[ Amar Sangno ]
ITANAGAR, 17 Jul: The construction and upgrade of the defense-strategic road and National Highway Double Lanning (NHDL) on the Ditte-Dime-Migging (DDM) road in the border district of Upper Siang have been marred by a multi-crore land compensation scam.
The Special Investigation Cell (SIC) of the state’s vigilance department named 24 persons as accused, including six government employees, in its chargesheet filed on June 5, 2024.
SIC says that government staff conspired to loot the government coffers in the Ditte-Dime-Migging road land compensation scam.
Among the accused named in the SIC chargesheet are then DLRSO Nixon Danggen, Supervisor Kanungo (SK) Asang Modi, LDC-cum-computer operator Karick Lomi, Deputy Forest Ranger Kopang Takuk, Horticulture Field Assistant Yapang Tali, and Mandal of the Yingkiong Land Management dept Komi Takuk.
The SIC stated that these government staff orchestrated the looting of the government exchequer under the guise of land compensation, inflating amounts and falsifying facts in the Ground Assessment Sheets (GAS) and Final Assessment Sheets (FAS), resulting in excessive compensation payments in each package.
The SIC further claimed that loopholes and anomalies began with the five-member land compensation assessment board, handpicked from different departments but mostly non-gazetted officers, who conducted field inspections. Among the board members were Land Management department’s SK Asang Modi, Deputy Ranger Kopang Takuk, HFA Yingkoing Yapang Tali, Anong Nokar (representative of EAC Yingkoing) and Vivek Kshakya AEE(C) GO-512N, Col OC 105 RC GREF Yingkiong.
The state government constituted a Fact-Finding Committee (FFC)/Technical Board under the DC, Siang, headed by Boleng EAC S.E. Borang, to reassess the compensation assessment of the project mentioned. The Fact-Finding Committee documented significant irregularities and vast discrepancies in the assessment.
The FFC also concluded that major anomalies and irregularities led to heavy losses in the government exchequer, resulting in excessive payments of compensation amounting to Rs. 67,75,70,981 (Sixty-seven crore seventy-five lakhs seventy thousand nine hundred eighty-one). A total of Rs. 97,79,31,841 crore was disbursed to land compensation beneficiaries across all four packages.
The SIC conducted an extensive investigation led by its investigating officer inspector Techi Nega, who filed a chargesheet stating that Asang Modi hatched a well-planned scheme to benefit himself from the assessment. He initiated negotiations with local people in the affected area, inducing them to transfer plots to his spouse, Barok Bitin. He assured them of highly inflated assessments in return for their land, the SIC added.
The SIC also stated that Modi, along with other subordinate staff of the department of environment and forests, deputy ranger Kopang Takuk, and horticulture field assistant Yapang Tali of the horticulture department Yingkiong, conducted surveys along the entire stretch of the DDM road from Moying to Migging.
“It is noteworthy that the government’s partial approval letter on April 14, 2021, rejected the district administration’s proposal to include 10% solatium and 12% interest, as the land was being acquired under the Jhum Land Regulation Act-1947 and not under the LAR Act 2013. Furthermore, Office Memorandum No. LM-134/2011(Pt-I), dated May 2, 2021, also disallowed the amalgamation of these two Acts,” observed the SIC.
“In total defiance of the above government order, the district administration of Yingkiong incorporated provisions from Section 30 of the LAR Act 2013 for preparing the compensation assessment, leading to significant inflation of the final bill and causing substantial losses to the government exchequer,” said the SIC.
The state anti-graft agency also revealed that many assets listed in the Ground Assessment Sheets (GAS) for beneficiaries were arbitrarily increased in the Final Assessment Sheets (FAS), favoring them at the discretion of concerned government officials, resulting in exorbitant inflation of compensation amounts.
“Unclaimed, uneconomic, or unproductive terrain and community lands were depicted in the FAS as highly economical and owned by a few members of the assessment team or their direct relatives,” it added.
“Many beneficiaries were added to the Final Assessment Sheets who did not own any land at the site or belong to that locality. A few random spots with white chainages were selected and physically verified, revealing that none of the spots indicated in the GASs or FASs matched the original assets as reported on paper,” claimed the SIC.
“The investigation identified several beneficiaries whose plots did not fall within the land under acquisition according to the strip plan. Conversely, those whose lands were within the land acquisition were intentionally left out,” the SIC informed.
“It was also observed that most beneficiaries whose components were highly inflated were somehow linked to officials of the assessment team of the district administration Yingkiong,” added the investigating agency. The 96-km DDM road is funded by the Ministry of Defense and executed by the Border Roads Organisation, with a total budget of Rs. 1,236.1 crore. The scam came to light after a group of 45 land compensation beneficiaries, led by Teteng Pangkam of Moying village, filed a writ petition in July 2021 at the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar permanent bench, alleging “exorbitant and excessive compensation payments to individuals who do not own any land or assets in the Dite-Dime-Migging road from 0 KM to 191 KM across packages I, II, III, & IV.”
Taking cognizance of their writ petition, the High Court directed the state vigilance department to conduct a preliminary inquiry in September and subsequently Inspector B. Krong of the SIC conducted ground assessments in September 2021, submitting a preliminary inquiry report in October 2021.
Subsequently, the state government approved an inquiry on October 19, and the SIC registered a case the same day (SIC PS Case No. 09/2021 under sections 120(B), 409, 420, 471, 468 IPC read with sections 13(1)(a) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988). Interestingly, the petitioners withdrew the petition even before a regular case inquiry began.
