This will make it difficult for industry to set up projects, CII said. Assembling land from numerous owners is not a task which the corporate sector can undertake effectively. The government should retain its role of acquiring land for industrial development, as industrialization is key to job creation, CII said.

It further said that the clause ‘public purpose’ should empower the state to acquire land not only for infrastructure or defence purposes but also for developing land for economic activity.

CII criticized another provision in the bill that requires the acquirer to share the capital gains with the original owners or their heirs whenever the acquired land is sold. It is an impossibly onerous task for the private sector, the CII said. It suggested setting up state land bank corporations, that would acquire non-cultivable land, develop them and pass them on to the private sector.

The Ministry of Rural Development refused to comment on CII’s press statement saying that a group of ministers is vetting the bill. “We will table the bill only after the ministers submit their report,” said Rita Sinha, secretary (Department of Land Resources), Ministry of Rural Development.

In October 2008, a Parliamentary Standing committee had criticized certain clauses in the bill. In its report, the committee said the clause relating to states acquiring 30 per cent of a project land is vague and can be misused.

“The previous definition (which broadly says that the government will acquire land for projects that benefit the public) was much better and should be retained,”

the report said.

Land rights activists, however, hail the bill and say it offers a good chance to farmers for negotiating the price of their land with the industry.

“Industry’s reaction was bound to come as it cannot forcibly acquire land like the government does,” said S Parasuraman, director of Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. According to Parasuraman, the entire process of land selling should be governed by market forces. “Otherwise, the process will get complicated as the price difference between acquisition prices paid by private buyers and the government will be huge. And nobody would want to give land to the government at low prices,” he said.

With less time left for the Parliament session, it seems unlikely that the bill will get through, said a CII official. And this will give industry a chance to push its agenda.

It’s official. The Central Pollution Control Board (cpcb), the nodal body for regulating environmental norms in India, is being “reduced to a near-defunct body”. The parliamentary standing committee on science and technology, environment and forests for the first time took note of the problems ailing cpcb in a report tabled in Parliament on October 21.

Issues like unqualified members and lack of enforcement power have long plagued the central and state pollution control boards (spcbs), a fact acknowledged by the board heads. The committee also noticed that the scarcity of technical staff was affecting the functioning of the boards.

“The key posts in cpcb and spcbs are being manned by officers of the Indian Administrative Service or bureaucrats who neither possess the necessary capabilities and expertise in properly managing and planning pollution control activities nor have enough time to pay attention to these activities,”

the report said.

In 2004-05, of the total cpcb and spcb staff, only 48 per cent were technical. An earlier report by a Supreme Court monitoring committee had stated that 77 per cent of the chairpersons and 55 per cent of the member secretaries of spcbs were not qualified to hold the post. The parliamentary committee report also criticized having part-time chairpersons by many state boards and said that only a full-time chairperson with adequate knowledge, background and experience in environment management could do justice to the post.

Dilip Biswas, former chairperson of cpcb, said during his tenure he had quite a few members on the board who were unqualified for the post.

“Meetings were more like a ritual than platforms for discussing important issues because many members were illiterate as far as environment was concerned. Many a times they would not even turn up for meetings.”

The law was to be faulted, said Biswas not the people as it did not define the exact qualifications of the board members. “Also, there is drastic shortage of general staff,” he said.

Though cpcb is an autonomous body, it is controlled by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Most of its members are ministry representatives. The acting chairperson of the board is the joint secretary of the ministry. The Water Act, under which the board was formed, allows the Central government to supersede cpcb in certain cases. “Such a provision renders cpcb to act as mere puppet in the hands of the Centre and does not allow any space for independent and autonomous functioning,” the report said. Citing the ministry’s 2002 decision to delegate punitive powers to cpcb with the condition that if need be the Centre may revoke the decision, the report said, “If all the powers and functions were to be concentrated in the hands of the ministry …such an apex body is untenable.”

The report has raised concerns about the cpcb data on air and water monitoring. It said hazardous pollutants like volatile organic compounds, ozone and aromatic hydrocarbons were not being monitored. Of the 332 monitoring stations in the country, several are not working and the data is not updated regularly. There is no central agency to set standards for emissions.
Even if the standards are finalized by a technical body, the ministry takes a long time to notify them, as has happened in the case of the sponge iron industry.

Low salaries to the technical personnel and lack of training also contributed to cpcb’s failure, it stated.