The Gauhati High Court, in its hearing last week, made scathing remarks over the allotment of 3,000 bighas of land (roughly 4 square kilometres) in Dima Hasao district to Mahabal Cement Private Limited for the establishment of a cement factory. The court, while hearing two petitions related to the allotment, including one by locals alleging eviction from their land, expressed strong disapproval over what it termed as an “extraordinary” grant of land in a Sixth Schedule tribal region.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, reacting to the disclosure by the company’s counsel that 3,000 bighas had been allotted, was visibly incredulous.
“3,000 bighas! What is going on? 3,000 bighas allotted to a private company? What kind of decision is this? Is this some kind of joke or what?” he observed in open court.
The bench directed the state to furnish the policy under which such a large allotment had been made and sought the records of the process followed by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) and the state revenue department.
The court went further to emphasise the unique constitutional and environmental sensitivities of the region. Dima Hasao, being under the Sixth Schedule, enjoys special protections intended to safeguard the land and rights of tribal communities. Additionally, the Umrangso area, where the land is located, is widely known as an ecological hotspot, featuring hot springs, migratory bird stopovers, and rich biodiversity.
The order explicitly noted that any industrial activity in such an area must be weighed against the rights of indigenous inhabitants and the need to preserve fragile ecosystems.
The bench also reminded the state government of the extraordinary size of the allotment, demanding to know whether such a decision was consistent with established policy. While counsel for Mahabal Cement argued that the allotment was made pursuant to a mining lease under a tender process, the court maintained that the sheer scale of 3,000 bighas warranted closer scrutiny.
On the face of it, the concerns raised by the court appear grounded in constitutional protections, environmental responsibility, and the principle of safeguarding tribal interests. However, a closer look at industrial norms and the economic context suggests that the High Court’s assessment is alarmist, even misplaced. By focusing narrowly on the figure of 3,000 bighas, the judgment risks ignoring both precedent and the realities of large-scale industrial projects.
Why 3,000 bighas is not “extraordinary”
At first glance, 3,000 bighas, around 4 sq km, may sound like a massive tract of land. But when placed in context, the scale becomes entirely ordinary for the cement industry. Cement plants are uniquely land-intensive because they rely on captive limestone mines. Unlike a factory that can operate on a few acres of industrial estate, cement plants require secure and sustained access to limestone deposits, which means that leases for hundreds of hectares are the industry norm.
A comparison helps. In Himachal Pradesh, the state government allotted a limestone mining lease of 324.479 hectares, equivalent to nearly 2,500 bighas, for 50 years to a cement company. That project produces around 5,000 metric tonnes of cement per day. Mahabal Cement’s project in Assam, by contrast, is backed by a proposed investment of ₹11,000 crore. Such a scale of investment naturally requires even larger raw material reserves to ensure viability over decades.
Seen this way, the 3,000 bighas allotted in Dima Hasao is not extraordinary but entirely consistent with industry requirements. Without sufficient limestone reserves secured through land allotments of this size, a cement plant of such scale would be economically unfeasible.
Less than 0.1% of district land
The court’s shock also misses a crucial geographical reality. Dima Hasao district spans 4,900 sq km. The 4 sq km allotted to Mahabal Cement is less than 0.1% of the district’s area. It is implausible to suggest that such a fractional allotment fundamentally undermines either the land rights of tribals or the ecological balance of the region.
Even if we focus narrowly on Umrangso, the region already hosts multiple quarrying and cement activities. Limestone and coal mining are well-established industries there, with existing cement factories operating for years. The allotment to Mahabal Cement must be seen as a continuation of that industrial base, not as some unprecedented diversion of land.
Precedents of larger allotments
Historical precedents show that governments across India have routinely granted even larger parcels of land for mining leases connected to cement production. Mining leases of 300–400 hectares (upwards of 2,500 bighas) are standard practice, as the Himachal Pradesh example illustrates. In Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh, land allotments for limestone mines connected to cement plants have often exceeded these numbers.
By singling out the 3,000 bigha allotment as “extraordinary,” the Gauhati High Court risks creating an impression of arbitrariness that does not align with industrial realities. Such impressions can be damaging, particularly when Assam has been aggressively courting investors through summits like Advantage Assam 2.0. If projects promised during such platforms are later subjected to judicial ridicule, it undermines investor confidence and discourages future capital inflows.
Economic stakes of the project
Mahabal Cement signed an MoU earlier this year pledging an ₹11,000 crore investment in Assam, and the implications of this go far beyond the headline number. A project of this scale promises multi-dimensional benefits for the state and local communities. Cement plants are major employers, both directly and indirectly, and this one is expected to create thousands of jobs spanning mining operations, plant management, logistics, and ancillary services. The revenue impact is equally significant, with lease payments, mineral royalties, GST, and corporate taxes flowing into both the state exchequer and the autonomous council, strengthening public finances.
Such a large plant will also necessitate supporting infrastructure in the form of roads, power supply, and housing, which will have lasting benefits for surrounding communities. In addition, ancillary industries, small businesses, and service providers inevitably emerge around such projects, triggering a multiplier effect across the local economy. To jeopardize such a transformative investment over the perception that 3,000 bighas is “too much” land is to overlook the enormous developmental gains it could bring.
Addressing the court’s concerns
None of this is to suggest that tribal rights or environmental considerations should be ignored. The Sixth Schedule is a constitutional safeguard, and ecological preservation is vital. But these are not mutually exclusive with industrial development. What is required is a framework of safeguards to ensure that the project is implemented responsibly. The state should make the allotment process fully transparent, if the lease was indeed granted through a competitive tender, the details must be placed in the public domain to dispel any doubts.
For local residents who may be displaced, proper rehabilitation and compensation must be guaranteed, alongside priority in employment opportunities at the plant itself. Environmental safeguards, too, must be non-negotiable, with strict compliance under the Environment Protection Act and regular audits to monitor ecological impact.
Fact-Check: No, Gauhati HC’s remarks don’t concern Adani Group
The High Court’s remarks have also sparked a storm of misinformation online. Some Congress-supporting social media handles, such as @Tarunspeakss, claimed, “Himanta is literally bulldozing Muslim colonies in the name of illegal encroachment but has 3000 bighas to give to Adani. Even the judge is shocked.”
The official handle of CPI(M) alleged, “3,000 bighas handed to Adani – 14,000 tribal families face displacement! ‘Na khauga, na khane dunga’ is nothing but Adani raj!”
In fact, social media is rife with claims that the Gauhati HC has rebuked the Assam government for allotting the land to the Adani Group, with the Congress ecosystem working overtime to mislead users into believing it was the Adani Group that had gotten the 3,000 bighas of land in Assam.
However, these claims are patently false. The company in question is Mahabal Cement Private Limited, a Kolkata-registered firm. It has no ownership link, stake, or connection whatsoever to the Adani Group.
Adani Group issues statement rubbishing malicious rumours
The Adani Group itself issued a statement clarifying: “It has come to our notice that certain news reports, social media posts and clips from court hearings are being circulated, claiming that the Assam Government has allotted 3000 bighas in Dima Hasao to the Adani Group for a cement plant. We categorically state that these reports and references are baseless, false and misleading.”
“Linking the Adani name to Mahabal Cement is mischievous. Mahabal Cement is not related to, owned by or connected with the Adani Group in any manner whatsoever. We strongly urge members of the media, digital platforms and the public to verify facts before making or sharing such claims,” the statement further said.
Gauhati HC’s critical remarks misplaced, 3000 bighas of land for mining less than industry norms
The Gauhati High Court’s critical remarks stem from a legitimate concern for tribal rights and environmental protection. Yet, in branding the 3,000 bigha allotment as “extraordinary” and questioning whether it is “some kind of joke,” the court risks missing the larger picture. For a project of ₹11,000 crore involving cement production, such a land size is neither unusual nor excessive; it is the industry norm.
More importantly, the land in question represents less than 0.1% of Dima Hasao’s total area. Previous allotments for cement mining leases in India have been of comparable or larger magnitude. The potential benefits in terms of jobs, infrastructure, and revenue are immense.
The real challenge is not the number “3,000 bighas” but how the state ensures that this industrial push respects local communities and ecological balance. By framing the debate around sensational numbers, the court risks undermining investment sentiment and turning a developmental opportunity into a needless controversy.
And as the fact-check makes clear, dragging unrelated corporate names into the debate only adds to public confusion. The focus should remain where it belongs: on balancing development with safeguards, not on fuelling misinformation.
