|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jan 28, 2014 13:11:04 GMT 5.5
I heard from various sources that the owners of the (agricultural) land marked for state acquisition for the proposed the timber park project met on the Kakching Model High School premises. However, I received no information as to the topics on the agenda and what resolutions they adopted, etc. I heard they are against their land being acquired by the state. If anybody among us knows about the project in detail, would you kindly enlighten us about that? Probably, Prakash Kumar (Laishrem Prakash?) must be the person most knowledgeable about the project among us. And I think tamo rajivkshetri probably knows about the landowners' meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by Ajit Naorem on Jan 28, 2014 18:48:15 GMT 5.5
Lengba-Laijing Loukon committee, Kakching called a meeting at SESU ground sumak leikai, This committee discussed about Govt. of Manipur Secretariate Revenue Dept. Notification No. 4/20/LA/2012-COM(Rev) about the 2nd phase Land acquisition for Timber Park Project.
Each and every speaker express their unwillingness to acquire the said land.
Press Release of the committee I insert below:
The meeting was preside over by N. Thagoi Singh, (Makha Leikai) President of the committee. This 2nd phase notification affected about 55 lou paries. Finally it is resolved that to submit an objection letter to concern officers, contribution of fund form each members, to consult a advocate for future action. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Lalit Pukhrambam on Jan 28, 2014 21:25:30 GMT 5.5
I read a few months back in 2013 that it is going to be converted to a multipurpose park, not just a Timber Park, in view of multiple business models and opportunities presenting with the Look East Policy. Manipur, as well Kakching, is in a phase of growing pains from a small town to adjusting to the global community and business interactions. It is going to be a challenge for the traditional ways and economic methods, - agriculture, business, traditions, incorporating multinational corporations, etc. What do the locals get out of all these developmental works in the name of progress and modernization? Policy makers and politicians and their planner should explain the benefits of such a plan to the community as a whole beyond individual loss and gain. Adequate compensations to the landowners - at present land price as well as future projections of the land at list up to 5 years value down the road - should be considered/given. Some 1891 Act and its land value as compensation is robbing the land owners of its living day light.
Since I do not have details of the project and affected land-owners conditions, I can't comment on this issue as such at the moment. Nonetheless, the Government has the power to acquire private land in the name/benefit of Public Interest with whatever compensation they determine under their existing rules and regulations. So, if the Government plans to go ahead with the Park at the proposed site, they will do it unless there is a better alternative. Manipur being a small land and having very little agricultural land, the Government should try to preserve good/productive agricultural land as much as possible.
I will have to wait and see what is the plan of the Government and locals reactions. Nonetheless, there will be a need for the Govt and local affected land-owners to sit down, explain each side's positions clearly and adequately/frequently. That is my take at this issue as of today. Good luck to all sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ajit Naorem on Jan 29, 2014 10:20:26 GMT 5.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jan 29, 2014 15:34:01 GMT 5.5
The document shared by tamo Ajit Naorem is a bit informative, but as the watermark “CONCEPT NOTE” indicates, it does not seem to provide the details we want to know. Probably they don’t have it. What I’ve gathered from the 6 page document is summarily this: India’s total forest cover of about 67 m. ha. forms 20% of the country total land area. “Around 95% of the forest is classified as tropical” with relatively low productivity due partly to degradation over large areas. Thus, our domestic sources cannot satisfy our demand for industrial wood. We, therefore, import wood. The imports are in an unprocessed form, mainly as logs.
Myanmar is India’s main wood importer, and Indian market forms the destination for about 70-80% of Myanmar’s total timber export. Manipur is connected with Myanmar through land route, and the proposed Timber Park is 60 km from the border of Myanmar. Value addition is to be done in the Timber Park. This will make wood available in India as raw material during all seasons.
