The Manipur (Hill Areas) Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights Act, 1967, Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 and legislative right of the Hill Areas Committee (HAC).
Share
The central theme of the Article was to question why the Manipur (Hill Areas) Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights Act, 1967 has not been implemented in Manipur and that the remedy lies in extending the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 to the hill areas. The law of 1967 was intended to abolish the traditional, hereditary chieftainship system in the hill areas and replace it with a more democratic form of local governance. Despite being enacted over fifty years ago, the Act has not been implemented due to various challenges, including resistance from some tribal communities and political hesitation.
The narrative of chieftains owning lands in the hill areas and villagers being mere tenants may be true in respect of some areas under the Zo (Chin-Kuki-Mizo) ethnic group, but definitely not true in respect of lands in the Naga villages. Chieftainship may be abolished across the northeastern states and states like Nagaland and Meghalaya have their own tribal land ownership system as provided under Article 371-A and the Sixth Schedule (Article 244(2) respectively. Similarly, other Sixth Scheduled districts in Assam and Tripura also have their own tribal land law systems approved by the Governor. These were mentioned to press home the point that the hill areas of Manipur require a land law and it could be done by extending the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 to “Hill Areas”. These assertions are far from the truth and the following paragraphs explain why.
Contrary to what is suggested, the remedy does not lie in the extension of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 to “Hill Areas”, but in the implementation of the unique right of legislation given to the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) and the system of local governance envisaged by Article 371-C, the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972, and the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971, or by extending the Sixth Schedule to the hill areas of Manipur. However, the discussion is confined to Article 371-C and its related provisions as these are laws already available for implementation.
For Manipur, a unique right of legislation for “Hill Areas” has been given to the HAC by Article 371-C with processes and procedures specified by the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972 read with the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971. This scheme was envisaged when Manipur became a full-fledged state to protect and safeguard the interests and rights of the tribes living in the “Hill Areas”. For more than half a century, the state government has not implemented and ignored the unique system of legislation and administration for hill areas of Manipur, depriving the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) and the Village Authorities (VAs) of laws on matters listed in the “Second Schedule” of the 1972 Presidential Order. Had laws been allowed to be initiated by the HAC, as per constitutional design, and the processes and procedures laid down by the 1972 Presidential Order, there would have been laws enacted by the Assembly for implementation by the ADCs and VAs in the hill areas. Land laws for individual and community land holdings would be one of the laws available for the hill areas, opening up the prospect of obtaining bank loans for taking up various activities.
An attempt to empower the ADCs was made under the leadership of Shri Leishiyo Keishing as Chairman of the HAC during 2021, and a Bill, co-authored by Shri Alfred Kanngam Arthur, called the Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Council Bill, 2021, was recommended by a resolution of the HAC to the state government. However, the then state government of Shri N. Biren Singh during his first term has kept the HAC Bill in cold storage and instead tabled two Bills in the Assembly. The action of the state government is in violation of Rule 12-A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur (1972), which provides that “The Council shall normally give effect to the recommendation of the Hill Areas Committee under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972, but if the Council is of the opinion that it would not be expedient to do so or that the Hill Areas Committee was not competent to make any such recommendations, the matter shall be referred to the Governor, whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the Council, and action shall be taken accordingly.”
The rule has been ignored and violated by the then state government, thereby raising a question as to whether the Governor should have kept track of the Bill recommended by the HAC and acted on the special responsibility provided to him under paragraph 9 of the Presidential Order of 1972, which states that “The Governor shall have special responsibility for securing the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee in accordance with the provisions of this Order and shall, in the discharge of his special responsibility, act in his direction.” Does this provision give the Governor the right to intervene at the relevant point in time as the procedures under Rule 12-A of Business of the Government of Manipur (1972) were not followed? After all, paragraph 9 of the 1972 Presidential Order states that “The Governor shall have special responsibility for securing the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee in accordance with the provisions of this Order and shall, in the discharge of his special responsibility, act in his direction.”
