sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bareilly, Hathras, Kasganj, Pilibhit district, Western Uttar Pradesh

Volume : 4 | Issue : 12 | December 2015 ISSN - 2250-1991 Research Paper Geography

Land Use Pattern in Western

Research Scholar Department of Geography AMU, Al garh Azharuddin Sk 202002

: Land use pattern is envisaged on land capability. Land is one of the important resources which plays dominant role in determining human economic, social and cultural progress. .Land Use Pattern is mainly determined by economic, institutional and physical structure. Land area in is ample but that needs proper care to survive and sustain. The proper utilization of the land is the economic backbone of a region. The total reporting area of is 7300536 hectare out of which a big proportion of 5597634 hectare (76.67%) is under net sown area followed by other land non agriculture of 833895 hectare (11.42%), forest 331872 hectare (4.55%), current fallow land 181740 hectare (2.49%), old fallow land 99931hectare (1.37%), groves and gardens 45821 hectare (0.63%), barren and un-cultivated land 112952 ABSTRACT hectare (1.55%), cultivated waste land 83112 hectare (1.14%) and pasture land13579 hectare (0.19%). Humans are the major force of change around the globe, transforming land to provide food, shelter, and products for use. The main objective of the paper is to outline the land use change in western Uttar Pradesh during (2001-2011).

Land Utilization, Land use pattern, land use change, Land Management, Net sown area, KEYWORDS Pasture land, Cultivable waste land, Current fallow land, Old fallow land, Non- cultivated land, Other Land excluding agriculture, Pasture land, Land under Groves and Gardens.

Introduction of (). Singh, (1962) studied Land Land use involves the management and modification of nat- utilisation in Chakia Tahsil of Banaras district (U.P.). Mishra, ural environment or wilderness into built environment such as (1966) worked on recent change in land use in the Tarai Re- settlements and semi-natural habitats such as arable fields, gion of Uttar Pradesh. Shafi, (1969) presented a plan for land pastures, and managed woods. LAND USE is referred to use and classified the land categories and their capability. Sin- “man’s activities and the various which are carried on land” gh, (1970) focused on land use pattern in Mirzapur and its LAND COVER is referred to “natural vegetation , rock/soil arti- environs. Pandey and Tewari (1987) reported the operation ficial cover and other noticed on the land” (NRSA 1989). The of the vicious cycle in Uttar Pradesh. Reddy (1991) in a study rapid population growth along with economic development, on , focused on technological factors affect- urbanization and industrialization create tremendous pressure ing land use. Prasad, (2006) presented an analysis on land use on the limited natural resource base in a country as well as change and environmental degradation in Dhanbad district state like Uttar Pradesh. This makes serious challenge to us (). The study of land use pattern is of prime concern like researchers and policy makers to strike a balance in the to geographers to know the relationship between man and use of natural resources, keeping in mind the need for their natural environment (Tripathi and Vishwakarma, 1988). conservation of sustainable development and food and live- lihood security. There are two sets of limits which determine In India, also other several geographers have paid attention on the pattern of land use in any particular region. First, the different aspects of land use studies at regional, district and absolute or outer limits which are set by nature and second, micro level. Some of the eminent researchers who have car- the relative limit set by culture, human attitudes and actions ried out research work on different aspects of land use studies which determine the range of actual and probable use within are chatter see (1952), Shaffi (1961, 1966,1968); Prakash Rao the limits (Zimmermann, 1951). (1959); Jasbir Singh (1974); Roy(1968) and Mishra (1990);.

Western Uttar Pradesh has experienced rapid economic Objectives and Methodology growth, in a fashion similar to and Punjab, due to The main objective of the study is analysing the existing land the successes of the Green Revolution. A major part of west- use pattern comparing the date of 2000–2001 to 2010-11 in ern Uttar Pradesh is a part of National Capital Region of In- Western Uttar Pradesh. The study is based on the secondary dia. Western Uttar Pradesh covering an area of 7300536 km2 data which are obtained from the governmental and non-gov- (29.96% of the state). Western Uttar Pradesh consists of 26 ernmental sources basically from office of Statistics and Eco- in six divisions. Western Uttar Pradesh shares borders nomics section, Planning Department, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. with the states of , Haryana, , and Land use change have been analysed by comparing the year , as well as a brief international border with of 2001 and 2011. The area averages for the triennium end- in district. Western Uttar Pradesh receives rain ing 2000-2001 and 2010-11 were worked out to study the through the Indian Monsoon and the Western Disturbances. changing composition of different land use classes across dis- The soil tends to be light retextured loam, with some occur- tricts in Western Uttar Pradesh. Statistical calculation, tables, rences of sandy soil division. diagrams and maps are draw with help of computer.

