N Zubemo Lotha, LLM
Advocate, Gauhati High Court
BACKGROUND:
The land dispute between NEEPCO and the landowners of Pangti Village continues in the form of a cold war. The landowners have refused to part with any land beyond the Full Reservoir Length (FRL) at EL 324, despite the requirement of NEEPCO to acquire land up to EL 340 metres as per the agreement and deed of lease. NEEPCO claims to have paid the land compensation amount up to EL 340 to the entire land-owners thorough agency of the State Government, but Pangti land owners claim that in Pangti area land compensation and demarcation has been made only up to EL 297. If NEEPCO is not allowed to utilise the land up to the acquired level at EL 340, the project will continue to run below capacity leading to loss of electricity production and revenue generation for the Government of India. Again, the water storage capacity in the reservoir decreases year after year because of heavy siltation which can lead to frustration of the project.
By an agreement for land acquisition with the Government of Nagaland, the land owners and the NEEPCO dated 28th February, 1984, NEEPCO paid compensation for approximately 14000 acres up to Elevated Level (EL) 340 meters at Doyang area, Wokha District, particularly the village lands belonging to Sanis (147.85 acres), Yonchucho (134.92 acres), Sunglup (169.22 acres), Lakhuti (154.08 acres), Pangti (2264.42 acres), Aree & Aree New (1296.41 acres), Littami&Littami New (345.49 acres), Riphyim Old &Riphyim New (1664.10 acres), Yikhum (10.34 acres), Changsu Old &Changsu New (1856.32 acres), Nungying (185.54 acres), Seluku (111.43 acres), and Tsungiki (80.29 acres).
FACTS OF THE CASE IN DISPUTE
Following the commission of Doyang Hydro Electric Project (DHEP) in the year 2000, the authorities began to store water in the reservoir area. However, when the water level increased beyond the uncompensated Pangti land area, the landowners protested against NEEPCO and State Government authorities. They objected to the amount of land compensation paid by NEEPCO, which only covered the demarcated boundary where NEEPCO had erected boundary pillars with the mark FRL (Full Reservoir Level), and a trace path indicating the boundary line cut in 1988-89. Due to the land dispute with Pangti landowners, NEEPCO at present generate electricity at an average of 25MW, instead of the projected 75MW capacity.
COURT CASE
In the year 2000, the Pangti Village Council filed a case in the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, vide WP(C) No. 117(K) of 2000, contesting that NEEPCO cannot raise the water level beyond the demarcation with boundary pillars marked FRL as placed by NEEPCO themselves which stands at EL 297. NEEPCO, however, filed a counter-affidavit asserting that compensation has been paid for approximately 14,000 acres extending up to EL 340 meters, through the State Government.
To verify the conflicting claims, the Court appointed a One-Man Commission who submitted its report on 22.11.2001 but found the report to be inconclusive. Consequently, by an order dated 24.07.2002, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of Wokha to conduct a detailed field survey. The DC was tasked with identifying the area of land for which compensation had already been paid and to assess any additional land submerged beyond that level.
The DC submitted report on 28.06.2003, concluding that the actual water level was being maintained at 324 meters above sea level—significantly higher than the 297 meters claimed by the petitioner. It was determined that the Pangti Village Council had misunderstood the demarcation markings made by NEEPCO, believing them to represent FRL at 297 meters, whereas the actual level maintained was 324 meters. This narrowed the legal question to whether the acquired land extended up to EL 297 meters or EL 340 meters.
The Court observed that NEEPCO had acquired and cleared land up to EL 340 meters, and boundary markers had been erected at that level. The landowners had also followed NEEPCO’s demarcated trace paths in accordance with the work orders they received. To assess whether any land beyond EL 340 meters had been submerged, the Court reviewed the Deputy
Commissioner's report dated 28.06.2003. It found that the area between FRL 324 and EL 340 meters amounted to 535.94 acres.
Ultimately, in its judgment and order dated 13.05.2004, the Court concluded that the FRL of the dam is 324 meters, signifying the dam's maximum operational water level. Even if the water rises temporarily to 336 meters, there remains a buffer of 4 meters below the EL 340-meter mark. Since the land was acquired up to EL 340 meters and this was properly demarcated by NEEPCO, the Court held that no unacquired land had been submerged.
The petitioner failed to provide evidence that the water level ever reached EL 340 meters and made inconsistent claims—initially asserting ownership beyond EL 297 meters and later incorrectly stating that EL 324 was higher than EL 340. Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
OPINIONS OF PANGTI LAND OWNERS AFTER COURT CASE
Opinions, among other things, include the issue of court case which found the claims of the Pangti landowners to be baseless, because their factual grounds were not addressed appropriately by rejecting the One-Man Commission report-the report which confirmed that NEEPCO and State Government authorities themselves issued work orders and within their supervision the trace path cut and erected permanent boundary pillars at strategic locations marking FRL at EL 324.
The Pangti land owners also claim that on factual grounds the compensation although was actually given up to EL 297, they condoned the deficiency on grounds of social welfare because of the intervention in 1992 by Mr Kalpanth Rai, the then Union Minister of State for Power, and allowed the boundary demarcations to be retained up to the mark FRL which stands at EL 324.
Even otherwise, FRL was supposed to be marked 7 metres below EL 340, because land area between EL 334 and EL 340 is to be mandatorily reserved as catchment area. However instead of demarcating the FRL at EL 334, the NEEPCO demarcated the FRL at EL 324 only, thus there is no reason for NEEPCO to raise the water beyond the FRL as claimed rightfully by the Landowners.
