Madhya Pradesh land prices to go up from July-11

Come July and land prices will go up for industrial use in Madhya Pradesh. Almost all Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigams (AKVNs) subsidiaries of State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDC) have obtained government nod for raising prices.

“Bhopal and Gwalior AKVNs will raise land rates from July 1 in Manideep (Bhopal), Govindpura, Satlapur, Pilukhedi, Banmore (Gwalior), Nandantola, Chainpura and Jaderua (Morena) and Pratapura industrial areas. The rates will be different at different industrial areas, however prices are likely to go up from 10-50 per cent from the existing land rates,” a government source informed Business Standard.

Lands in industrial areas in the state are available at throw-away prices vis-à-vis land in commercial areas in adjoining towns.

According to a senior official in department of industries, the state government has not reviewed land rates for years as a result of which, middlemen make money from transfer deal of lands in industrial areas.

Industrial areas like Pithampur, Dewas and Mandideep areas are out of space and investors are either pulling out of their projects ore shifting base to other states like Himachal Pradesh for expansion.

"We will be able to have at least some funds for AKVNs and investors will have more options," said the official.

If sources are to be believed, land prices are likely to go up by 100 per cent or more in some industrial areas.

At present, land is available at as low as Rs 8 per sq feet in industrial areas like Govindpura and Rs 35 per sq feet in Mandideep and Satlapur as against Rs 400-1000 per sq feet in nearby towns.

Since land acquisition Act 2008 does not bar the land holder to transfer land and reclaim better prices, AKVNs have no teeth to demand the land back from the holder. At a nominal transfer fee, any land holder in industrial area can transfer his land at commercial rates. This way middlemen and real-estate players make money.

The government has yet not made it clear what will happen to those investors who want to set up micro, small and medium scale industries (MSMEs). “Certain provisions will be made in this regard. MSMEs will get land at cheaper prices,” PK Dash, principal secretary of department of industries had told Business Standard earlier.

Reportedly MSMEs have no space in prime industrial areas like Dewas, Pithampur and Mandideep. Similarly new large and medium scale industries and existing industries could not execute their expansion plans for years.

The EnDoc: UK Bribery Act may put additional pressure on some...

The EnDoc: UK Bribery Act may put additional pressure on some...: "Indian companies doing business in the UK will have to watch out the next time they take a bureaucrat out for a long liquid lunch or try to..."

UK Bribery Act may put additional pressure on some Indian companies

Indian companies doing business in the UK will have to watch out the next time they take a bureaucrat out for a long liquid lunch or try to soften up a hard-nosed regulatory official. Someone could be watching them.

The UK Bribery Act, 2010, a draconian legislation that will come into force from next week, may put additional pressure on some of the companies, already grappling with corruption scandals, say experts. Indian business houses that run some of their activities in the UK will be exposed to potential criminal liability where bribes are paid by employees, agents and subsidiaries even if the relevant conduct happens in some other part of the world. Lawyers say that many Indian companies with business links in UK are consulting them to find ways to comply with the new law that becomes operational from July 1.

The Act introduces four new offences - offering, promising or giving of a bribe (which need not be in cash); requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting a bribe, either in the UK or abroad, in public as well as private sectors; bribery of a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain business; and, inability of companies to prevent a bribe being paid by those who perform services for or on behalf of the organisation.

New device ‘can improve success rate for knee surgery’

Scientists have developed a new device which they claim can improve the success rate for surgery on a knee injury.

The rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the knee are common in sportspersons. Until now, it has been treated with screws that bind the damaged ligament to the bone but this method often fails as the screw slips out of place.

Now, a team at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland has developed the device, known as GraftBolt, which could fix the problem -- by squeezing the bone and ligament together and it is less likely to slip free.

The scientists say it increases the reliability of ACL reconstruction and reduces the need for follow-up procedures, ’The Scotsman’ reported.

Dr Bin Wang, who led the team, said: “GraftBolt aims to improve the patient’s quality of life by successfully repairing their injury first time and improving the quality of bonding of the graft to the bone.”

Population or Pollution

Over-population is the ‘elephant in the room’ when it comes to discussing global environmental problems: everyone knows about it, but no-one is willing to discuss it.

The bottom line, we argues, is that the current human headcount is higher than our planet can sustain – and still it’s growing at an unprecedented rate.

Are we just too successful a species? Could the annual 76 million rise in the world’s human population be putting too much pressure on the Earth’s ecosystems, threatening our very future? Do you think population control should be higher up the global agenda?

How do you measure a population problem?

Are you 50 or over? Then during your lifetime, the world’s population has more than doubled.

The figures do seem to indicate there’s an issue here. Every year there’s approximately a 76 million annual rise in the world’s population, which currently stands at about 6.5 billion — more than double the population in 1960, and at this rate we’re heading towards 8 billion by mid-century.

This puts pressure on the planet in so many different ways, including: Where our food comes from. So far, food production has kept up with population growth. But it’s unevenly distributed: 1 in 6 people suffer from hunger and malnutrition. It’s also environmentally costly to grow food production: half of all the commercial fertiliser ever produced had been applied since 1984, and the distance food travels to reach our plate is growing all the time. And what we eat changes as we get richer: world cereal consumption has more than doubled since 1970, and meat consumption has tripled since 1961. A vicious circle emerges: more cereal needs growing with more fertiliser and water in order to produce more meat.

Where our energy comes from. By some measures we’re already past ‘peak oil’ production, and in a society reliant on hydrocarbon energy that means lifestyles need altering. We’re already pushing in the direction of growing our own energy—in the form of ‘biofuels’—but doesn’t that conflict with the food problem, above? For population to keep growing, will we be willing to embrace less heating, less transport, and perhaps even a ‘carbon tax’ on consumer goods?

Where our waste goes. Despite recent and visible efforts in different parts of the world to recycle more of our household waste, the majority of rubbish worldwide still goes into landfill—or rots in large piles outside cities. Pollution is a huge problem, an estimated one in four people worldwide are exposed to unhealthy concentrations of air pollutants. At the same time that we’re rapidly running out of places to dispose our existing waste, our ‘improving’ lifestyles seem to generate more of it.

Is controlling population growth the real answer to fighting global emissions?

The problem with the overpopulation debate is that nobody has quite advanced a successful theory on how the phenomenon can be controlled.

After all, we’re not entirely separate to the ecosystem, we’re part of it—and if the planet is currently supporting 6.5 billion souls, despite the tragic inequality and frightening environmental truths, you could argue we’re not overpopulated yet.

However, that inequality could be the very key to how we’ve avoided overpopulation so far. The problems of population are linked to consumption. At present, a small minority of the global population consumes a majority of the resources listed above. That minority’s share of consumption, and waste creation, has also increased significantly the last 50 years. The majority consumes very little.

But it’s the forward view that scares the experts. We can almost see on the horizon a collision between dwindling supplies of energy, food, water, and the lifestyle aspirations of billions.

In other words, it’s not the overall numbers that matter, but how many join the middle classes.

As we get richer we eat more, consume more meat, demand more energy, create more waste. The consumption habits that have spiralled alongside our population growth are the same ones that threaten to doom us.

I wonder if the real ‘elephant in the room’ is not over population, but the proportion of the global population that are taking up these destructive habits?

Perhaps the question whould not be how many of us can the Earth sustain, but how many of us can live at Northern / Western consumption levels?

Is this the real reason the powers that be are afraid to touch this topic?