Dimapur, September 11 (MExN): The Nagaland government did not give any commitment about giving “alternative land” to relocate the illegal settlers evicted recently from Intangki National Park. This was stated in a copy of clarification from the State’s IPR department on the Supreme Court’s order pertaining to Intangki National Park.
The government issued clarifications on the order as well as on a number events surrounding the issue of encroachment and illegal settlement in Intangki, compensation, relocation and the role played by the Advocate General of Nagaland in the court case. The clarification was necessitated by some ‘misleading reports appearing in various local newspapers’ recently, commissioner & secretary MK Mero stated.
Advocate General of Nagaland KN Balgopal was alleged to have made certain important omissions, as well as unauthorised commitments in the Supreme Court in connection with the above case, which has had effect of prejudicing the interests of the State Government, the department said.
The state government had asked the Inavi villagers to furnish several more specific information vide letter dated 22-6-2012, which was also published in local newspapers. “So far, no response has been received by the State Government from the Inavi Villagers till date. It may be added here that no commitment has been made in the Supreme Court by the Learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government on this issue. The court had only stated that if any representation for allotment of alternative land is made by the Inavi villagers, it shall be considered by the State government in accordance with law.”
“Hence, the State Government will have no problem or objection to examine and dispose off the petition of Inavi villagers in accordance with the law of the land, and there is absolutely nothing binding on the State government on this issue.”
The IPR said that the petition filed by the Inavi villagers before the division bench of the High Court was dismissed; in fact they were directed to vacate the national park by 31st December 2011 failing which the 4 persons representing the Inavi villagers (whose names were mentioned in the court order) would have to pay a monthly compensation of Rs. 5 lakh per hectare to the government.
“The Inavi Village being aggrieved by the above order preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Learned Advocate General contested the case on behalf of the State Government. The senior counsel for the Inavi village made a statement to the court that they will not re-enter the Intanki forest area, and would file an undertaking to that effect. In the light of one such undertaking, the Learned Advocate General made a statement that the State Government would not insist on payment of compensation from the 4 persons mentioned in the petition,” the clarification said. “The Learned Advocate General was already instructed by the government that since the trespassers had already vacated the encroached areas, there was no need to insist on the compensation but we should insist that the Inavi villagers should not be allowed to re-enter the park again.”
Accordingly, the IPR said, the advocate representing Inavi villagers promised the court that a written undertaking on behalf of the Inavi would be submitted to the court within two weeks, which had been done. “It is in these circumstances that he made the above statement. In any case, as the Inavi village was already evicted by the State government in February 2012, the period for which the compensation could be realised by the State government was only for one and half month or so which is not the a big amount for the State government but nevertheless very difficult to pay for the villagers who had already been evicted and scattered here and there.”
Further, the counsel for Inavi requested the court that Inavi are “shelterless” and therefore they would like to make a representation to the government for their rehabilitation. “The court directed that such representation if made shall be disposed off in accordance with law. It is a fact that based on this court’s order, the head GB of Inavi village had made a representation dated 14.5.2012 to the State government, wherein they had asked for allotment of alternative land for their re-settlement, and wherein they had also indicated that the villagers had lost Rs. 7, 70, 02,850 in the course of several evictions carried out earlier by the State government against their village,” the IPR statement said.
“But the Inavi villagers did not ask for any monetary compensation from the government for this alleged loss. Therefore, the question of payment of Rs. 7, 70, 02,850 to the trespassers never arose,” the government said in response.
