The Meghalaya high court on December 8 ordered that no physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts in six areas where a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between Meghalaya and Assam shall be carried out for the time being.
Four traditional heads of the Khasi Syiemship and Sirdarship in Meghalaya have filed a civil writ in the Meghalaya high court seeking a stay of the operation of the MoU entered into between Meghalaya and of Assam on March 29.
“The impugned MoU was signed without consulting or taking the consent of or involving the constitutionally recognized native chiefs and their durbars such as the petitioner Syiems and Sirdar, etc. under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and also the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council,” the four petitioners said.
Stating that the Sixth Schedule lays down a framework of autonomous decentralised governance with legislative and executive powers bestowed upon the autonomous district council over subjects like water, soil, land, local customs and culture, the petitioners also informed the court that the Supreme Court has held that land in Meghalaya belongs to private people and community.
“The MOU has completely and deliberately ignored this aspect and is against provisions of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. As such, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the impugned Mol is not set aside and quashed,” the petitioners pointed out.
During the hearing, P Sharma, the legal counsel for the petitioners told the court that if the demarcation is effected physically and boundary marks are placed on the ground pursuant to the MoU, the entire writ petition will be rendered infructuous, and the writ petitioners will be without any remedy.
In his submission, advocate general Amit Kumar said: “No interim orders are called for at this stage as firstly, the locus of the petitioner has not been established and further no irreparable loss would be caused to the applicants/petitioners, in the event the MoU is carried forward.”
“Looking into the nature of the matter and the submissions made by the advocate general, it appears that an objection in the form of an affidavit is necessary to be filed to enable this court to consider the interim prayer as prayed by the applicants/petitioners,” Justice HS Thangkhiew said.
While permitting the advocate general to file objections to the interim prayer and to the maintainability of the writ petition, Thangkhiew directed that during the intervening period, no physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground, pursuant to the MoU shall be carried out, till the next date of hearing fixed on February 6 next year.
On December 7, the Meghalaya high court has issued a notice to the Assam government while hearing the writ petition filed by four traditional heads of the Khasi Syiemship and Sirdarship, questioning the MoU signed between the two state governments.
The border pact was signed by Meghalaya chief minister Conrad Sangma and his Assam counterpart Himanta Biswa Sarma in March resolving the dispute in six out of 12 area of differences.
The six areas are Tarabari, Hahim, Pilangkata, Khanapara, Ratacheera and Gijang. There are 36 disputed villages in these six locations covering 36.79 square kilometres.
Out of 36.79 sq km of disputed area taken up for settlement in the first phase, Assam would get full control of 18.46 sq km and Meghalaya of 18.33 sq km.
