.28, Rs. 65.82 and Rs. 41.43 per acre-inch
for these schemes in the same order.
3.18

The water charges, on an average, worked out to Rs. 351,

Rs. 1,846 and Rs. 2,613 per acre of irrigated area and these
accounted for 47, 23 and 47 per cent of incremental income
derived from Nimshirgaon, Amode and Mahalaxmi LI Schemes,
respectively.
This shows that the beneficiaries were in a
posi tion to pay economic water' rates out of the incremental
income. Table 3.1 also indicates that water rate per irrigation
is higher at Rs. 179 in the case of Amode LI Scheme while it
works out to Rs. 109 to Rs. 114 in the case of Mahalaxmi and
Nimshirgaon Schemes, respectively.

3.19

In actual practive water rates per acre for different crape were
fixed arbitrarily. Total loan was apportioned on the basis of
irrigable area of the individual farmer. The society collected

The Interest rates used are actually charged by banks.

In case of Mahala'lCllll
Scheme the annual DICGCI fees payable has also been taken tnt~ account.

32

fixed
\Jater rates \Jithout . reference to .quantity of the \Jater
. .
utilised by member. for example, in Amode LI Scheme water rates
for annual, kharif and Rab! crops were fixed at Rs. 1,200/-,
Rs. :550/- and Rs. 450/- per acre, respactively. The annual demand
raised by LI Societies for \Jater charges for the year 1992-93
amounted to Rs. B.6 lakh, Rs. 9.1 lakh and Rs. 13.B lakh in
Mahalaxmi, Amode and Nimshirgaon LI Schemes, respectively
(Annexure IV).
The demand form~d on~y BO per cent of the O&M
charges in Nimshirgaon LI Scheme. The demand raised for water
charges in Amode anq Mahalaxmi schemes could cover only '1 and 16
per cent of the annual. equated instalment, respectively.
Operational Aspects
Yater Lifting Permission
3.20

The Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtre adopted

the norm of restricting area to a maximum of 15 per cent
under sugarcane,
B5 per cent area under other kharif
. crops and 42.5 per cent of area under rabi crops for
grantin,9. Wate.f., Lifting Permission
(WLP).
As against this,
.
actual cropping pattern followed by farmers under the Lift
Irrigation Scheme was far different than that assumed by thg
Irrigation Department and, subsequently, approved by the AgriculGenerally, it was
ture Dep,artment and the National Bank.
observed that sugarcane occupied larger area than actually
approved and the additional area brought under sugarcane' was
regularized by paying penal charges. Because of allocation of
additional land for sugarcane, than that uas permittad, by some
dominant member farmers, other small and tail-end farmers of the
Lift 'Irrigation Society uere unable to get sufficient water for
their crops. There is, thus, need for imposing some effective
restriction on bringing additional erea under sugarcane.

33

3.21

It was observed during the, study that depending upon the amount
of rainfall received between June and November, the State
Irrigation Department took stock of the total water availability
in different dams/rivers/reservoirs, etc., and, accordiAgly,
devised 'its policy for restricting lifting of water for irrigation.
words,

Such arrangements are known as 'Upsabandi'.

In other
WLPs are liable to be withdrawn periodically.
The

restrictions were also imposed with the help of Maharashtra State

Electricity Board through the instrument of planned load
shedding. Thus, these aspects also need to be taken into account
",.hile appraising, the scheme.
Role of the ConSUltant
3.22

The role of Technical Consultant is vital right from preparation

of plan, cost estimates and to final commissioning of the
schemes.

In most of the LI Schemes, the societies and financing

banks were found to be seriously lacking in technical capability.

The services of technical consultant were, therefore, necessary
to help LI Society in this regard. However, in the case of the
schemes sponsored by the sugar factories, the technical staff
employed by the sugar factories helped the LIS in this regard,
e.g., Mahalaxmi LIS, Sangli.
3.23

Besides undertaking
feasibility
studies,
basic
surveys,
preparation of plan and cost estimates of LIS, conSUltants also
helped at various stages in different aspects pertaining to
tenders of pipes and pumping equipments, etc. technical
supervision and all
other similar items of work incidental
thereto for time~y commissioning of LIS.

3.24

The tendering fit-ms were. found to be sister concerns of

conSUltants in some schemes, thus, giving rise to a possibility
of collusion between them. In the case of Mahalaxmi LIS, Sangli,
role of consultant WdS pro-active resulting in timely completion
34

or tha LI Scht:hne.
During the study it IJas observed that the
t.erms of aosociation for the coneultants did not assign any
responsibility to the consultants so far as time and cost overruns due to faulty design of LISs was concerned. There is, thus,
e need to assign clear role and responsibility to tha consultants, envisaging penalties for cost over-runs ascribed to
deficiency in technical support.

3.25

Dependence on consultants for all technical aspects telating to

planning of the LI Scheme left much to be desired. Most basic
reason for delays in the execution was found to be the lack of
proper baseline survey of the area. In the absence of detailed
information, the project design hed to be changed many times
during the implementation, each time requiring revision in the
proposals to be sent to NABARO through the financing bank
resulting into further delays.
Role of the Co-operative Sugar ractory

3.26

The large and complex schemes were sponsored by the co-operative

sugar factories operating in the scheme areas. The sugar factories
lJere basically interested in increasing sugs!'cane proC;uction in
their area of operation for ensuring adequate supplies of cane.
Besides aesociating with Consulting Engineers in basic land
surveys, sugar factories also provided technical/administrative
guidance through its staff, particularly during formulation and
execution stages of the schemes and so also for smooth running of
Lift Irrigation Societies thereafter. It was observed that cooperative sugar factories were having full-fledged Lift Irrigation Oepsrtment to undertake such items' of work, e.g., Mahalaxmi
LIS by M/s Rajaram Bapu Co-operative Sugar Factory, WallJa (Sangli
District), Nimshirgaon LIS By 5ri Panchaganga Co-operative Sugar
Factory, Kolhapur , :~ababpur-Siddhapur Co-operative LIS, Gangapur
sponsored by Gangapur Co-operative Sugar Factory.

35

3.27

The sugar factories were also found to be providing funds for

urgent repair/replac9mente of motors end other items of work. In
the case of Nimshirgaon LIS, the funds from Sugar Development
fund were provided for const~uction of distribution system. The
tr iparti te agreement amongst bank t sugar factory and borrowers
lJas executed to ensure repayment of the loan out of sale proceeds
of sugarcane. Co-operative sugar factories were also providing
essential agr icul tural inputs like sugarcane seed, fertilisers,
insecticides, etc., and extension services to the members of LIS.
The cost of such inputs was recovered from the sale proceeds of
the sugarcane of the member farmers. Incidentally t inspi te of.
such a tripartite agreement, the concerned factory did not.
involve itself in the implementation of Rejendra LI Scheme,
Indapur.
This was due, probably, to the fact that there was
surplus supply of cane to the faotory even prior to the
formulation of the LI Scheme. Therefore, during appraisal~ the
conmi tment of the sugar factories towards the LIS also needs
to be ensured.
Release of Advance to the Contractors

3.28

The current practice is to release 30 per cent of the total cost

of the scheme as advance to the contractors. For schemes with
largar outlays, this adyance works out to several lakh of rupees.
As misutilising of such facility by the contractors was observed,
it would .be appropriate to release the advance depending on the
extent of order placed for materials.
\Jorking Capital

3.29

Members of LI Schemes are in a position to pay water charges only

after availing of the first irrigation facility and harvesting of
the crops. However, during the grace period and first year of
'.~ommisBioning, the society had to incur expenditure towards
salary or staff, rent for the society premises, payment of
36

of electricity bills, payment of water charge to the Irrigation

Department, insurance cherges for pumping machinery, etc. In the
absenc~ of adequate owned resources, societies found it difficult
tn sustain their activities during the implementation period.
It is, therefore, suggested that 5 per cent of the project cost
may be provided for the above items while sanctioning the scheme
for meeting the expenditure to be incurred during first year of
operation of the LI Schemes.
Other Aspects
Technical
3.30

i)

Throughout Maharashtra State, there is problem of low

voltage coupled with wide fluctuations.
Due to violent
fulctuations in voltage, incidence of burning of electric
motors was on the rise (Yeshoba Khore LIS,Solapur)resulting
in avoidable expenditure on repairs, on the one hand, and
interruptions in irrigation to crops on the other. Due to
such problems, pumpsets could not be operated as proposed
in the scheme which again affected the generation of income
and . consequent repayment of bank loan. To mitigate the
problem of low voltage and fluctuations, voltage-booster
transformer may also be included in the design of the
schemes.

ii)

In the command area of big Lift Irrigation Schemes, patches

nf lend ",ere ftound to be not levelled, and, therefore,
investment was required for making such areas ready
for

receiving

irrigation.

37

Majority

of members

of LI

Schemes wura found to be undertaking the wot'k of land

Based on the
development out of their own resources.
rssources of individual farmers, the development was found
to be uneven.
This led to under-utilisation of the
irrigation potential.
To tide over this situation,
holistic approach needs to be followed and cost of land
levelling and land developmsnt may be included in the
initial cost estimates of LI Schemes.

38

Ct~APTER

COST

or

IV

INVESTMENT AND ITS FINANCING

The cost of investment of LI Scheme includes, (i) cost of civil

works, viz., head works, rising mains, distribution system. which
depends on designed discharge head over which water is to be
lifted and the number of lift stages, (ii) cost of mechanical
and electrical equipments including charges paid to the State
Electricity Board, and (iii) pre-operative expenses which include
agency charges, contingency charges, expenses towards land
acquisition, compensation, consultation fee, etc.
4.2

The item-wise details on project cost as proposed by the

financing/implementing agency, the cost approved by the National
Bank, subsequent revision in costs and the cost actually incurred
by the LI Society for completion of the project, are given in
Annexures V to XI in respect of schemes covered under the study.
Summary of the costs of civil works, mechanical and electrical
works and pre-operative expenses is given in Table 4.1.
Actual Cost of Investment
Mahalaxmi, Yeshoba and Awasari LI Schemes

4.3

In the case of Mahalaxmi LI Scheme, the actual cost incurred

worked out to Rs. 130.26 lakh which was four per cent higher
than the sanctioned outlay.
There was an increase in cost of
civil !Jorks by 10 per cent (Rs. 9.71 lakh), while the preoperative expenses !Jere lower than the sanctioned amount by 40
per cent (Rs. 4.05 lakh).
The cost incurred on rising main
(stage II) and distribution system amollnted to Rs. 78.93 lakh as
against t~e sanctioned amount of Rs. 57.20 lakh which was 38 per

39

Table 4.1

Cost of Investment on LI Schemes

(Rs. lakh)
LIft Irr,lgatlon Schemes
Item
Nlmshlrgaon

Mahala~1

I.

Amode

Nababpur Yeshobe

Avesarl

RaJendra

CIvil Works

Proposed cost

107.74

84.59

171.60

127.25

26.46

90.67

74.68

SanctIoned cost*

195.89

97.14

144.89

148.28

26.46

81.42

82.98

Actual cost

232.89

106.85

234.34

191.42

26.76

87.42

83.36

II. Mechanical and

ElectrIcal Works
Proposed cost

59.73

16.52

19.20

21.18

4.96

24.09

22.66

SanctIoned cost*

6:5.07

17.34

19.20

30.25

4.96

24.96

26.06

Actual cost

63.07

17.16

22.69

39.13

4.50

24.96

29.:56

Proposed cost

:5.59

5.84

17.08

24.77

4.00

4.80

10.02

SanctIoned cost

4.78

10.30

14.11

16.22

2.91

22.91

13.08

Actual cost

4.78

6.25

24.05

28.42

2.40

22.91

8.76

Proposed cost

171.06

106.95

207.88

173.20

35.42

119.56

107.36

SanctIoned cost*

26).74

124.78

178.20

194.75

34.3:5

135.29

122.12

Actual cost

:500.74

130.26

281.08

258.97

33.66

135.29

121.48

III. Pre-operatT ve
Expenses

Total Cost

ThIs cost Is as per the fInal rephasement.

cent higher than the sanctioned amount. The cost overrun was due
to delay in implementation of scheme by about two years.
4.4

The actual cost incurred on completion of Yeshoba end Awasari

schemes was almost equal to the investment cost sanctioned by the
National Bank. The construction work of Veshoba LI Scheme was
40

completed as per the planned schedule of one year. rn the case

of Aw~sari LI Sche~e,the original outlay sanctioned at Rs. 119.57
lakh was revised to Rs. 135.29 lakh due mainly to the delay in
The "additional amount was
implementation by about one year.
sanctioned to provide for an increase in cost.
4.5

In the case of Amode LI Scheme, the actual investment cost

amounted to Rs. 281.08 lakh as against the sanctioned amount of
Rs. 178.20 lakh.
Thus, the actual cost of investment was higher
by 58 per cent than the sanctioned amount.
The cost of civil
works and mechanical works was higher by 62 per cent and 18 per
cent respectively; while the pre-operative expenses had gone up
The main reasons for higher actual cost were,
by 70 per cent.
time overrun of over four years "in implementation and major
changes effected in the basic design during implementation.
Table 4.2
Cost Escalation in the ~ajor Items of Investment Amode LI Scheme
(Rs. lakh)

Sr.

No.
1
1

2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

Item
2

Intake pipeline
Rising main
Water hammer
control devices (WHCD)
Sumpwell (st. II)
Pumping machinery
Distribution
system
Turnover tax #

Estimated
cost
3

Actual cost
incurred
4

"

increase
5

0.62

0.84

36

74.61

114.76

54

2.00

4.05

102

0.38

2.30

505

4.58

7.70

68

40.62

80.05

97

9.68

Turnover tax at 4 per cent paid by the contractor to Maharashtra

Government.
41

Nababpur-Siddhapur LI Scheme
4.6

4.1

As against the sanctioned outlay of Rs. 194.80 lakh, the actual

cost incurred \Jorked out to Rs. 258.97 lakh, Le., higher by
33 per cent.
The cost incurred on civil works and mechanical
works was higher by 29 per, cent and the pre-operative expenses
\Jent up by 75 per cent of the sanctioned outlay (Table 4.1). In
the case of civil workS, the cost incurred on delivery chambers
and distribution system togather was Rs. 95.44 lakh as against
the sanctioned amount of Rs. 58.46 lakh.
The increase" in cost
\Jas on account of increase in height and installation of MS (Mild
Steel) gates on three distribution outlets. The increase in cost
of mechanical and electrical works was due to delay in implementation as \Jell as major changes effected in the design during
implementation.
An amount of Rs. 16.22 lakh \Jas sanctioned for meeting the
pre-operative expenses. However, the actual expenditure incurred
amounted to Ra. 28.42' lakh.
The increase \Jas on account of
payment of Rs. 6.74 lakh turnover tax levied by the Govt. of
Maharashtra and Rs. 9.10 lekh paid to MSEB as against the
sanctiolled amount of Rs. 5.54 lakh.
Nimshirgaon LI Scheme

4.8

Initially, the financial outlay of Rs. 153.58 lakh

was
sanctioned but due to the time overrun in implementation of the
Bcheme, the outlay was revised upwards to Rs. 263~ 74 lakh. The
"'
actual total cost incurred on" the LI Scheme was Rs. :300.74
lakh.
Thus, the sanctioned outlay \Jas IO\Jer by Rs. 37 lakh
(12.3 per cent).
For meeting this shortfall, the Society
borrowed an amount of Rs. 37 lakh at 6 per cent interest per
annum from Sugarcane Development Fund. This amount \Jas spent for
meeting expenses on laying the distribution system.

42

Rajendra LI Scheme
4.9

Thlil financ~al outlay of the scheme initially was Rs. 107.36

lakh which was later revised upwards to Rs. 122.12 lakhs. The
actual total cost incurred on LI Scheme was Rs. 121.47 lakh.
Thus, there was an increase of about Rs~ 14 lakh from the
original estimate.

4.10

The shortfall between the actual cost and the sanctioned loan
assistance was met in different ways in the various LI Schemes.
In the case of Mahalaxmi, Nababpur-Siddhapur and Nimshirgaon LI
Schemes the sponsoring sugar factories contributed to the down
payment requirement and other shortfall in the funds requirement.
The Nimshirgaon LI Society borrowed an amount of Rs. 37 lakh
at 6 per cent. per annum from Sugarcane Development fund for
meeting the shortfall.
This amount was spent towards meeting
expenses on di::stribution system. In the case of Amode LI Scheme,
the DCCB met the shortfall of as much as 58 per cent 'from its
own funds.

4.11

The details given in Table 4.3 on investment cost at historical

prices and the cost at reference year (1992-9.3) prices reveal
that the cost of investment h~d increased between 57 per cent
and 147 per cent in the case of different schemes covered under
the study.
Since, the Nimshirgaon and Yeshoba LI Schemes were
sanctioned in 1981 and 1983, respectively, the cost at reference
year prices more than doubled compared to the cost of investment
at historical prices.

43

Table 4.3
Investment cost st Historical

P~ices

and at 1992-g3 prices

(Rs. lakh)

Investment Cost at
Sr.
No.
1

LI Scheme

Nimshirgaon
2. l'Iahalaxmi
3. Amode
4. Yeshoba
5. Rajendra
6 Nababpur-Siddhapur

1.

