Gauhati HC flays 3,000-bigha land allotment in 6th Schedule Dima Hasao to cement firm
Justice Sanjay Medhi reminded Dima Hasao falls under 6th Schedule, where tribal interests must override corporate land allotments
A file image of Gauhati High Court. (Photo:@himantabiswa/X)
Guwahati, August 12: The Gauhati High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the allotment of nearly 3,000 bighas of land in Dima Hasao district to a private cement company, terming the decision “extraordinary” and questioning its legality.
Hearing a batch of petitions, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi on August 12 remarked that Mahabal Cements must be “very influential” to have secured such a vast tract of land in its favour.
“What kind of a decision is this? Is this some kind of joke or what? How do you allot 3,000 bighas to a company? Do you understand the magnitude of 3,000 bighas? It will be half of the district,” Justice Medhi can be heard remarking in open court in a video that has since gone viral.
The judge further noted that Dima Hasao is governed under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution, where the rights and interests of tribal communities are to be given primacy.
The disputed land, located in Umrangso, is also an environmental hotspot with hot springs, migratory bird habitats, and significant wildlife presence, the Court recorded.
Directing the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) to produce relevant records, the Court sought details of the policy under which the allotment was made.
The Bench was dealing with petitions filed by local villagers resisting eviction, as well as a plea by Mahabal Cements seeking protection from alleged interference by “miscreants” disrupting its operations.
Counsel for the company, advocate, G. Goswami, argued that the land had been allotted through a proper tender process and secured on a 30-year lease.
“We are not interested in taking someone’s land. We are a cement company. By tender we have got the mining lease,” she submitted.
On the other hand, lawyers representing local tribal residents contended that they should not be displaced from their ancestral lands.
After hearing both sides, the Court said it would examine the allotment process in detail before passing further orders.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 1.