Manipur tribal bodies oppose revised land transfer rules

After United Naga Council (UNC), more tribal bodies in Manipur registered strong objection to the recent Manipur government’s notification on land sale, purchase and registration.
The Manipur government, in a notification issued on September 18, notified the standardized procedure for the sale, purchase, and subsequent registration of land within the state, effective immediately.
The Anal Naga Taangpi (ANTA), an apex body of the Anal tribe of Manipur expressed its grave concern over the recent development of the Manipur government.
In a statement, ANTA stated that being a member of the tribal communities, the Anal are protected under Article 371C of the Constitution of India and stated that it condemned the notification concerning the sale, purchase and registration of land in Manipur at the strongest term.
It stated that Article 371C was specifically enshrined in the Constitution to safeguard the distinct identity, customs, and above all, the traditional land ownership rights of the tribal people of Manipur’s hill areas.
“This provision recognizes that the hill areas and the tribal communities residing therein have unique customs and land tenure systems that must be preserved and protected against alienation and exploitation.”
Since time immemorial both the monarchs and colonialists left the village administration to the traditional tribal authority, the ANTA pointed out.
Even from the historical evidence, it is evident that the Raja of Manipur claimed absolute ownership of all lands within his territory i.e. the valley area from the earliest time and collected land revenue, it claimed.
On the other hand, the colonial authority introduced indirect rule under which the British did not administer the hill tribes directly or interfere into the internal affairs of tribal villages. In this regard, in 1947 Maharaja of Manipur made two important legislations called the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 for the valleys and the hill areas were separately administered as per a set of rules known as Hill Peoples’ Regulation Act 1947.
The hill areas were at no point of time under the administration of the Raja of Manipur. Hence, the administration was carried on to the tune of the hill peoples’ aspirations and their age-old traditional practices, the ANTA claimed.
The recent notification, by attempting to impose a standardized land transaction procedure uniformly across the state, including the hill areas, blatantly violates the spirit and letter of Article 371C, the ANTA alleged.
It undermined the autonomy of the Hill Areas Committee and disregards the customary laws and traditional practices through which tribal communities have governed and maintained their land for generations, it added.
The United Naga Council (UNC), the apex body of Naga tribes in Manipur has also urged Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla to cancel a recent notification, saying it contravenes constitutional safeguards for the hill areas and threatens the traditional tribal landholding system.
In a memorandum submitted to the Governor, the UNC alleged that the September 18 notification undermined the provisions of Article 371C of the Constitution, which vests all scheduled matters relating to the hill areas under the Hill Areas Committee (HAC).
The UNC asserted that the order of the HAC was promulgated in 1972 by then President VV Giri and remains in force.
At the same time, the tribal land in the hill areas of Manipur is governed by customary practices, with ownership resting in individuals, clans, chiefs, or communities.
Only certain stretches in Moreh, Churachandpur, Chandel, and Khoupum valley fall under the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, it said.
“There is no law that governs the sale of tribal lands in the hill areas. Making the notification applicable across Manipur without reference to Article 371C is unconstitutional and illegal,” the UNC stated in the memorandum.
The apex body warned of potential “social upheavals and unrest” if the notification is implemented without considering tribal rights while calling the Governor to intervene and direct the land resources department to revisit the policy in line with constitutional provisions.