If the leaves behind it (and the pitcher shape really, since no khasiana I have ever seen look like that) are anything to go by, it's not pure khasiana. I know mirabilis x khasiana exists, which would fit this perfectly.
If that's all we go off of, I HAVE seen
N. khasiana that look like this!
I'm certain it's
N. khasiana, but if you really want to be sure you can't base it on the lamina shape alone because
N. khasiana is a variable species that looks different in different conditions.
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/61904224@N05/36035524396/in/dateposted-public/" title="Nepenthes khasiana vs. mirabilis"><img src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4324/36035524396_1aea887892_z.jpg" width="480" height="640" alt="Nepenthes khasiana vs. mirabilis"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yeah,
N. mirabilis has narrow leaves, but so can
N. khasiana. The narrow leaf on my plant was made under lowland conditions, the broader leaves came after I moved it into my highland collection. Yes, I'm also sure that my
N. khasiana is not a
mirabilis hybrid. Also, the only
mirabilis example I have handy right now is making broad leaves but is also certainly just
mirabilis (from West Papua, and the species there are distinctive enough that there's no recent introgression in this one judging by the mother plant of this cutting).
The way to be sure is in the leaf bases,
N. khasiana has a distinctively broad
attachment not seen in any
mirabilis.
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/61904224@N05/35267329433/in/dateposted-public/" title="Nepenthes khasiana vs. mirabilis"><img src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4292/35267329433_2479a75f71_z.jpg" width="640" height="321" alt="Nepenthes khasiana vs. mirabilis"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
N. khasiana description for those curious:
http://www.arkoflife.net/nepenthes-khas.html