Many works have been done by geographers related to land use. The country level studies reported that while there is tendency for land shifts to the agricultural sector, there is also a positive growth trend in fallow lands which ultimate- ly tend to move into cultivable wastes (Pandey and Tewari, 1996). State level studies reported a diversion of common land to non-agricultural uses in Tamil Nadu. There were also indications of a sharp increase in other fallows (Ramasamy et a!, 2005). Also Chatterjee, (1952) done land utilization survey

116 | PARIPEX - INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH Volume : 4 | Issue : 12 | December 2015 ISSN - 2250-1991

TABLE 1. AREA UNDER VARIOUS LAND CLASSES (2001and 2011) ( in hectare) Reporting Area For Land Culturable Waste Fallow Lands Other Forests Current Fallow Utilisation Statistics Land than Current Fallows District Name 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 45437 35691 3325 2381 10468 18743 6171 5089 398060 398970 (11.41) (8.95) (0.84) (0.60) (2.63) (4.70) (1.55) (1.28) 2680 2577 6668 5330 3685 6110 9107 5277 369694 371261 (0.72) (0.69) (1.80) (1.44) (1.00) (1.65) (2.46) (1.42) 11857 20893 2883 892 5597 3179 2439 1137 439679 216879 (2.70) (9.63) (0.66) (0.41) (1.27) (1.47) (0.55) (0.52) 6903 4304 6465 3301 14528 7366 16373 8137 Badaun 520028 425466 (1.33) (1.01) (1.24) (0.78) (2.79) (1.73) (3.15) (1.91) 1525 1525 1906 1616 2421 2896 1236 833 Bagpat 134531 134983 (1.13) (1.13) (1.42) (1.20) (1.80) (2.15) (0.92) (0.62) 226 352 2108 0.41 6523 13587 4639 3262 407490 406915 (0.06) (0.09) (0.52) (0.41) (1.60) (3.34) (1.14) (0.80) 43816 54898 3525 3642 8063 3089 3088 3524 464578 464545 (9.43) (11.82) (0.76) (0.78) (1.74) (0.66) (0.66) (0.76) 7544 7795 8220 4314 3146 3795 4609 1036 Bullandshahr 359878 364974 (2.10) (2.14) (2.28) (1.18) (0.87) (1.04) (1.28) (0.28) 3075 1033 32214 12946 16593 10212 21718 9130 445892 244068 (0.69) (0.42) (7.22) (5.30) (3.72) (4.18) (4.87) (3.74) 8611 8646 3999 3025 8130 6293 8885 6643 Ferozabad 235733 241180 (3.65) (3.58) (1.70) (1.25) (3.45) (2.61) (3.77) (2.75) Gautam Buddha 400 2003 4555 1951 7485 18665 8274 6510 195493 125422 Nagar (0.20) (1.60) (2.33) (1.56) (3.83) (14.88) (4.23) (5.19) 2470 1644 3703 2953 9089 4131 5139 2901 201005 154252 (1.23) (1.07) (1.84) (1.91) (4.52) (2.68) (2.56) (1.88) 2470 2997 3703 100 9089 8856 5139 842 201005 118722 (1.23) (2.52) (1.84) (0.08) (4.52) (7.46) (2.56) (0.71) 2090 1770 2284 1431 2476 1910 3823 2588 178968 180155 (1.17) (0.98) (1.28) (0.79) (1.38) (1.06) (2.14) (1.44) 1629 2058 13818 10213 6722 5996 8458 4584 205999 195601 (0.79) (1.05) (6.71) (5.22) (3.26) (3.07) (4.11) (2.34) 2154 1775 9254 6745 15411 13834 19836 16003 273060 272723 (0.79) (0.65) (3.39) (2.47) (5.64) (5.07) (7.26) (5.87) 1497 1592 5562 5385 4586 6384 7388 2712 329641 330328 (0.45) (0.48) (1.69) (1.63) (1.39) (1.93) (2.24) (0.82) 26787 21314 2748 2446 2197 2996 3299 2200 Meerut 275973 273005 (9.71) (7.81) (1.00) (0.90) (0.80) (1.10) (1.20) (0.81) 223 48 1602 866 7683 5712 2647 1499 375865 254208 (0.06) (0.02) (0.43) (0.34) (2.04) (2.25) (0.70) (0.59) 17352 19536 3006 1390 4466 4997 3258 1809 412335 331125 (4.21) (5.90) (0.73) (0.42) (1.08) (1.51) (0.79) (0.55) 80156 80010 3544 3159 1767 6629 1779 1722 Pilibhit 357224 378384 (22.44) (21.15) (0.99) (0.83) (0.49) (1.75) (0.50) (0.46) 6611 6611 342 204 2759 2918 277 465 Rampur 235717 235726 (2.80) (2.80) (0.15) (0.09) (1.17) (1.24) (0.12) (0.20) 33229 33229 1411 678 2500 2628 1374 1533 357001 363791 (9.31) (9.13) (0.40) (0.19) (0.70) (0.72) (0.38) (0.42) - 616 - 2197 - 5084 - 2995 - 248372 (0.25) (0.88) (2.05) (1.21) 10499 10499 4681 3560 18099 14027 8995 6825 457613 437469 (2.29) (2.40) (1.02) (0.81) (3.96) (3.21) (1.97) (1.56) 17352 8456 2006 736 3466 1703 2258 675 236762 132012 (7.33) (6.41) (0.85) (0.56) (1.46) (1.29) (0.95) (0.51) 336593 331872 133532 83112 176949 181740 160209 99931 Total 8069224 7300536 (4.17) (4.55) (1.65) (1.14) (2.19) (2.49) (1.99) (1.37)

