The Gauhati High Court, hearing two connected writ petitions, expressed strong concern over the allotment of an extraordinarily large tract of land, approximately 3,000 bighas, to a private cement company in the Dima Hasao district of Assam, which is a Sixth Schedule area under the Constitution, with autonomous governance and special constitutional protection for tribal land, resources, and interests.
The petition Sonesh Hojai and Ors. vs State of Assam and Ors. was filed by a group of 22 residents who claim that the land is lawfully in their possession and their eviction, purportedly for allotting land to the cement company, threatens both their rights and continued livelihood. They highlight the legal protections accorded to tribal residents and their lands under the Sixth Schedule and insist that any land acquisition and allotment must strictly comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.
The petition Mahabal Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Assam and Ors. was filed by the Kolkata-registered cement company submitted that the allotment was made for the purpose of establishing a cement factory pursuant to a mining lease granted after following proper tender procedures.
Upon reviewing the facts, the Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi expressed shock and serious concern over the sheer scale of the allotment: a single allotment of 3,000 bighas (over 990 acres) of land for private industrial purposes in a sensitive tribal region. The use of the word “extraordinary” in the language of the order reflects the Bench’s reaction.
The Court underlined the special situation of the Dima Hasao as a Sixth Schedule district and Umrangso, the area concerned, as an “environment hotspot” with features like hot springs, wildlife habitats, and serving as a stopover for migratory birds.
During proceedings, the Bench made pointed comments questioning the rationale of such a mammoth land allotment to a private entity in a tribal district: “3000 Bighas! The entire district? What is going on? 3000 Bighas allotted to a private company? Is this some kind of a joke or what!”
The company’s counsel argued that the allotment had a legal basis in a mining lease, tender, etc. However, the High Court signalled that the mere fact of a tender process did not by itself address the constitutional, environmental, and tribal rights issues at stake. The Court underscored that the issue went beyond simple administrative action, implicating crucial concerns of tribal rights, environmental conservation, and constitutional protections.
The Court directed the Standing Counsel for the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) to bring on record the full policy, documents, and rationale by which such a large tract of land was allotted for industrial use. The matter is now listed for 1 September 2025.
Appearances:
For the Tribal Petitioners: Mr. A I Kathar, Mr. A Rongphar
For the Company: G. Goswami, A. Neog
For the State: Standing Counsel, Revenue; Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council (DHAC)
