Another Centre-state conflict over Art 371A
Morung Express News
Dimapur | December 8
Tribal leaders and civil society organisations (CSOs) in Dimapur have resolved to reject the adoption of the National Highways (NH) Act, 1956, in the state. The resolution came in the backdrop of the Central government directing the state government to adopt the NH Act, in line with other states, for the purpose of land acquisition for road infrastructure projects, in place of the state’s prevailing Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965.
The Centre’s directive basically implied having a uniform land acquisition regime vis-à-vis road development across the country, including Nagaland, and determining compensation via the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.
It has had Nagaland’s special Constitutional provision— Article 371A in another collision course, in this case, with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Given the legal conflict involved, the Nagaland Public Works Department (NPWD) had proposed to the state Cabinet “broad-based discussions with all apex Tribal Hohos/CSOs” statewide before arriving at a decision.
In this connection, on December 8, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, convened a consultative meeting with Dimapur-based tribal hohos and civil society organisations, including the non-Naga indigenous communities. In the meeting circular, issued by the DC, were listed 23 organisations, among which was Naga Council Dimapur (NCD).
Emerging from the meeting, NCD President, GK Rengma told the media that the consensus among the CSOs was to continue with the prevailing state Act of 1965. The NCD President stated that the attendees examined the matter and decided to uphold the state’s Act, citing the land protections guaranteed under Article 371(A).
Ningsangwaba Pongen, President of the Ao Senso Telongjem Dimapur said that all Dimapur-based CSOs agreed the state Act is the better mechanism for land acquisition.
A background note prepared by the state PWD on the issue outlined specific constitutional conflicts regarding the MoRTH directive. Sections 3 and 4 of the NH Act, 1956, require acquired land to vest in the Union government. On the other hand, the state government’s argument states that the provision violates Article 371A of the Constitution, which safeguards local land ownership and transfer practices.
The state government has proposed to the Centre a compromise to resolve the dilemma. The compromise involves continue using the State Act of 1965 to acquire land, and applying RFCTLARR Act for calculating compensation.
According to the state PWD, such a compromise would ensure ownership stays with the state/community, complying with Article 371A, while land owners would get higher compensation rates provided by the RFCTLARR Act.
The Centre has reportedly not replied to the proposed compromise. Meanwhile, the conflict has reportedly delayed the sanctioning of certain NH projects, including but not limited to NH 202, by the MoRTH.
Currently, the state acquires land under the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1965 and leases it to central agencies to ensure ownership remains within the state.