TABLE 1. (CONCLD.)

Area Under Non Permanent Land Under Barren and Un Agricultural Uses Pastures and Other Misc Tree Crops and Net Area Sown Culturable Land Grazing Lands Groves

District Name 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 5483 3949 37166 40945 919 896 451 8485 288640 282791 Agra (1.38) (0.99) (9.34) (10.00) (0.23) (0.22) (0.11) (2.13) (72.51) (70.88) 11154 6051 33795 39903 1811 1731 501 328 300293 303954 Aligarh (3.02) (1.63) (9.14) (4.70) (0.49) (0.47) (0.14) (0.09) (81.23) (81.87) 13580 1148 17966 17439 191 196 1167 215 171358 171780 Amroha (3.09) (0.53) (4.09) (16.60) (0.04) (0.09) (0.27) (0.10) (38.97) (79.21) 10285 9172 43156 36000 431 278 6762 7050 413978 349858 Badaun (1.98) (2.16) (8.30) (3.96) (0.08) (0.07) (1.30) (1.66) (79.61) (82.23) 1960 1976 14960 16842 101 86 18 73 110404 109136 Bagpat (1.46) (1.46) (11.12) (38.86) (0.08) (0.06) (0.01) (0.05) (82.07) (80.85) 10710 6266 50107 52461 801 340 2339 2747 330037 326249 Bareilly (2.63) (1.54) (12.30) (13.73) (0.20) (0.08) (0.57) (0.68) (80.99) (80.18) 9233 3919 51953 55882 419 489 6382 2718 338099 336384 Bijnor (1.99) (0.84) (11.18) (8.99) (0.09) (0.11) (1.37) (0.59) (72.78) (72.41) 6147 5984 33915 41756 851 953 8934 627 286512 298714 Bullandshahr (1.71) (1.64) (9.42) (5.91) (0.24) (0.26) (2.48) (0.17) (79.61) (81.85)