The estimated cost is Rs. 2,315 lakhs. The Government of Manipur’s share is 215 lakhs, which is 9.29% of the whole project. The rest of the share is to be owned by the NEC. I don’t know the technical/legal limitations of a state government holding the major stake in inter-national undertakings, and whether or not the state government can own a significant portion of the share (so a corresponding amount of the profit share flows into its coffer—yes, there is always a state share in national profit, to think broadly), but 9.29% looks really insignificant. While the state profit does not seem quite interesting, the project, as far as we know from the information we have so far have, does not seem so threatening to the Kakching community as it looked. Yes, the farmers owning that patch of land will lose their land resource (if you have an enough piece of land, you don’t at least starve while landless people can starve, in rare extreme cases—you put any seed in the soil, the soil and the seed will do the rest of the job, and you’ll reap the crop), and the surplus crop the piece of land used to produce and those who required that bought will no more be there in the same form, with the land’s productivity and products will have changed. One thing I don’t know is this: Is the land valuation at Rs. 300,000 per acre OK ( p.6 above)? (Yes, the problem the farmers having with this project may not be about the size of compensation.) The project planners may not have more details to give the public except the technical project implementation details which the general public will neither understand nor be interested in. |
|
|
|
Post by Ajit Naorem on Jan 29, 2014 16:23:00 GMT 5.5
 Centre nods to timber park
IMPHAL, Jan 28: The Government of India has given its approval to establishment of a timber park at Kakching Kuraopokpi. In the meantime, a team of Rajya Sabha MPs belonging to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce would be visiting Imphal tomorrow. According to an official source, the Ministry of Commerce gave its consent to the State Government’s proposal for establishing a timber park after a meeting was held in the Prime Minister’s office on January 6 on promotion of Indo-Myanmar border trade. The Ministry has even suggested the State Government to incorporate a skill development training centre inside the timber park which would be run with timbers imported from Myanmar. The Ministry’s letter of approval also laid down that the timber park should be operated within the guidelines given by the Supreme Court. The Ministry also sought a detail report about the proposed timber park from the State Government.Notably, the State Government has already acquired 400 acres of land at Kakching Kuraopokpi and has declared the same area as special economic zone. Meanwhile, 19 Rajya Sabha MPs of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce led by Virendra Prasad Vaishya would land at Imphal on three-day visit to the State. The team would interact with officials of Handloom and Handicraft, Chamber of Commerce, Corporation, entrepreneurs and other State Government officials. |
|
|
|
Post by Ajit Naorem on Jan 29, 2014 17:23:48 GMT 5.5
Body urges for withdrawal of proposed Timber Park
The Chandel District Naga-Kuki Joint Committee (CDNKJC), in a memorandum has urged to withdraw the proposal for setting up of a Timber Park under Special Economic Zones for multi-products in Aimol, Maring, Kuki Molnoi area and Pallel in Chandel district.
Briefing media, Convener of CDNKJC Ws Kanral said, “Considering the adverse impact of the Timber Park, which the Govt. had proposed to set up in Chandel district, the CDNKJC, on behalf of the affected villages, had submitted a memorandum to protest the setting up of the park.”
The memorandum which was jointly signed by co-convener of the CDNKJC Chungthang Zou and Secretary of CDNKJC Sr Joningam has been submitted to the Minister of Revenue, Commerce and Industries; Chairman HAC; MLA of 41 and 42 A/C; DC Chandel and Thoubal for necessary action.
The convener also informed the Chief Minister has been apprised of the impact the proposed park will cause on surrounding villages and its inhabitants particularly the arable lands in village no 49, 50, 51 and 52.
He further stated that the memorandum pointed out 18 recognized villages in Molnoi area, 11 villages in Aimol areas, 28 villages in Maring areas and about 200 houses of both Meiteis and Tribals that would be affected if the park is to be set up.
