Nagaland
,
Dimapur
,
Dimapur
Published :
Jun 2024
|
Updated :
Dispute between two market committees over illegal construction in Dimapur New Market's public footpath
Reported by
Emilo Yanthan
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People affected
2024
Year started
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
2024
Year started
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Encroachment by Non-Right Holders (Other than Caste-based)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Encroachment by Non-Right Holders (Other than Caste-based)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

An illegal construction of shops at a walkway for pedestrians at New Market in Nagaland's Dimapur has sparked a tussle between two market committees - New Municipal Building Watch Committee (NMBWC) and New Market Business Owners Association (NMBOA).

The Business Welfare Committee alleged that the Gaon Bura (village headman) of New Market erected a structure without authorisation, presumably for financial gain. The body claimed that Abdul Kayum Talukdar, was unlawfully spearheading the current developmental project. Talukdar was shot dead by unidentified armed miscreants on 7 June 2024. As of now, the motive behind the murder is unclear and the police have launched a combing operation to apprehend the culprits.

Earlier, several shopkeepers raised grievances with the Business Welfare Committee concerning the illicit activity. Following which, the NMBWC submitted a letter to the Dimapur Municipal Corporation (DMC).

Upon reaching out to DMC administrator, W Manpai Phom, the NMBWC was informed that neither any group nor individuals had been authorised by the DMC to undertake such construction endeavors. After verification, Mughato said that the ongoing construction was illegally constructed by Talukdar.

Despite assurances of a response within two days, the unauthorised construction persisted. NMBWC elaborated that an official from the DMC also visited the site for verification. However it was claimed that the construction continued.  

Meanwhile, the other market committee New Market Business Owners Association (NMBOA) stated that the structure in question serves as a temporary market space within the westside complex, intended for vendors. The NMBOA stated that the old building in western side was demolished due to the construction of a new building. Consequently, shopkeepers found themselves displaced, prompting the DMC to issue relocation orders. Several shopkeepers and vendors were relocated however, due to constraints, some shopkeepers and vendors were unable to secure alternate spaces for relocation. The NMBOA took the initiative to establish temporary market stalls to accommodate these vendors.

Although no official directive was received, the NMBOA asserts that a verbal agreement was reached with the SDO (Sub-Divisional Officer) regarding the construction of these temporary stalls. Further, the NMBOA mentioned that despite their request for the NMBWC to procure an administrative order prior to commencing demolition, the NMBWC independently initiated the process. Furthermore, NMBOA claimed that Abdul Kayum Talukdar had no involvement in the construction of the temporary allocation.

The NMBOA claimed that the NMBWC apprehended two workers at the construction site and even seized one mobile phone. Conversely, the NMBWC refuted the allegation, asserting that they did not seize the phone but rather it fell when the workers fled. Upon inquiry, the workers indicated that the phone belonged to the head worker. NMBWC retained possession of the phone with the intention of talking to the headworker when he collects the phone from them.

The administrator of DMC clarified that they received the complaint from NMBWC and to that the administrator claimed that NMBWC was informed that the process would likely require 1-2 days; however, regrettably, the demolition took place the following day. The DMC administrator further conveyed that the issue remains under investigation, and any necessary action will be determined based on the findings.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for better access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Government or community-regulated urban commons

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Dimapur Municipal Council, District Administration of Dimapur, Police Department, Dimapur

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

New Market Business Welfare Committee (NMBWC), New Market Business Owners Association (NMBOA) 

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Emilo R. Yanthan

Emilo is pursuing her PhD in Political Science at the North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong. Her primary research areas include human and land rights and gender issues.

Show more work
Latest updates
East Jaintia Hills
Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela
Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja
Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan
Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai
Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune
Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat
Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for better access to common land/resources

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Government or community-regulated urban commons

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us