A serious legal row has erupted in Assam’s Dima Hasao district following the filing of a formal complaint at Haflong Police Station against the Secretary (Revenue In-Charge) of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC), bringing allegations of forgery and misuse of official records into sharp focus.
The complaint accuses Uttam Daolagupu of committing grave criminal offences, including forging documents, fabricating false evidence and presenting allegedly forged records before the Gauhati High Court. At the centre of the controversy is an alleged attempt to mislead the judiciary by submitting manipulated documents related to land allotment in Umrangso.
According to the complainants, a letter dated December 10, 1998, was fabricated to falsely indicate that close to 6,000 bighas of land had been allotted to the Industry Department. This document, they claim, was produced before the High Court to support assertions regarding the disputed land, raising concerns of deliberate misrepresentation in judicial proceedings.
The complaint further alleges that the accused validated the disputed letter by filing an Additional Affidavit-in-Opposition and annexing it as official evidence before the court. The complainants contend that such actions attract stringent provisions of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 340, 471 and 420, which deal with offences relating to false evidence, the use of forged documents and cheating.
Adding weight to the allegations, sworn affidavits from former senior NCHAC functionaries, including a former Chief Executive Member and a former Executive Member (Revenue), have reportedly rejected the authenticity of the document in question. They have categorically stated that the signatures appearing on the letter are forged and have asserted that no approval or execution of such a land allotment ever took place.
The complainants maintain that, as the custodian of official records, the Revenue Secretary either directly fabricated the document or knowingly relied on false records to mislead the court and the public, amounting to an abuse of official authority.
The complaint also refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah (2005), emphasising that a police investigation is legally permissible as the alleged forgery predates the initiation of court proceedings.
Police officials have confirmed that the complaint has been received and said the matter will be examined in accordance with the law, with further investigation to follow.
