Dimapur, September 6 (MExN): Following the recent furor over a number of encroachers from Rangapahar Zoological Park attacking the residence of a Forest officer in Dimapur, a ‘petitioner’ representing the settlers issued a statement today claiming that the government actually altered their land.
A statement appended as ‘petitioner’ Shivili Sema, recovered here asserted that the present “suit land” was in cultivation prior to a notification in June 17, 1986 and was within the vicinity of the wildlife sanctuary ‘along with many other villages’. The other villages were Tsetrongse village, Chekiye, Singrijan, Diezephe and Toulouzuma. Thelixu and Thahekhu village, the statement said.
“However, on August 4, 2002 the authority concern of the Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary circulated a map through a local daily whereby the original area and boundary of the proposed wildlife sanctuary was altered and the petitioner’s cultivation lands were affected by the alteration of the boundary,” the statement said in response.
The alteration of the boundary was without jurisdiction and authority because alteration of the boundaries can be made by the state government only on the recommendation of the National Board under section 26A (3) of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, the petitioner said. This was why the affected villagers “preferred a PIL petition” before the Guwahati High Court to restrain the Forest department and the state government from altering the original notified boundary.
The incident of August 30, 2011, the statement said is “no exception of the act of atrocities committed” by the forest officer “who acting on his own personal capacity by taking law into his own hand and in clear violation of the status quo order and complete disregard to the process of law…” The officer was accused of destroying crops from the paddy and did not heed to the “pleas of the petitioners,” the statement alleged.
Clarifying on the incident, the statement claimed that the womenfolk “collected the destroyed crops and went to Obed Bohovi’s residence to peacefully agitate.” On reaching the residence, the wife then started using abusive language and “prompted the women folks to dispose the crops on the steps of their veranda.”
“The allegation that the officer’s wife was physically assaulted and abused is unfounded and smacks of lies and therefore we appeal to the general pubic not to construe facts on the basis of the false Media report f some vested interested persons but to personally verify and ascertain the truth themselves before delving into making statements on the basis of the misguided reports as the truth shall always prevail,” the statement said.
A statement appended as ‘petitioner’ Shivili Sema, recovered here asserted that the present “suit land” was in cultivation prior to a notification in June 17, 1986 and was within the vicinity of the wildlife sanctuary ‘along with many other villages’. The other villages were Tsetrongse village, Chekiye, Singrijan, Diezephe and Toulouzuma. Thelixu and Thahekhu village, the statement said.
“However, on August 4, 2002 the authority concern of the Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary circulated a map through a local daily whereby the original area and boundary of the proposed wildlife sanctuary was altered and the petitioner’s cultivation lands were affected by the alteration of the boundary,” the statement said in response.
The alteration of the boundary was without jurisdiction and authority because alteration of the boundaries can be made by the state government only on the recommendation of the National Board under section 26A (3) of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, the petitioner said. This was why the affected villagers “preferred a PIL petition” before the Guwahati High Court to restrain the Forest department and the state government from altering the original notified boundary.
The incident of August 30, 2011, the statement said is “no exception of the act of atrocities committed” by the forest officer “who acting on his own personal capacity by taking law into his own hand and in clear violation of the status quo order and complete disregard to the process of law…” The officer was accused of destroying crops from the paddy and did not heed to the “pleas of the petitioners,” the statement alleged.
Clarifying on the incident, the statement claimed that the womenfolk “collected the destroyed crops and went to Obed Bohovi’s residence to peacefully agitate.” On reaching the residence, the wife then started using abusive language and “prompted the women folks to dispose the crops on the steps of their veranda.”
“The allegation that the officer’s wife was physically assaulted and abused is unfounded and smacks of lies and therefore we appeal to the general pubic not to construe facts on the basis of the false Media report f some vested interested persons but to personally verify and ascertain the truth themselves before delving into making statements on the basis of the misguided reports as the truth shall always prevail,” the statement said.