117 | PARIPEX - INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH Volume : 4 | Issue : 12 | December 2015 ISSN - 2250-1991

6384 2319 40720 21577 834 328 1850 601 322504 185922 Etah (1.43) (0.95) (9.13) (10.40) (0.19) (0.13) (0.41) (0.25) (72.33) (76.18) Ferozaba 7990 7820 20039 25384 667 624 1434 595 175978 182150 (3.39) (3.24) (8.50) (11.60) (0.28) (0.26) (0.61) (0.25) (74.65) (75.52) Gautam Buddha 6842 2136 25715 27974 674 479 2451 540 139097 65164 Nagar (3.50) (1.70) (13.15) (21.65) (0.34) (0.38) (1.25) (0.43) (71.15) (51.96) 5489 2698 32686 27155 86 37 230 92 142113 112641 Ghaziabad (2.73) (1.75) (16.26) (10.02) (0.04) (0.02) (0.11) (0.06) (70.70) (73.02) 5489 2693 32686 15454 86 57 230 238 142113 87485 Hapur (2.73) (2.27) (16.26) (15.94) (0.04) (0.05) (0.11) (0.20) (70.70) (73.69) 5699 3611 15715 18924 1011 1035 234 211 145636 148675 Hathras (3.18) (2.00) (8.78) (13.89) (0.56) (0.57) (0.13) (0.12) (81.38) (82.53) 2231 3429 22812 25022 330 245 1238 599 148761 143455 Kasganj (1.08) (1.75) (11.07) (10.69) (0.16) (0.13) (0.60) (0.31) (72.21) (73.34) 18287 15488 20914 1415 1367 2127 1631 185887 194966 Mainpuri (6.70) (5.68) (0.00) (14.36) (0.52) (0.50) (0.78) (0.60) (68.08 (71.49) 4982 3650 34225 39168 1189 1322 926 937 269286 269178 Mathura (1.51) (1.10) (10.38) (12.68) (0.36) (0.40) (0.28) (0.28) (81.69) (81.49) 3489 2360 34566 41892 377 549 90 1425 202420 197823 Meerut (1.26) (0.86) (12.53) (10.62) (0.14) (0.20) (0.03) 0.52 (73.35) (72.46) 4389 2296 37418 28987 358 208 2306 1615 319239 212977 Moradabad (1.17) (0.90) (9.96) (15.02) (0.20) (0.08) (0.61) (0.64) (84.93 (83.78) 6163 3379 49198 38190 404 269 1948 1550 326540 260005 Muzaffarnagar (1.49) (1.02) (11.93) (12.71) (0.10) (0.08) (0.47) (0.47) (79.19) (78.52) 7825 6835 36398 42085 317 250 2530 4307 222908 233387 Pilibhit (2.19) (1.81) (10.19) (7.36) (0.09) (0.07) (0.71) (1.14) (62.40) (61.68) 6906 4747 26280 27838 10 3 609 1168 191923 191772 Rampur (2.93) (2.01) (11.15) (20.91) (0.00) (0.00) (0.26) (0.50) (81.42 (81.35) 990 299 42770 49296 177 195 1144 1299 273406 274634 Saharanpur (0.28) (0.08) (11.98) (7.88) (0.05) (0.05) (0.32) (0.36) (76.58) (75.49 - 2321 28665 - 368 2804 203322 Sambhal (0.93) - (16.44) (0.15) - (1.13) - (81.86) 7118 6840 39333 40836 964 1049 4097 3650 363827 350183 Shahjahanpur (1.56) (1.56) (8.60) (3.04) (0.21) (0.24) (0.90) (0.83) (79.51) (80.05) 3163 1566 29198 13306 404 225 948 316 177967 105029 Shamli (1.34) (1.19) (12.33) (10.08) (0.17) (0.17) (0.40) (0.24) (75.17) (79.56) 171988 112952 802777 833895 14827 13579 50946 45821 5988926 5597634 Total (2.13) (1.55) (9.95) (11.42) (0.18) (0.19) (0.63) (0.63) (74.22) (76.67) Source- Economics & Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, U.P., , 2001&2011

Note- - indicate data are not available Figures in parentheses indicate percentage of total reporting area

