By Our Reporter
SHILLONG: With the State Government claiming that the Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi’s official residence at Khanapara bordering Meghalaya and Assam is in ‘disputed area’, UDP legislator Paul Lyngdoh has urged the Government to ask the Assam Chief Minister either to vacate or pay rent for occupying the land which Meghalaya’s.
Moving a call attention motion referring to a news item which appeared in The Shillong Times under the caption ‘Gogoi residence in disputed area’ during the second day of the Budget Session in the Assembly here on Monday, Lyngdoh said, “The Government should officially write to Gogoi either to vacate the land or pay rent to the Government,”.
In fact, as per the news report, he said that Revenue and Disaster Management Minister had himself admitted that the land which houses the Assam Chief Minister’s residence is in a ‘disputed area’.
UDP legislator felt that the Government should see that the matter is resolved by asking the Assam Government to transfer back the land to the State.
Meanwhile, Lyngdoh also wanted to know the status of the resolution adopted by the Assembly last year for urging the Centre for constitution of the Boundary Commission to settle the long pending boundary dispute between the two neighbouring states.
He also sought an explanation over the status of the talks between the Chief Secretaries of the two states to look into the 12 areas differences which also include Khanapara-Pilangkata.
Lyngdoh also asked the minister to look into the earlier recommendation of an Assembly committee to facilitate registration of land in the border villages as there is continuous loss of land in the inter-state border with Assam.
In his reply, Revenue and Disaster Management Minister Prof RC Laloo said the government has records to prove its claim on the land where the Assam Chief Minister resides which is located on the small hillock known as Kannadhora Hill and falls within the Khanapara -Pilangakata.
“This hillock falls within the Khanapara -Pilangakata Block which is one of the areas of differences with Assam and the State Guest House was constructed in 1976 to accommodate very important person (Indira Gandhi) in connection with the All India Congress Committee Convention held in Guwahati,” Dr Laloo said. He also said that the State government had registered its objection to the construction of the Guest House, and the then Governor, LP Singh who was common Governor for both Assam and Meghalaya intervened and convened a meeting between the then Chief Ministers of Assam and Meghalaya on August 6,1976. Moreover, he said the letter of Governor dated August 7, 1976 addressed to the Chief Ministers of both states stated that the State government had contended that the hillock on which guest house was constructed fell within Meghalaya and Assam government should not therefore proceed with the construction. “The letter stated inter alia after an inclusive discussion of the history of the case of the issue involved, it was agreed by Meghalaya then the construction might proceed leaving the question regarding the correct boundary between the two States in this sector raised by Meghalaya to be discussed further and dealt with an appropriate manner,” Prof Laloo informed. He further said even during the time of composite Assam, there was dispute related to the inter-district boundary between the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills district and the Kamrup district after the revenue settlement department of Assam sought to include certain areas of Khanapara under Kamrup. Moreover, he said the then Chief Executive Member of United Khasi Jaintia Hills District wrote a letter to the Assam Chief Minister objecting this arrangement and the said area was within the United Khasi Jaintia Hills District, the Meghalaya Revenue Minister said. However, the Secretary, Revenue department, Assam government on October 15, 1966 informed the Chief Executive Member that in consideration of rapid development in the areas surrounding Guwahati town, the Assam government was treating these areas as urban areas for the purpose of revenue administration and has nothing to do with the interstate boundary dispute.