Dima Hasao Land Row: When the DC Chairs Dispute Meetings, Can He Just Opt Out?

In a scathing indictment of the ongoing land crisis in Dima Hasao district, former CEM Samarjit Haflongbar has accused the current district administration of facilitating the sale of tribal land to outside corporate interests, including the Adani Group, in brazen violation of Sixth Schedule protections.

“When Gogoi, Kalita or Bordoloi can’t buy even a single plot in a Sixth Schedule area, how is a corporate like Adani or any private cement company being given 3,000 bighas?” Haflongbar thundered at a press meet in Haflong. “The current CEM is selling off tribal resources under the diktat of the Assam Chief Minister,” he alleged, holding both the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) and the district administration accountable.

The DC’s ‘Hands-Off’ Letter to NCST Triggers Backlash

At the centre of the controversy is a land allotment in Umrangso to Mahabal Cement Pvt. Ltd., which has allegedly sparked tension and protests in the region. Following a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), District Commissioner Simanta Kumar Das (ACS) sent a formal response on April 25, 2025, distancing his office from the issue.

In his letter, the DC claimed that land, forest, and revenue matters fall solely under the legislative and executive jurisdiction of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, as guaranteed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. He added that his office “does not possess the statutory authority to intervene” in land acquisition and requested to be exempt from further proceedings.

But Haflongbar is having none of it.

“The DC Was Present in Multiple Meetings, He Can’t Evade Accountability”

“Wasn’t the DC present when 3,000 bighas of land were being discussed? How come he claims he has no role now?” Haflongbar questioned, pointing to official minutes of multiple meetings convened at the DC’s office that directly discussed disputed land allotted to the cement company.

One such meeting held on February 4, 2025, chaired by DC Das himself, involved company officials, local revenue authorities, villagers, and police officers. The meeting clearly recorded discussions on land disputes between Mahabal Cement and local villagers in the Garampani-Lanka Road stretch between 26 km and 29 km. Villagers accused the company of beginning construction—fencing and boundary walls—without their knowledge or consent.

Despite these allegations, the DC’s response to the NCST paints a picture of non-involvement, even though records show he was at the helm of meetings where the very land allotment and grievances were debated.

“Either the DC is misleading a constitutional body, or he’s admitting to being a silent facilitator in land transfer to outsiders,” Haflongbar said.

Official Records Expose Contradictions

In another official communication dated December 27, 2024, the DC called an “emergent meeting” regarding a proposed drone survey of forested areas in Boro Hundong and Boro Lingdong—lands suspected to be under “deemed forest” status—for potential mining activity. The meeting included student leaders, forest officials, and traditional village heads.

Further documents show the DC’s office also convened and coordinated land compensation discussions with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), indicating active administrative participation in matters of land and displacement.

If the district administration was indeed without jurisdiction, why was it overseeing meetings on land disputes, damage assessments, and construction monitoring?

Villagers Kept in the Dark

Villagers in Umrangso told authorities they were never consulted about land acquisition or informed about compensation or environmental consequences. The villagers said they are worried about potential pollution and the threat to their ancestral homes and livelihoods.

While company representatives and council officials refuted the villagers’ claims during the February meeting, the lack of transparency and due consultation remains a critical concern.

DC’s Silence, Council’s Inaction—Who Is Responsible?

The DC’s letter to the NCST also notes that the Principal Secretary (Normal) of the NCHAC has not responded to the issue, despite the matter being forwarded for action in April 2025.

This bureaucratic buck-passing—where the DC claims no jurisdiction and the Council remains mute—has left local communities vulnerable to land grabs, environmental degradation, and cultural erosion.

“The DC cannot just wash his hands off and say ‘not my department’ when he’s the administrative head and present at every critical juncture,” said a local activist from Umrangso. “It’s nothing short of administrative abdication.”

Call for Action and Accountability

Samarjit Haflongbar has demanded immediate action against DC Simanta Kumar Das for “misleading the NCST” and allegedly violating the spirit of the Sixth Schedule. “We demand that no DC in the future should be allowed to facilitate such land transfers behind closed doors,” he said.

Meanwhile, rights groups are calling for an independent inquiry into how 3,000 bighas of tribal land were allotted to a private company without full and prior informed consent of the local population.

As the High Court continues to hear the matter under WP(C) 1337/2025, the real question remains unanswered: In a Sixth Schedule area constitutionally meant to protect tribal autonomy, how did a mega cement project get so far—unchecked, unchallenged, and unexplained?

Also Read: DC Dima Hasao Distances Office from Tribal Land Grab Allegations