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE PATTERN rent fallow and (ii) old fallow (for 1 to 5 years). Forest This includes all land classified either as forest under any (i) Current Fellow: This represents cropped area, which are legal enactment, or administered as forest, whether State- kept fallow during the current year. Current fallows are owned or private, and whether wooded or maintained as in cycling order having being left fallow for current year potential forest land. The area of crops raised in the forest to restore fertility of soil. It registered for 2.19 % of total and grazing lands or areas open for grazing within the for- area in 2001 which was increased 2.49 % of total area ests remain included under the “forest area”. The study area in 2011. Mainpuri (5.07%), Agra (4.70%), Hapur (7.46%), recorded about 4.17% forest area in 2001 but it increased to Gautam Buddha Nagar (14.88%) and Etah (4.18%) 4.55% in 2011. The districts of Moradabad (0.02), followed are highest current fellow land whereas Bijnor (0.66%), by Aligarh (0.69%), Etah (0.42%), Hathras (0.98%), Mainpuri Bullandshahr (1.04%), Hathras (1.06%), Saharanpur (0.65%), Mathura (0.48%), Sambhal (0.25%), etc. have very (0.72%), Meerut (1.10) and Shamli (1.29%) districts are less forest area due to expansion of urban areas and adjacent the lowest Current Fellow land was recorded in 2011. The part of the capital city of India in 2011. Highest forest area variation in current fellow reflects rainfall, irrigation facili- found in Pilibhit (21.15%) fallowed by Amroha (9.63%), Bi- ties and crop rotation. jnor (11.82%), Meerut (7.81%) and Saharanpur (9.13%) dis- (ii) Old Fellow: This includes all land which was taken up tricts in 2011. Forests are more dominated in the north-west- for cultivation but is temporarily out of cultivation for a ern hilly area because of more undulating topography. period of not less than one year and not more than five years. Their extent, therefore, varies according to rainfall land conditions in different years. It registered 1.99% of the This includes land available for cultivation, whether taken total reported area in 2001 but it was decreased 1.37% up or not taken up for cultivation once, but not cultivat- of total area in 2011. Gautam Buddha Nagar (5.19%), ed during the last five years or more in succession includ- Kasganj (2.34%), Mainpuri (5.87%), Etah (3.74%) and ing the current year for some reason or the other . Such Ferozabad (2.75%) are highest old fellow land where- land may be either fallow or covered with shrubs and jun- as Rampur (0.20%), Bullandshahr (0.28%), Saharanpur gles which are not put to any use. They may be accessible or (0.42%), Shamli (0.51%) and Pilibhit (0.46%) districts are inaccessible and may lie in isolated blocks or within cultivated the lowest old fellow land was recorded in 2011. These are holdings. The cultivable waste land was 1.65% in 2001 but cultivated lands which have been left fallow because of it decreased to 1.14% in 2011. Kasganj (5.22%), Mainpuri rainfall deficiency or economic reasons and in recent trend (2.47%), Ghaziabad (1.91%) and Etah (5.30%) are recorded the builders are buying the land but not constructed long highest area of cultivatable waste land found whereas Ram- time. pur (0.09%), Hapur (0.08%), Moradabad (0.34%), Amroha (0.41%), Bareilly (0.41%) and Muzaffarnagar (0.42%) districts Barren and Un-Culturable Land had very low cultivatable waste land in 20011. This includes all land covered by mountains, deserts, etc. Land which cannot be brought under cultivation except at an exor- Fallow land bitant cost is classified as unculturable whether such land is The lands, which were used for cultivation before one year in isolated blocks or within cultivated holdings. It registered to five years. Fallow land is divided into two categories (i) cur- 2.13% of the total reported area in 2001 but it decreased

