.jpg)
The Assam government has defended its “illegal” infrastructure of two joint battalions within two reserve forests, saying the decision – taken without central government approval – was necessary to protect these forests from encroachers from Nagaland and Mizoram, as well as undocumented Rohingya migrants from Myanmar.
Assam shares a 512-km border with Nagaland and a 164-km border with Mizoram, fraught with long-standing territorial disputes that have also turned violent at times.
In September 2023, MK Yadava, former principal chief conservator and head of the state forest force, had authorised the diversion of 44 hectares of the inner line reserve forest (ILRF) land at Damcherra in Barak Valley in Hailakandi district, bordering Mizoram, without obtaining permission from the Union ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC). The land was redirected for use by a large contingent of the 2nd commando battalion of the Assam police.
This came after 28 hectares of forest land was set aside in November 2022 for another battalion at the Geleki reserve forest in Sivasagar district, which borders Nagaland, around 550 km north-east of Damcherra.
The environment ministry found Yadava, the now additional chief secretary of forests in Assam, prima facie “guilty” of diverting the 44 hectares in Damcherra without its approval in violation of the erstwhile Forest Conservation Act, 1980. A show-cause notice was issued on May 14. But it’s not clear what action the ministry took against him.
The ministry also issued him three notices for a detailed report on the alleged violations in Geleki in April, May, and June this year. But it received no response from the official, as per an affidavit filed before the eastern zonal bench of the National Green Tribunal.
The case related to the violations in Damcherra is being heard by the NGT’s principal bench and its eastern bench is hearing the matter on Geleki violations. In the previous hearing, the tribunal said that the ministry and not the chief conservator must decide if the structures would impact forest conservation. It also asked the environment ministry about its action against Yadava. The matter will be next heard on October 14.
Newslaundry reached out to the environment ministry, asking action taken against Yadava. This report will be updated on receiving a response.
Affidavits says petitioner wants to ‘stall projects of national interest’
Newslaundry reviewed the affidavits filed by Rajpal Singh, Assam’s principal chief conservator of forests, in the two separate cases before the NGT. Both are similarly worded, wherein Singh alleged that petitioner and environmentalist Rohit Choudhury has “unclean hands”.
Choudhury, an Assam-based environmentalist, has been advocating for wildlife and forest conservation.
In the Geleki case, Singh wrote in his August 8 affidavit that the petitioner has a “habit of collecting information through the Right to Information application in certain special cases only”. He questioned Choudhury for not filing RTIs or petitions over the alleged forest destruction in Nagaland. “His acts practically stall critically important projects of the government on the ground of forest conservation and/or environment protection,” read the affidavit.
Singh further wrote that Choudhury has employed a “unique technique” of first collecting information and then sharing it with the media and on social media.
In the annexure, he included a copy of a complaint filed in July last year by his predecessor, MK Yadava, with the secretary of the Assam Information Commission. The complaint listed 82 RTIs filed by Choudhury.
However, in the affidavit filed in the Damcherra case in April, Singh wrote that instead of taking the “lawful route” of getting information through the government and RTI, Choudhury and news portal Northeast Now had “trespassed” into the reserve forest and clicked photographs of the alleged illegal structures of the battalion. The photographs were part of Choudhury’s petition. The NGT subsequently took suo motu cognisance of the battalion project and the petitioner filed an interlocutory application.
Singh said that the owner of Northeast Now and Choudhury were “liable to be prosecuted” under Section 24 of the Assam Forest (Regulation) Act, 1891, for “trespassing”, mandating a jail term of up to three years.
The chief conservator alleged that Chowdhury’s petition was an attempt to “stall a major security and forest protection infrastructure on flimsy grounds”. To further his argument, Singh also mentioned environment lawyer Ritwick Dutta as an “associate” of Chowdhury and referred to a CBI case filed against the former in 2023. In the case, the I-T department had alleged that Dutta’s organisation, LIFE, used foreign funds to stall the “Adani project” and other projects of national interest.
Nagaland, Mizoram ‘encroachers’, Rohingyas
In the Geleki affidavit, Singh said that the situation in Assam was extraordinary owing to the alleged forest destruction by Nagaland. “The ground situation of Assam on its sensitive borders where as many as 72 reserve forests are situated warrants of an EXTRAORDINARY situation perhaps does not exist in any other state in the country with respect to rampant destruction of forests,” read the affidavit.
To justify the construction of the “strong” structures, Singh said the camp “is required to house 800 personnel with arms, ammunition and sophisticated weapons which requires a very strong construction which cannot be easily overpowered by armed miscreants” from Nagaland, including Nagaland Armed Police.
The affidavit claimed that about 4,000 out of the total 5,929 hectares of the Geleki reserve forest “is already fully encroached by Nagaland”. It alleged that one-third of the total 1.56 lakh hectares of reserve forests in three districts of Jorhat, Sivasagar and Golaghat has been encroached by Nagaland.
It also claimed that if it was about compensatory afforestation and net present value of the forests, the Assam government would have instantly deposited the amount as “it is a small amount compared to the investment” of Rs 300 crore on the battalion infrastructure, as per the affidavit. But it conceded that the camp was “not a non-forest-activity, as it is meant for protection of the forests”.
The compensatory afforestation is the process of afforestation to compensate for the forest land diverted to non-forest activities and net present value refers to the mandatory one-time payment for diverting forestland for non-forest use, under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, now known as Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam.
For Damcherra, which borders Mizoram, Singh wrote: “Be it stated that the issue has escalated from being forest protection to issue involving security concerns of the state, given the daunting challenge of protection of ILRF (inner line reserve forest) in sensitive border areas and potential encroachment by Rohingias.”
The affidavit claimed that “it’s rare” in the history of India where police have laid down their lives for forest protection, referring to a clash between Mizoram and Assam in which six Assam police personnel were killed in 2021.
He alleged that the area where the structures have been built was already “deforested a long time ago” by “Mizo encroachers and miscreants”.
In both the cases, Singh argued that a “large battalion of armed personnel” was required to resist “forest destruction” attempts by Mizoram and Nagaland.
NGT calls construction illegal
Relying on the environment ministry’s affidavit in the Damcherra case, the NGT’s principal bench on August 2 said that “the construction was done in violation of norms.
The NGT called Singh’s affidavit “unhappily worded” and containing “improper phrases”, ostensibly referring to his claim that the constructions fell under Section 2(b) of the Forest Conservation Act for “like purposes” related to forest protection.
The environment ministry, whose officials had visited the site in March, said that the battalion camp is not a forest activity covered under the FCA. The NGT then formed a committee of three officials from the ministry to file a factual report.
In the Geleki case too, Singh said that the establishment was covered under the same section and did not require the ministry’s approval. It said: “But if structures are large and would impact on conservation, prior permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would be required.”
However, the Assam forest department claimed that the camp complied with para 11.8 of the Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications, 2019, issued by the ministry. Singh claimed that the structures are large, but there is no adverse impact on the forests, thereby not requiring permission from the ministry.
The eastern zone of the NGT took exception to the argument in its latest hearing order, which was issued on August 13. It said: “We are surprised that in spite of the admission that 800 personnel with arms, ammunitions and sophisticated weapons have been housed with strong construction, how the same could have been done when the Guidelines of 2019 itself mention that ‘all state governments should ensure that the basic spirit and essence of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not to divert Forest Land for construction of Residential Building, Bunglows, Quarters.”
Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
