Meghalaya govt drops land bank provision from Investment Promotion Bill amid public pressure

Shillong, March 15: The Meghalaya government has rolled back a controversial provision on land acquisitions from the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion and Facilitation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, following sustained public pressure and criticism from opposition leaders.

The state assembly on Thursday unanimously adopted an amendment to remove the clause on land banks before passing the bill.

The decision comes after weeks of protests from civil society groups and opposition parties, who raised concerns over the potential misuse of land acquisition powers under the Act.

Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma, while moving the amendment, acknowledged the concerns expressed by stakeholders. He stated that despite previous modifications to Section 34, public apprehensions persisted, prompting the government to introduce another amendment.

"We are here to listen to the concerns of the people without compromising the broader objective of investment," Sangma said. "Hence, we have moved this amendment to delete the words in Subsection 3 of Section 4, Clause 1, which states, ‘Creation of land banks through direct purchase of land or other means.’”

He assured that the Meghalaya Investment Promotion Agency (MIPA) would not engage in land purchases, land bank creation, or any system facilitating land transfer or leasing. Instead, its role would be limited to investment facilitation, strictly adhering to existing rules and regulations.

The amendment follows weeks of public outcry, particularly from civil society groups like the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU). Concerns centered on fears that land acquisitions under MIPA could lead to displacement and erosion of tribal land rights.

In a letter to KSU president Lambokstarwell Marngar, Commissioner and Secretary of the Home (Political) Department, Cyril V. Diengdoh, reassured that the government had taken the KSU’s suggestions into account. He clarified that the MIPFA would not override the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, or any laws governing the Autonomous District Councils.

However, Leader of Opposition Mukul Sangma slammed the government’s move, calling it a “reactionary amendment” rather than a well-planned decision. He accused the government of failing to anticipate public backlash before introducing the bill.

"This discussion to bring the amendment was not done prior to tabling this proposed amendment for consideration of this House," Sangma said.

He also took issue with the original phrasing of the bill, particularly the clause that allowed land acquisition through “direct purchase or other means”—a phrase he argued was too vague and open to misuse.

"How will you define these 'other means'?" he questioned, warning that such loosely defined provisions could allow arbitrary land acquisitions that bypass tribal land protections.

Sangma further called for a mandatory Social Impact Assessment (SIA) before any land acquisition, citing past cases where tribal land had been taken for projects without adequate safeguards or fair compensation.

Supporting the amendment, UDP MLA Balajied Rani highlighted the sensitivity of land issues in Meghalaya. However, he expressed concerns over Section 39 of the bill, which provides legal immunity to government officials executing the Act.

"I find this section particularly intriguing. Under the Constitution, only the President and the Governor enjoy such protection under Article 361. My appeal to the government is to review this provision with due consideration," Rani said.

He urged the government to hold further discussions while framing the rules for the Act to ensure public concerns are effectively addressed.

Chief Minister Sangma assured that the government would engage with stakeholders while drafting the rules under the Act.

"There is significant scope for discussion. As we formulate rules under this Act, we will engage with stakeholders to address concerns," he said.

Reiterating that the bill is purely for investment promotion, Sangma assured that no land would be acquired or transferred to private entities under the Act.

The amendment marks a significant victory for civil society activism in Meghalaya, demonstrating the impact of public pressure on government policies. With the controversial land bank provision now removed, attention will shift to the formulation of rules under the Act and how they address public concerns.