1 2025:CGHC:2273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4207 of 2024 1 - Sandhya Atram W/o Arvind Atram Aged About 46 Years R/o Antagarh, Ward No. 08, Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribes Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Level Forest Right Committee Kanker, Dist - North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 3 - The Collector/chairman District Level Forest Right Committee Kanker, Dist - North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Kanker, District - North Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Divisional Forest OfÏcer Forest Division, Kanker, Dist - North Bastar (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.16 23:48:35 +0530 2 6 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Antagarh, Dist. - North Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sumit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt Advocate along with Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning (Annexure P/3) by which the SDO Revenue i.e. respondent no. 6 cancelled the ‘Forest Right Lease’ granted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.02.2017. The petitioner is also questioning the minutes of the meeting dated 07.04.2017 issued by the District Level Committee respondent no. 2, whereby on the complaint of a political party the enquiry in respect to the grant of ‘Forest Right Lease’ has been initiated and the same has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the same is without jurisdiction as held by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No. 541/2018, by which it has been observed that any decision taken by the Committee while granting ‘Forest Right Lease’ shall be final and binding, meaning thereby, any decision taken by the Committee cannot be reviewed or modified by the same committee. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the same has been decided in WPC No. 541/2018 and it has been observed that once the decision of the Committee while granting ‘Forest Right Lease’ shall be final and the same cannot be reviewed or modified by the same committee. 4. I have heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the order of cancellation and the minutes of the meeting. 5. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present case is also similar and same in the issue which has been decided in WPC No. 541/2018 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In paragraph 15 of this order dated 14.03.2024, it has been observed that from bare reading of Section 6 (6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, it is quite vivid that any decision taken by the committee while granting ‘Forest Right Lease’ shall be final and binding, meaning thereby, any decision taken by the Committee cannot be reviewed or modified by the same Committee. In the present case, there is no statutory authority to exercise such power. As the order/decision taken by the District Level Committee becomes final and binding, in such a situation, the recourse available to the aggrieved party would be to approach the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, but in the instant case, no such steps have been taken either by the Committee or the complainant, and the Committee reviewed its own order which is not permissible under the law. 4 6. In view of the above the similar issue has been decided and also in the opinion of this Court, there was no such power vested with the Committee, therefore, the impugned order dated 02.02.2017 (Annexure P/3) issued by the Committee cancelling the 'forest right lease' of the original petitioner is hereby set aside and minutes of the meeting (Annexure P/2) dated 07.04.2017 issued by the District Level Committee respondent no. 2 is also set aside. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed. No costs. 7. However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to take recourse to law. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib