Hollongi airport compensation scam
Staff Reporter
ITANAGAR, 29 Apr: The Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court has directed the Papum Pare deputy commissioner to file an affidavit explaining under which provision of the law he had exercised the power to transfer the rehabilitation and resettlement money to the Chakma Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee (CRRC) instead of handing over the award to the 156 persons who have been displaced by the construction of the Hollongi airport.
The DC has to file the affidavit-in-opposition at least two days prior to the next date of listing, which is scheduled for 30 May.
The court further noted that a notice had been issued on 1 November, 2021, and till date the state respondents have not filled their affidavit-in-opposition. “The additional senior government lawyer has asked for more time to file affidavit-in-opposition in the matter,” it said.
The high court had further directed the chief secretary, the Papum Pare DC and the CRRC to submit their replies in three weeks in March this year.
According to the PIL “… with the connivance of the deputy commissioner, Papum Pare district, a sum of Rs 35,91,82,550, sanctioned for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of Chakma at Hollongi airport, involving 156 families, had been siphoned off, and that, instead of disbursing the award to the bank accounts of the various beneficiaries, the DC concerned transferred a sum of Rs 12,74,16,699 into the bank account of the CRRC through its president Bijoy Ranjan Chakma.
A further sum of Rs 5,46,07,157 was again transferred to his account, and it is alleged that no money has been transferred to the accounts of the beneficiaries. His counsel has submitted that, as per his instruction, a resolution was taken by the affected persons, and by virtue of the same, the money was transferred to Bijoy Ranjan Chakma.
Chakma has been asked through his lawyer to state whether they are “ready and willing to re-transfer the amount transferred to their account back to the deputy commissioner in the event that the court finds that the money was wrongly transferred.”
Earlier, the Arunachal Pradesh Chakma Students’ Union (APCSU), which prepared a fact-finding report on the Hollongi airport rehabilitation package, had alleged nexus between officials and the CRRC.
The students, quoting some of the displaced Chakmas, had said that each victim received Rs 25,000 as transport cost for shifting, against the sanctioned amount of Rs 50,000, besides about Rs 1 lakh cash assistance, while each house was constructed at the cost of Rs 4-6 lakhs, against the sanctioned amount of Rs 23.60 lakhs for each house. The victims were denied all other sanctioned facilities.
“CRRC president Bijoy Ranjan Chakma and its general secretary Shambhasur Chakma told the APCSU’s fact-finding team that, out of Rs 34 crores sanctioned for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the 156 displaced Chakmas, Rs 6.5 crores was deducted for electricity and water connection, Rs 7 crores was deducted for land filling and dressing, Rs 2.3 crores was deducted for bank charges/postal/transaction charges, and Rs 18.20 crores was received by the CRRC,” it said.
The fact-finding team stated that Rs 6.5 crores deducted for electricity and water connection, Rs 7 crores deducted for land filling and dressing, and Rs 2.3 crores deducted for bank charges/postal/transaction charges cannot be deducted from the amount exclusively meant for rehabilitation.
“Instead, the said amount should have been deducted from the fund allotted from the component, such as shifting of utilities or acquisition of land funds,” the union said.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 states that compensation amount has to be deposited into the bank account linked with the Aadhaar of each displaced person. The deputy commissioner failed to do so, and instead transferred the rehabilitation amount to the CRRC, which is illegal as per the Act, and the alleged embezzlement took place from the CRRC account, it said.
The Special Investigation Cell (SIC) had earlier stated that, “till date SIC has not conducted any enquiry or inquiry or investigation in the matter.”