Ws Kanral also informed that a meeting of former members, social workers, intellectuals and sympathizers of the Committee will be held on February 5 at Khukarthil village community hall at 10:00 am to deliberate on certain agendas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jan 29, 2014 17:35:11 GMT 5.5
Tamo Ajit Naorem, does the park proposed in these Chandel District areas also form part of the Timber Park at Kakching?  Do you have a rough picture of the areas to be covered by this project? Probably you can highlight them on Google Earth map. |
|
|
|
Post by rameshwar singh on Jan 29, 2014 22:04:35 GMT 5.5
Can anybody upload the list of the affected farmers in the II-phase of acquisition and also the area map.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Feb 4, 2014 7:29:53 GMT 5.5
I hear a Judicial Magistrate among us, Somorjit Yengkhom, knows quite substantially about this project. I believe he has a lot to enlighten us about this here--at least the details of the project (probably those the public can understand, if not more). I don't really know whether the project is really such a threat to general people beyond the fact that the (agricultural, not residential) land marked will be acquired for this purpose by the state from their civil/private holders that we have heard some dissident voices both in Kakching and at Pallel. At the same time, the government must have planned this project after much consideration and several consultations at several levels, which means that this project must not be something that can be scrubbed right off as "thoughtless" or "selfish". What do you want to say about this in this specific case--either to the government or to the people, or to both? And it would be very much appropriate if you tell us what you think in general about such issues of some rising against developments projects/proposals. One example can be farmers' protest against the expansion of Tulihal Airport. |
|
|
|
Post by Somorjit Yengkhom on Feb 5, 2014 20:30:31 GMT 5.5
Thank u brother Thoithoi for dragging me into this GD in which our most erudite Tamo Lalit also participates. I dont kv much knowledge abt the project details; I, however, was associated with one one of the parties/stakeholders on account of my past status as an Advocate and subsequently as a MCS officer. Land Acquisition Act, which was recently amended on the pressure of global demand to protect the right to livelihood of poor peasants after some landmark judgments by the Apex Court, is something very close to my area of concern as an advocate and also as a civil servant, though of short period, in Government of Manipur specially when I was attached to the office of DC, Thoubal. What I mean to say is that I m neutral about the initiative undertaken by Industries Department at the instance of Hon'ble MLA and I did give my legal advice to the landowners with a view to strike a balance between purely development projects in and around Kakching Town and the probable damages likely to be caused to the rightful landowner around Koraopokpi area where the project is to be erected and my views are purely professional...malice towards none. BUT One thing is for sure that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Government is too low and discriminatory in terms of market values. The new amended Act had specifically inserted a new clause stating that any land acquisition process which has not reached the stage of pronouncement of award of compensation shall be abandoned and the claimants may claim four times the amount fixed in the earlier acquisition process.. In this context, a right and an opportunity has been accrued to the landowners. I personally feel that our local MLA should put his time and energy to ventilate the grievances of the landowners. It will be a win-win situation for a public leader elected by people for a specified tenure...I wish the slumbering souls are awaken...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Feb 6, 2014 5:11:35 GMT 5.5
That sheds much light on the solid facts. Thanks oja Somorjit Yengkhom. There is no doubt that any other sensible and reasonable person would have done not less than what you have done--that's the most sensible and reasonable thing to have done. Well, if it's not confidential at the moment, what exactly do you think makes the landowners reluctant? I personally don't think the idea of the park is really, inherently bad (I don't know whether it's good or very good--I've yet to know more about this), if the compensation is reasonably good (though compensation is undoubtedly not the only thing to be factored). Is the "quantum of compensation fixed by the Government" which is "too low" a major factor in the landholders' protest? Isn't the acquisition to be done according to the latest Land Acquisition Act? The value of land must surely differ from location to location, but how much more can we put over the government's compensation offer for the land concerned? I have no knowledge about our acquisition acts (old and new), but common sense seems to tell me that the government (rather than buy cheap) should even pay more if the land they are going to acquire is a source of subsistence for the landholder so he/she can re-establish his/her source of income/subsistence somewhere else. Resettlement demands a lot of the person, financially, mentally and socially, and thus the law should take these things into account. Do you think these are too much to demand of the law? If it would not be inconvenient--for whatever reason, be it complexity, length, your time availability, and so on--would you kindly enlighten us of the relevant part (articles) of the latest Land Acquisition Act--just the relevant part, to shed more light on the issue at hand--the Timber Park Project? |
|
