if-land-deal-is-proven-will-resign-mizoram-cm

Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma said he would resign from his post if any evidence emerges linking him to alleged financial irregularities in the ongoing Lengpui land deal controversy, challenging the opposition to substantiate its claims. Speaking on the issue, the Chief Minister strongly denied accusations that he had accepted any “commissions” in connection with the deal.

 

“If my involvement in this matter is verified with evidence, I will no longer consider myself fit to lead this state and will resign immediately,” Lalduhoma said.

 

The allegations were raised by Congress leader and former minister John Rotluangliana, who on February 13 claimed that the Chief Minister was involved in the alleged scam. Addressing a political session at the Congress Bhavan, Rotluangliana alleged that Lalduhoma’s intended share was Rs 14 crore, of which he had reportedly received Rs 10 crore.

 

He further claimed that the payment was allegedly requested in gold.

 

Rejecting the accusations, Lalduhoma countered by alleging that the previous Mizo National Front administration, led by former Chief Minister Zoramthanga, had attempted to illegally sell land near Lengpui airport to the Indian Air Force (IAF) through a permanent direct purchase agreement.

 

 

The Chief Minister said his government was only acting as a facilitator between the landowner and the buyer and emphasised that the current administration was following standard leasing protocols rather than permanently selling the land.

 

“The matter will be investigated by the CBI. Everything will be clear,” he said.

 

The land in question is located near Lengpui, around 32 km from Aizawl, close to the state’s only airport. It was acquired by the IAF for setting up a base intended to house fighter aircraft and refuelling facilities.

 

Opposition parties have alleged financial irregularities amounting to Rs 187.90 crore, claiming that standard legal procedures were bypassed to fast-track the acquisition. They further alleged that two individuals, who were not the original landowners, received most of the compensation, while the actual landowners received little or nothing.