Ghost Towns and Land Rights in Nagaland’s Development Era
Ghost Towns and Land Rights in Nagaland’s Development Era
In Nagaland, nothing screams “compensation” like the news of two-lane road construction sending landowners into a frenzy of building cowboy-era-like huts overnight.
In Nagaland, nothing screams “compensation” like the news of
two-lane road construction sending landowners into a frenzy of building
cowboy-era-like huts overnight. Suddenly, barren land transforms into a ghost
town of freshly constructed, uninhabited masterpieces. Oh, but of course, let’s
not forget to wag our fingers at the poor villagers, those masterminds of
“cheap tricks” who somehow manage to build ghost towns overnight to capitalise
on impending compensation. Never mind that they know next to nothing about
their land’s value or rights, or that their grand plan is to scrape together a
few thousands in damaged compensation because, surprise, the people in power
exploit them and refuse to pay fair land compensation as mandated by law. But
sure, let’s blame the villagers for trying to survive in a system rigged
against them. After all, it’s much easier to criticise their rickety huts than
to hold the real culprits accountable.
Recently, I attended a Capacity Building Program at Gauhati,
organised by Asian Centre for Human Rights, for Indigenous Advocates and
Activists with a focus on Indigenous rights. We had a session on the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”), where we
stressed its benefits and loopholes regarding implementation and it occurred to
me that we are not taking any advantage from the comprehensive Act of 2013.
The issue of land rights is gaining prominence in the
northeastern states due to the surge of developmental projects in recent years.
Historically, northeastern states in India have been neglected in terms of
developmental activities. However, recent efforts have led to a significant
increase in the construction of public institutions, roads, dams and other
public infrastructure. While these factors have improved public sector life, it
is crucial to recognise that development should not come at the expense of
citizens’ lives, rights and wellbeing. There has been an increase in land
compensation cases in the courts, stemming from the failure of appropriate
authorities to adhere to the Act of 2013, as well as other state laws
concerning land rights.
While other states face similar struggles, what
distinguishes Nagaland is not just its rich heritage but also strong emotional
ties people have with their land. Understanding these differences can shed
light on how development can either respect or ruin the fabric of a community.
It is perplexing to witness some influential leaders advocating against Article
371A without considering the potential negative impacts on our communities’
wellfare and well-being. Article 371A should be carefully considered and
preserved, as its removal could have significant implications for the protection
of the rights and identities of our small tribal communities. The current state
of insufficient amenities and dilapidated infrastructure should be attributed
to the detrimental effects of corruption, unequal distribution of resources,
and inefficient management of public funds rather than pointing fingers at
landowners seeking land and damaged compensation, which is lawful and mandated
by the law.
In Nagaland, the current practice of land acquisition mostly
involves Village Councils or Civil Society Organisations, and landowners
issuing No-Objection Certificates, in good faith and in public interest, for
the construction of roads or other developmental activities by the government,
either by donating the land free of cost or agreeing to claim only damages to
property, and not land compensation. Influential figures in authority often
threaten to withdraw the developmental activities if these terms are not
accepted by landowners. In most cases, these agreements are made under the
table without following due process of law, and due consultation with the
aggrieved landowners or those who have a share in the ancestral land. Such
cases in the High Court speak volumes. It should be noted that the Act of 2013
clearly differentiates between Land Compensation and payment of damage caused
during land acquisition. In many instances, poor villagers, who are afraid to
voice their concerns or lack means to seek redress, bear the brunt of the
situation and are left to fend for themselves. Their voices often fade into the
background amidst bureaucratic jargon.
Why do the poor have to suffer for the sake of development
if their livelihood, basic rights are taken away without appropriate
compensation and rehabilitation, as per the law? Especially, when the quality
of work is pathetic. The law is clear and accommodating, not only in the
context of Article 371A but also as per the Act of 2013, and other relevant
Acts. The loss of these rights will ultimately lead to the displacement of our
indigenous communities and the encroachment of our territories by affluent
migrants, both from outside and within the tribal groups, as exemplified by the
situations in Tripura and Manipur. Across various contexts, Adivasi groups in
Jharkhand, indigenous peoples in North America like the Lakota Sioux, and the
Maori in New Zealand are all engaged in struggles for land rights, aiming to
reclaim ancestral lands taken by governments; all of which involve legal
battles, protests, and community mobilisation.
Our State follows the Nagaland Land (Requisition and
Acquisition) Act, 1965 regarding land acquisition and requisition by the
Government. However, it is more limited in its provisions as compared to the
Act of 2013, which provides a comprehensive framework for land acquisition and
aims to ensure fair compensation and transparency. The Act of 2013 applies
across India and is intended to protect the rights of affected landowners and
promote rehabilitation and resettlement. It sets specific guidelines for
calculating compensation based on the market value of the land, plus a solatium
of 100% of the market value. In contrast, the state’s Act lacks detailed
guidelines and criteria for determining compensation levels, and a sufficient
framework addressing the needs and well-being of affected populations post
acquisition. Proper implementation of the Act of 2013 is vital to ensure that
those affected receive comprehensive compensation that reflects the true value
of their losses.
Recently, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench)
passed a judgment on the issue of the Implementation of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 in WP(C) No.50/2022 and WP(C) No. 216/2021. These two
Writ Petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
raising the question as to whether the Act of 2013 is applicable in the State
of Nagaland. In these cases, the Hon’ble Court held: “…The Land Acquisition Act
of 1894 was applicable in Kohima and Mokokchung districts before 1st December, 1963.
Section 11(2) of the Act of 1965 stipulates that compensation has to be
determined under section 11(1) of that Act. The manner of inquiry and award by
the Collector as stipulated in Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has become a part
of the Act of 1965. Since the Act of 1965 has been replaced by the Act of 2013,
in Land Acquisition matters, in Nagaland, the land owners from whom land is
acquired for construction of public properties, they have to be given just and
fair compensation. There is no doubt that the concerned roads are National
Highways and the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Cooperation
Limited is building those roads. The National Highways Act, 1956 under which
the said authority is executing projects for construction of National Highways,
also speaks about payment of compensation. Therefore, the land owners have to
be given just and fair compensation according to law. In spite of any existing
agreement, the State is bound to give just and fair compensation. Ours is a
welfare State. State is bound to do all acts which are beneficial to the
citizens. Our Constitution does not allow the State to execute works which may
be detrimental for the citizens. The petitioners are entitled to just and fair
compensation. The Respondents are directed to take steps so that the land
owners, whose lands have been acquired for construction of the roads, would get
just and fair compensation.”
While development is undoubtedly necessary, it should not
come at the expense of our communities, who are already facing significant
hardships. Failure to implement appropriate policies for compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement of our vulnerable populations will only
exacerbate the issue and further erode our fundamental rights, particularly our
land rights, which serve as a crucial component of our identity. As we reflect
on the need for careful navigation between progress and preservation, it is
vital for the public and policymakers alike to advocate for fair practices in
land acquisition. The plight of Nagaland’s landowners deserves attention,
understanding, and action from all corners of society. The fight for land
rights is not just a legal issue; it is a matter of preserving the dignity,
culture, and existence of vulnerable communities who have been disproportionately
affected by developmental activities without following due process of law or
assurance of quality work. Next time you hear about development projects,
empower villagers by educating them about their land rights, and hold the real
culprits accountable, rather than placing blame on those merely trying to
survive in an inequitable system.
