In the Daistong village of Meghalaya’s East Jaintia Hills, the proposal to establish an Integrated Cement Plant by Shree Cement Limited has stirred controversy, with local residents and pressure groups alleging illegal land transfer and procedural violations in the public hearing.
Public opposition intensified on 19 December 2025 when the Jaintia National Council (JNC), along with residents of Daistong and nearby villages, organised a big protest outside the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Khliehriat. Hundreds of people gathered, holding placards reading “Shree Cement Go Back” and “Daistong Land Is Not Factory Land,” while raising slogans like “Dai thaw beain, ngi pyrshah,” meaning “selling land illegally, we protest.”
The issue first surfaced after Shree Cement proposed setting up an integrated cement plant at Khara Siang Lum Pyrshin in Daistong, with a planned clinker capacity of 0.95 million tonnes per annum and cement capacity of 0.99 million tonnes per annum. According to documents, 61.97 acres of land were purchased at ₹4 lakh per acre through an agreement dated 6 October 2025. The agreement states that the buyer, Bharat Sharma, holds absolute possession of the land and that no future claims related to agricultural loss or the establishment of the cement plant will be raised.
Soon after these details became public, the JNC raised objections, stating that the land transaction violated the Meghalaya Transfer of Land Regulation Act, 1971, which prohibits the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals without statutory approval from competent authorities and the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council. The JNC also alleged that the company’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, submitted to the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) on 19 November 2025, lacked essential documents, including Autonomous District Council approval, mutation records, and permissions under the 1971 Act.
The JNC Central Executive Committee submitted a memorandum to East Jaiñtia Hills Deputy Commissioner Shivansh Awasthi, demanding a detailed inquiry and calling for the suspension of the MSPCB-scheduled public hearing. JNC president Sambormi Lyngdoh argued that the project also violated the EIA Notification, 2006, and the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion Facilitation Act, 2024, which, he said, does not override existing land protection laws. He further criticised the MSPCB for proceeding with the hearing without verifying land ownership. “We demand an immediate inquiry into the land chain of title, the authenticity of documents, and directions to the MSPCB and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to halt the public hearing,” Lyngdoh said.
The Deputy Commissioner assured the delegation that the matter would be brought to the attention of higher authorities and that a written response would be provided.
At the protest site on 19 December, speakers—including village elders, community leaders, and JNC representatives—declared that community land could not be handed out for industrial purposes without their free, informed, and collective consent.
On the day of the public hearing at Madan Mooki in Daistong, members of pressure groups and local residents opposing the project alleged that they were forcibly prevented from reaching the venue. Protesters said that heavy dump trucks were parked across the road and that hundreds of individuals, allegedly hired by the company, formed a human blockade nearly 500 metres from the site. According to the JNC, villagers who attempted to pass through were stopped by unidentified masked men, some of whom were allegedly carrying weapons and appeared intoxicated.
Lyngdoh said the blockade violated the EIA Notification, 2006, which guarantees citizens the right to participate in public hearings. “India’s Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to appear, speak, and express their concerns at a public hearing, especially those directly affected”, he said. He further alleged that some residents of Daistong were physically assaulted while trying to reach the venue.
As a result of the blockade, only 114 people attended the public hearing, and no representatives of the opposing groups were able to participate. Four representatives from Nongkhlieh Elaka spoke in support of the cement plant. The Doloi of Elaka Nongkhlieh, Na-O Sukhlain, said villagers would benefit from employment opportunities. Other Elaka functionaries stated that while coke oven plants had caused pollution in the past, they believed the cement company would follow environmental norms.
The hearing was chaired by MSPCB Environmental Engineer Y F Laloo and attended by Deputy Commissioner Shivansh Awasthi, Superintendent of Police Vikash Kumar, and other senior officials. Pressure groups later accused the district administration and police of failing to ensure free and fair public participation.
Hynniewtrep Integrated Territorial Organisation (HITO) president Donbok Dkhar criticised the NPP-led government, alleging a ‘conspiracy’ to push the project through. “The Chief Minister chairs the single window agency and under him many coke oven plants were established. Outside he speaks about the North East, but wants to sell off the State and to make us swallow smoke. If this company is allowed to set base, many others will follow and affect the livelihoods of farmers” he said.
Following the hearing, the JNC announced that it would move the High Court, citing serious flaws in the EIA report and what it described as the use of force to silence opposition. “We will not sit idly. We will take this issue to the judiciary so that a public hearing held under fear and force cannot be used to justify environmental clearance for the project,” Lyngdoh said.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Complaint against procedural violations
Demand to cancel the project
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Rural
Type of Land
Common and Private
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?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Project underway despite protests
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Dwelling/habitation use, Other natural resource collection/dependence, Ecosystem/Environmental Services
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
2.48
Type of investment:
Investment Made
Year of Estimation
2025
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Constitutional Law, Other, Environmental Law, Other, Environmental Law, Other
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
No
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Violation of free prior informed consent
Non-consultation with stakeholders
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Legal Status:
Out of Court
Status of Case In Court
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Case Number
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Other harassment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
During the public hearing, members of pressure groups alleged that they were forcibly prevented from reaching the venue, and that hundreds of individuals formed a human blockade nearly 500 metres from the site.
Date of Violation
December 18, 2025
Location of Violation
Madan Mooki, Daistong
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Department of Mining and Geology (Directorate of Mineral Resources), Meghalaya; Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board; Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council; Office of the District Commissioner; East Jaintia Hills District.
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:
Shree Cement Limited
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Jaintia National Council; Hynñiewtrep Integrated Territorial Organisation
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?







