The University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya (USTM), has been accused of large-scale encroachment on forest land without mandatory clearances, according to a report submitted by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court of India on September 15.
The report states that USTM illegally occupied 13.62 hectares of deemed forest land in one phase and 12.13 hectares in another, in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It notes that despite repeated directives from the Centre and the Meghalaya government, the university failed to submit proposals for diversion of the forest land.
According to the CEC, nearly 93% of USTM’s constructed campus lies within forest land, with about 83% already broken and put to use. The panel observed “massive and indiscriminate destruction” of the site, adding that the expansion caused severe ecological damage.
The findings have added weight to earlier allegations by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who accused USTM of “land jihad” and linked its expansion to artificial flooding in Guwahati. The CEC has recommended strict penalties on USTM and its sponsoring body, the Education Research & Development Foundation (ERDF). These include payment of Net Present Value (NPV) for the forest land at five times the standard rate, along with 12% annual interest from 2017 and 2019, the years the encroachments reportedly began.
USTM has strongly denied the allegations, maintaining that the land was acquired legally with sanction orders, no-objection certificates from the Forest Department and local authorities, and approvals from the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority and the Pollution Control Board. The university also claimed that several plots were already degraded prior to acquisition and that it has undertaken plantation drives to restore greenery.
The report has also highlighted contradictions between state government records and on-ground verification, leaving the Supreme Court to decide whether USTM’s operations constitute illegal encroachment or were carried out within permitted limits.
For now, the case underscores a broader debate over balancing development with conservation, and whether premier educational institutions can expand at the cost of fragile ecosystems.
