ITANAGAR, Dec 2: The All Papum Pare District Students’ Union (APPDSU) has demanded that the state government come clean on why the greenfield airport project is yet to take off despite the Gauhati High Court having, in March 2014, disposed of the case in favour of the state government to build the airport in Hollongi.
The HC had also, in June 2017, directed the Papum Pare Deputy Commissioner to ensure that the compensation on account of acquisition of land for the purpose is paid after proper verification is carried out.
In a press release, APPDSU President Nabam Tado on Saturday accused the state BJP and the PPA of creating a controversy over the project ‘by alleging preparation of an arbitrary compensation list and recommending to the then President of India that the airport in Lilabari (Assam) be upgraded instead’ during the tenure of the previous Congress Government. It also said the then Chief Secretary had in an official communiqué to the central government and the union civil aviation ministry described Hollongi as ‘Chakma land.’
‘All the public projects sanctioned and started during the previous Congress government’s tenure are dying a natural death in Papum Pare district due to non-funding and lack of proper monitoring and initiative on the part of the present government,’ Tado stated.
The union also condemned the AAPSU ‘for giving immature statement against the affected landowners at the airport project, accusing them of creating land compensation controversy, and asking them to donate their land free of cost.’
It said there is no question of the affected landowners creating any problem, and that they have been notified for claims and objections under the state government’s Land Acquisition and Compensation & Rehabilitation Policy.
Advising the AAPSU to not play with the sentiments of the landowners ‘without doing proper homework,’ the APPDSU said the landowners have already been victimized by the project since 2014, and that if they are not compensated for their loss, they might file a petition against the state government, claiming damages, ‘which will further enhance the compensation cost of the project and delay the project as they are unable to use or sell their land because of the prohibitory order issued by district administration.’