When the constitutional provisions and those emanating out of it are implemented fully, there will be empowered autonomous district councils under the new law i.e. the proposed Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Council Bill, 2021, and tribal laws on various matters, particularly on allotment, occupation, or use, or the setting apart of land; establishment of Village Committees or Councils and their powers and other matters relating to village administration; appointment or succession of Chief or Headman; inheritance of property; marriage and divorce; and social customs. The question of considering the extension of MLR&LR Act to hill areas therefore does not arise as the “Hill Areas” will have its own laws. Article 371-C, read with paragraph 4 (1), (2), and (3) of the Presidential Order of 1972, has given the HAC the right of legislation on all matters relating to hill areas specified in the “Second Schedule”. On account of the failure of the state government to implement constitutional provisions for hill areas of Manipur for more than 50 years, the time has come for the CSOs, student organisations, tribal leaders, etc., of hill areas to address petitions to the President and the Governor, who need to issue directions to the state government to implement the provisions as laid down by law.
Incidentally, paragraph 6 (1) of the Presidential Order of 1972 stipulates on “Development Plans” that “Before the Five Year Plans and Annual Plans of the State are finalised by the Government of the State, proposals in this behalf, which shall show separately the Plan Schemes proposed to be taken up in the Hill Areas and the rest of the State, shall be placed before the Hill Areas Committee and the views of the Committee shall be taken into account before the Plans are finalised.” This provision, if adhered to scrupulously, would facilitate the HAC to scrutinise the budget for the hill area vis-à-vis that of the valley to assess whether a fair share of resources for development of hill areas has been allocated by the state government in the budget. Further, paragraph 6 (2) of the Presidential Order of 1972 provides that “The Government of the State shall forward to the Hill Areas Committee quarterly reports showing the progress of implementation of the Plan relating to the Hill Areas.” If such scrutiny is facilitated by the state government, the HAC would be able to make assessments about the impact of the budgetary allocation in hill areas and recommend corrective and remedial actions.
The foresight of the framers of Article 371-C and the scheme envisaged by the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972 can be gauged from the provision of paragraph 4(5) which states that “In its functioning, the Hill Areas Committee shall endeavour to:-
(a) Safeguard the interests of the people of the Hill Areas, particularly through accelerated development of these areas.
(b) Promote unity between the people of the Hill Areas and other areas of the State by aiming at an integrated and evenly based economic growth of those areas and augment the resources of the state as a whole.”
Had the scheme envisaged by Article 371-C been implemented in its entirety, there would have been accelerated development and even/balanced economic growth of hill areas at par with the valley, thereby promoting unity. Denying the hill areas its due share of laws for governance and funds for development by not following the safeguards provided appears to have heightened the strained relationship between the people in hill areas and the valley. The stepmotherly treatment has kept the people in hill areas poorly administered and backward. One of its consequences is the higher rate of fertility leading to faster population growth in hill areas, which could eventually upset the demography of the state.
The leaders of the dominant community in the state should know the risks involved by their strategy of ignoring and neglecting the hill areas, which could, in the long run, become detrimental to the interests of the dominant community.
The game of Meitei leadership to extend the MLR&LR Act in 1988 by R.K. Jaichandra, and the three infamous Bills in 2015 by Okram Ibobi Singh’s government are attempts to grab tribal lands in hill areas by subjugating the tribes. The government notification of 18 September 2025 to have uniform procedures for buying and selling land across the state, covering tribal lands in “Hill Areas,” is an attempt by the Meitei-dominated bureaucracy, post-3rd May 2023 clashes, to blur the lines between lands falling under the MLR&LR Act and tribal lands in hill areas, thereby violating the protection and safeguards under Article 371-C. All these attempts are targeted to grab land, including the demand for ST status for the Meitei community.
The tribes are weary of the hegemonic behaviour of the Meitei community. Article 371-C and its concomitant provisions should be implemented to give “Hill Areas” their own laws on the matters listed in the “Second Schedule,” which includes land, and would facilitate implementation by the ADCs and VAs. The eviction of the Zo (Chin-Kuki-Mizo) ethnic group from Imphal, the state capital, appears to be another attempt of divide and rule. The trust deficit between the two communities, the tribes, and the dominant community, is wearing thin. As the stand-off between the warring communities continues without any urgency to resolve the crisis, including the continuous attempt to change the narrative, it does not bode well for the future of the state for peaceful coexistence.
(This is with reference to an Article titled “Why Do the People Still Not Own the Hills They Were Promised in 1967?” by Shri Naorem Mohen published in India Today NE (online news) on 29th November, 2025)
Ngaranmi Shimray
New Delhi