STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In what could be an embarrassment for the present PDP-BJP coalition government, State Accountability Commission (SAC) has issued notice to the Commissioner Secretary Industries and Commerce Department directing therein to file his response regarding illegal land allotments made by the SIDCO on the basis of approval granted by the Minister for Industries and Commerce.
The Commission has referred to the instructions issued by the Minister incharge industries wherein ‘land mafia’ has been allowed to retain the industrial lands allotted to them till 31st March 2016 despite holding the same idly in violation of cabinet decision and the MSME Act.
The Commission has further stated that MD SIDCO has transferred lands illegally after taking money. In severe indictment of the industrial associations, the Commission while describing them as land mafia has stated that the latter has harmed the genuine interests of the legitimate entrepreneurs by making them wait in some cases for years together to get the estate lands.
It is pertinent to mention that the STATE TIMES has consistently reported that industrial associations, in league with the estate developers, have developed vested interest in estate lands and have been trading in these lands with impunity. Emboldened by the support received from the Minister in charge industries, who also happens to be an industrialist, the associations are reportedly now eying to have the existing industrial policy reviewed by the present government after failing to get their way during the Governor’s rule.
According to sources, the land mafia, masquerading as industrial associations, has suddenly become active and started approaching the Ministers in the new Government for its revision.
They consider the Minister amenable to their ideas. It is believed that this mafia has started creating misgivings about the New Industrial Policy, recently approved by the Governor.
Their main grouse is reported to be against the land component of the new policy. As is known, the new policy has put a lot of emphasis on promoting the legitimate entrepreneurs by discouraging the land blockers/ illegal land holders, who have blocked the huge chunks of land for years together, from unnecessarily squatting on industrial lands, thereby marring the prospects of the genuine entrepreneurs.
Sources in the department have informed that these so called entrepreneurs even approached the Governor and requested for revision of what are easily the most progressive clauses in the policy. For instance, these people have demanded that a committee should not decide the quantum of the land to be handed over to a prospective entrepreneur and instead it should be as per the details outlined in the project reports. The department has sought to rubbish this argument by saying that there are many cases in the industrial estates where land far in excess of their legitimate needs have been sanctioned.
Resultantly, while only a small portion of land has been used for construction of industrial units, the remaining portion is lying unutilized and is being sold in piecemeal at exorbitant rates.
This at the time when there are a large number of entrepreneurs who are still waiting in a seemingly unending queue to get even insignificant patches of lands like 2 kanals or 4 kanals for setting up their micro enterprises is nothing short of criminal. The department has also shot down the suggestion of the associations of not institutionalizing audit of the existing landholding of the units. Precisely for the same reason as it wants to retrieve the excess land for the benefit of those young, educated but unemployed entrepreneurs who have been waiting for a long time for lands to set up their units.
The associations are reportedly also not comfortable with the idea of only 8 months extension after mandatory two years on the plea that it is an extremely small time period within which a unit can’t be established and also that no financing institution comes forward to offer credit support to kick start the project.
Sources in the department have informed that there is no provision in the MSME Act for extension beyond two years the period for which provisional registration is valid and extension of 8 months is state specific measure to hand hold the entrepreneurs to set up their units. According to the sources there is no reported case received in the department from any financial institution where such a clause has come in the way of project financing.
Sources in the department further informed that the associations’ opposition to the reduction in the lease period from 90 years to 40 years is also not based on any empirical data which supports their observation that this would bring in uncertainty and cause corruption to creep in at the time of renewal of the lease period. The departmental sources revealed that reduction in lease term has been effected in consultation with the law department and is in consonance with the Land Grants Act.
Sources said that this time, land price rationalisation is a forward looking step and is expected to not only earn the Government the much needed revenue but also is likely to act as a dampener against motivated land blocking.
Though the associations are reported to have raised a banner of strong protest against this clause, it has been revealed by the departmental sources that even though industrial land prices have been increased, they are still far less than the prices in vogue for such lands in the geographically analogous states in the country. For instance, in Uttarkhand, the minimum rate of industrial land is Rs. 10.10 lakh per kanal while the maximum is Rs 37.50 kanal. Similarly, in HP, the minimum land rate in Chamba district is Rs. 3 lakh per kanal while in Solan it about Rs 44.35 lakh per kanal. Further, the land rate in Punjab vary from Rs. 6.64 lakh per kanal to Rs. 75.50 lakh per kanal.
According to sources, the rates in J&K are perhaps the lowest in the country and the associations’ grouse that the rates should be aligned only with the cost of acquisition faced by the state is terribly erroneous and reflects their mindset of being property dealers than entrepreneurs as the cost of land apart from the cost of acquisition also factors in developmental charges of the estates whose actual costing far outweigh the price fixed for such lands in the new policy.
Giving instances, sources revealed that the power infrastructure costs in respect of Ghatti industrial estate only was more than Rs 161 crore. Similarly, the development cost of Vessu industrial estate was Rs 15 crore after land acquisition.
Sources further informed that the associations have also demanded that change of constitution of a unit should be allowed independent of whether the unit goes into production or not. The departmental sources informed that this is one clause which has been misused a lot by the land mafia in the industrial sector as under the garb of this clause, vacant lands have been sold and purchased without any worthwhile accrual of revenue to the government. Lands which have been received from the state government at nominal costs have later exchanged hands at exorbitant prices without the government getting anything in the process. This, the sources informed, has been gone on in connivance with the officers of the estate developers of the department. Recently, the issue of illegal land transfers and how such transfers have been made in favour of the office bearers of the associations in connivance with the SIDCO/SICOP officials has also been published in the State Times where it has been established with considerable elaboration as to how the laid down procedures have been violated by the vested interests in the government /estate developers. The matter has even reached the doorsteps of the Governor and he has sought details of the case.
According to the sources, the provisions relating to industrial lands in the new policy are progressive and will help the sector turn a new page in so far as genuine industrialization is concerned. Unless these provisions are protected and, more importantly, further strengthened, the dream of industrialisation in the state will never be fulfilled.
Sources further revealed that since SAC has not specified time limit within which the report is to be sent by the Industries and Commerce Department to the Commission, the department is merrily sitting on it without bothering to respond. While hailing the service of notice by the Commission, sources informed that if the Commission asked for a time bound response from the department in the matter and then began the hearings in earnestness, a large number of skeletons will tumble out of the department and eventually result in weeding out of the bad apples from the department.
