The Gauhati High Court questioned the scale and documentation behind a proposed allotment of about 3,000 bighas in Umrangso, Dima Hasao, for a cement factory. The court sought the policy and original decision records; it did not rule that the allotment was illegal or establish residents’ claims that they were being evicted from land they lawfully possessed.
What the court questioned
On 12 August 2025, the Gauhati High Court heard connected petitions concerning land intended for a proposed Mahabal Cement factory in Umrangso. In its written order, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi described the area sought to be allotted as about 3,000 bighas and said its scale appeared “extra ordinary.” The order does not convert that area into another land unit. Read the 12 August 2025 order.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Land Laws of Assam | $17.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
LAND LAWS OF ASSAM | $36.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
A History of Assam (Classic Reprint) | $24.85 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
No Land's People | $18.19 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
The Law | $7.58 | Buy on Amazon |
The headline phrase “Is this some kind of a joke or what?” was reported as an oral remark by Justice Medhi during the hearing; it is not wording from the written order. The Indian Express also reported that the allotments involved 2,000 bighas in October 2024 and an adjacent 1,000 bighas in November 2024. Those dates and the sequence are the newspaper’s account, while the court order describes the area as about 3,000 bighas. See the Indian Express report.
What the connected petitions say
The company’s position
The company filed a petition seeking protection in relation to construction activity. Its counsel submitted that the allotment followed a mining lease granted through a tender process. That was counsel’s account of the process, not a finding by the court that the allotment had been properly supported or completed.
#1 Best Overall
Residents’ allegations
In a connected petition, residents alleged that they were being evicted from land they lawfully possessed. The allegation is part of the dispute; the orders located do not establish their possession as a judicial finding.
Why the court sought the records
The court directed the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) to produce the policy records supporting the allotment. It placed that request in the context of Dima Hasao’s status as a Sixth Schedule district, observing that “the priority has to be given to the rights and interest of the tribal people residing there.” The order also described Umrangso as environmentally sensitive, referring to hot springs, migratory-bird stopovers and wildlife. Those concerns explain the court’s demand for the underlying records; they are not a finding that measurable environmental or displacement damage had occurred.
Rank #2
What happened after the August hearing
On 1 September 2025, the court said NCHAC had supplied photocopies of only some papers and reiterated that it wanted the original file containing the decision and policy. The State told the court that a three-member committee had examined the matter and submitted a report. The court noted that it had not directed that inquiry. Read the 1 September 2025 order.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Latest order located: 30 July 2026
In the latest order located, Justice Devashis Baruah directed the Revenue Officer, NC Hills, to file an affidavit stating whether the land allotted to the company was under another person’s occupation or cultivation. The affidavit was due by 14 August 2026, and the matters were listed again for 17 August 2026. The available order establishes those directions and dates, but not what happened at or after the listed hearing. Read the 30 July 2026 order.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Rank #3
What the orders establish—and what they do not
- The dispute concerns about 3,000 bighas in Umrangso connected to a proposed cement factory.
- The court sought the policy and original decision records behind the allotment, and later sought information on whether the land was occupied or cultivated.
- The company’s account of the tender and lease process and residents’ eviction allegations remain party positions in the orders described here.
- The orders located document procedural directions and concerns, not a final ruling on the allotment’s legality or the merits of the residents’ claims.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
