Dimapur, Nov. 2 (EMN): Kiyevi village on Friday countered the claims of Working Coordination Committee on Zeliangrong Land Issues (WCCZLI) regarding the government recognition of Khehoi village (the issue of which was in the news recently) and termed the assertion of the WCCZLI as ‘false, completely devoid of any historical or documentary basis and made with malicious intent to derail the government recognition of a bonafide Sumi village under Dimapur district’.
The Kiyevi village head GB, Botovi Zhimomi, and asst. GBs Yevuto and Zheshito, in a press statement, said that Khehoi village was earlier known as Kiyevi – B village was established in the year 1982 on the land donated by Kiyevi Village. It said that Kiyevi Village, the parent village of Khehoi village, was established on the written permit issued by the then British authorities and is presently a bonafide recognized village. It said that are no disputes whatsoever in regard to the jurisdiction and land boundaries of Kiyevi Village or any dispute with regard to the recognition of Kiyevi village. Therefore, it termed as absurd when objections are being raised on the recognition of Khehoi village which is a village purely established on the land donated by Kiyevi village to Late. Khehoi.
The statement also termed the statement by the WCCZLI that ‘the recognition as a serious insult and a direct challenge to Lamhai Village in Peren’ as highly questionable which has a tendency to instigate inter-tribal disputes.
Terming the ‘audacious claims’ of the WCCZLI as amusing and a farce, the statement said that throughout history, neither Kiyevi village nor Khehoi village had ever been a part of Lamhai village; it said there is no historical basis, material or records whatsoever to even remotely suggest the ‘fallacious claim’. Therefore, Kiyevi village questioned ‘the true intention’ of the WCCZIL as to why they have made all the ‘ unscrupulous, unauthenticated, baseless and false imputations’.
The Kiyevi village retorted the WCCZLI to appraise all concerned about the basis of ‘their reckless claims’ and to clarify why they have raised their ‘vague and unsubstantiated’ objections against the recognition of a bonafide Sumi village without considering the history and the documented records.
The Kiyevi village also retorted the WCCZIL that there are numerous Zeliangrong villages bordering the bonafide land of Kiyevi village “which were established in complete contravention of the Government records wherein the Government has time and again clearly restricted the establishment of any Kacha Naga villages in the areas in question”.
Claiming that the said Zeliangrong villages did not obtain NOC from Kiyevi village, it said that if same yardstick is to be applied to the recognition of Khehoi village, then Kiyevi village will be obliged to raise its own objections in regard to the establishment or recognition of the neighbouring Zeliangrong villages and their true boundaries.
“Hence, in view of the said facts and circumstances the Kiyevi village completely renounce the statements and claims made by the so called WCCZLI,” the statement further stated.