!~

Historical
prices

Reference
Year
prices

X increase
in (4)
over (3)

:5

:300.74
130.26
281.08
33.66
121.47
258.97

710.14
220.67
440.79
83.08
201.98

136
69
57
147
66

CHAPTER V

ECONOMICS OF INVESTMENT
In this Chapter an attem~t has been made to describe the
characteristics of the sample farms and also to examine the
impact of investment on cropping pattern, cropping intensity,
crop yields,
cost of cultivation,
income and employment
generation.
5.2

As indicated in the Chapter on methodology of the study, no

The nonseparate control sample was selected for the study.
benefiting portion of the beneficiaries' holdings was treated
as 'control' and rerresented the 'without' investment situation
in the case of Mahalaxmi and Amode LI Schemes. Considering the
pre-project situation in the case of Nimshirgaon LI Scheme (with
some of the command area under uell irrigation) the relevant
irrigation status of operational area was considered as the
weight for estimating income in pre-investment situation. Inputs
and outputs were valued at 1992-93 prices.
For valuation of
farm output, farm gate prices were used.
Characteristics of Sample Beneficiaries
Size of Holding and Benefited Area

5.3

The average size of holdings of sample beneficiaries and the

average benefiting area varied across the selected LI Schemes as
is clear from the data presented in Table 5.1. The average size
of holdings of the sample beneficiaries of Nimshirgaon LI Scheme
was almost double the average size of holdings of beneficiaries
of r'lahalaxmi and Amode LI Schemes. The percentage of irrigated
area to the average size of holdings, however, was almost same
(73 per cent) in the case of sample beneficiaries of all the

45

schemes. Nore tt"',an 70 per cent of the cultivated holding was

irrigated in the post development period.
Of the total area
irrigated, about 43 per cent was irrigated through the wells
existing in the pre-development stage in command area
(Nimshirgaon LI Scheme). Though the lJells existed even before
implementation of the scheme must of the wells were either
reported t.o be dry or irrigating negligible area before
implementation of the scheme.
Table 5.1
Average Size of

H~lding

and Net Irrigated Area

(Area in acres)

,i;

LI Scheme/
District

Sample
size

Area irrigated frum

\dells in Total
LI
Scheme GOllllland
Are
4
5
3

Rainfed
area'

Total
Land
Holding,

Nimshirgaon,
Kolhapur

30

2.54
(57.34)

1.89
(42.66)

4.43
(72.74)

1.66
(27.26)

6.09
(100.00)

Mahal~xmi,

30

1.73
(72.69)

0.65
(27!31)

2.38
(73.68)

0.85
(26.32)

3.23
(100.00)

Amode,
Jalgaon

30

1.96
(80.00)

0.49
(20.00)

2.45
(72.49)

0.93
(27.51)

3.38
(100.00)

All Schemes

90

2.0B
(49.05)

1.01
(23.B3)

3.09
(72.88)

1.15
(27.12)

4.24
'(100.00)

Sangli

figu:es i~ the parenthe~e5 in Col: 5 & 6 are percentages to total land

holdlng (l.e., Col., ~) whlle those in Col. 3 & 4 are percentages to total
irrigated area (i.e., Col. 5).

46

Table 5.1 reveals that the overall average size of holdings was
4.24 acres of which an area of 3.09 acres (72.88%) was irrigated
in ~he post development stage.
the benefited ar.ea through LI
Schemes was 2.08 acres (49%) of the average holding.
Soils in the Command Area
5.4

The productivity of crops, water requirement, irrigation interval

and the cropping pattern depend largely on the soil and climatic
factors in the command area. The command area of Amode LI Scheme
is largely composed of heavy soils. In the case of Nimshirgaon
and Sangli LI Schemes, medium to heavy soils accounted for 75 per
cent and 79 per cent of the command area, respectively (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2
Type of Soil on Sample rarm
(Area in acres)
Type of soil

LI Schemel
District

Total
land
holding

Heavy

Medium

Light

Nimshirgaon,
Kolhapur

1.92
(31.53)

2.71
(44.50)

1.46
(23.97)

6'.09
(100.00)

Mahalaxmi,
Sangli

1.46
(45.20)

1.16
(.35.91 )

0.61
(18.89)

3.23
(100.00)

Amode,
Jalgaon

3.11
(92.01)

0.27
(7.99)

All Schemes

2.15
(51.06)

1.38
(32.62)

3.38
(100.00)
0.59
(16.32)

4.24
(100.00)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentages to total land holding.

47

Commercial crops were grolJn generally on heavier soils while

cereals and pulses were cultivated on medium to light soils.
Cropping Pattern
5.5

The cropping pattern adopted by the sample beneficiaries varied

from scheme to scheme depending on the agro-climatic factors.
Under irrigated conditions, the cropping pattern adopted on
sample farms of Mahalaxmi and Amode LI Schemes was more of a
specialised type and dominated by sugarcane, and sugarcane
banana crops, respectively. As much as 92 per cent and B8 per
cent of the gross cropped area on the sample farms in these
schemes was under commercial crops leaving only 8 per cent and
12 per cent, respectively, of gross cropped area under cereals
(Table 5.3).
On the sample farms of LIS, Nimshirgaon, the
an~

Table 5.3
Cropping Pattern on Irrigated Area of Sample farms
(Per cent)

"

LI Schemes
Crop
1

Sugarcane
Banana
IJheat
Jowar
Pulses
Soyabean
Vegetables
Groundnut
Others
Total

Nimshirgaon
Kolhapur
2
21.35

Mahalaxmi
Sangli
3
74.51

9.31
11.88
3.21
35.79
9.95
6.10
2.41

5.49
2.75

Amode
Jalgaon
4

48.17
40.14
4.01
1.B2
0.85

13.73
3.52
5.01

100.00

100.00

48

100.00

cropping

pattern

sUCJarcane,
gross

5.6

more

diversified

area

was

with

soyabean

and

As much as 75 per cent of the

as the major crops.

cropped

~emaining

was

under

commercial

crops,

while

the

area was under cereals and pulses.

The cropping pattern under the 'control' (rainfed) condition was

dominated

by

cereals

(jowar

(soyabean Rnd groundnut).

and

bajra)

folJowed

by

oilseeds

Pulses were also grown on unirrigated

area in the case of Nimshirgaon and Amode LI Schemes.

Tobacco

and

rainfed

cotton

condition

were
in

other

the

respectively. (Table

commercial

case

of

crops

Mahalaxmi

and

grown
Amode

under
LI

Schemes,

5.4).
Table 5.4

Cropping Pattern on Unirrigated Area of Sample Farms

(Per cent)
LI

Schemes

Crop

Nimshirgaon
Kolhapur

Mahalaxmi
Sangli

:3

Hy. Jowar

28.57
9.52

!'2.86
25.00

58.23

Local Jowar

12.79

17.86

Bajra

22.22

Soyabean

14.28

Tobacco
Gram
Groundnut
Other Pulses

4.75
15.29
5.88
10.60

15.87
6.27

Cotton
Total

Amode
Jalgaon

100.00

100.00

49

100.00

Cropping Intensity
5.7

The cropping
areas across
intensi ty on
cent.
With

intensity in respect uf benefited and non-benefited

the schemes is given in Table 5.5. The cropping
non-benefited area varied between 100 and 112 per
the introduction of the irrigation facHi ty, the

intensity of cropping increased to 201 per cent on sample farms

of Nimshirgaon LI Scheme, while it was 300 per cent and 267 per
cent on sample farms of Amode and Mahalaxmi LI Schemes, respectively. The higher cropping intensity in the case of Amode and
Mahalaxmi LI Schemes could be ascribed to the higher proportion
of area under annual crops (sugarcane and banana) in their
command area.
Table 5.5

Cropping Intensity on Sample Farms

(Per cent)
"

LI Schemel
District

BBnefit~d

Non-benefited area

area
I

Nimshirgaon,
Kolhapur
Mahalaxmi,
Sangli
Amode,

II"

:5

141

201

100

107

267

112

105

300

104

122

245

104

Ja1980n
All Schemes

wIthout assIgnIng weIghts to annual crops

wIth a weIght of '.asslgned to annUli crops.

50

Yield of Crops
5.8

The per acre average yield of crops on benefited and nonbenefited area are given in Tables 5.6 and 5.7, respectively. The
yield of crops grown on the benefited area of sample farms was
observed to be higher in comparison to the yield of crops grown
on non-benefited areas.
The differences in crop-wise yields
could be studied only in respect of crops which were common on
benefited and non-benefited area. The per acre yield of soyabean
was 6.07 quintal on irrigated area as compared to 2.5 quintal on
unirrigated area in the case of Nimshirgaon LI Scheme.
Similarly, it was 9.2 quintal on irrigated area of Mahalaxmi
LI Scheme as compared to 4.18 quintal on unirrigated area.
Table 5.6
Per Acre Yield of Major Irrigated Crops
(Quintals)

LI
Crop

Schemes
Mahalaxmi
Sang11

Amode
Jalgaon

250.00

270.00

235.00

426.70

415.00

8.45
6.07
12.47

10.00

515.00
202.68
12.33

Nimshirgaon
Kolhapur

Sugarcane(R)
Sugarcane* .
Banana*
Wheat
Soyabean
Hy. Jowar
Groundnut/
SunflolJer
Gram

Annualrsed since

9.20
13.75

6.71
4.33
~hey

occupy

~he

6.50

fIeld for more

51

~han

a year.

Table 5.7
Per Acre Yield of Major Unirrigated Crops
(In QUintal)
LI

Mahalaxmi
Sangli

Nimshirgaon
Kolhapur

Crop

Schemes

Hy. Jowar

3.75

3.75

Local Jowar
Soyabean

2.00
2.50

2.00
4.18

17.37

2.00

Tobacco
Gram

1.50
2.20

Groundnut

3.20

8ajra

5.68

Cotton

6.51

On
'.

Amode
Jalgaon

the benefited area of Amode LI Scheme, the productivity of

crops was generally higher than the crops grown on benefited

area of Nimshirgaon and Mahalaxmi, LI Schemes.
Gross Income
5.9

The cumulative effect of

irriga~ion

on cropping pattern, cropping

intensity, use of modern inputs and productivity is reflected in

terms of differences between per acre gross income on benefited
and non-benefited areas of beneficiaries.

The gross income

includes the value of main and by-products, valued at farm-gate

prices for the year 1992-93.
The estimates of gross income
per acre of net benefited area under 'with project' conditions

52

of three LI Schemes ~nd per acre of rainfed area under 'uithout

project' conditions are given in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8
Gross Income on Benefited & Non-Benefited Area
(Rupees per acre)
Sr. LI Scheme/District

No.
1

Benefited
area

Non-benefited
area

:5

1. N"imshirgaon,
Kolhapur

13,927

1,235
(2,840)

2. Mahalaxmi, Sangli

15,299

2,468

3. Amode, Jalgaon

18,493

4,331

All Schemes

16,185

2,816
(3,442)

Note:

5.10

f'igures in parentheses indicate benefits from rainfed plus well

irrigated area in pre-project situation.

It may be seem from Table 5.8 that the value of gross produce per
acre of benefited area uas higher by 390 per cent, 520 per cent
and 327 per cent in the case of Nimshirgaon, Mahalaxmi and Amode
LI Schemes, respectively as compared to respective 'without
project' situations. On an average the increase in gross income
was 370 per cent.
Cost of Cultivation

5.11

Due to the shifts in the cropping pattern in favour of cash

crops, use of HYVs associated uith considerable increase in use
of inputs, the cost of cultivation per acre shoued a substantial
53

increase

in

situation.

'with project'

situation over

'without project'

The per acre cost of cUltivation (Table 5.9) was

higher by 359

pe~

cent,

503 per cent and 222 per cent on

benefited area, in the case of Nimshirgaon, Mahalaxmi and Amode

LI Schemes, respectively, as compared to pre-development stage in
respective areas.

Table 5.9
Cost of Cultivation on
Benefited and Non-Benefited Area
(Rupees per acre)
Sr. LI Schemel
No. District
2

,,

Non-Benefited area

II
3

II

6,261

5,450

646
(1,365)

547
(1,267)

2. Mahalaxmi,
Sangli

7,202

6,036

1,194

1 ,011

3. Amode, Jalgaon

8,419

6,944

2,615

2,219

All Schemes

7,376

6,211

1,612
(1,893)

1,367
(1 ,648)

1. Nimshirgaon,
'i ~

Benefited area

Kolhapur
I

rigures in parentheses indicate cost on well irrigated (pre-project) and

rainfed conditions
'
I
II

with imputed. value of family labour

without imputed value of family labour

farm Incane
5.12

The increase in farm busines3 income was of the order of 439

per cent, 536 per cent and 44~ per cent on the benefited area of
Nimshirgaon, Mahalaxmi and A:node LI Schemes, respectively, as

54

compared to re13pective non-benefited areas. As may be seen from

Table 5.10, the average farm business income for the sample es a
whole amounted to Rs. 9,974 which was 456 per cent higher than
the farm business income on non-benefited area.
Table 5.10
Farm Business Income and Net Income
from Benefited and Non-Benefited Area
(Rupees per acre)
Sr. LI Schemel
No. District

Farm Business Income

Benefited
area
3

Non-Benefited
area
4

Net Income
Benefited Non-Benefited
area
area
5

1. Nimshirgaon,
Kolhapur

8,477

688
(1,573)

7,666

589
(1,475)

2. Plahalaxmi,
Sangli

9,263

1,457

8,097

1,274

11,549

2,112

10,074

1,716

9,974

1,,44;1
(1,794)

8,808

1,204
(1,549)

3. Amode,
Jalgaon
All Schemes

Figures in parentheses indicate income from well irrigated

(pre-project) and rainfed area.

5.13

The net
Rs. 8,097
535 per
si tuation
Schemes,

income per acre of benefited area was Rs. 7,666,

and Rs. 10,074 indicating an increase of 420 per cent,
cent and 487 per cent over the 'without project'
in the case of Nimshirgaon, Plahalaxmi and Amode L I
respectively.
The average net income for the sample

55

88

whole was higher by 469 par cent on benefited area as

compared to non-benefited area. The variation in farm business

income as well as net income accross the LI Schemes was mainly
on account of differences in cropping pattern, cropping intensity
and yield levels of crops. .
Incremental Income
5.14

The benefits attributable to the investment were measured in

terms of Net Incremental Income (NIl). The details in respect of
the per acre NII are given in Table 5.11.

Table 5.11
Net Benefited Area and Incremental Income
LI Scheme
,p.

Net 8enefited Area

(acres)

1. Nimshirgaon

2,136

3. Amode,

I
II

II

II

6,904

132.24

147.47

905

6,823'

7,806

61.75

70.64

2,437

8,358

9,437

203.68

229.98

5,478

7,259

8,180

152.38

171.49

Jalgaon
All schemes

Income
Total (Rs. lakh)

6,191

Kolhapur
2. Manalaxmi,
Sangli

Incremental
Per acre (Rs.)

Including imputed value of family labour

Excluding imputed value of family labour

56

5.15

Evidently,
(Rs.

NIl per acre of benefited area of Amode LI Scheme

was

8.358)

higher

by about 35 per cent as compared to

Nimahirgaon LI Scheme (Ra. 6,191) end 22 per cent for Mahalaxmi

LI Scheme (Rs. 6,823), respectively.
of

higher

~ugarcane,

proportion
banana,

of

area

groundnut,

This was mainly on account

under

etc.,

commercial

in

the

crops

like

case of Amode LI

Scheme.

5.16

Operation and

~intenance

The

operation

annual

Cost
maintenance

(O&M)

irrigation includes establishment costs,

viz.,

society

staff,

stationery,
energy

\Jages

printing,

charges

p~id

and
paid

to

labour

cost

of

lift

salaries of LI

and other expenses like

etc., the repairs and maintenance cos"ts,

to

MSEB,

audit

fee,

insurance

charges,

government cess and other expenses.

5.17

Tha

details given

charges

and

in

energy

Table

5.13

reveal

charges

\Jere

the

accounting for 84 per cent,

"the

total

Schemes,

0&1'1

costs

respectively.

of

major

the

total

Mahalaxmi
O&M costs,

(salaries and electricity charges) accounted

cent.

establishment
components

80 per cent and 62 per cent of

Nimshirgaon,
Of

two

that

and

Amode LI

fixed

costs

for 56 to 74 per

These 0&1'1 costs were considered while estimating tRR at

society level.

57

Table 5.13
Annual Operation and Maintena~ce Costs during Reference Year
(Ra. lakh)

Sr.

, '

Nimshirgaon

Mahalaxmi

9.67 (55.80)
8.14 (46.97)
(3.58)
(S.25)

2.13 (43.47)
1.28 (26.12)
0.09 (1.83)
0.52 (10.61 )
0.24 (4.91)

II.

Repsirs & Maintenance

1. Civil works
2. Mechanical works
3. Electrical repairs

2.72 (15.70)
1.11
(6.39)
1.02 (5.91)
0.59 (3.40)

III. Energy Charges

1. Electricity charges
2. MSEB inspection fee

4.85
4.67
0.18
0.03

IV.

Audit Fee

0.62
0.91

(4.45)

0.67 (13.67)
0.02 (0.41)
0.22 . (4.49)
0.43 (8.77)

1.25
0.24
1.01

(25.25)
(4.97)
(20.28)

(27.98)
(26.95)
(1.03)

1.81
1.78
0.03

(36.94)
(36.33)
(0.61)

1.49 (29.93)
1.38 (27.80)
0.11
(2.14)

(0.17)

0.14

(2.86)

0.09

(1.76)

0.11

(2.24)

0.20

,(3.97)

0.18

(3.57)

0.15

(3 ..33)

Gout. cess
(Charges paid to
'Irrigation Dept.)

VII. Other expanses

Total

0.06

1.60 (32.19)
1.38 (27.74)

0.22

V. Insurance
VI.

Amode

Establishment Cost
Salaries
Labour charges
Management expenses
Other expenses

I.
1.
2.
3.
4.

.;'

Operation & Maintenance Costs

Particulars

No.

(0.35)

17.33 (100.00)

0.04

4.90 (100.00)

Figures in parentheses ere percentages to total.

58

(0.82)

4.96 (100.00)

rinancial Viability
5.18

The financial viability of t~e investments has been assessed in

terms of Financial Rate of Return (FRR).
On the basis of
information collected from implementing agencies and sample
beneficiaries the follolJing assumptions are made in the cash
flow analysis :

1.

