The hoho in a press communiqué stated the MoU was signed for amendment of the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas (NP&NG) Regulations and Rules 2012 (RR 2012), following which the LH withdrew its Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Also read: ‘Unauthorised’ survey for oil exploration stopped in Nagaland
After the MoU was signed, the Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) filed a suo moto PIL to bring the matter to a logical conclusion, LH said.
“But the suo moto is still not cleared, even after four and half years. So it looks as though the suo moto is kept deliberately delayed,” it alleged.
On reports that the Nagaland government in collaboration with Assam government intends to start oil extraction “in Nagaland and within the Disputed Area Belt (DAB),” the hoho said it does not understand why Nagaland Chief Minister was “bypassing the stakeholders and giving so much confidence to Dr. Himanta Sarma, Assam CM.”
LH said the state government must realise that the MoU is a legal document and that it can, at any time, revive the PIL as enshrined in the MoU.
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]“Does this long delay, in amendment of the NP&NG RR 2012, mean a nod, from the state government, that the LH should revive the PIL?
‘Also why is the so-called DAB only on the side of Nagaland? Why should Nagaland accept the DAB which are actually unjustified claims of Assam? What about the numerous reserved forests of Nagaland, transferred to Assam by the British for administrative convenience, so they said? Are these not Disputed Areas?’ LH questioned.
The hoho claimed that at the time of creation of Nagaland, towns like “Sibsagar, Nowgong and Lakhimpur in Assam were taken as the tentative boundary between Assam and Nagaland”.
“Hence, the line crossing these towns should be declared as the permanent constitutional boundary between the two states,” the hoho said.
It also stated that Naga people have to realise that the amendment of RR 2012 is for the benefit of all stakeholders and not for the Lotha tribe alone.
LH further pointed out that some of the major objectionable provisions in the NP&NG RR 2012 are that the ‘no objection certificate from land owners is to be issued by Naga Hoho and ENPO,’ no provision for royalty payment to landowners but only revenue which, LH said, “legally implies that landowners will not have any share of the benefit.”
“Why the NOC for Lotha land should be issued by non-stakeholders like NH and ENPO? Whether these provisions are agreeable to the Nagas of Nagaland?” LH asked.