Government of India, India, Parliament, Stories

Data: Standing Committee Notes That Private Investment Including Beneficiary Contribution is About 60% of Overall Expenditure Under PMAY(U)


The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Housing & Urban Affairs recently submitted a report on the ‘Evaluation of implementation of Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Urban). Here is a review.

The growth and development of cities and towns, facilitated by urbanization, has resulted in a significant number of social issues. The issue of housing for everyone is one of the most “persistent” among them. Housing forms a vital component of social, economic, and civic growth. Despite the obvious linkages between housing and socioeconomic objectives, there has been little advancement on this front.

The inability to build liveable communities based on the availability of housing that satisfies residents’ requirements could trigger a new crisis. To avert such a crisis, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs introduced a comprehensive housing program, the ‘Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana- Urban Housing for All Mission (PMAY-U-HFA)’ in 2015. The central aim of this mission is to provide all-weather pucca houses with basic civic infrastructure for all urban areas. 

In today’s story, we look at the Standing Committee report on ‘Evaluation of implementation of Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Urban).

Overview of the scheme

The Mission intends to offer Central Assistance to implementing agencies through States/Union Territories (UTs) for the provision of all-weather pucca dwellings with fundamental civic facilities, with a total investment of Rs. 8.31 lakh crores.  The total housing shortage the mission envisages to cover is 20 million. 

Under PMAY(U), 4,500 cities and municipalities have so far been included. Under the four verticals of PMAY(U), namely In-Situ Slum Redevelopment (ISSR), Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS), Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP), and Beneficiary Led Construction (BLC), a total of 1.22 crore homes have been approved. Additionally, 183 ongoing projects from the previous Rajiv Awaas Yojana (RAY) have been incorporated into PMAY-U.

The Mission’s initial time frame was from 2015–16 through 2021–22. The Mission has now been expanded to include all verticals through the end of 2024, except for the Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS). However, no additional houses will be sanctioned during the extended period.

A brief overview of the four verticals of PMAY (U) is as below.

Overview of the four verticals under PMAY (U)  Description automatically generated

Only 60% of the target houses are constructed.

States and UTs evaluated the validated housing requirement under PMAY(U). The PMAY-U implemented a strategy of giving prospective beneficiaries the option to select one of the four verticals of the Scheme in accordance with their preferences. The Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee approved the projects that the States and UTs requested after considering the vertical requirements and the resources that are available to them.

As per the PMAY dashboard, a total demand of 112.24 lakh houses was made, and around 120.25 lakh houses are sanctioned (This value is 122.69 lakh as per the report of Standing Committee on 31 March 2023). Out of the 120.25 lakh sanctioned houses, 110.02 lakh houses are grounded, and about 73.13 lakh (60%) houses have been completed till 10 April 2023. On the financial front, a total of Rs. 1,44,250 crores have been released, while Rs. 1,35,969 crores have been spent till 10 April 2023.

Poor performance of North-Eastern States

If we look at the progress of states in PMAY, it is evident that North-Eastern states have performed poorly. Excepting Tripura, all other states have their progress below 45%. Among the large states, Telangana made highest progress with 89.5%, followed by Gujarat with 82.68% and Tamil Nadu with 76.08%. Bihar stood last among large states with progress of 33.25%, preceded by Andhra Pradesh with 34.60% and Haryana with 38.26%. 

The reason for poor performance in North-Eastern states is quoted to be the minimal/nil state share and the geographical reasons. However, the reasons for such low performance in major states is not specified.

Beneficiary Led construction (BLC)- A popular choice among all verticals.

The states/UTs/Beneficiaries were free to select any of the four verticals of the Scheme depending on its suitability, without any preference being given to any particular vertical. However, the BLC vertical received the most project approvals (i.e., 60%), whereas the ISSR vertical received the fewest approvals (i.e., 3%).  The state’s preference in providing homes to individuals who own land and those who live in smaller cities accounts for the appeal of BLC vertical. For the low demand generation under ISSR vertical, it is said that they are time-taking as they require the consent of the people living, which makes it slightly complicated.

The component wise progress of the scheme is as depicted below.

3/5th of the total investment is made by the beneficiaries themselves

Initially, the validated demand for houses was pegged at 1.12 crore houses, for which an estimated Rs. 6.95 lakh crore investment was projected. However, the investment increased to Rs. 8.31 lakh crore after an increase in the demand to 1.23 crore houses. The entire investment is not borne by the Central government but is divided among different stakeholders. 

The private investment including beneficiary contribution accounts for 3/5th of the total investment (Rs. 4.95 lakh crores), while the public expenditure accounts for the rest (Rs. 3.36 lakh crores).

If we look at the central assistance, the maximum assistance a beneficiary receives is highest (up to Rs. 2.67 Lakh) in CLSS vertical, followed by Rs. 1.5 Lakh in BLC/AHP vertical and Rs. 1 Lakh under ISSR vertical. However, the average central assistance per beneficiary in CLSS vertical has been Rs. 2.31 Lakh, which is still highest among all verticals.

Some recommendations to improve the mission.

The Standing Committee observed several shortcomings that led to the delayed progress of the mission. Among them, the general recommendations include setting-up timelines for grounding and completion of projects, ensuring basic amenities in houses constructed under ISSR and AHP verticals, and involving local elected representatives in the implementation of policy. Other key recommendations are specified as below.


Comments are closed.