The life of electrical and mechanical components of LI Scheme

is 15 years.

2.

The economic life of civil IJork of the LI Scheme is 30 years.

The analysis IJSS, houever, confined to a period of 20 years
only.

3.

Residual value of the electrical and mechanical components end of

civil IJorks of LI Scheme is 7 per cent of their capital costs.

4.

Th~ capital cost of investment under different Schemes over the

implementation period has been apportioned on the basis of actual

amount invested in each year in the following manner :
(Per cent)
LI Scheme

1st year

2nd year

3rd year
4

i)

Nimshirgaon

30

30

40

ii)

Mahalaxmi

36

47

17

65

28

iii) Amode

S9

s.

The proportion of area under major cash crops (sugarcane, banana)

and the proport.i.on of gross irrigated area to the maximum gross
irri~ated area were consider9d
to decide the proportion of
benefits accrued during different years.
The proportion of
accrual of benefits in initial years of the schemes covered for
impact evaluation as determined during the field survey are
indicated below . 1
LI Scheme

3rd year

4th year

5th year
onwards

40

90

100

Mahalaxmi

Nil

60

90

Amode

Nil

70

100

Nimshirgaon

5.19

The financial viability of the investments was estimated by

includ Lng/excluding the imputed value of family labour in .the
cost of cultivation. The financial viability of the investment
in LI Sch~mes was computed both at farmer and LI society levels.
In the former case the irrigation charges paid/to be paid to
society were included in cost of cultivation. At societ~ level
analysis, the operation and maintenance costs incurred by the
society were added to the recurring costs.

5.20

The cash flows for the three LI Schemes are given in Annexures
XII to XIV. The FRR worked out to 15 per cent, 20 per cent and
29 per cent (with imputed value of family labour), at beneficiary
level, respecti vel y , in the case of' Nimshirgaon, Mahalaxmi and

60

Amode II Schemes (Table 5.14) which revealed that LI investment

in Kolh8Dur and Sangli districts had yielded a low and moderate
rates of raturns, while in Jalgaon district it yielded high rate
of return.
The low rate of return in the case of investment
in Nimshirgaon LI Scheme was on account of high investment cost
and relatively smaller benefited area than that envisaged at the
time of appraisal.
Table 5.14

rinancial Rate of Return

LI Schema

At farmer's
level

At Society's
level

II

i)

Nimshirgaon

15.47

17.49

14.98

ii)

Mahalaxmi

19.81

22.27

20.68

29.21

31.90

29.56

iii) Amoris
I

II

With imputed value of family labour as an item of cost.

Without imputed value of family labour as an item of cost.

Productivity of Irrigation Water

5.21

The per acre quantity of water pumped during the ref.erence year
was 28 inches in Amode LI Scheme as compared to 63 inches and 52
inches in Mahalaxmi and Nimshirgaon LI Schemes, respectively.
Accordingly, gross income per acre-inch of water worked out to
Rs. 659 in the case of Amode LI ~cheme which is over two and

61

a half times of that obtaining in Mahalaxmi and Nimshirgaon

LI Schemes (Table 5.15).
Net income per acre-inch of water
also showed the same trend.
Further, in both Nimshirgaon and
i~ahalaxmi

Schemes the water pumped was far in excess of the

requirement.

The inefficient use of water was also observed due

to inadequate distribution network.

These two factors were found

to be responsib'le for lower productivity of water.

5.22

In all the LI Schemes sugarcane occupied the lowest rank in

the matter of productivity (net income) per acre-inch of water

Table 5.15
Productivity of Irrigation Water for the Sample LI Schemes
Nimshirgaon

Gross Income (Ra. lakhs)

Total Water Pumped
(Acre-inches)
Gross Income/Acre-inch (Rs.)
Water Pumped Per Acre
(inches)

Amode

I'Iahalaxmi

364.19

462.88

169.36

1,35,754.00

70,208.00

69,822.00

268.27
51.90

659.30
28.00

242.60
63.10

20.60
53.00

10.30
73.00

23.90
64.00

No. of irrigations*
Area Under Sugarcane
and Banana (%)

Computed by d'v'~lng quantIty of water pumped by average dEopth of Irrigation adoptIng

as depth of 7.5 cms. for sugarcane and 5.0 cms for other crops.

62

used while it enjoyed top rank as far as net income per acre
sown

was

concerned

(Table

5.16).

Vegetables,

gram,

soyabean

and Qther pulses on the other hand occupied first few ranks in
the schernes studied*.

A shift in cropping pattern away

from

sugarc~le

may be in order as a means of maximising productivity

of water.

Further, larger area brought under sugarcane deprived

major

portion

of

rCA

of water.

The

alternative may

lie

in

adopting water management practices which without affecting the

sugarcane area may,

at the same time,

save water which can be

used for other crops.

These

are In conforml~y with ~hose observed by B 0 Dhawan. 1989

of IrrIgation Wa~er In Ten Canal Commands, In Studies In IrrIgation
Commonwealth PublIshers, New Deihl. pp. 176-193.

~rends

Produc~IYlty
M.n~nt,

63

Tabl~.

5.16

Crop-Yise Uatar Productivity in the Sample LI Schemes

Nlmsh!rgoon LIS
Water
Product 1vlty
Rs./acre- Rank
Tnch

I\mode LIS
Rank
based
on net
!ncOIIIeI
acre

Maha IaXIII I LIS

Water
Productlvlty
Rs./acre- Rank
Inch

Paddy

250

10

Hy. JOllar

294

14

Groundnut

97

12

73

Vegetables
CKh)

588

-- .

Pulses

389

JowarCM-35)

104

Wheat

Rank
based

Water
Product 1on net
vTty
!ncanel Rs./acreacre
Inch
6

7.53

473

11

12

93

109

10

11

III

Gram

200

1:5

293

Other
Pulses

295

Vegetables

"0

MaIze

432

Sugarcane
CAdsal II
suru)

83

14

Sugarcane
CRatoon)

86

23O

Banaha

--

Cotton
Average

147.67

159

';"

Soy abean

Rank

Rank
based
on net
Incomol
acre

423

80

180

251

359.15

79

91

311

7
128.)7

64

CHAPTER VI

REPAYMENT PERfORMANCE
In this chapter an attempt has been made to examine the repayment
performance of the sample beneficiaries of the II Schemes
seler.ted for the study and identify reasons for delinquency as
well "as for timely repayment of loan instalments. The recovery
posi tion of financing agencies and their branches implementing
the LI Schemes selected for the study was also studied.
The
details in terms of deman~, collection and percentage of recovery
are presented for the schemes covered under impact evaluation
study.
Lift Irrigation Scheme, Nimshirgaon
6.2

District: Kolhapur

The repayment period of 9 years, exclusive of 23 months of grace

period, was stipulated for the scheme.
The overall recovery
of loans disbursed under Nimshirgaon LI scheme by Jaisinghpur
sub-branch* of MSCARDB was extremety poor during the p~riod
1988-89 to 1992-93. The total overdues as on 30 June 1993 were
Rs. 223.12 lakh (Table 6.1)~ However, the recovery performance
under other LI schemes implemented by the same branch was more
than 80 per cent during 1989-90 and1 990-91 and more than 75
per cent in 1992-93

The Manager of thIs sub-branch Indlca1"ed that the loen amount- was dIstributed
among benefIcIarIes proportIonate to the land morTgaged by thBm. However. durIng
the study. I t was observed that there was no cons I stent !>rocedure fo I lowed I ~
thIs regard. Therefore, the procedure adopted fer raIsIng the benefIcIary-wise
demand was arbItrary.

65

Table 6.1
Recovery Performance under Nimshirgaon and other LI Schemes
Implemented by Jaisinghpur Sub-Branch of MSCARDB
(Rs. lakh)
Particulars
1

Demand

Collection

Recovery
percentage
4

Nimshirgaon LIS

Il'

1988-89

51.78

1989-90

67.34

9.95

14.78

1991-92

155.39

0.34

0.22

1992-93

224.55

1.43

0.64

24.90

16.39

65.82

14.86

12.43

83.65

16.71

13.83

82.76

19.45

14.85

76.35

76.68
82.20

16.39

21.37

22.38
14.17

27.33
8.23

16.28

6.67

Othar LI schemes
1988-89
1989-90
1991-92
1992-93

0.00

':.~.

All LI schemes
1988-89
1989-90
1991-92
1992-93

6.3

172.10
244.00

The recovery performance of LI schemes implemented

Kolhapur District branch was also poor (Table 6.2).
collection increased from Rs. 239.60 lakh in
Ra. 426.65 lakh in 1992-93 (by 78%), the recovery
deteriorated during the corresponding period from 58
47 per cent.

66

by MSCARDB,
Though, the
1988-89 to
performance
per cent to

Table 6.2
Recnvpry Performance under LI schemes in
KolhaplJr [Ji~trict - MSCARDB
(Rs. lakh)
Year
1

1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93

6.4

Demand

Collection

:3

412.45
486.23
653.84

239.60
269.27
423.48

766.05
904.60

375.59
426~65

Recovery
percentage
4

58.09
55.38
64.77
49.03
47.16

On the contrary, in the case of sample beneficiaries belonging to

Nimshirgaon LI scheme, none of the beneficiaries had paid even
a single instalment. The various reasons for default apart from
wilful default on
indicated below.
i)

ii)

the

part

of

beneficiaries,

are

briefly

The financial outlay was Rs. 153.10 lakh when the scheme
wao sanctioned in July 1981, which was revised to
Rs. 263.74 lakh in August 1985, while the actual cost
incurred upto June 1986 was Rs. 300.74 lakh.
Thus, the
cost increased by 96 per cent. The cost overrun increased
the burden of loen instalment.
The per acre cost of
investment worked out to Rs. 8,773 which uas almost double
the cost of investment stipulated at the. time of initial
sanction.
Th~ irrigable command area was assumed at 7,000 acres, as
against which only 31 per e!3nt (2,136 acres) could be
brought under irrigation. Incidentally, the land mortgaged
was 3,450 Bcres.

67

iii)

Fiftyfive per cent of the not irrigated area in the command

was under wHll irrigation. Though the farmers having wells
in command area derived benefits because of lift irrigation
scheme due to increased rate of percolation, they were
reluctant to pay the loan instalment as well as water
charges due to the LI society.

iv)

Because of higher than envisaged cost of investment, the

sponsoring agency (sugar factory) requested ~lSCARDB for
taking up the issue with National Bank for reschedulement
of loan instalments.
In anticipation of reschedulement,
the sugar factory/LI Society did not apportion the loan
amount to individual beneficiaries upto 1991-92.

Only

in 1991-92, MSCARDB took initiative and the loan liability

was fixed for individual farmers on the basis of extent of
land mortgaged,
As a result, the repayment burden WBS
suddenl y passed on to the member farmers in 1991-92, who
found it difficult to repey the arrears of 5 years in ona
lumpsum instalment. Thus, lack of commitment on the part
of the MSCARDB to follow proper procedure of raising timely
demand commensurate with accrual of income to the beneficiaries, on the one hand, and lack of co-ordination between
the sugar factory and MSCARDB, on the other, \Jas largely
responsible for dismal repayment performance at the
beneficiary level.
Lift Irrigation SchBme-Mahalaxmi, District: Sangli
6.5

The loans issued under the scheme were to be repaid by beneficiaries within a period of 11 years inclusive of 23 months of
grace period. During the grace period only interest was to be
recovered from the beneficiaries. The repayment schedule fixed
by the financing agency to LI Society is indicated in table 6.3.

68

Table 6.3
Repayment Schedule fixed for LIS-Mahalaxml
(Rs.lakh)
Principal

Interest

1988-89

0.646

7.50

1989-90

1.500

16.60

1990-91

5.00

October 1992
October 1993
October 1994

5.00
7.50
8.50

October 1995
October 1996

9.50
10.50

Year

upto
upto
upto
upto
upto

date
March 1991
l'Iarch 1993
r1arch 1993 to
date

upto date interest

upto date interest

Though this schedule (i.e., shifting of due date from June to

October) was proposed by the implementing branch, the controlling
office of the 8ank of India did not accede to the proposal.
Accordingly, the demand against the principal was raised as at
the end of June every year and that for the interest at the end
of March of the relevant year.
6.6

The demand for principal amount was to be stepped up every year

by Rs. 1.0 lakh up to 2000 A.D. (Rs. 14.50 lakh) plus upto date
interest. During 2001 (last year of repayment) total demand of
Rs. 10.0 lakh was stipulated to be raised besides. interest
repayment.
Thus, as against the stipulated repayment period of
11 years, bank prescribed the repayment schedule or 13 years.
During the first two years (1988-89 and 1989-90) bank raised the
demand mostly for accrued interest plus a token amount of

69

principal.
lakh.

The interest burden during this period was Rs. 24.1

the disbursement of lonn stArted in October 1985 and was

completed in December 1987, during which no benefits accrued to

the beneficiaries.
Thus, the repayment schedule with grace
per iod of two years (1988-90) adopted by the bank was logical.
If the stipulated repayment schedule could have been followed,
the total demand of principal plus interest should have been
Rs. 36.46 lakh during the period of two year (1988-89 and
1989-90) .
In addition to this, the bank could have collected
This would have
accrued interest for the period 1985-87.
overburdened the beneficiaries unduly.
The recovery performance under Mahalaxmi LI scheme financed by
Islampur branch of Bank of India, revealed that though the

6.7

recovery was very poor ( 18.41 %) dur in9 the initial years, i t
improved during subsequent years and reached a level of 72.51
per cent in 1991-92 (Table 6.4).
In 1992-93, however, it
deteriorated to 52.12 per cent, in spite of decrease in demand
During
by about 33 per cent as compared to previous years.
first two years (1988-89 and 1989-90) bank raised the demand
In subsequent years, the demand
for mostly accrued interest.
for principal plus accrued interest was raised and every

Table 6.4
Recovery Performance under

~ahalaxmi

Demand

Collection

1988-89
1989..90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93

8.15
24.74
41.38
57.77
38.93

Year

1.50
6.74
15.93
41.89
20.29

70

LI Society,
(Ra. lakh)
Recovery
Percentage
4

18.41
27.24
38.50
72.51
52.12

year it \o!8S raised by an amount of Ra. 1 lakh.

The recovery
performance of the sample beneficiaries is given in Table 6.S.

Table 6.5
Recovery Performance of SaMple aanariciariea
in Mahalaxmi LI scheme,
(Ra. per beneficiary)
Year
1

Demand
(Ra.)
2

Collection
(Ra.)

Balanee
(Ra.)

Recovery
Percentage
5

1989-90

6,942

3,319

3,623

47.81

1990-91

11,053

1,698

9,355

15.37

1991-92

14,950

5,447

9,503

36.43

1992-93

20,029

3,489

16,540

17.42

6.8

Over the four year period (1989 to 1993) repayment performance of

sample beneficiaries was found to be very poor.
The analysis
of recovery performance of beneficiaries over the period reveals
that, 17 per cent and 24 per cent of the sample beneficiaries were
defaulters continuously for 4 years and 3 years respectively and
the average amount of default in such cases waa Rs. 38,804 and

71

Rs. 30,655 per defaulter beneficiary, respectively. As against

this, only 14 per cent of the sample beneficiaries were regular
in repayment.
This indicates that though the recovery
performance of about 60 per cent of ,sample beneficiaries was
satisfactory, the overall recovery performance was poor because
of high share in terms of average amount to default of the
remaining 40 per cent beneficiaries.
6.9

As revealed by Table 6.6 during 1989-90, 59 per cent sample

beneficiaries paid the entire loan instalment.
Since 1990-91
the principal plus accrued interest was collected and subsequently average demand increased to Rs. 11,053 (about 59 per
cent higher than that during previous year's amount), onlY'21 per
Table 6.6
The Pattern of Recovery and Defaults of Sample
Beneficiaries in ~hBIBxmi LI scheme

(Per cent)
'"

Sr. No.
1

Advance Collection
Cent percent recovery
More than 60 per cent
recovery
4. 30 to 60 percent
recovery
5. Less than 30
percent
6. Nil recovery

1.
2.
3.

19B9-90
2
52
7
3

1990-91
:5
7
14
14

10

1991-92
4
10
24
7

1992-93

24

17

3
10
14

11

21

14

28

17

44

21

28

72

cent beneficiaries paid tne instalment amount while recovery was

nil in 44 per cent of sample beneficiaries. In 1991-92 again 34
per cent of the sample beneficiaries paid entire amount of loan
instalment.
Recovery in respect of 21 per cent of sample
beneficiaries was, houever, nil.

The recovery performance was

similar in 1992-93.
This highlights the need for drauing a
rational repayment schedule keeping in view the local situation.
Lift Irrigation Scheme, Amode, District
6.10

Jalg80n

The bank alloued the repayment period of 10 years and grace

period of 2 years to the LI society for repayment of loan as
stipulated. During the first two years (1988-89 and 1989-90) the
bank had fixed the repayment instalment of Rs. 29.66 lakh towards
principal amount while from third year onuards the repayment
instalment included amount of principal and interest of Rs. 29.66
lakh and Rs. 7.43 lakh, respecti vel y.
As per the stipulated
repayment schedule, the bank should have given two years grace
period and then fixed the equated annual instalment of Rs. 48.26
lakh from third year onwards (1988-89).

6.11

The recovery performance under all Lift Irrigation Schemes

financed by DCC8, Jalgaon and LI scheme selected for the study is
presented in Table 6.7. The recovery position of DCCB in respect
of LI schemes sanctioned by the bank as well as the Amode B=anch
uas poor in all the five years (1989 to 1993). As can be seen
from Table 6.7, under Amode LI scheme, an amount of Rs. 10.37 lakh
was collected against the total demand of As. 59.32 lakh.
In
subsequent years though the amount recovered increased to
As. 43.54 lakh. percentage of recovery uorked out at 51 per cent
only.
The low recovery percentage uas on account of the
accumulated arresr demand of Rs. 48.95 lakh. Ths main reason for
default during first two years uas on account of non-eccrual of
benefits from the investment.
Though, the actual irrigation
73

Table 6.7
Recovery Performance of District Central Cooperative Bank
and Amode Branch of OCCB
(Ra. lakh)
Year

District Central Coop. Bank

Demand Collec- Recovet"y
tian
Percentage

1988-89

29.66

1989-90

59.32

1990-91

140.33

1991-92

204.84

1992-93

280.64

Amode Branch
Demand

Collec- Recovery
tion
Percentage

Nil
10.37
61.77
50.53
57.40

Nil
17.48
44.02
24.67
20.45

29.66

Nil
10.37
43.54
34.88
36.38

59.32
86.06
79.59
81.80

Nil
17.48
50.60
43.82
44.47

* Only one LI scheme was sanctioned

started in "990-91, demand was raised from 1988-89, resulting

in accumulation of overdues.
This indicates need for fixing
rational repayment schedules.
6.12

Analysis of recovery performance of the sample beneficiaries

revealed that out of 30 sample beneficiaries, two had closed
the account earlier than scheduled and six beneficiaries
(21 per cent) were chronic defaulters for all the four years
(1988-89 to 1992-93). The recovery performance of the remaining
72 per cent of sample beneficiaries was not consistent over the
period. During the first three years (1989-90 "Eo 1991-92), the
equated instalment against the principal amount was raised while
in 1992-93 the demand for principal amount plus the accrued
interest was raised. The resulted in an increase in demand of
more than 3 times that in the first year. Had the stipulated

74

repayment schedule baen followed, the recovery

coul d ha\lA workt3d out to S3 per cent (Table 6.8).
poor

recovery

was

mainly

on account of

performance
Again, the

irrational repayment

schedule adopted.
Table 6.8
Recovery Performance of Sample Beneficiaries of Amode LI scheme
(Rs. per beneficiary)
Year

As per repayment schedule

fixed by the Bank
Demand

Collection

:5

Recovery
Percentage
4

With 10 years (stipulated)

repayment schedule
Oemand

Collection

Recovery
Percentage
7

1989-90

4,715

1,308

27.74

7,296

1,762

24.15

1990-91

8,839

1,184

1:3.40

12,830

6,123

47.72

1991-92

9,667

3,269

:3:3.7:3

14,643

6,511

44.46

1992-93

20,481

8,089

39.40

18,488

9,851

53.28

Note:

6.13

The amount collected is also different because of advance

collection which has been adjusted when demand was estimated as
per stipulated repayment schedule.

The pattern of recovery and defaults given in Table 6.9 indicate

that while only 29 per cent of the sample beneficiaries paid
more than 80 per cent of the amount due in '1989-90, this
increased to 45 per cent in 1992-93.

The sample beneficiaries

with nil recovery formed 64 per cent in 1989-9G, Which decreased

to 29 per cent in 1992-93.

75

Table 6.9
The Pettern of Recovery and Default in Amade LI scheme
(Per cent)
Sr. No.
1
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

Advnnce Collection
More than 80 per cent
recovery
60 to 80 per cent
recovery
40 to 60 per cent
recovery
Less than 40
per cent recovery
Nil recovery

Total

1989-90

1990-91

1991 ..92

1992-93

18

39

30

26

1.1

19

13

10

14

64

46

44

29

100

100

100

100

4"

,'.

6.14

6.15

The rep~yment performance of a' borrower is directly related to

annual incremental income accrued and annual debt-service
In Table 6.10 data on annual incremental income
liability.
accrued and debt-service liabilities are pre~ented. It may be
observed from Table 6.10 that considering the cost of investment
at historical prices (bank loan component) the debt service
liability varied between 21 and 32 per cent of the incremental
income, indicating interalia, that the surplus income left over
was between 68 per cent and 79 per cent even after providing for
debt service liability.
Ba~8d

on cost of investment in the reference year, however,

the annual debt- service liability worked out to 31 per cen t,
56 per cent and 85 per cent of incremental income in respect of
76

Amode, Mahnlaxmi end Nimshirgaon LI schemes, respectively. This

indicatss that the incremental income generated by the investment
in Amode and Mahalaxmi schemes in Jalgaon and 5angli districts,
respectively, allowed for not only repayment of bank loan but
also a sizeable surplus for the borrowers.

Table 6.9
Incremontal Income and Debt Service Liability
in the LI schemes
(Rs. lakh)

LI scheme

Incremental Annual Dabt

Service
Income
Liability

HI
1

1.

Nimshirgaon,

II.

Annual Debt
Service
Liability
as percentage of
incremental
income
I
II
5

145.3:3

45.79

123.30

31.51

84.84

68.83

18.23

38.32

26.48

55.67

229.98

48.28

71.65

20.98

31.15

K~lhepur

2.

Mahalaxmi,
Sangli

3.

Amode,
Jalgaon

*
**
e

ConsIderIng Imputed value of famIly labour as cost

Calculated at 10 per cent Interest and repayment perIod of 9 years In the case of
Nlmshlrgaon and Mahalaxml LI schemes and 10 years In the cas. of AMode LI sch....
wIth grace perIod of 2 years as stipulated
ConsIderIng amount of bank loan disbursed (historIcal cost)
ConsIderIng the reference year cost of Investment.

77

APPENDIX
PRorIlES or lIrT IRRIGATION SCHEMES
SELECTED rOR THE STUDY
I.

Nimshirgaon I I Scheme, District: Kolhapur

Nimshirgaon
Shirol

Parisar

Taluk

of

Pani

Purvetha

Kolhapur

Yojane

district

was

locet~d

(NPPPY)
sponsored

by

in

Shree

PanchaYdnga Sugar factory at Genganagar in Ichalkarenji Taluka

to augment the production and supply of sugarcane to the sugar
factory.

viz~,

The scheme, covers, seven villages,

Nimshirgaon,

Oanoli, Kondigre, Chipari, Jainapur, Vadrav and Nandani.

2.

The LIS envisaged lifting water, available as a result of the

Shrisagar dam constructed across the
on

the

up-stream

of

Krishna

regulated by the Ohom dam

o~

K~YBna

river.

river, a tributary,

Water

supply

the Krishna river.

is

also

The soils in the

command area are medium deep black cotton and clay loam type
which are -well drained and suitable for growing of sugarcane.
3.

The scheme was formulated by the sugar factory in October 1979

and was submitted to MSCARDB.
to ARDC in May 19BO.
involving

financial

assistance

of

Rs.

Rs. 137.79 lakh.

The MSCAROB forwarded the scheme

It was sanctioned by ARDC in July 1981

outlay

153.10

of

Rs.

165.26

lakh,

lakh

and

refinance

financial

commitment

of

The scheme was phased for implementation over

two years, i.e., 1981-82 and 1902-33.

4.

The planning and execution of the scheme was undertaken by the

sugar factory for lifting of water from Krishna river near the
location
river

of

bank

Umalwad
towards

Kothali village to

Jack

Well

Kothali

on

located
right

1,000
bank

of

irrigate about 8,500 acres.

78

ft.,
the

above
river

the
in

The i rr igablo

area was taken at 7,000 acres. The maximum discharge permitted

during kharif and rabi season ",a8 52 cusecs "'hile in summer
season it was 30 cusecs.
5.

Three water lifting permissions were issued by the Irrigation

Department in 1975 a8 per the details given in the Table A.1
Table A.1
Particulars of Water ~ifting Permission
Granted to Nimshirgaon LI Schema
Area in acres

\LPs issued
Rabi

Kharif

WLP No. I

1,700

3,400

600

WLP No. II

1,215

2,550

450

WLP No. III

1,275

2,550

450

Total :

4,250

8,500

1,500

(!

Hot Weather

,.

The survey showed that the crops could be raised in an area of

3,850 acres in kharif and 3,750 acres in rabi. Thus, the ",ster
lifting permissions were not fully utilised.
A.

Implementation Aspecte

6.

As per the original phasing, the scheme lJas to be completed by

June 1983. However, as slow progress in implementation of the
scheme resulted in delay and escalation of investment cost,

79

I'ISCARDB requested NABARD for rephasement of the scheme during

August

1994

with

enhanced

bank

loan of Rs.

2B1.37

lakh

and

ref inance assistance of Rs. 267.30 lakh to provide for the cost
of escalation and for

construction of addi tiona1 distribution

system, representing a rise of 84 and 94 per cent, respectively,

over the original estimates.
7.

The
bank

National
loan

of

Bank

rephased

Rs.

263.73

the
lekh

schema
and

in

August

rafinance

1985,

wi th

assistance

of

Rs. 242.89 lakh and extending the period of implementation upto

1985-96.

The subsidy amount of' Rs.

31.33 lakh sanctioned by

Government of Maharashtra was to be adjusted against drawal of

refinance from the National Bank.
8.

Tha original as well as revised estimates did not provide for

adequate

amount

for

construction

of

distribution

system.

Besides, other cost components also needed further revision.

9.

The loan amount of Re.

263.73 lakh sanctioned by IYlSC"ROB to

the Society was disbursed in 21 instalments.

The first instal-

ment of Rs. 5.25 lakh was disbursed in July 1979 while the last
instalment of Rs. 12.49 lakh was disbursed in June 1986.

Thus,

the disbursement of loan and completion of work was spread over

a

period of about seven years,

phasing of two years.

80

against the initial envisaged

B.

Technical Asoects

i)

Water requirement of crops

10.

The number of pumping hours during 1992-93 was 3,504 in kharif,

4,103 in Rabi and 2,885 in summer. The details of pumping hours
for the year 1992-93 alongwith the volume of water pumped and the
estimated requirement for supporting the cropping pattern
followed are given in Table A.2.
The details regarding
computation of volume of water required are given in Table A.3.
Table A.2
Details of Pumping of ~ater (1992-93)

Saaaon

Hours of
pumping

Vol. of water pumped

(ha. m.)

Kharif

3,504

467

92.8

Rabi

4,103

547

Sunmer

2,885

384

Total :

10,492

1,398

Ii'
'f

Vol. of water
required (ha. m.)

',r.

'1i

:;;~i

81

511.5
604.3

Table A.3

Water Requirement for Existing Cropping Pattern

in Nimshirgaon LI Scheme, Kolhapur District
Areas
(acres)

KHARIF
SoyabsBn
Paddy
Hy. JO!Jar
Vegetable
Chillios
PulsE'S
Others
Groundnut

Water
requirement
(acre-inches)

Vol. of !Jater
(acre-inches)

:5

80

50

24

480
1200

30

10

300

45

10

450

15

10

150

30

180

15
24

10
10

150
240
3150 (32.36
ha.ni.)

Sugarcane (Adsali/Suri)
Sugarcane (R9toen)

215
275

12
12

2580
3300
9030 (92.8
ha.m. )

RAS! AND SUITIER

Jowar
Wheat
Gram
Pulses
Vegetable
Other crops
Sugarcane (Adsali/Suri)
Sugarcane (Rateon)

230
50
20
25
85
105
215
275

12
18
9

2760

225
2550
1890

30
18
96
75

900
180

20640
20625
49770 (511.5
ha.",.)

82

1'.

The total volume of water pumped during 1992-93 was 1,398 ha.m.,
which was more th~n double the weter requirement of 660.5 he.m.
It is evident that the scheme was drawing 131 per cent more
water than was actually required for supporting the cropping
pattern.
Such inefficient management of irrigation water 'nay
ultimately lead to waterlogging.

12.

Data collected from the society indicated that the irrigation

potential created under the scheme was under-utilised. Out of
the four pumps installed, only three were made operational. The
main reason ascribed for this by the Society was that due to
implementation of the schellle, the ground water table in the
area had risen and many of the farmers preferred to use their
wells for irrigation. Another reason for gross under-utilisation
of the scheme was that the Gbvernment had resorted to IIUpsabandi II ,
i.e., restriction on lifting of water. The system of "Upsaban~i"
consists of allowing water lifting for 8 days followed by 7 days
of ban on lifting of water. This restriction has been in vogue
for the last 10 years.

13.

Even after considering additional area brought under well

irrigation as a result of recharge from LI Scheme in the command
area, the LI Scheme was found to be grossly under utilised.
naws in . the basic design of the scheme lJere observed.
The
number of outlets provided to serve the area, even with the
additional distribution system laid down through use of Sugar
Development Fund of the sugar factory, numbered 100. Accordingly,
the chak size worked out to 70 acres, which was very large and,
thus, efficient irrigation was not possible.

14.

The scheme was highly complicated in nature as all the five

stages were not aligned in e continuous manner but scattered at
different places and it was very cumbersome to maintain and
manage this type of system.

83

15.

In the revised proposal,

command

area,

the basic design of the scheme,

cropping

pattern

and

retained but due to site conditions,

designed

discharge

like
were

following changes in the

technical design were effected :

i)

Length of pipe lines had to be adjusted to suit the sita

conditions.

ii)

Additional

two

stages

condi tions

and

also

were

required

because of

the

due

to

topographic

coverage of

certain

areas where water could not reach by gravity.

iii)

The size of various chambers/sumpwells were increased to

minimise retention period.
The

1V)

open

channel

system

provided

earlier

was

replaced

with RCC pipe distribution system.

16.

As a result of above changes as also due to steep rise in the

cost of cement
Rs.

153.10

lakh

pipes,
to

the financial assistance increased from

Rs.

263.73 lakh.

Further,

allotting special cement quota at concessional

works

was

also

withdrawn

intervening period.

by

the

the policy of
rates for

State Government

during

Shortage of construction material,

such
the

parti-

cula"rly, cement during the initial period of implementation and

untimely pre-monsoon showers in June 1981

delayed the work of

intake chambers, intake pipe and jackwell .

rindings of the Technical Study
17.

The distribution system provided under the scheme was inadequate

end,

hence,

irrigation.

the total command area could not be brought under

There was excessive use

of water

(to the extent

of 116%) due to which the water table had risen in many parts of
the convnand areas and the farmers thereafter resorted to well

84

irrigation instead of availing irrigation facilities from the

scheme.
If such misuse of water continues, it will lead to
problems of water logging ~nd soil salinity in due course. The
scheme was not property designed and planned as major changes
lJere effected . during implementation resulting in both time and
cost overruns.
Recommendations on Technical Aspects
18.

The LI Schemes with several stages scattered at different places

should not be encouraged as it leads to operational and
maintenance problems.

19

For construction of an efficient water distribution system, the

maximum chak size of 8 ha.
should be made obligatory as it
leads to optimum water management.

20.

The enforcement of 'Upsabandi' has severely affected the Lift

Irrigation Schemes. Hence, NABARO may review its policy for
sanctioning schemes on rivers where such restrictions are in
vogue even though unrestricted WLPs have
been issued in
the past.

II.

Amado LI Scheme, Amode, District : Jalgaon

21.

The Amode LI Scheme, is located at village Amode in Yawal Tehsil

of Jalgaon district. The source of water for this scheme is the
right bank canal of Hatnur. dam on Tap! river. The water lifting
spot is 16 kms. a~ay from the dam. Water from the canal is made
available lJith a ten day rotation.

22.

The scheme has a cultivable command area of 3,350 acres and

irrigable area of 2,500 acres. The maximum discharge permitted

85

during kharif,

rebi and summer was 31.3,

22.2 and 20 cuseca,

resp9ctively.
23.

The p:::'oject proposal with financial outlay of Rs.

212.03 lakh

was formulated by the Society in November 1985 and forwarded to

MSCB through Jalgaon DCCB.

The MSCB submitted proposal to the

National 8ank in March 1986.

lackinq in many respects,
proposal.

Since the project proposal waa

the MSCB was advised to reviae the

The revised proposal was submitted by MSCB in Auguat

1986 and the scheme was sanctioned by NABARD in Februery 1987.

24.

As against the total financial outlay (TfO) of Ra. 212.83 lekh

estimated by the MSCB,

the National Bank sanctioned a TEO of

Rs. 178.20 lakh with bank loan for Rs. 169.29.. lakh and refinance
assistance

of

Rs.

152.26

lakh.

The

scheme

wae

phased

for

implementation over two years, i.e., 1986-87 and 1997-88.

25.

Work on the scheme commenced in May 1986 and was completed in

March 1990, resulting in time overrun of two years.
Implementation Aspect.s

26.

Because of time overrun in implementation of the scheme mainly

on account of delay in construction of Head "'all by Irrigation
Department and providing power connection by the JVlSEB, the MSCe
approached the National Bank in July 1988 for an upward revision
of the outlay to As.

280.55 lakh and refinance a.slst.nce of

Ra. 239.77 lakh, i,eo, an increase of 66 per cent and 57 per c.nt
respectively over the original sanction and an extension
year in the phasing.

or

on.

As the rates adopted under rephasamant

proposal were earlier rajected by ACOTS at the time of sanction

of r.lriginal schema and the design of aumpwel1 and structure.
of other items were changed without concurrence'of National Bank,
the Bank did not approve the proposal.
86

The JVlSCB again requaatad

the National Bank to consider the sanction of additional

refinance of Rs. 87.51 lakh and one year extension till 30
June 1990. After reviewing the progress in respect of physical
and financial aspects of the scheme, National Bank extended the
scheme grace period up to 30 June 1990.
27.

The other major factors responsible for delay in implementation

of the scheme and the problems faced during the implementation of
LI Scheme are indicated belwo :
i)

Standing crops in the fields delayed the earth work.

ii)

Delay in the execution of mortgage deeds by the farmers.

Though most of the dugweU owners were members of the
LI society, only 25 per cent command area had be$n
As a result there was a
mortgaged with the society.
shortfall in the land offered as security.

iii)

Delay in acquiring suitable land for construction of the

main distribution chambers and sumpwell.

iv)

The faulty designs of the scheme had led to less discharge

than required (as the canal remained closed for half of
the month).

v)

Irrigation Department delayed completion of canal head

works.

vi)

As state highway is passing through scheme area, permission

was to be granted by State Government for construction of
the scheme structure which took nearly 6 months.

viii) No construction work was possible from June to September

because of rains and standing crops fn fields.

87

Technical Aspects
Watar Availability and Requirement
28

The total quantity of water pumped with tha h~lp of four

centrifugal pumpsets (4 x 300) during the year 1992-93 is given
in Table A.4.
The details regarding computation of volume of
water required ere given in Table A.5. It is evid~nt from the
Table that the irrigation water actually pumped out was only
72 per cent of the volume required for supporting the cropping
pattern.
Table A.4
Details of pumping of water during 1992-93

Sr.

No.

Cropping
Season

Pump
Operation
(hrs.)

Volume
Pumped
(ha.m.)

Voluma
Requited
(ha.m.)

Kharif

1,008

79

159.2

2.

Rabi

3,835

302

358.0

3.

Hot Weather

4,328

342

491.0

9,171

723

1008.2

TOTAL :

88

Table A.5
Yater Requirement of existing cropping pettern in
Amode LI Society, Amode, Ja1g80n District
Area'
(acres)

Season

Khar!f
Sugarcane
Banana
Jowar

Yater
requirement
(scre-inches)

Volume of water
(acre-inches)

682

18

12276

175

18

3150

08

06

48

15474 (159.2 ha.m.)

Rebi
Sugarcane
Banana
IJheat
Jowar

682

42

28644

175

30

5250

28

18

522

29

12

348
34764 (358 ha.m.)

Hot ",eather
Sugarcane
Banana
Groundnut
Maize

682

S4

36828

175
07
05

60
36
27

10500
252
135
47715 (491 ha.m.)

29.

The delay in implementation of the scheme lJas mainly on account

of faulty design, coordination problems and lack of effective

project monitoring during the execution.

89

Findings of the Technical Study

30.

In all 88 duguelle were in operation in the command area of the

dcheme. These dugwells got recharged periodically due to surface
water irrigation from the Lift IrrigatiDn scheme. Each dugwell
had an average command of 8-10 acres.

31

The LADA,
running of
the canal
quality of

Hatnoor project had imposed a restriction on the

.
.
canal as a result of which the uater uas available in
with a rotation of 10 days, thereby, affecting the
irrigation.

Recommendations on the Technical Aspects

32.

There is a need for a relook into the water requirement of

various crops at field level which would call for redesigning of
the entire project.

33.

The beneficiaries having other sources of irrigation, such a8

dugwells, wi thin the command area should pay water rates for
their total benefited holding and not for the araa benefited by
lift irrigation alone.

34.

In case the total discharge is not meant for additional pumping,

the sl:'mplJell should be so designed that the retention period
is commensurate with the discharge meant for pumping and not the
total discharge entering the sumpwell.

III.

~halaxmi

35.

the l'Iahalsx.mi LI Society is located

The Ashta \I i 118ge ",here
is on the right bank of the river Krishna and lie8 on the fringe
of the sugar belt developed along the Krishna river.
Most or

LI Schemes, District : Sangli

90

the land holdings in the village wefe rainfed in the pre-ds'Jolopment stage.

Efforts were made by some of the dug'Joll owners t.o

deepen their existing wells but in vain. . The IJelw8 Sugar factory
took interest in the irrigation development of the aroa for
stepping up the sugarcane supply to the factory, and, accordingl y , the Mahalaxmi Scheme was formulated.

The scheme was

sponsored by the Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkana Ltd.,

Rejaramput', Tal. Walwa, District Sangli.
36.

Command area of the scheme is 1,400 acres with. irrigable area

of 1200 acres.

The scheme was designed for a peak season demand

of 19.30 cusses of water discharge.

The scheme has two stages of

pumping. To economise on investment costs, the head works were

planned

jointly

for

two

Ll

Schemes,

viz.,

Mahalaxmi

and

Pachamba.
37

The scheme involving a financial outlay of Rs. 107.04 lakh was

submitted by the Sugar factory in December 1984 to the Islampur
Branch

of

feasibility

Bank
and

of

India

financial

(801).

After

viability

of

assessing teChnical
the

scheme,

it

was

submitted to the National Bank in June 1985 by the 801,. Zonal

Office.

After about three and half months, National Bank advised

BOl about technical feasibility of the project and asked it to

make a formal request for sanctioning the rGfinance.

BOr in

turn submitted a formal application in September 1985.

The

scheme involving a total financial outlay of Ra. 124.78 lakh* and

refinance commitment of Rs.

106.71 lakh lJas approved by the

National Bank in February 1986.

The approved phaSing of the

scheme is indicated in Table A.6.

The Natlonel
neces~ary

Benl<.

(NABARD)

approved

higher outley

chanqes suitable to the scheme.

91

after tlklng

Into accounf

Table

A.6

Details of Phasing of Mahalaxmi LI Scheme

(Ra. lakh)

1985-86

1986-87

62.00

62.78

124.78

58.90

59.66

118.56

Margin money

3.10

3.14

NB refinance

53.01

53.69

6.24
106.70

Total Fin. Outlay

Bank loan

Total

Implementation Aspects

JBJ

The Lift Irrigation Soci6ty was formed on 13 June 198&.

The

members of the society had entered into an agreement with the

sugar

factory for

completion

of

the

finalising certain arrangements needed for

scheme,

viz.,

(i)

the

factory

would have

overall control on the project in terms of appointment of

consultants, inviting t~nders and fixing up suitable agencies for
implementation of project, supervising the project work, looking
after billing and payment of the project costs, completing and
commissioning the scheme, and (ii) the LI society was to seek
assistance of the factory in forming and registering the society,
passing

a~d

amending

necessary

bye-laws of society,

and the

supervision and management.

39.

.Implementation/execution of work WBS to be done under technical

supervision of the sugar factory.
A director nominated ~y the
sugar factory was to act as the Chairman of LI society.
In
exigencies, the factory agreed to meet the financial requirements
of the society.
. Besides, it agreed to assist in general
management of the Society before and after the completion of the
project, in making recoveries of irrigation charges, maintenance
of the project and overall suparvision.
92

The grace period of the scheme ~hich ~as phased for 1985-87 ~8S
extended up to December 1987. The sugar factory had originally
planned to start ~ork by february 1985 and compl3te by December
1985, but the ~ork actually ~as completed end irrigation
commenced by January 1988.
The various reasons for ~elay in
completion of ~ork ~er~, (i) about 7' kms of area through ~hich
rising main ~as passing ~as covered under crops and the farmers
~ere reluctant to allo~ the construction ~ork in their fields
unless adequate crop compensation ~as paid, (ii) the construction
of jack~ell and intake ~ell took considerable time as nD hard
stratum ~as found and' the ~Drk could be completed only after
seeking assistance of specialists from tamil Nadu, (iii)
permission for laying the rising main pipe across the road took
considerable time an~ (iv) delay in getting electriCity

40.

connection from MSEB.

Technical Aspects
Yater Availability and Requirement
Total amount of .~ater pumped ~as 719 ha.m. which IoI8a
substantially higher (23%) than the total ~ater requirement of
585 ha.m. (Detailed computation of volume of ~ater required is
given in Table A.~). Such inefficient ~at9r management in the
scheme area has led to ~aterlogging in patches.

41.

Table A.7,

Crop

~ater requirement as per existing Cropping

Pattern in "ahalaxmi LI Sc~ame. Sangli ~i8trict
\later
Area
Vol. of water
requirement
(acre)'
(acre-inch)

~acre-inch2

Sugarcane
Paddy
IJheat
Vegetalille
TOTAL :

J
108
24
18
18

480
50
175

34

51,840
1,200
3,150
612
'=
=

93

56,802 ac.in.
585 ha.in.

42..

Thn irrigation potential created by the scheme remained

underutilised due to the rise in water table in the scheme area
'
8S a result of which many of the farmers prRferred to use dugwell
for. irrigation.
Another reason for gross underutilisation wes
resorting to 'Upsabandi' by the Government.
,

43.

A total of 705 acres of area was irrigated from the Ll scheme.

Even after considering dugwell irrigation, the potential was
found to be grossly underutilised ~s on~y 76~3 per cent of the
ICA received irrigation (both from wells and LIS). '-laws In the
basic design of the scheme were obeserved. The ICA of the schema
was 1450 acres and the total number of outlets was six, which in
turn resulted in average chak size of' 242 acres. The water was
distributed over the remaining area by a network'of open channel
of B.85 km. Efficient irrigation was not possible with such 8
large chak size.
findings of the Technical Study

44.

The distribution system provided under the scheme was inadequate

and, hence, the total command area could not be brought under
irrigation. There was over pumping of water to the extent of 2S
per cent resulting in the rise of water table in many parts of
command area and the farmers resorted to well irrigation. It was
also noticed that waterlogging had occurred in certain pockets.
Recommendations on the Technical Aapects

45.

In the distribution system, maximum chak size of 8 he. shDuld be

made obligatory as it leads to better watar management.

46.

Although unconditi~nal WLPs ware issued by the irrigation departnt resorted to heavy restriction in lifting
ment, the d epar t me .
'
ement locally known as 'Upsabandi', frOll
water, under an a rrang
the Krishna river for half of the time. NABARO may review its

policy for sanctioning of schemes on rivers where such

restriction is being imposed even after issuing unrestricted
\JLPa.

IV.

Yeshoba LI Scheme, District: Solapur

47.

The Yeshoba Shima Khore LI Scheme was to irrigate Kavitgaon and

Kandur villages of Solapur, benefiting 103 farmers. The source
of irrigation is back waters of Ujjani Dam across \ the Bhima
Riv6r. The LI Scheme is located in the village Kavitgaon. These
villages are situated on the left bank of Shima river and when
the Ujjani Dam on Shima river was constructed, major portion of
the cultivated area of these villag~s was submerged.

48.

The MSCARDB submitted the scheme in Octobar 1982 to the. National

Bank involving a financial assistance of Rs. 35.42 lakh. The
scheme was' sanctioned by National Bank in April 198~ with a
reduced financial assistance of Rs. 34.33 lakh and refinance
assistance of Rs. 32.61 lakh. The financial programme approved
under the scheme is gi.ven in Table A.B.
Table A.a
Details of Phasing of Veshoba LI Scheme
I

Bank loan
NB refinance
MSCARDB's
contribution

(Rs. lakh)

1982-83

1983-84

Total

15.00
14.25
0.75

19.331
18.354

34.331

0.967

32.614
1.717.

Implementation Aspects
49.

The time-lag between the SUbmission of scheme by MSCARDB and

sancticm by the National Bank was about 6 months. Work commenced
95

three months after the sanction and uas completed by June 1984
which uas as per the planned schedule of the scheme. Thus, the
total time taken from submission of proposal by the rlSCAROB to
completion of work was about 20 months.
50.

Although the scheme had been completed in 1984, it could not be

operated properly because of lou voltage of the electric suppiy.
Even after the installation of a substation by th~ rlSEB, the
scheme uas not being operated to its full designed capacity. All
the works pertaining to the rising main, pump, etc., had been
completed as per. NABARD sanction. The distribution system wes,
however, found to be too inadequate to efficiently serve the
command area of 800 acres as it had only four outlets.
Technical Aspects

51.

The command area of the scheme is 800 acres of which 652 acres
(82%) is the irrigable comm~nd area (ICA). Sufficient water is
bvailable for the LI Scheme round the year in Bhima river. The
water lifting permission (WLP) had been given on long term basis
(12 years) to irrigate 652 acres. The designed discharge of the
LI Scheme is 6 cusecs.
~ater Availability and Requirement

52. .

The' details of the seasonuise. pumping ho~rs along with the

volume of water pumped. is given in Table A.9 and the details
regarding computation of voluma of water required are given in
Table A. 10.

96

Table A.9
Details of Pumping of \Jater in yOeshoba LI Scheme
Season
1

lffiSrlr
Rabi
Summer

TOTAL :

Vol. of water
pumped*
(Ha.m.)
3
22
36
17

Hours of
pumpi.ng
2
710
, ,163
548

59.3

44.5

75

2,421

* Discharge of one pumpset

Vol. of water required

as per croPPin~ pattern
{Ha.m.
4
9.0

112.9

0.085 cum
Table A.10

Crops
1

Kharif
Bajra
Maize
Tur

Water Requirement for cropping pattern for 1990-91 in

Yeshoba 8hima Khore II Scheme, Sholapur District
\Jater
Area
Vol. of water
(acre)
requirement
(a~re-inch)
(acre-inches)
3
2
4
60
60
25

350
360
150

6
6

Rabi
Jowar
Wheat
Gram

Surrmer
Groundnut
fodder
Vegetable

250
60
20

18

4500
1080
'180

18
9

=
100
20
10

870 Ac.m.
B.95 Ha.m.

36
18
36

5760 Ac.rn.
59.3 Ha.m.
3600
360
360

=
97

4320 Ac.m.
44.5 Ha.m.

53.

It may be seen from Table A.9 that on an annual basis, the volume
of water pumped was lower by about 8 per cent than the volume or
yater required to support the cropping pattern. However, in Rahi
season" uater required to slJstain the cropping pattern uas 33.5
per cent "less than what was actually lifted. Thera appears to be
3 need for reworking the irrigation water requirement of crape
grown in the scheme area. The irrigation requirements being USEd
for different crops had been worked out about three decades ago
and cell for necessary updating. Methodologies developed during
this period for accurate determination of irrigation requirements
can be utilised for arriving at water requir.ement with greater
precision.
Reasons for Underutilisation
Lotol Voltage

54.

As stated earlier, during initial stages of the scheme, the

lou voltage ~ffected the utilisation of p~tential. This problem
was rectified later by "installing" a sub-station at the site.
Improper pump selection

55.

The maximum draw down level of the lake of Ujjani dam is 491.03
m. and as per the condition laid down by the Irrigation
Department, the intake opening had. ~o be placed at this level.
"The full reservoir level was 496.83 m. The pumps were placed at
1.0 m. above this level i.e. at 497.83 m. The centre line of the
pump was .about O.S m. above the floor. Hence the level of the
pump centre line uorked out to 498.33 m~ Therefore, the Static
suction h~ad af maximum draw down level is 7.3 m. (498.33 Considering 10 per cent extra requirement due to
491.03 ) ~
frictional losses in bends, foot valves etc., the total 8~ction
head workS out to 8.0 m. A suction head of 8.0 i8 beyond the

98

range of a centrifugal pump and hence at maximum draw down leval

the pumps cannot draw water.
56.

During the visit to the site it was noticed that the work was in
progress for lowering the pumps into pits in the pumphouse by
about 3.5 m. to bring the suction head within operating range.
This may lead to seriouA operational problems.
Silting of Reservoirs

57.

Silting occurs in all reservoirs since the river water ia

impounded.
The preaent design norm of the intake opening
envisaged the bottom of the opening at O.S m. above the bed
level. This would be correct in case of intakes il')stalled on
river beds as there i8 no progressive rise of the rivDr bed.

58.

The intake had been installed at a place where the reservoir

slope wss very gentle. Because of reservoir silting during the
last five years (about 5-10 cm. ~nnually) the water line at
maximum draw down level had receded by about 'one km. from the
intake structure. As such the society had to dig a channal of.
one km. length to bring the water to the head works site.

59.

The aspect of silting in the case o~ schemes installed In

reservoirs is not being presently considered by National Bank for
scheme sanction. It is therefore suggested that the bottom of
the intake opening above reservoir bed should be determined aa
'01101.18 :

Bottom of intake opening

above reservoir bed
= 25 x Annual Siltation rata + O.S
60.

The schematic representation of the suggested design is given in

Figura 1. The factor of 25 conforms to ~he life of a LIS. The
above recommendation would lead to higher capital cost by' way of
99

SUGGESTED CHANGE IN DESIGN NORMS

OF INiAKE STRUCTURE IN RESERVOIR BEDS

FIG.l

INTAKE OPENING
CHOKED DUE TO SILTING

MAX 'lRAW DOWN

\.~EL OF LAKE tASERVOIA'

//

~-

___..,. _____ _r
_

_.,.

~-

_..

-.

- I

.- I

...J .Y
-_ ..- _-

r--

:l

05

/ /7, ~DEPTH(fS1LnMG l25YRS)

LOCATION OF INTAKE
AS PER PRESENT NORMS

PRESENT RESERVOIR BED

-~...l__.l
/~

SUGGESTED LOCATION
--OF INTAKE STRUCTURE

longer intake pipe and taller intake chamber but this will
elimirlate the recurring problems of digging a channel every
year.
61.

In case the length of the intake pipe increases on account of the

siltation factor, the present norm of designing the intake pipe
to allow a veloci t.y of 1.2 m! sec. and a &lope of 1: 400 may not
hold good because of increased f~icti~nal loss. In such cases,
lowering of water level in the Jackwell/Sumpwell by a maximum
.
.
amount of 0.5 m. may 'be allowed to create enough differential
head for the required' design discharge to flow and the size of
the intake pipe selected accordingly.
Findings of the Technical Study

62.

Although the scheme had been completed, as per approved time

frame, it was found to be grossly under-utilised due mainly, to
the following reasons :
i)

Centrifugal pumps were installed ellen though the total

suction head is 8.0 m. Due to this the pumps had to be
lowered into pits 3.5 m. deep. It is apprehended that this
arrangement may lead to the recurring problem of shifting
of the pumps every season.

ii)

The intake structure is being regularly silted up and every

year a channel had to be excavated to bring water to the
intake point.

Recommendations.on the Technical Aspects

63.

The design norms ~f intake structure situated in the back waters

of dams should taka into account the annual silting.

64.

In case the intake pipe becomes very long if designed with .the
ebove cr1 teria. a lowering of water level by 0.5 m. may be
100

alloued at the Jack'JeU/Surnpwell to create enough differential

head for the required discharge to flow and the diameter of the
intake pipes be selected accordingly.

v.

AwaBari LI Scheme, District: Pune

65.

Awasari LI Scheme was designed to cater to the irrigation needs

of the village Awasari of Indapur taluka in Pune district end
implemented by Nimgeon Ketki branch of Bank of Maharashtra. The
village is about 3 kms., downstream of Ujjani Dam on the Bhima
river which is the perennial source for the Awasari LI Scheme.
Prior to the implementation of the scheme, almost the entire area
was rainfed with less than one per cent area under irrigation. The
annual rainfall, being low (about 500 mm) and erratic, was not
sufficient for growing crops on a sustainable basis. The sugar
factory, Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., lJalchandnagar, offered
technical know-how, consultancy and Bxtension services for the
scheme.

66.

The Bank of Maharashtra (801'1) submitted the scheme proposal

involving TfO of Rs. 119.56 lakh in August 1986 to National Bank.
The scheme was sanctioned in July 1987 with financial assistance
of Rs. 105.79 lakh and refinance commitment of Rs. 95.21 lakh.
The scheme was expected to be completed in two years.
The
details of phasing are givan in Table A.11.
Table A.11
Details of Phasing of Awasari LX Schama
(Rs. lakh)
1986-97
60.000
54.000
48.600

Total Financial Outlay (TFO)

Bank loan
NB's Refinance

101

1987-88
57.546
51.791
46.612

Total
117.546
105.791
95.212

Implementation Aspects
67.

68.

As par the approved phasing,. the disbursement uf loan and drawal

of refinance were to be completed before 30 June 1988. The BOM,
however, in November 1967 requested for rephasement lof the sc~eme
by extending period of implementation upto 1988-89 and revision
in TFO.
The reasons for seeking revisiol" were, "(a) to meet
demand of MSEB of Rs. 10 lakh as deposit towards energisation,
(b) since the farmers being poor could not contribut~ the margi~
money at 10 per cent of TFO, the reduction of the same to 5 per
cent of TFO was requested. Besides, Rs. 1.43 lakh was required
to install Water Hammer Control Device (WHCD) which was essential
from technical point of view.
National Bank approved the rephasement proposal in June 1989 by
extending the period of implementation upto 30 June" 1990 and
revising tpe financial outlay, bank loan and refinance commitment
to Rs. 135.29 lakh and Rs. 128.53 lakh ami Rs. 114.39 lakh,
t'Efspectively.
Tochnical Aspects

69.

The command area of the scheme was 2,150 acres and irrigable ~rea
,
was 1,500 acres.
The WLP was issued for 1,500 acres allowing
cropping in 910 acres each in kharif and rabi seasons and 265
acres in summer season. The designed discharge was 16.25 cusecs
keeping in view the peak season discharge of 16.20 cusecs .in
khar!f and probable field losses.

70.

The head "works of the LIS was located at BhRtnimgaon vil~age. An

intake chamber had been built et a point with maximum depth in
the .river and was connected to jackwell located at a distance of
85 mts. Wate~ was to be pumped in two stages requiring a total
of 810 hp. pumping capacity. The proposed rising main was 1,950
102

mts. in the second stagE.

Urlderground plplng
. .
sys t em was proposed

to minimise conveyance and evaporation losses.

Aurangabad

VI.

Nababpur-Siddhapur LI Scheme, District

71.

The Nababpur-Siddhapur LI Scheme was conceived for catering to

the needs of Nababpur-Siddhapur villages of Gangapur taluka of
Aurangabad district. The source of water was the bacKwaters of
Jayakwadi irrigation project on the Godavari river.
The head
1J0rks of the scheme was located in Bagadi Mamdapur. The designed
discharge of the scheme was 45.50 cusecs with a pumping capacity
of 1,200 hp. The proposed command area of the scheme was 6,150
acres and the irrigable area 3,250 acres. The WLP was obtained
for 3,298 acres.

72.

The scheme was sanctioned by the erstwhile ARDC to MSCARDB, in

December 1980, involving bank loan of Rs. 92.73 lakh and
refinance assistance of Rs. 83.46 lakh.
The phasing of the
scheme was for two years, viz., 1980-81 and 19B1-82. However,
due to the reluctance of the farmers to mortgage their lands, the
scheme was withdrawn by the bank before implementation.

73.

The bank approached NABARD again with revised plans and estimate
in January 1985 as the beneficiaries started evincing interest in
the scheme since the sponsorir.g sugar factory (Gangapur Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Raghunathnagar, Tal. Gangapur), had demonstrated successful completion of two similar schemes. The scheme
with TFO of Rs. 165.41 lakh was submitted by LI Society to
MSCARDB in October 1984.

74.

The scheme was sanctioned to MSCAR08 in October 1985 with bank

loan of Ra. 189.27 lakh, refinance assistance of Ra. 179.81 lakh
end phasing for two years 1985-86 and 1986-87.

75.

The

bank

could not disburse loan undAr the scheme as the

'nl'mum requirement of SO per cent mortgages from the
stipulated ml
103

farmers uere not fvlfilled. T~erefor8, in Novermbe~ 1986, the

hAnk requested fDr an extension of the schemA period upt~ 30 June
1998. NA8ARO approved the r~pha8ement proposal in February 1987
as 8 special case with t,wo conditions that no furt!1er pro::msals
for rephasement and c.u:>t. escalation would'be considered.
Implementation Aspects
76.

The MSCARDB in August 1988 again requested NABARD to extend the

scheme period up to 30 June 1989 on the following grounds :
i)

The co-operative lift irrigation society was registered

only in April 1987 and actual disbursements could start
only thereafter.

ii)

The alignment of the rising main being through another

existing LI Scheme area, where most of the area uas already
under sugarcane, the construction work of rising main couln
be undertaken only after standing sugarcane crop was
harvested.

iii)

As the distribution pipe system

pas~ed

through the property

of the state Farming Corporatiol1, the permission of the

State Government was required for extension of the
distribution pipeline through the area. The permission was
granted in the mont.h' of July 19a8 only when the monsoon
sea~on had already set in.
It, therefore, became difficult
to commence the earthwork in rainy season.
77.

Since the scheme was rephased twice and still it was not
completed even after B years from the date of sanction and,
further, the performance of the other schemes sponsored by the
Gangapur Sugar Factory was far from satisfactory, the National
Bank did not accede to the request. However, on representation
made again by the Sugar Factory, the proposal for extension of
104

the scheme was re-pxamined anj as a special case scheme period

was E;jxtended upLo 31 rlarch 1989, subject to the conditions
that no further extension of the scheme would he, allowed and the
flotation of debentures 'under the scheme should be completed
before 31 March 1989.
78.

On MSCAROB's request, National Bank sanctioned additional amount

of Rs. 6.74 lakh towards MSES's connection charges and extended
tha period of implementation upto March 1990. These revisions
uere based on the recommendations made by the study team of
National Bank which had visiled the scheme area.
Thus, tt'le
construction work which commenced in March 1987 was complet&d
after four years, i.e., in March 1991.
Technical Aspects
Availability of Yater

79.

The Jayakuadi project uas conceived in the year 1965 and was
completad. in 1975. The irrigation project was designed for 7S
per cent" dependability i.e. 1,487 MeM. However, the Government
of Maharashtra had fixed the priority for drinking and industrial
usages allocating 550 MeM.
The evaporation, percolation and
other losses of irrigation water accountad for 275 MeM. Hence,
only 662 MCM was available for irrigation. Moreover, except for
the yea[, 1990-91 and 1991-92, 1;h'e dam was never full, the water
level was even less than dead storage in some of the years as
shown by the year-wise minimum and maximLIII live conten~ in the
reservoir of the Jayakuadi project (Table A.12).
H.nce, the
Irrigation Department did not allow lifting water ~rom the
reservoir for irrigation since 1992 onwards. As a raault, all
the Lift Irrigation Scheme on the back waters of Jayakwadi
11y non-functional.
project were prac t lea
105

Table A.12
Statament SholJing Year-wise Minimum'and Maximum Live Content in the
Reservoir of Jayakwadi Project (Paithan Reneveli)
LI ve Content I n

Year

MIl'

Dote

Content

Dote

R.arks
Conteni'

1975-76

05 .M.76

(-}124.48

16.08.75

260.87

12.00

1976-77

11.07.76

124.40

5.7J

26.09.76

1162. :58

5:5.54

1977-78

19.07.77

:521.51

14.81

0:5.12.77

1006.79

46.:57

1978-79

24.06.79

212.26

9.78

02.07.78

695.74

32.05

LIve content
(desIgned)
2171

1979-80

12.07.79

198.06

9.12

22.09.79

1679.16

77.:55

Mm

1980-81

17.06.81

(-)6.92

23.08.80

1051.02

48.41

1081-82

11.07.61

249.51

11 .51

28.09.81

1626.4:5

74.92

1982-83

2:5.06.83

22:5.16

10.28

:50.09.82

122:5.:52

56.81

1983-84

09.07.8:5

187.16

8.62

08.10.8:5

2051.52

94.50

1984-85

30.06.84

593.19

27.32

15.10.84

1751.31

80.67

1985-86

04.06.85

(-)7.99

16.08.85

740.58

34.11

1986-87

20.06.86

(-l7J.4:5

26.08.86

408.49

18.32

1987...88

01.07.88

751.84

3.50

,'9.10.88

206:5.:51

95.04

1988-89

'0.05.89

4:57.2:5

20.14

09.10.89

1997.49

92.00

1990-91

04.07.90

579.:55

23.92

12.10.90

2475.20

114.00

1991-92

19.06.91

42.9'

1.98

27.08.91

2076.58

95.65'

1992-93

:50.06.92

47.:58

2.18

20.09.92

720.52

:3:5.19

199:5-94

:50'.06.9:5

44.20

2.07

11.10.9:5

718.06

:5:5.01

1)
MaxImum stol"'age
capac I ty des I gned -

2909 MII:5
2)

.,

:5)

Dead (desIgned)

- 7J8 MD'

Level above maxImum water level (flood year)

Water WI!IS I"'filol!lsed In ,the downstream of rlvel'" In August/September In antIcIpatIon of

contInuous Inf low.' of in September/October.
However, there WI!IS no furthel'" Inflow of
water In the dam.
Soul"'ce : Jayakwadl Project, IrrIgatIon Department, Aurangabad

Change in design
a)
80.

Extra pumping StagA

The society made provision for third stage of pumping (2 )( 60

hp.) in order to cater to the needs of additional area. The cost
106

towards pumping machinery and sumpwell/pump house was borna

The datails of the
through the owned funds of the society.
pumping machinery installed are given in Table'A.1J.
Tabla A. 13
Details of PLlJlping Plachinery

Ois-

stage

chl:lrge

Total
Uead

Type
of
p~-

set
.2

At stage A
At stage C-D*
'At stage C-E*

45

VT

12

cr

11

Cf

HP of
each
punpset

Efficiancy

300
60
60

75
60
60

(X)

'hough 4 pumps ~f 300 hp. each are 'nstalled, t~e pover loltd Is adequate to run only
one pump at at''''''
No refinance
The pumping stage had been elC8Cu1"ed by society'. ovn fund.
clal_d.

b).
81.

1290G
192
195

Number
of
pumpset

Distribution System

The society had implemented the distribution syst.m as par

National Bank's stipulation that underground pipe line was to be
provided for discharge of above 0.25 cusec.
further the discharge of less than 0.25 cusec could .be conveYEd by open
channels. However, the distribution system was yet to be laid 1n
550 acres (222 ha) for which a revised proposal was submitted
later by the bank, which incidentally was not approved by
National Bank.

107

Availability of power supply

82.

D uri~g the study it was observed that the power connection

r~n

providsd was adequate to

only one pumpset of 300 hp. Hence,

by rotation only one pumpset could be kept in operation for

limited

period

to

ensure

the

proper

operation

of

pumping

machinery.

VII.

Rajendra LI Scheme, District Pune

83.

The Rajendra Sahakari Pani Purawatha Yojana at 8abhulgaon was

conceived to cater to the irrigation needs of 8abhulgaon of
Indapur taluka of Pune district.

The source of water was 8hima

river on the down stream of IJjjani Irrigation Project which was

4 km. away from Babhulgaon on the upstream of the river and water

lifting structure of the LIS.

As a result, water supply to the

scheme was assured in all the three seasons.

The scheme was

granted long duration ULP by the Irrigation Department.

84.

The proposal was submitted by the Indian 8ank to NA8ARD during

March 1984.

NABARD sanctioned the scheme wi th an outllilY of

Rs. 107.40 lakh in October 1984 with a refinance commitment of

Rs. 91.85 lakh.
The command area and irrigable area were
stipulated to be 2,600 acres and 1,150 acras, raapectlvely~ The
original phasing as approved is given in Table A. 14.
Table A. 14
Details of Original Phasing of Rajendra LI Scheme
(Ra. lakh)
Particulars

1984-85

1985-86

TotQl

:5

TFO

40.00

67.40

107.40

Bank Loan
NB's Refinance

38.00

64.05
57.65

102.05

34.20

108

91.85

Implementation ASp9cts
85.

86.

The sponscring agency, Mykes Corporation working for Indian Bank

backed out of the scheme after the sanction, an~ as Indian Bank
did nto have the adequete technical end other staff to follow-up/
supervise the executilln/implementation of the scheme, it also
backe~ out.
Later, MSCARDB showed -interost in financing and
implementing the scheme uith the same design and cost estimates
already sanctioned to Indian Bank. The Indapur Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd., Indapur, took interest in the scheme by offering
services of technical and other staff needed for the execution,
moni toring and supervision. The assets and liabilities of the
scheme were later transferred to-MSCARDB.
Tha scheme was rephased for implementation during 19(45-86 and
1986-87 without change of technical design or cost estimates.
The period of repayment-fixed was 15 years including 2 yeara of
grace period. The scheme was again rephased upto December 1988
because of the delay in securing mortgage of land from the
farmers. further, there uas a revision in the cost estimates and
refinance amount to Rs. 122.25 lakh "and Rs. 115.43 lekh, respectively and the period of implementation was extended upto March
1991. The transfer of the scheme resulted in delay of about one
year.

87. .

The construction phase prolonged over 5 years due to various

problems such as delay in securing land mortgage from the
farmers, staff constraints for Bupervision, difficulties faced
from consultants/ contractors.

88.

The sponsoring sugar factory did not take much interest in the
execution, monitoring and supervision" of the scheme because it
already had sufficient sugarcane area to effectively meet its
requirement.

'09

Technical Aspects
89.

The technical design was broadly adhared to axcept for an

increase of 12 mts. in the length of intake pipe and reduction in
The designed
the quantity of cement-plaster for outlets.
discharge of the scheme 'Jas 20 cusecs which was in excess of the
requirement since the irrigable command area was 1,150 acres
only.
Yeter Availability and Requirement

90.

The total quantity of water being pumped with the help of 3 V.T.
pumpsets (3 x 150) during Kharif season was 101 ha.m. in 1 ,~B8
hours, which was 68 per cent more than the actual requiretnent of
60 ha.m. This extra pumping was for the preparation of fields for
Rabi crops due to failure of rains and severe drought conditions
during the reference year of the study.
Further, some trial
runs were also in progress to check the discharge at ~he tail
ends.
No inference can be drawn about the actual crop water
requirement as it was the very first season when irrigation was
made possible.
Operational Problems due to Technical Reasons
i)

91.

Jackwell and pump house

The society constructed a jackwell involving a total expenditure

of Rs. :3.19 lakh which was almost double the sanctioned c~st.
The main reason for the escalation of the cost was the excessive
use of steel girder and stael reinforcement. This unnecessary
cost was incurred despite the fact that the structure was
constructed on the down stream of Ujjani Project and as such
there was no risk of any flooding, and hence, no need for such a
structure.
110

ii.
92.

During the study it was observed that at no point of time all the
3 Vert5.cal Turbine pumps were operated simultaneously. Even at
the time of visit, the joint between delivery pipe and rising
main was leaking which could further worsen once all the three
pumpsets are put in operation.
iii.

93.

Sumpwell Design

A huge sumpwell of 10m. x 10m. x 6m. was constructed at stage II

with a retention period of 12 minutes. The design was proposed
by the bank and was approved by ACOTs. However, as per norms the
retention period should not be more than 5 minutes. A sumpwell
of Sm. x Sm. x Sm., woulti have been Sufficient.
iv.

94.

Pumping machinery

Puncturing of Rising main

The rising main stage I and stage II has been deliberately

punctured twice
and thrice,
respectively,
without
the
consent/knowledge of NABARD. In case adequate precaution such a8
installation of pressure release valves, jOinting, etc., .are not
taken at the time of puncturing, the same may result in serious
leakage/bursting of Rising Main.

111

ANNEXURE - I
Details of the Schemes Selected for
Studying Impact of Investment
(Rs. lakh)

Sr.
No.

Scheme
Particulars

District Date of Phasing Total Bank Ref tnsanction

f.O. Loan ance
Commitment
::5

Total financRefin- Ing

ance
Agency
Disbursed
9

10

I. KRISHNA BASIN
1. LIS Nimshirgaon

Kolhapur

04/07/811982-88 263 . 74.263.74 242.89 215.09 MSCARDB

2. LIS Yeshoba
Kavitgaon,

Solapur

02/04/83 1982-84 34.33

3. LIS Babulgaan
Indapur

Pune

29/08/85 1986-87 121.51 121.51 115.44 115.44 MSCARD8

34.33

32.61

33.56

MSCARDB

4. LIS of Mahalaxmi Sangli

Ashta,

06/02/86 1986-87 124.80 118.56 106.71 106.71 BOI

5. LIS of Awasari,
Indapur

Pune

24/07/86 1986-88 117.65 105.79 95.42

Jalgaon

23/02/87 1987-88 178.20 169.29'152.36 144.57 MSCB

n.s.

BOM

II.TAPI BASIN
6. LIS of Amode
UJSY Amode,
III.GODAVARI BASIN
7. LIS Nababpur
Siddhapur
Gangapur

Aurangabad 31/10/85 1986-89 194.81 194.81 185.07 184.80 MSCAROB

112

ANNEXURE - II
Details of the Schemes Selected for Studying Technical
and Implementation Aspec;:ts
(Rs. lakh)
Sr.
No.

Scheme
District Date of Phasing Total Bank RefinParticulars
Sanction
r.o. Loan ance
COIII11itment
2

Total rinancing
Refin- Agency
ance
Disbursed
9

10

1. Shrikrishna LIS Satara 08/01/89 1989-93 189.34 187.14 178.35 173.56 MSCARDB
NigHi,
2. Kameri Yadnipani Sangli 27/05/86 1986-92 420.90 417.30 396.43 392.25 MSCARD8
LIS, LJalwa,
3. LIS Gadakwsdi, Ahmadnagar30/08/86 1987-88 68.19 61.37
Rahuri
4. Kissn SUJY,
Sakri, BhussIJal

55.23 47.41

MSCB

Jalgaon 10/12/87 1988-99 136.31 129.49 116.54 115.16 MSCB

5. BhagIJsn SPPS,
Jalns
Dodgaon, Ambbad

07/12/87 1988-89 125.70 119.41 107.47 107.47 MSCB

6. Shri Chitaleshwar Nasik 12/08/S7 1987-91 182.27 173.16 155.84 163.05 INDIAN
SUJSYM, Chltegaon,
BANK
Niphad

113

ANNEXURE A.

tIl

Procedure adopted by Pune Regional Office for Repayment Scheduling

Pune Regional Office yhile releasing the refinance of Rs. 144.573
lakhs under Amode LIS adopted the following repayment schedule.
(Rs. lakh)

Due Date
1

I + II Drawal

III Drewel

IV Drawal

31.07.1989

13.850

5.159

31.07.1990

13.850

' 5.159

2.230

31.07.1991

13.850

5.159

2.230

31.07.1992

13.850

0.713

2.230

31.07.1993

13.850

2.230

31.07.1994

13.850

2.230

31.07.1994

13.850

2.230

31.07.1996

11.333

2.240
2.240

31.07.1997

2.240

31.07.1998

Total

108.283'

16.190

114

20.100

B.

Suggested procedure for drawing the repayment

schedule in respect of Amode LIS
i.

Bank Loan

Rs. 169.293 lakh

il.

Refinance @ 90%

Rs. 152.364 lakh

iii.

Repayment Period

12 years inclusive
of 2 years grace period

Repayment schedule for the scheme as a whole

(In lakh)

Borrower to bank
Date

Amount

Bank to NABARD
Date

,Adjustment to be m~de while

releasing the refinance

Amount

I & II

III

IV

Total
B

30/6/89

16.932

31/7/89

16.932

16.932

16.932

30/6/90

16.929

31/7/90

16.929

16.929

16.929

30/6/91

16.929

31/7/91

16.929

16.929

16.929

30/6/92 16.929

31/7/92

16.929

16.929

16.929

30/6/93

16.929

31/9/93

16.929

16.929

16.929

30/6/94 16.929

31/7/94

16.929

16.929

16.929

30/6/95

16.929

3 '1/7 /95

16.929

6.706

30/6/96

16.929

31/7/96

16.929

30/6/97

16.929

31/7/97

16.929

Total

169.293

152.364

10.22,3
5.967

108.283

16.190

16.929
10.962

16.929

9.138

9.138

20.100

144.573

Balance refinsnce amount of Rs. 7.791 lakh (Rs. 152.364 lakh - Rs. 144.573 lakh)
will be adjusted against the due date of 11 July 1997 while releasing the
refinance subsequently. If National Bank adopts the procedure indicated above,
reschedulement of instalments whenever necessary, can be done easily by shifting
the due dates.

115

ANNEXURE

IV

Collection of Water Charges in LI Schemes

(Rs. IBkh)
Demand

Year
current
1
1.

1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93

Total

:3

6.59
14.64
15.1-8
13.93
15.59
13.52
13.75

0.00
5.59
12.75
7.71
6.52
8.33
6.23

6.59

1.00
7.48
20.23
15.12
13.79
15.62
12.76

20.23
27.94
21.64
22.11

15.17
36.98
72.42
69.86
62.35
71.51
63.S9

2~.85

19.97

Amode LI Scheme, Jalgaon District

1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
3.

arrear

Recovery
Percentage

Nimshirgaon LI Scheme, Kolhspur District

1985-86
1986-87
19S7-BIjI

2.

Collection

7.21
11.49
9.69
6.31

0.00
3.97
11.12
16.19

7.21
15.46
20.80
22.50

3.25
4.34
4.62

44.99
28.08
22.19

2.03

9.01

2.67
12.42
16.22
19.59

2.72
5.38
5,,24
6.50

101.87
43.32
32.31
33.18

l'Iahalaxmi LI Schema, .SangIi District

1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93

2.67
12.47
9.18
B.61

...0.05
7.04
10.98

116
...}
.~

"'

ANNEXURE

Item-wise Details of Cost of ~ahalaxmi Lift Irriga~ion Scham&,

Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dt. Sangli
(Rs. lakh)

Itan

Proposed
Project
Ccst
1

Cost of Civil Yorks

Approved
Cost

Actual
cost
incurred
4

84.59 (79.09)

97.16 (77.85)

106.85

(82.03)

Intake well
0.98
(0.92)
Intake pipe
2.10
(1.97)
Jackwell & pump house 8.03
(7.51)
Rising main stage I
16.73 (15.64)
Sumpwell stage II
1.17
(1.09)
Pumphouse stage II
1.10
(1.02)
Rising main stage II
42.15 (39.41)
Delivery chambers and
distribution system 11.73 (10.97)
Other items
0.61
(0.57)

0.94 (0.75)
2.09 (1.67)
6.40 (5.13)
16.32 (13.08)
1.11 (0.89)
1.04 (0.84)
32.09 (25.71)

0.92

43.65

(0.71)
(1.27)
(5.39)
(11.33)
(0.76)
(0.59)
(33.51)

25.11 (20.12)

35.28

(27.08)

1.82

(0.13)

17.16

(p.16)

(S.2s)

6.25

(4.80)

4.58

(3.67)

0.95
1.89

(0.73)
(1.45)

3.43
2.29

(2.75)
(1.83)
3.41

(2.62)

Cost of ~echanical and

Electrical Works
Pre-operative Expenses
Preliminary survey &
Land acquisition
Supervision &
agency charges
Contingency
IJ/c estt.
MSEB charges
TOTAL

16.52

(15.44)

5.84

(5.46)

0.74
5.10

(0.69)
(4.77)

106.95 (100.00)

17.34 (13.89)

10.30

124.80 (100.00) 130.26 (100.00)

Note : figures in parentheses are percentages to total.

117

1.66
7.02
14.75
1.00
0.77

ANNEXURE - VI
Item-wise Details of Cost of Vesoba Bhima Khora Lift Irrigation
Scheme, Ka\litgaon, Tal. Karmala, Dt. Solapur
(Rs. lakh)
Item

Proposed
Project
Cost

Approved
Cost

Actual
Cost
Incurred
4

26.46

(74.70)

26.46

(77.07)

26.76

(79.50)

0.15
0.19
22.10
0.16
3.86

(0.42)
(0.54)
(62.39)
(0.44)
(10.89)

0.15
0.19
22.10
0.16
3.86

(0.43)
(0.56)
(64.37)
(0.45)
(11.24)

0.47

(1.41 )

21.93
0.20
4.18

(65.13)
(0.58)
(12.42)

Cost of Mechanical and

Electrical Works

4.96

(14.01)

4.96

(14.46)

4.50

(13.36)

Pre-operative Expenses

4.00

(11.:30)

2.91

(8.50)

2.40

(7.13)

Land acquisitiun/survey 0.05

0.03
Crop compensation
1.57
Contingency
0.66
wlc estt.
1.69
Agency charges

(0.14)
(0.08)
(4.45)
(1.87)
(4.76)

0.05
0.03
1.57

(0.15)
(0.09)
(4.59)

0.80

(2.38)

1.26

(3.67)

1.60

(4.75)

Coat of Civil Works

IntE'ke well
Jackwell &: pump house
Rising
, main stage I
Delivery chambers
Distribution system

Total
Note : Figures in

35.42 (100.00)
parenthese~

34.33 (100.00)

are percentages to total.

118

33.66 (100.00)

ANNEXURE VII
Item-Yise Details of Cost of Amode Lift Irrigation Scheme,
Amode, Tal. Yawal, Dt. Jalgaon
Item

Cost of Civil Yorks

Intake well
Intake pipe
JackwE:lll
Pump house

Proposed
Project
Cost

Actual
Cost
Incurred
4

171.60

(82.50)

1.22
0.74
1.54

(0.59)
(0.36)
(0.74)

1.30

(0.63)
(43.49)

Rising main stege I

90.40
Sumpwell stage II
1.52
PlImphouse stage II
0.72
Rising main stage II
24.90
Delivery chambers and
distribution system 49.26
Road crossing

Cost of Mechanical and

Electrical Yorks

Approved
Cost

(Rs. lakh)

(0.73)
(0.34)
(11.98)
(23.70)

144.89 (81.31)

234.34

(83.37)

1.19

(0.67)

1.53

(0.54)

0.62
1.54

(0.35)
(0.86)

(0.30)
(0.54)

1.10

(0.62)

0.84
1.51
1.12

0.54 (0.30)
24.29 (13.63)

114. 77
2.30
0.75
29.12

(40. 83)
(0.82)
(0.27)
(10.36)

40.62 (22.79)

80.71

(28.72)

1.69

(0.60)

74.62 (41.87)
0.38 (0.21)

(0.40)

19.20

(9.24)

19.20 (10.77)

22~69

(8.07)

14.62

(7.03)

14.62

(8.20)

14.98

(5.33)

4.58

(2.21)

4.58

(2.57)

7.71

(2.74)

Pre-operative Expenses

17.08

(8.21)

14.11

(7.91)

24.05

(8.56)

Contingency
IJfc estt.
Agency charges

5.93
3.95

(2.85)
(1.90)

5.30
3.28

(2.97)
(1.84)

7.20

(3.46)

5.53

(3.10)

Pumping machinery
Stage-I
Pumping machinery
stage-II

MSEB charges
Turnover tax*
Evaluation fee
TOTAL

207.88 (100.00)

6.35
(2.26).
6.57
(2.34)
9.68
(3.44)
1.45
(0.52)
178.20 (100.00) 281.08 (100.00)

Turnover tax at 4 per cent paId by the contractor to the Maharashtra Government.

Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages to total cost.

119

"NNEXURE VIII
Item-uise Details of Cost of Nababpur-Siddhapur Lift Irrigation
Scheme, Tal. Gangapur, Dt. Aurangabad
(Ra. lakh)
Item

Proposed
Project
Cost

Approved
Cost.

Actual
Cost
Incurred

:5

127.25

(73.47)

148.28 (76.12)

191.42

(73.91)

6.12
88.42
0.46
32.26

(3.53)
(51.05)
(0.27)
(18.63)

0.61 (0.31 )
89.22 (45.80)
0.46 (0.24)
58.00 (29.77)

0.75
95.23
0.85
94.59

(0.29)
(36.77)
(0.33)
(36.53)

Cost of Mechanical and

Electrical Works

21.18

(12.23)

30.25 (15.53)

39.13

(15.11)

Pre-operative Expenses

24.77

(14.30)

16.27

(8.34)

:l8.42

(10.98)

0.22

(0.13)

7.86
3.15
4.72
8.B2

(4.54)
(1.82)
(2.72)
(5.09)

5.36
3.57
1.80
5.54

(2.75)
(1.83)
(0.92)
(2.84)

7.86
2.42
2.30
9.10

(3.03)
(0.93)
(0.89)
(3.52)

6.74

(2.60)

Cost of Civil Yorks

JecklJell &: pump house
Rising main
Delivery chambers
Distribution system

Land acquisition/crop
compensation
Contingency
W/c estt.
Agency charges
MSEB charges
Turnover tax*
TOTAL

173.20 (100.00)

194.80 (100.00) 258.97 (100.00)

Turnover tax I 4' paId bV the contractor to Maharashtra Government.

Note : Figures in parentheses are percentages to total cost.

120

ANNEXURE IX
ItBm-Yisa Details of Cost of Nimshirgaon Lift Irrigation Scheme,
Nimshirgaon, Tal. Shirol, Dt. Kolhapur
(Ra. lakh)
Proposed
Cost

Item

Approved
Cost

Revised
Sa'lction

Actual
Cost
Incurred

Cost of Civil Works

Intake well
Intake pipe
Jackwell & pump house
Rising + gravity main
+ distribution system

107.74 (62.98)

88.40 (57.56) 195.89 (74.24) 232.89 (77.44)

(0.23)
(0.12)
(2.54)

0.44

(0.29)

0.64
4.13

(0.41)
(2.76)

97.66 (57.09)

78.05

(5.82)

0.40
0.21
4.34

1.08
1.37
6.16

(0. 41 )
(0.52)
(2.33)

1.08
1.37
6.16

(0.36)
(0.45)
(2.05)

171.49 (65.40) 209.49 (69.66)

Delivery chambers

2.13

(1.25)

2.04

(1.33)

13.37

(5.07)

13.46

(4.47)

W.H.C.D. work in
distribution system

3.00

(1.75)

3.00

(1.95)

1.42

(0.54)

1.42

(0.47)

Cost of Mechanical and

Electrical Works
Pre-operative Expenses
Land acq~isition/crop
compensation
Supervision charges
Contingency
Agency charges
Total

Addltlon~I

59.73 (34.92)

50.82 (33.09)

63.07 (23.91)

63.07 (20.97)

3.59

(2.09)

14.35

(9.35)

4.78

(1.81)

4.78

(1.56)

0.35

(0.20)

0.35

(0.23)

0.35

(0.13)

0.35

(0.12)

(1.89)

3.54
7.0a
3.38

(2.31)
(4.61)
(2.20)

3.24

171.06(100.00} 153.58(100.00)

**
**
4.43

Included In the estimate of each Item

Note : FIgures In parentheses are percentages to total.

121

(1.68)

4.34

(1.44)

263.74(100.00} 300.74(100.00)

amount of Rs. 37 Iskh borrowed from Sugar Development Fund

1989-90. for distribution system.

**
**

o 6" per annum was Invested

ANNEXURE X
Item-wise Details of Cost of Rajendra Lift Irrigation Scheme,
Babulgaon, Tal. Indapur, Ot. Pune
(Rs. lakh)
Item

Approved
Project
Cost

Revised
Cost

Actual
Cost
Incurred
4

Cost of Civil Works

74.68

(69.56)

82.98 (67.95)

83.36

(68.62)

Intake lJell
Intake pipe
Jackwell
Rising main stage I
Pump house
SUplplJell
Pumphouse stage II
Rising main stage II
(West)
Rising main stage II
(North)
Distribution system
Main Oelivery chambers
(North)
Main Delivery chambers
(West)
Delivery Chamber at
No.2 line
Outlet chamber
Valve Chamber
field Channels
Cost of Mechanical and
Electrical Works
Pumping machinery
Stage I+Stage II
Pre-operative Expenses .
Land development
Contingency
W/c estt.
Agency charges
MSEB charges

0.34
1.45
1.34
17.04
1.08
1.28
0.46
7.20

(0.32)
(1.35)
(1.25)
(15.87)
(1.00)
(1.20)
(0.43)
(6.71)

0.39 (0.32)
2.01 (1.64)
1.54 (1.26)
16.70 ( 13.68)
1.24 (1.01 )
1.48 (1 .21 )
0.53 (0.44)
18.01 (14.75)

0.53
2.79
3.19
20.30
1.76
1.35
0.85
18.66

(0.44)
(2.30)
(2.63)
(16.71)
(1.45)
(1.11)
(0.70)
(15.36)

15.66

(14.58)

(6.78)

10.52

(8.66)

25.96
0.14

(24.18)
(0.13)

29.86 (24.45)
0.16 (0.13)

19.79
0.20

(16.29)
(0.16)

0.14

(0.13)

0.16

(0.13)

0.20

(0.16)

0.10

(0.09)

0.12

(0.09)

0.20

(0.16)

0.36
0.11
2.00

(0.34)
(0.10)
(1.86)

0.41
0.09
2.00

(0.34)
(0.07)
(1.64)

0.61
0.40
2.00

(0.50)
(0.33)
(1.65)

22.66

(21.11) .

26.06 (21.34)

29.36

(24.17)

22.66
10.02
3.00
3.01
4.01

(21.11)
(9.34)
(2.79)
(2.80)
(3.74)

26.06 (21.34)
13.08 (10.71)
3.00 (2.46)
3.01 (2.46)
2.01 (1.64)
2.01 (1.64)
3.05 (2.5O)

29.36
8.76
3.00
2.69

(24.17)
(7.21)
(2.47)
(2.21)

3.07

(2.53)

TOTAL

107.36 (100.00)

8.28

122.12 (100.00) 121.47 (100.00)

Note : figures in parentheses are percentages to total cost.

122

ANNEXURE

XI

Item-wise Details of Cost of AW8sari Lift Irrigation Scheme,

Awasari, Tal. Indapur, Dt. Pune
(Rs. lakh)
Revised
estimates

90.67 (75.83)

85.81 (66.75)

87.42 (64.61)

87.42 (64.61)

1.15 (0.96)
6.97 (5.83)
5.56 (4.56)
22.88 (19.14)

1.10 (0.85)
6.64 (5.16)
5.26 (4.09)
21.01 (16.34)

0.94 (0.69)
5.98 (4 .. 42)
4.41 (3.26)
22.71 (16.78)

0.94 (0.69)
5.98 . (4.42)
4.41 (3.26)
22.71 (16.78)

1.76 (1.47)
21.59 (t8.06)

1.68 (1 .31 )
20.82 (16.20)

1.62 (1.20)
22.14 (16.37)

1.62 (1.20)
22.14 (16.37)

Proposed
project
cost

Cost of Civil Works

Intake well
Intake pipe
Jackwell & pump house
Rising main stage I
Sumpwell stage II and
Pumphouse stage II
Rising main stage II
Delivery chambers
Distribution system
including W.H.C.D.
Ns1a crossing
Inspection chamber
Coat of Mechanical and
Electrical Works
Pre-operative Expenses

0.40

(0.34)

29.81 (24.93)
0.55

(0.46)

24.09 (20.15)
4.80

Land acquisition &

Crop compensation
0.20
Contingency
W/c estt.
Agency charges
4.60
MSE8 charges
Amount 9% over tender
Total

Actual
cost
incurred

Approved
cost

Item

(4.01)

0.38

(0.30)

28.39 (22.09)

0.39

(0.29)

0.39

(0.29)

(0.41)

28.06 (20.74)
0.64 (0.47)
0.53 (0.39)

28.06 (20.74)
0.64 ('0.47)
0.53 (0.39)

22.94 (17.85)

24.98 (18.47)

24.98 (18.47)

19.79 (15.39)

22.91 (16.92)

22.91 (16.92)

(2.54)
(1.69)
(3.38)
(7.78)

3.24 (2.39)
2.15 (1.59)
4.31 (3.19)
3.58 (2.64)
9.62 .('7.11)

0.53

(0.16)

(3.85)

3.26
2.18
4.35
10.00

119.57{100.00) '128.54(100.00)

Note : Figur.Bs in parentheses are percentages to total.

123

3.24
2.16
4.31
3.58
9.62

(2 .39)
( 1.59)
(3.19)
(2.64)
(7.11)

135.29(100.00) 135.29(100.00)

ANNEXURE XII
Cash rlow Statement of Mahalaksmi LIS, Sangli District
I.

At F.........s' Level (vItti f_Ily labour cost)

Part'l cu I ars
A.

B.

c.

Outflow

79.44

103.72

:57.52

Investment Cost
Replacement
Co!'t of Pumping
Machinery

79.44

103.72

'7.52

(Rs. lelch)
5-17

18

19

20

:5:5.59
".59

Inflow

'7.05

61.75

61.75

6'.99

61.75

88.62

Incremental
Income
Salvage Value

,7.05

61.75

61.75

61.75

61.75

61.75

Net Cash Flow

2.24
(79.44) (10'.72) C:57.52)

FRR

19.81

BCR

1.33

:H.05

61. "

61.75

6-17

JO.41

26.87
61.75

88.62

19

20

II. At Fanners' Level (wIthout flllllily labour cost)

PartIculars

,..
B.

C.

Outflow

79.44

'0'.72

37.52

Investment Cost
Replacement
Cost of Pumping.
Machinery

79.44

10,.72

'7.52

18

".59
".59

Inflow

42.'9

70.64

70.64

72.88

70.64

97.51

Incremental
Income
Salvage Value

42.'9

70.64

70.64

70.64

70.64

70.64

Net Cash Flow

2.24
(79.44) C1 0,.72) (37.52)

FRR

22.27

BCR

1.52

42.'9

124

70.64

70.64

'9.'0

26.87
70.64

97.51

"I. At",1 Soc''''y's L.1I81

Particulars

I..

B.

c.

Ou'tflow

79.44

103.72

37.52

Investment Cost
Replacement
Cost of Pumping
MachInery

79.44

103.72

'7.52

6-17

18

19

ZO

33.59

3).59

Inflow

'8.89

64.82

64.82

67.06

64.82

91.69

Incremental
Income
Salvage Value

38.89

64.82

64.82

64.82

64.82

64.S2

Net Cash F Iow

26.87

2.24
(79.44)(103.72) [57.52)

FRR

20.68

BCR

1.40

38.89

125

64.82

64.82

'3.48

64.82

91.69

ANNEXURE

XIII

Cash floy Statement of Nimshirgaon LIS, Kolhapur District

I.

At Farmers' Level

(wlt~

famIly labour cost)

Particulars

A.

B.

C.

Outflow

21:5.82

21:5.82

282.46

Investment Cost
Replacement
Cost of Pumping
i"'achlnerv

21.3.82

213.82

282.46

6-17

18

19

20

194.77

52.89

119.01

132.24

132.24

143.93

132.24

288.05

Incrementl!ll
Income
Salvl!lge Value

52.89

119.01

132.24

132.24

132.24

132.24

132.24

Net Cash Flov

11.69
(213.82)(213.82)(229.57)

1.03

119.01

, 55.8'

132.24

132.24

(50.84)

132.24

288.05

6-17

18

19

20

At Farmers' Level (without family labour'cost)

2

Par1"lculars

C.

Inflow

B.

lakh)

194.77

15.47

A.

FRR

II.

(lb.

Ou1"f low

21'.82

213.82

282.46

Investment Cost
Replacement
Cost of PumpIng
MachInery

21'.82

213.82

282.46

194.77
194.77

Inflov

58.99

132.72

147.47

147.47

159.16

147.47

303.28

Incremental
Income
Salvage Vl!llue

58.99

132.72

147.47

147.47

147.47

147.47

147.47

Net Cash Flov

(213.82)(213.82)(223.47)

11.69

FRR

17.49

am

1.14

1:52.72

126

147.47

147.47

05.(;1 )

155.81
147.47

303.28

III. At LI Society's Level

A.

PartIculars

6-17

18

21:5.82

21:5.82

282.46

194.77

Investment Cost 213.82

Replacement
Cost of PumpIng

213.82

282.46

194.77

Outflov

19

20

Mochlnery

8.

C.

Inflov

51.45

115.78

128.65

128.65

140.:54

128.65

284.46

Incremental
Income
Salvage Value

51.45

115.78

128.65

128.65

128.65

128.65

128.65

Net Cash F Iow

(213.82)(213.82)(231.01)

FRR

14.98

1.00

It 5.78

127

128.65

128.65

11.69

155.81

54.43

J 28.65 284.46

ANNEXURE

XIV

Cash floy Statement of Amode LIS, Jalgaon

I.

At FarlMlr"s Leye' (vrth f_1I y 'abour cost)

2

Partlcurars
A.

B.

c.

eRs.

Outflow

286.15

30.82

la.82

Investrnent Cost
ReplacOI1Ient
Cost of Pumprng
Machrntlry

286.15

)0.82

12).82

6-17

18

19

,Ilk'"
ZO

36.31

)6.31

Inflow

142.58

203.68

203.68

205.86

203.68

232.73

Incremental
Income
Salvage Value

142.58

203.68

203.68

203.68

203.68

20'.68

Ne1" Ca:t.h Flow

2.18
(286.1"

f'RR

29.19

2. '8

(30.82)(123.82'

142.58

20'.68

20'.68

.,

6-17

169.55

29.05
203.68

232.73

". At Fanners level (vlthoilt t_IIy labour cost)

p.,.trculars
A.

8.

c.

Outflow

286.15

30.82

123.82

Investmen'" Cost
keplacement
Cost of PumpIng
MachInery

286.1'

30.82

123.82

18

.9

ZO

36.:"
36.)1

Inflow

160.99

229.98

229.98

232.16

229.98

259.03

Incremental
Income
Salvage Value

160.99

229.98

229.98

229.98

22'.98

229.98

Ne1" Cash F Iow

29.05

2.18
(286.1"

FAR

".8'

BCR

2.46

(l0.8')( 123.82'

150.99

128

229.98

229.98

195.8'

2".98

259.03

III. At LI Soc:hrty' ~ Level

286.15

)0.82

123.82

286.15

30.62

, 2:5.62

Per-Hculars

A. Outflow
Illvest"'ellt Cost
Rep I IScement
Cost of PumpIng
MachInery

B.

6-17

18

19

20

)6.31

'6.l1

Inflov

144.93

207.05

207.05

209.2'

207.05

2'6.10

Incremental

144.9)

207.05

207.05

207.05

207.05

207.05

2.'8

29.05

172.92

207.05

Income
Salvage Value

c.

Net Cash Flow

(286.15)

FRR

29.54.

2.21

(30.82) (12',82)

144.93

129

207.05

207.05

2'6.10

Reports Published under the Evaluation Study Series

of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
A : Reports Published by the Head Office of the National Bank
Series
No.

Title of Evaluation Report

1.

Minor Irrigation Scheme-Construction of New

Wells and Installation of Pump sets thereon
in Sholapur District, Maharashtra

197'

Minor Irrigation Scheme-Installation of Shallow

Tubewells in Karnal District, Haryana

1977

Bhadra Land Development Project-Scheme for

Reclamation and Development of Land, Karnataka

1977

Land Development under Nagarjuna Sagar Project,

Miryelguda Taluka, Andhre Pradesh

1977

Dairy Development Scheme in Jegedhri Block of

Ambala District, Haryana

1978

Dairy Development Scheme in Moga Area of Faridkot

District, Punjab

1978

Poultry Development Scheme in Mulkapoor,

Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh

1979

Mechanised Fi'shing Boats in South Kanara,

District, Karnataka State

1979

Devalopment of Acid Lime Gardens in Nellore

District, Andhra Pradesh

1981

Groundwater Irrigation in Kota District,

Rajasthan

1982

12.

Minor Irrigation in Bhojpur District, Bihar

1982

13.

Development of Grape Cultivation in Bijapur

District, Karnataka

1982

14.

River Lift Irrigetion Schemes in Pune

Dietrict, Maherashtra.

1982

15.

Dairy Development Schemes in Western

Uttar Pradesh

1982

16.

River Lift Irrigation Scheme in Kolhapur

District, Mehereshtra

1982

2.
3.

4.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.
11.

Veer of
Publication

Sheep Rearing in Nalgonda District of

Andhra Pradesh

1982

of Coffee Plantations in Lower PaIn is

Arca, Madurai Distri.ct, Tamil Nadu

1983

19.

Public Tubewells and River Lifts in Orissa

1984

20.

Power Tillers in Hooghly District, West Bengal

1985

21.

Commercial Poultry in Krishna District,

Andhra Pradesh

19~6

22.

Dugwell Irrigation in Palghat District, Kerala

1986

23.

Tractors in North Bihar

1986

24.

Dairy Development Schemes in Darjeeling

District, West Bengal

1987

Tractor Schemes in Varanaei, Ghazipur and

Jaunpur Districts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

1987

26.

Tractors and Power Tillers in Tamil Nadu

1987

27.

Minor Irrigation in Muzzafarnagar District,

Uttar Pradesh

1987.

28.

Dairy Development in Quilon District, Kerala

1987

29.

Dugwell Irrigation in Dhenkanal District, Orissa

1988

30.

Bamboo and Shallow Tubewells in Purnia

District, Bihar

1988

Dugwell Water Irrigation Development in

Nasik District, Maharashtra

1988

Calf Rearing in North Arcot, Salem and

Coimbatore Districts, Tamil Nadu

198B

Minor Irrigation in Allahabad District,

Uttar Pradesh

1988

34.

Coconut Development in Quilon District, Kerala

1988

35.

Minor Irrigation in Purulia District, West Bengal

1988

36.

Sprinkler Irrigation in Semi-arid Areas of Rajasthan 1989

37.

A Scheme of Dugwell Irrigation for Small

Farmers in Amravati District, Maharashtra

17.
18.

25.

31.
32.
33.

Develn~ment

1989

38.

Marine fisheries in Coastal Gujarat and Maharashtra

1989

39.

Financing of Shallow Tubewells under

Massive National Programme in Haryana

1990

Financing of Apple Orchards in Hill Districts

of Uttar Pradesh

1991

Work Animal6 and Animal Driven Carts

in Meerut District, Uttar Pradesh

1991

Inland fishery in Krishna District Andhra Pradesh

1991

Bio-gas Plants in Nainital and

Rempur Districts of Uttar Pradesh

1991

Impact of Non-Farm Sector Investments

1994

40.
41.
42.

43.
44.

Note :'

Report No. 5 was not published.

ara now out of stock.

Reports from No. 1 to No. 10

~
~

~~ {< '. Rp};.

4.
-11 J 81

i '"' ..; - ..... .... ..

~'Wo

...~ ......., ...... ,' _, w.r ~'~,~.., .... ~.~,.

l1li .

B
Series
No.

Reports Published by the Regional Offices

of the National Bank
Title of Evaluation Raport

Ahmedebed
Poultry Devalopmant Schemes in Gujarat
1.

Year of
Publication

19BB

Dairy Development Scheme in Mehsana District of

Gujerat State

1989

Lift Irrigation Schemes on Ukai Left Bank

Main Canal, Gujarat

1991

Financing of Tractors in Mehsana and

Rajkot Districts, Gujarat

1992

Investments Financed under Integrated Rural

Development in Vel sed District - Gujerat State

1994

Development of Grape Gardens in Banglore and

Kolar Districts - Karnataka

1989

Borewell Financing in Chitradurga and Kolar

Districts - Karnataka

1990

3.

Development of Coffee Gardens in Karpataka State

1992

4.

Sericulture Development in Karnataka - Farm

investments

1993

Dugwell end Shallow Tubewell Irrigation in

Narsinghpur District - Madhya Pradesh

1988

Tractor Financing in Raisen and Vidisha

Districts - Madhya Pradesh .

1989

Commercial Layer Poultry Development in

Indore District - Madhya Pradesh

1992

Integrated Rural Development Programme in

Sagar District in Madhya Pradesh

1994

3.

4.
5.
Benglore
1.

2.

Bhopal
1.

2.
3.

4.

Bhubaneswar
1.

Betelvine Gardens in Puri District (Orissa)

1989

2.

Tractors in Sambalpur District (Orissa)

1989

3.
4.

Dairy Development Schemes in Cuttack and

Ganjam Dislricts of Orissa

1992

8rackishwater Prawn Culture in Puri

District (Orissa)

1994

Inland fisheries Scheme in Nadia District of

West 8engal

1987

8ete1vine Gardens in Midnapore District,

West 8enga1

1989

8ullock and 8lJllock Cart in MaIda District of

West 8engal

1990

Calcutta
1.
2.
3.

Chandigarh
1.

Poultry Farming in Punjab

1987

2!

Dairy Development Schemes in Karnal and

Rohtak Districts of Haryana

1987

Tractorisation in Haryana

1994

1.

Private Shallow Tubewells and

Lift Points in Assam

1989

2.

Inland Fishery in West Tripura district,

Tripura

1992

Public Tubewe11s in Khammam District of

Andhra Pradesh

1988

3.

Guwahsti

Hyderabad
1.
2.

Development of Grape Gardens in Rangareddy District,

Andhra Pradesh
1989

3.

Dugwe11 Irrigation in Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh

1989

Mango Orchards in Krishna and Khammam Districts of

Andhra Pradesh

1991

Minor Irrigation Structures in Kherwara P.S.,

Udaipur District, Rajasthan

1988

2.

Tractors in Alwar District - Rajasthan

1991

3.

Market Yard in Kekri - Ajmer District

1991

4.
Jaipur
1.

Borewell in Jodhpur District - Rajasthan

1993

JROP in Baramulla District (Jammu and Kashmir)

1993

Evaluation of Minor Irrigation Scheme in

Jhansi District, Uttar Pradesh

1988

2.

Tractors in Western Uttar Pradesh

1992

3.

Inland fishery Schemes in Azamgarh and Deoria

Districts.Uttar Pradesh

1995

Poultry Development in Salem District of

Tamil Nadu

1988

2.

Dugwell Irrigation in Pudukkottai and

North Arcot Districts, Tamil Nadu

1989

3.

Tea Gardens in Nilgiris District of Tamil Nadu

1990

4.

Minor Irrigation Investments under Massiv~

Assistance Programme in South Arcot and
Tiruchirappalli Districts

1991

Jasmine Investments in Salem and

Madurai Districts, Tamil Nadu

1992

Mini Dairy Investments in Coimbatore and Periyar

Districts, Tamil Nadu

1994

Shellow TubeloJell in Darbhange, Madhubeni end

Samastipur Districts, Bihar

1988

2.

Deep Tubewells in Bihar

1989

3.

Dairy Development Schemes in Begusarai and

Singhbhum Districts, Bihar

1989

Lift Irrigatio'n Schemee in Ahmednagar District

(Maharashtra)

1988

Well Irrigation in Aurangabad District

(Maharashtra)

1991

4.

Jammu

,.

Lur:knoloJ
1

Madras
1.

5.
6.

Patna
1.

Puna
1.

2.

3.

Poultry Development in Pune District, (Maharashtra)

1991

4.

Grapes Gardens in Nasik District, (Maharashtra)

1993

Trivandrum
1

2.
3.

4.

Betelvine Gardens in Trivandrum District of

Kerala State

1988

Broiler Poultry Development in

Ernakulam District of Kerala

1990

Development of Rubber Plantation in Kottayam

District of Kerala

1990

Fisheries Development in Kollam District,

Kerala

1992

Copies of the evaluation reports can be

obtained from the Manager, Department of
Economic Analysis and Research, National Bank
for Agriculture B.nd Rural Development, 3rd
Floor, Jeevan Seva Complex Annexe, S.V. Road,
Santacruz (West), Bombay - 400 054.

!.7-~"~: :~~:

apt' 11181

__ .

'.

.' '-' '. ' I"

-'

~."

.'

"'.'

... ,

'_

....

...,. . .- .': : : "~::""~'~~l

.',

.,'.....

,
,

,.

UAS LIBRARY GKVK

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

R-11181

"".,',"'"

..

....