118 | PARIPEX - INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH Volume : 4 | Issue : 12 | December 2015 ISSN - 2250-1991 in 1.55% of total area in 2011. Mainpuri (5.68%), Ferozaba decreased (0.01%) are changes in 2011. The expansion of res- (3.24%), Rampur (2.01%), Hapur (2.27%) ,Hathras (2.00%) idential area resulted by the population pressure on the land. and Badaun (2.16%) are highest barren land whereas Amro- Land under Mics. Tree, groves and garden are not changes ha (0.53%) Saharanpur (0.08%) Agra (0.99%) Bijnor (0.84%) due to awareness to social forestry, especially in rural urban Meerut (0.86%) and Moradabad (0.90%) are lowest barren fringe areas. land was recorded in 2011. Conclusion Non-agricultural Uses The overall picture regarding land use patterns in India consti- This includes all land occupied by buildings, roads and railways tutes divergent situations in regard to land use patterns across or under water, e.g. rivers and canals, and other land put to different states. In this part of Uttar Pradesh have already not uses other than agriculture. It registered 9.95% of the to- very much suitable for agriculture. However, one pattern that tal reported area in 2001 but it increased 11.42% in 2011. was consistent almost all the districts is the increasing trend in Non-agricultural land was very high in Bagpat (38.86%), Bud- land under non-agricultural use due to increasing urbanization dha Nagar (21.65%), Amroha (16.60%), Hapur (15.94%), and industrialization, this trend is inevitable. The land use sys- Rampur (20.91%) and Sambhal (16.44%) whereas very low tem is highly dynamics which undergoes significant changes in Shahjahanpur (3.04%), Aligarh (4.70%), Badaun (3.96%), according to the changes socio-economic and natural envi- Pilibhit (7.36%) and Bullandshahr (5.91%) in 2011. ronment. Transformation lands from different land use to ag- riculture to fulfill the demand of food, fuel, wood, fodder and Permanent Pasture and other Grazing Land timber and on the other hand increasing the non-agricultural This includes all grazing land whether it is permanent pasture land use means to development of urbanization and industri- and meadows or not. Village common grazing land is included alization. The main causes for expansion of urban area in this under this heading. It covered only 0.18% of total reporting area because of settlement and development of rural-urban area in 2001 but it slightly increased to 0.19% area in 2011. fringe areas in the border districts of capital delhi area e.g. Pasture land was highest in Hathras (0.57%), Gautam Bud- Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar etc. Increasing population dha Nagar (0.38%), Mathura (0.40%), Aligarh (0.47%) and and dependent of agriculture are highly influence on agricul- Mainpuri (0.50%), whereas lowest in Hapur (0.05%), Ghaz- tural and non-agricultural land use pattern. For development iabadn(0.02%) ,Saharanpur (0.05%), Rampur (0.00%) and of urban areas and concentration on environment this regards Bagpat (0.06%) in 2011. In Western Uttar Pradesh, amount Mics. Tree groves and garden are unchanged for social forestry of pasture land is very poor because of pasture areas are uti- and awareness. Also Western Uttar Pradesh is not very much lization for construction of link road of the villages and urban uniform topography, in northern part is hilly mountain area, areas, construction of new settlements in urban areas. central and eastern part are upper ganga plain suitable for ag- riculture and in Sothern part are the desert area. Pasture and Land under Miscellaneous Tree Crops, etc other grazing land are decreasing which influence for animal This includes all cultivable land which is not included in ‘Net husbandry. Culturable waste land and barren land are decreas- area sown’ but is put to some agricultural uses. Land under ing due to increasing other than agricultural land. Current casuring trees, thatching grasses, bamboo bushes and other fallow land was increasing due to less concentration chemical groves for fuel, etc. which are not included under ‘Orchards’ fertilizer and irrigation. are classified under this category. It covered 0.63% of total re- ported area in 2001 whereas was increased to 0.83% areas Land Management in 2011. Land under this category was highest fond in Agra It can be concluded that the processes and associated prob- (2.13%) Shahjahanpur (0.63%), Badaun (1.66%), Bareilly lems observed have regional, national, and international impli- (0.68%), Pilibhit (1.14%) and Sambhal (1.13%) where lowest cations through the management of land use. Now the ques- in Ghaziabad (0.06%) Hathras (0.12%) Aligarh (0.09%) Bag- tion arise how to management of land what type of strategy pat (0.05%) and Amroha (0.10%) in 2011. This land area are should be adopted for economic development and growth very low as compare to the other region of Uttar Pradesh, due evolved in the light of present analysis of land use so econom- to urban growth in the capital city and cause expansion of ic growth process may make least harm to environment. Some construction in adjoin part of the districts. important measure of land use management are:

