By Our Reporter
SHILLONG: The controversy surrounding Langpih took a new turn on Thursday after an RTI filed by CSWO revealed that the disputed site does not figure in the map of the State published in 2009.
The Meghalaya map which was published by the Survey of India under the direction of Surveyor General of India, Dehradun in 2009 has shown Langpih as a part of Assam.
The Survey of India map, however, contradicts with the map printed by the Joint Director Meghalaya Survey in 1979-80 which clearly indicates that Langpih is in Meghalaya.
This disparity in two separate maps has led to further confusion in determining the boundaries between Meghalaya and Assam.
Revealing this glaring disparity in the two maps on Thursday, CSWO president Agnes Kharshiing pointed out that the map prepared in 1979-80 clearly indicated Langpih, along the West Khasi Hills-Kamrup boundary, as an area within Meghalaya while the Block I and Block II areas were shown as “disputed.”
Interestingly, Kharshiing said that the map published in 2009 by the Survey of India showed that Langpih is in Assam.
Though Block I and Block II were mentioned as “disputed” in the 1979-80 map, the second map of 2009 did not mention that the two areas are ‘disputed’.
According to CSWO president, the map of 1979-80 was prepared as per Sub-Para (2) of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.
“The new map (2009) was published behind people’s back,” the CSWO president alleged.
The organization also has sought a clarification from Chief Secretary WMS Pariat in this regard.
“We would immediately request for a clarification from your end as to why the map has been changed keeping Langpih and certain areas out of Meghalaya. We also want answers as to under whose orders were these changes made?” the CSWO said in a letter to the Chief Secretary.
Stating that the state as a whole has been cheated by a team of IAS officers who should have been its guardians, the CSWO said that the people of the State look forward to a prompt reply from Pariat’s end so that “the rule of law can prevail and the State is not sold off by a few IAS officers for their own vested interests.”