Another key factual basis supporting the claims of Pangti landowners’ is that when the water level is raised up to EL 324, it overflows into a significant unacquired land upstream towards Chubi, impacting Okotso village on the left and Lakhuti village on the right. Given the circumstances, it is imperative that the water must not overflow into this unacquired area, and NEEPCO must provide justification for the situation, because the ongoing land dispute with Pangti is intrinsically linked. The circumstances speaks for itself, illustrating the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur’.
Although the Pangti landowners were subjected to disadvantage by the Court judgment, they resisted attempts by NEEPCO and State Government authorities to forcibly occupy uncompensated lands. The landowners feel that NEEPCO and State Government authorities wanted to take advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the poor rural marginalised people. They wanted to do this so that once the entire uncompensated land area is submerged under-water; the poor and voiceless people would have no evidence and basis to claim their rights.
FUTURE CHALLENGES
1. In reality, two boundary demarcations remain intact - one at EL 340 and another at FRL or EL 324. When the actual demarcation for land compensation was executed, serious mischief was made most probably by the State Government authorities and NEEPCO officials engaged with the assignment, who physically erected demarcation pillars at EL 324 claiming the demarcated spot to be the FRL and shall be is the extent of land up to which NEECPO will acquire, while on papers it was reported that demarcation pillars have been erected at EL 340. This misrepresentation misled both the landowners and NEEPCO’s higher authorities, giving rise to ongoing confusion and controversy. It is now incumbent upon NEEPCO to thoroughly investigate and clarify the matter.
2. The land compensation was executed through the State Government, which facilitated the acquisition of the land by NEEPCO. It is undeniable fact that NEEPCO has given the entire land compensation amount up to EL 340 to the implementing authority of the State Government, but since the State Government authorities did not give the amount of land compensation to the land owners of Pangti beyond EL 324 or rather EL 297, it is for NEEPCO to challenge the State Government before an appropriate forum to redress their grievance.
3. NEEPCO has failed to fulfil its social welfare commitments, leaving Pangti without any meaningful rehabilitation. The project caused significant impacts, including submergence of vital agricultural land—especially the paddy fields known as the “rice bowl of Pangti”—and the displacement of residents, which remain unaddressed. The acquisition of 2,264.42 acres of Pangti land has led to long-term economic hardship because of increasing population, and Pangti urges NEEPCO to uphold its obligations by supporting livelihood restoration, employment and minor contractual works, healthcare, education, community development, and the protection of cultural and environmental resources.
4. One of the key agreements between NEEPCO and the landowners was to give employment preference—especially for Grade-IV posts—to eligible landowners. While some were employed during the early phase of the project, this commitment has since been neglected. There is growing discontent, particularly in Pangti, as landowners continue to be overlooked, even for positions vacated by retired or deceased landowner employees. NEEPCO is urged to address this long-standing grievance, as employment was a core part of the original agreement tied to the project.
5. Alongside the primary agreement, several livelihood-related commitments were agreed upon time to time, including a key promise to build a highland irrigation channel for agricultural development, but has remained unfulfilled. The Chubi Bridge, financed by NEEPCO and commissioned in 2010, serves as a vital link for Pangti and Sungro Range villages, but the bridge was constructed with limited 9-ton capacity, causing a continuous inconvenience for its inability to accommodate heavier transportation needs. The landowners have also consistently expressed electricity supply to all land-donor villages, sourced from the Doyang Hydro Electric Project, as a fair return for their contribution to the development.
6. The reservoir is gradually becoming shallow due to continuous siltation and is significantly reducing water storage capacity. As NEEPCO cannot fully utilize the projected land area up to EL 340, the plant is underperforming in electricity generation, leading to both reduced public utility output and substantial revenue losses, - the plant generating an average of only 25 MW, instead of the projected 75 MW. If NEEPCO is not permitted to store water up to the proposed capacity, the project may soon become unsustainable and have to be abandoned, as there are currently no viable solutions available for effective de-siltation.
7. It is incumbent upon NEEPCO to clarify how raising the water level to EL 324 results in overflow into unacquired lands in Okotso and Lakhuti villages, upstream toward Chubi. Given NEEPCO’s claim of having acquired land up to EL 340, it raises the question of why proper alignments were not ensured to prevent such overflow. One must also consider the potential scale of the disaster had the land and water storage actually been utilized up to EL 340. Additionally, a new challenge has emerged in recent times: during the monsoon season, large volumes of plastic and other waste materials flow into the NEEPCO reservoir, causing biological and environmental hazards. A permanent solution is urgently needed to address this recurring problem.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, although the Pangti landowners agreed to part with land up to EL 340 under the 1984 acquisition agreement and the 1996 deed of lease, a critical question remains: does NEEPCO still have the legal right to physically occupy land up to EL 340, given the irregularities that have occurred over time? In the past, the landowners have faced fraud, intimidation, and mental distress over the threat of forced acquisition by government authorities. With the passage of time, the disputed land has become a vital source of livelihood, with significant potential for eco-tourism, agriculture, horticulture, and other sustainable activities. Notably, the area has been recognized globally as the Amur Falcon Capital of the World—a safe haven for migratory birds that has drawn international attention.
Better late than never, NEEPCO must now demonstrate genuine compliance with its social welfare commitments to the landowners, in return for the acquisition of their land. This includes providing targeted assistance for livelihood restoration and community development programs, as well as the urgent construction of a new standard bridge. Although there has been no meaningful progress in resolving the land dispute, stakeholders can no longer ignore the ongoing decline in the reservoir’s water storage capacity due to continuous siltation, nor the pressing need to acquire and utilize land up to EL 340. NEEPCO must continue to work collaboratively with the State Government and the landowners to reach a mutually acceptable solution, in the larger interest of national development. The critical question remains: who should be held accountable for the alleged fraud in land measurement and the mismanagement of compensation funds that remain unpaid?