Net Sown Area 1. Extension of urbanization should be checked. This represents the total area sown with crops and orchards. 2. Bio-manure should be encouraged instead of chemical fer- Area sowed more than once in the same year is counted only tilizer. once. In Western Uttar Pradesh, this type of land are high 3. The site of industrial estate should be assigned to those ar- as compare to total due upper ganga plain which is suitable eas which are barren and unculturable. for this land. It covered 74.22% of the total reported area in 4. Also the governmental policy and programme and 2001 whereas was increased to 76.67% in 2011. This was self-awareness are very much important for land use man- high variation at district level, such as highest in Moradabad agement. (83.78%), Hathras (82.53%), Badaun (82.23%), Aligarh (81.87%) and Sambhal (81.86%) whereas lowest in Pilibhit (61.68%), Gautam Buddha Nagar (51.96%), Agra (70.88%), Bijnor (72.41%) and Mainpuri (71.49%) in 2011.

Changes in land Use Land use land cover changes in Western Uttar Pradesh dur- ing 2001 and 2011 revealed that the speed of expansion was quite worrying because in this region of Uttar Pradesh ecological Favourable land was less. There was high speed of urban expansion in many part of the study area. The ecolog- ical conditions, technological advancement and institutional development affect the land use pattern in great degree re- garding space, magnitude and speed. The change in land use pattern during past 10 years (from 2001 to 2011), that forest land is increased (0.38%) due to decrease of waste land. In this regard fallow land is decreased (0.32%) whereas Non-Ag- ricultural land is increased (1.47%) due to speed up of urban expansion. Other land use like Barren land is decreased (0.58), Net Sown Area is increased (2.45%), and Permanent Pasture is

119 | PARIPEX - INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH Volume : 4 | Issue : 12 | December 2015 ISSN - 2250-1991

REFERENCES

Barakade A. J., Dr. Tonape L.B & Dr. Lokhande T. N. (2011), Agricultural Land use Pattern in Satara District of Maharastra, Research Analysis and evaluation, VOL-I, ISSUE 17. Chatterjee, S.P. (1952), Land utilization survey of , Geographical Review of India, Vol.14, pp. 30-39 Niru Kushwaha (2008), Agriculture in India: Land use and sustainability, International Journal of Rural Studies (IJRS) vol. 15 no. 1 pp. 1-10 Pandey, R.K. (2000), Problems and Prospects of Agro based Industries in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Ph.D Thesis, D.D.U. University, Gorakhpur Prasad, H. (1989), Bhoomi Upyog evm Adhiwas Niyojan: tahsil (district- ) ka ek Bhaugolik adhyayan, PhD thesis, Department of Geography, BHU Sankhyakiya Diary (2001), Economics & Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, U.P., Lucknow Sankhyakiya Diary (2011), Economics & Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, U.P., Lucknow Shafi, M. (1969), Land use and classified the land categories and their capability, Singh, Basant (1962), Land utilisation in Chakia Tahsil, Banaras district (U.P.),PhD thesis, Department of Geography, BHU Tripathi, D.K. (1999), Agricultural development and panning in district, PhD thesis, Department of Geography, BHU. Zimmermann, E.W. (1951), World Resources and Industries, Harper Raw, New York, p. 86. Pandey, V.K. and S. K. Tiwari, (1987), Some Ecological Implications of Land Use Dynamics in Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. XLII No. 3, p.p. 388 –394 July – Sep.). V.N. Sharma &Anil K. Tiwari (2013), Land Use Pattern in Eastern Uttar Pradesh population and regional development, pp 164-176. Sharma, U.K. and Panday, V.K. (1992) Dynamics of landuse in different states of India. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 5: 24-33. D. Bardhan and S.K. Tewari (2010), An Investigation into Land Use Dynamics in India and Land Under-Utilisation, Ind. Jn. of Agri.Econ. Vo/.65, No.4, Oct.-Dec. 2010.

120 | PARIPEX - INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH