1 2025:CGHC:49976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1346 of 2016 1 - Forest Right Committee Ghatbarra (Deleted ) 2 - Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti 2.1 - Seema Porte W/o Thakur Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Ghatbarra, Tehsil- Udaypur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) 2.2 - Bagar Sai Porte S/o Salik Ram Aged About 71 Years R/o Village- Ghatbarra, Tehsil- Udaypur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) 2.3 - Akhlesh Kumar Porte S/o Chandrabhan Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Ghatbarra, Tehsil- Udaypur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) 2.4 - Chhoturam Porte S/o Ghursai Porte Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Ghatbarra, Tehsil- Udaypur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) 2.5 - Hirday Singh Markam S/o Dilbandhu Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Ghatbarra, Tehsil- Udaypur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) 2.6 - Sudhar Bai W/o Manjhi Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Ghatbarra, Tehsil- Udaypur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) 3 - Jainandan Singh Porte S/o Shri Sukul Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ghatbarra Tehsil Udaypur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Environment And Forest, Government Of India, Paryawaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex Lodhi, Road, New Delhi, 11003, Delhi 2 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Government Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, 110001, Delhi 2 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Level Forest Rights Committee D.L.C. Sarguja, Through O/o Collector Tribal Welfare, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Janpath, Jaipur Rajasthan,, District : Jaipur, Rajasthan ... Respondent(s) Date of Hearing: 13.8.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 8.10.2025 For Petitioners : Ms. Shalini Gera, Advocate along with Ms. Anushree Rajput, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate and Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 – UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General along with Mr. Sumit Singh, Senior Panel Counsel For Respondents No. State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional A.G. along with Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 – RRVUNL : Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Utkarsh Sonkar, Advocate, Mr. Nitikesh Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Dinesh Bole, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey CAV Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- 2. Facts of the present case are as under:- (a) Initially, this petition was filed by the Forest Rights Committee, Ghatbarra, through its President, Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, and one Jainandan Singh Porte. Petitioner No. 1 moved an application for withdrawal of the writ petition on its behalf, and it was 3 allowed vide order dated 3.10.2024. Another application was moved for impleadment of six persons as members of Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti to pursue the matter, and the said application was allowed vide order dated 29.7.2025. Thus, this petition is being contested by Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3, Jainandan Singh Porte. (b) Village Ghatbarra comprises mostly of the tribal population, and it was granted community forest rights under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, [hereinafter to be referred to as “FR Act, 2006”]. In the year 2006-07, the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, allotted the Parsa East and Kete Basen captive coal block to Respondent No. 5, a State of Rajasthan entity. The respondent No. 5 applied for the diversion of forest land measuring 2388.525 hectares before the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India (MoEF) on 12.1.2009. The respondent No. 5 submitted a revised proposal on 2.3.2011, whereby the forest area was reduced and mining was to be done in two phases. (c) The aforesaid proposal was placed before the Forest Advisory Committee on 10.3.2011. The committee constituted a Sub-Committee to inquire and inspect, and 4 then submit a report to the Committee. The Sub- Committee visited the proposed area on 14-15/5.2011 and submitted its report raising various issues such as the density of forest and the habitat of the wild animals, etc. The Sub-Committee also pointed out that provisions of the FR Act, 2006, are not within the knowledge of the villagers, and the provisions of the FR Act, 2006 have not been completed. The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) rejected the proposal on 20-21.6.2011. The concerned Minister granted in principle approval for diversion of forest land for mining on 6.7.2011. The permission for diversion of forest land for Phase I and Phase-II mining was granted in favor of the respondent no. 5 on 15.3.2012. However, direction was issued to complete the forest rights procedure. (d) The MoEF vide its letter dated 30.7.2009 had addressed Chief Secretaries of all States that the proposals for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes shall be considered after recognition of the forest rights and the consent of the concerned Gram Sabha. The Villagers of Village – Ghatbarra, in exercise of their traditional community forest rights, were performing their duty of protecting the wildlife, forest, and biodiversity, and have been protesting against the cutting down of trees. On 2.10.2011, Gram Sabha – Ghatbarra 5 passed a resolution observing a protest against coal mining in their village area. (e) On 6.2.2012, the villagers and Van Samiti submitted an application to the Forest Department, making a request to stop the coal inspection. On 5.3.2012, again the villagers submitted representations before the respondent authorities, making a request to stop the coal inspection. On 10.11.2012, the villagers submitted representations before respondents No. 1 to 4 wherein they stated that the Gram Sabha conducted in the year 2009 was a farce one as the procedure contemplated under the FR Act, 2006, has not been complied with; thus, a prayer was made to cancel the land acquisition process. (f) In June, 2013, the Forest Rights Committee, Ghatbarra, submitted claim application forms for recognition of the Community Forest Rights (CFR), and the claims of villagers were recommended for recognition by the District Level Committee on 3.9.2013 wherein three forest rights were conferred. On 19.2.2014 and 20.2.2014, the Gram Sabhas of Village Salhi, Hariharpur, and Fatehpur convened a Special Gram Sabha and passed two resolutions – firstly, under the provisions of Section 5 of the FR Act, 2006 for conservation of forest, and secondly, for the grant of 6 pattas for community forest resources. The District Collector, Surguja, vide letter dated 3.9.2014, stated that the lease for community forest resources has not been provided as guidance has been sought from the Government, and the said compartment has already been allotted for coal mining. (g) One Sudiep Shrivastava challenged the order dated 23.6.2011 issued by the Union of India, MoEF, and the subsequent diversion order passed by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 28.3.2012 before the Learned National Green Tribunal, New Delhi on various grounds. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 24.3.2014, set aside the orders dated 23.6.2011 passed by MoEF and order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, for diversion of forest land. Further, the work commenced by respondent No. 5 pursuant to the above orders was suspended. The matter was remitted back to MoEF with a direction to seek fresh advice from the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) within a reasonable time. The order passed by the learned NGT was challenged by respondent No. 5 by filing Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 2014, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 28.4.2014 stayed the direction issued by the learned NGT whereby work commenced 7 by respondent No. 5 pursuant to the order dated 28.3.2012 was suspended. (h) Meanwhile, vide letter dated 8.1.2016 issued by the District Level Committee, Community Forest Rights granted earlier to the villagers of Village–Ghatbarra were canceled on the ground that such permission interrupts mining work and forest rights were granted due to a mistake, ignoring the orders issued by MoEF dated 23.6.2011 and 28.3.2012. (i) The petitioners have not challenged the order dated 15.3.2012 issued by the Central Government whereby permission for mining over 1898.328 hectares was granted. Respondent No. 5 proceeded to carry out mining over 762 hectares in Phase I. The petitioners have also not challenged the order of diversion dated 28.3.2012 passed by the State Government, whereby order of diversion was passed and Respondent No. 5 was permitted to carry out coal mining in the PEKB Coal block. Initially the petitioners had challenged the order dated 8.1.2016, whereby the Forest Rights District Level Committee, Surguja revoked three community forest rights, which were earlier granted to the villagers. They challenged the said order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing such an order and the said Committee had no right to 8 alter/modify/revoke its earlier order whereby CFRs were granted to the villagers. The petitioners have further amended their petition to challenge the order dated 2.2.2022 issued by MoEF, whereby permission was granted for non-forest use of the remaining 1136 hectares of forest land falling in PEKB Coal Block in favor of Respondent No. 5 and order dated 25.3.2022 passed by the State Government regarding diversion for Phase-II mining. The order dated 5.5.2022 issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Production), Chhattisgarh, with regard to deforestation was also challenged but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not want to press it. (j) Respondent No. 5 did not press Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 2014, which was pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court after grant of approval for phase II mining by the Central Government, MoEF; consequently, Civil Appeal was disposed of. (k) The petitioners pressed the application for the grant of interim relief against the order issued by the Central Government, MoEF dated 2.2.2022 and the diversion order issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 25.3.2022 in the instant writ petition, and the said application was rejected vide order dated 2.5.2024. The petitioner No. 2 i.e. Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh 9 Samiti, challenged order dated 2.5.2024 by filing Civil Appeal No. 10604/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 17.9.2024, the matter was remitted to the High Court to reconsider the interim applications. However, liberty was granted to the High Court to take up the matter for final disposal, if possible. (l) One more fact which requires consideration is the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others1, wherein it was held that allocation of coal blocks through the Government Dispensation Route suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and legal flaws; consequently, the allocation of all coal blocks was canceled including PEKB coal block, which was allotted to respondent No. 5. Thereafter, Parliament promulgated the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014, and the Rules of 2014 for the purposes of framing the rules for auction and allotment of coal blocks, which were the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 6 of the Ordinance of 2014, read with Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Second Ordinance of 2014 and the Rules of 2014, the Central Government appointed the Nominated Authority for allocation of coal blocks. The Central Government also issued the order under Rule 1 . (2014) 9 SCC 516 10 8(2) of the Rules of 2014 pursuant to Section 5 of the Ordinance of 2014. The Nominated Authority, vide notification dated 18.2.2015, issued the allotment document and invited applications from government companies for allotment of coal mines. In order to meet the coal requirement of respondent No. 5 for various thermal power plants in the State of Rajasthan and finding that the PEKB coal block is most suitable, respondent No. 5 submitted an online application on 26.2.2015, and the order of allotment was issued by the Nominated Authority on 8.9.2015. 3. Ms. Shalini Gera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the community forest rights (CFR) granted in favor of the petitioners by the District Level Committee, Surguja, is still effective and completely unaffected by the forest clearance issued in favor of respondent No. 5 by respondents No. 1 and 2 as since many centuries, forests have been managed by the forest dwellers and there was no concept of ownership of land. She further submits that in the year 1976, by way of a constitutional amendment, “forests” were put into the Concurrent List of the Constitution of India, and in the year 1980, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was passed, whereby it is provided that the State Government may divert the forest land after due permission from the Central Government. She also submits that in the year 2006, the FR Act, 2006, was legislated whereby the rights 11 of forest dwellers were recognized and according to its preamble, “Government of India has undertaken the duty to vest rights in favor of forest dwellers and make a framework” and without recognition of forest rights in favor of forest dwellers, permission for deforestation and mining cannot be granted. She contends that Section 3 of the FR Act, 2006, provides for 13 kinds of rights available to the forest dwellers, and amongst them, the petitioners applied for B, C, D, I, K, and L. She submits that Section 3(2) provides for the facilities the Government shall provide to Gram Sabhas. She further contends that Section 4(1) of the FR Act, 2006, begins with the phrase “notwithstanding”; therefore, the forest clearance would not prevail over the FR Act, 2006, and according to Section 4(3) of the FR Act, 2006, the petitioners have been there for generations, and they have rights. While referring to Section 4(5) of the FR Act, 2006, she contends that the Government was under an obligation to identify and settle the forest rights of the forest dwellers, and only thereafter, eviction proceedings could have been initiated, and there cannot be any forest clearance prior to the settlement of the community forest rights. She has referred to Sections 2(ii) and (iii) of the FC Act, 1980. She also contends that the Hon’ble Minister to MoEF initially disapproved the proposal of respondent No. 5 but later on granted conditional approval, subject to compliance of the provisions of the FR Act, 2006, but the Collector, Surguja, and the Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja, vide their orders dated 17.6.2011 and 6.6.2011, 12 respectively, sent incorrect information to the effect that neither any application under the FR Act, 2006, was received nor any applications were pending in respect of the community forest rights, pursuant to which the order of diversion was passed on 28.3.2012 by the State Government for Phase-I mining. She argues that the decision taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 was challenged before the learned National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, and vide order dated 24.3.2014 those permissions were canceled, holding that the Forest Advisory Committee is an expert body, but it is only advisory in nature and its advice is not binding on the Hon’ble Minister. She fairly submits that the operative part of the order passed by the learned National Green Tribunal was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 2014 and the works already started were permitted to be resumed but the part of the order passed by learned National Green Tribunal whereby respondent No. 5 was directed to acquire a fresh permission from MoEF was not stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. She further argues that the District Level Committee, Surguja, vide its order dated 8.1.2016 revoked the community forest rights granted in favor of the petitioners, whereas pursuant to the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondent No. 5 continued extracting coal at a faster rate and the same was approved by MoEF and subsequently, respondent No. 5 sought permission for Phase-II mining which was also granted vide order dated 2.2.2022. She 13 also argues that the permission granted in favor of respondent No. 5 dated 2.2.2022 was challenged by filing an interim application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, making a prayer to refrain respondent No. 5 from starting Phase-II mining, but it was not allowed, and in the meanwhile, respondent No. 5 withdrew Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 2014. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, submits that in the FR Act, 2006, there are two kinds of rights available to forest dwellers, which are individual forest rights and community forest rights, and in this petition, the petitioners have claimed recognition of their community forest rights. He further submits that over 250 objections regarding the individual rights through the concerned Gram Sabha were raised before the Collector, Surguja, and Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja, which were settled and certificates were granted but the community forest rights were not raised by any organization or statutory body and if it is the case of the petitioners that their claims regarding the community forest rights have not been considered or have been rejected, they have remedy of appeal and revision. He also submits that the claims raised by the petitioners have no foundation, as the members of the Gram Sabha had their respective leases in forests and they were duly compensated; therefore, they did not claim their community rights. While referring to Section 4(1) of the FR Act, 2006, he contends that there is a procedure to put a claim of 14 community forest rights and only on satisfaction to the effect that these community forest rights existed or are in existence, then only they can be vested and not merely by declaring that they were using the land for several years; the petitioners were required to substantiate their claim of community forest rights. He further contends that in the year 2009, the petitioners sought compensation against their lease but community forest rights were never claimed. While referring to Section 4(7) of the FR Act, 2006, he contends that there has to be conferment of forest rights and such rights are not automatic rights in abstract and it is not the case of the petitioners that they had community forest rights since long and they were protecting those rights under Section 5 of the FR Act, 2006, and those rights were recognized. He also contends that the Gram Sabha is the only body which is entitled to start a proceeding of accepting claims and determine its nature – individual right or community forest right or both and in the present case, no community forest rights were either raised or verified or consolidated before the concerned Gram Sabha; therefore, no resolution was passed in this regard; if the petitioners are aggrieved by non-recognition of their community claims, they have a remedy to prefer a petition before the Sub-Division Level Committee, which may consider and dispose such claims but such claims cannot be raised as an afterthought after 60 days. He argues that there are levels of appeal provided under the FR Act, 2006, which are – (i) Gram Sabha ; (ii) Sub-Division Level 15 Committee and (iii) District Level Committee and these remedies were not availed by the petitioners with respect to their community forest rights; Rule 2(c) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2008 [hereinafter to be referred as “The Rules, 2008”] deals with the definition of “claimant” and petitioner No. 2 is an NGO and petitioners No. 2 (1) to 2 (6) and 3 are its legal representatives and they were the members of the Gram Sabha; therefore, they have no right to deviate and claim community forest rights when their individual claims were settled beforehand. While referring to Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008, he argues that the Collector as well as the Divisional Forest Officer had issued certificates to the forest dwellers, and no claim with regard to community forest rights was received; rather, individual claims were considered and settled and/or compensated. While referring to Rule 8(G) of The Rules, 2008, he argues that whatever claims were received, the same were notified and published, but no objection with regard to community forest rights was received. While referring to Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008, he argues that the forest dwellers submitted their lease claiming therein individual rights, but they failed to claim their community forest rights and further failed to place on record “evidence” mentioned under Rule 13(2) of the Rules, 2008, in order to claim the community forest rights. He further argues that the document Annexure R-5/2 is a copy of the proceeding of Gram Sabha dated 19.9.2011, which contains the details of the 16 individual claims received by Gram Sabha, Ghatbarra, and its resolution, wherein the signatures of all claimants are present. While referring to the letters issued by the Collector and Divisional Forest Officer, he argues that applications were not received from the members of the Scheduled Tribes and forest dwellers for the grant of community forest rights. He also argues that this petition was filed in the year 2016 whereas permission for Phase – II mining was granted in the year 2022 and consequently, the petition was amended and the challenge to the permission of Phase-II mining is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a petition filed by one Sudiep Shrivastava, on the ground that provisions of the FR Act, 2006 have not been complied with. He avers that the exercise in accordance with the FR Act, 2006 for the entire forest area ad-measuring 1898 hectares was completed in the year 2011 itself, and Phase I and II were only made for the convenience of the project proponents as it was not easy to mine the entire area at the same time. With regard to pre-poning the Phase – II mining, he avers that the requirement of the coal increased during the course of mining as respondent No. 5 supplies electricity to around 40% of the State of Rajasthan; therefore, the pace of excavation was increased to satisfy the demand and also the mining plans are mere estimates and actual/exact amount of the coal beneath the surface is not known to anyone, thus the availability of coal may differ from the original estimates. He also avers that respondent No. 5 completed Phase- 17 I mining in six years and proceeded for Phase-II mining and approached the authorities to grant permission because the coal was becoming short. 5. Dr. Nirmal Shukla, learned Senior counsel, submits that after the diversion of forest land, it does not remain forest land anymore, and after allotment of the coal block, the Gram Sabha, Ghatbarra, cannot claim community forest rights. He further submits that the argument raised by the petitioners to the effect that CFR issued under the FRA, 2006, has an overriding effect over any permission or clearance is erroneous as Section 29 of The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 states that “The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.” He also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) held that the allocation of coal blocks through Government Dispensation Route suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and legal flaws and accordingly, the allotment of all the coal blocks was canceled and subsequent to the passing of the judgment on 21.10.2014, the Parliament promulgated the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 [hereinafter to be referred as “the Act, 2015”] was enacted. He contends that according to the provisions of the Act, 2015, an authority was nominated which invited applications from companies for the allotment of coal 18 mines to meet the requirement of the coal supply to various power plants of India. For the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 5 chose the Parsa Coal Block and submitted an online application on 26.2.2015 for allotment of the said coal block. He further contends that the nominated authority issued the allotment order dated 8.9.2015, allotting Parsa Coal Mines located in Hasdeo- Arand Coalfields in Surguja and Surajpur Districts in favor of respondent No. 5, and name of respondent no. 5 is reflected at S. No. 42 of Schedule-1 appended to Section 3(1)(p) of the Act, 2015. He also contends that after the judgment rendered in the matter of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), coal blocks were allotted according to the provisions of the Act, 2015, and that allotment order has not been challenged in the present petition. 6. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh, submits that though the provisions contained in Section 4 of the FR Act, 2006, recognize rights of a community or an individual, and such rights are available to a person who wants to enjoy that right. He further submits that in the present case, the petitioners never claimed their community forest rights by making suitable applications/claims before the concerned Gram Sabha, and this petition was filed five years after the date of allotment of mines to respondent No. 5 and the passing of the order of diversion of forest land by the State. He also submits that the Central Government while exercising its power under Section 2 of the FC 19 Act, 1980, passed an order on 15.3.2012 and subsequently, the State Government also passed the order on 28.3.2012 and according to the provisions of Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980, diversion of forest land was permitted and thus, the petitioners have no right to claim those rights as same were not available to them at any point of time. He contends that the petitioners failed to mention the community forest rights available to them, and frivolous claims have been raised in this petition. He further contends that initially, this petition was filed by the Forest Right Committee, Ghatbarra, which was a statutory body under the FR Act, 2006, but it withdrew its claim and the application in this regard was allowed on 3.10.2024 and petitioner no. 2–Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti is not a recognized or statutory body to claim community forest rights on behalf of the villagers of village Ghatbarra as it has no legal sanctity. He also contends that Petitioner No. 2, by way of amendment, has impleaded petitioners No. 2(1) to 2(6) to continue this petition, whereas some of them participated in the meeting of Gram Sabha and supported the resolution passed in favor of respondent No. 5. 7. Ms. Shalini Gera, in rebuttal, submits that the petitioners did not claim community forest rights at the earlier stage, as those rights were not in doubt at any point in time, but the three community forest rights granted in favor of the petitioners were revoked by the District Level Committee, Surguja, vide order dated 8.1.2016. She further submits that individual forest rights were granted, but the 20 claims with regard to community forest rights were not considered, and it was the State’s responsibility to ensure and protect those rights, and the villagers had submitted their claims with regard to community forest rights according to Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions made herein above, and perused the documents placed in the file with utmost circumspection. 9. The following provisions of the law are relevant to the efficacious disposal of this case and the same are reproduced herein below:-  Section 3 of FR Act, 2006:- 3. Forest rights of Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other tradional forest dwellers.–(1) For the purposes of this Act, the following rights, which secure individual or community tenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands, namely:– (a)right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers; (b)community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those used in erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes; (c)right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries; (d)other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water bodies, grazing (both settled or transhumant) and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralist communities; (e)rights including community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups and pre- agricultural communities; (f)rights in or over disputed lands under any 21 nomenclature in any State where claims are disputed; (g)rights for conversion of Pattas or leases or grants issued by any local authority or any State Government on forest lands to titles; (h)rights of settlement and conversion of all forest villages, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and other villages in forests, whether recorded, notified or not into revenue villages; (i)right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use; (j)rights which are recognised under any State law or laws of any Autonomous District Council or Autonomous Regional Council or which are accepted as rights of tribals under any traditional or customary law of the concerned tribes of any State;(k)right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity; (l)any other traditional right customarily enjoyed by the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers, as the case may be, which are not mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) but excluding the traditional right of hunting or trapping or extracting a part of the body of any species of wild animal; (m)right to in situ rehabilitation including alternative land in cases where the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers have been illegally evicted or displaced from forest land of any description without receiving their legal entitlement to rehabilitation prior to the 13th day of December, 2005. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Central Government shall provide for diversion of forest land for the following facilities managed by the Government which involve felling of trees not exceeding seventy-five trees per hectare, namely:– (a)schools; (b)dispensary or hospital; (c)anganwadis; (d)fair price shops; 22 (e)electric and telecommunication lines; (f)tanks and other minor water bodies; (g)drinking water supply and water pipelines; (h)water or rain water harvesting structures; (i)minor irrigation canals; (j) non-conventional source of energy; (k) skill upgradation or vocational training centres; (l)roads; and (m)community centres: Provided that such diversion of forest land shall be allowed only if,– (i) the forest land to be diverted for the purposes mentioned in this sub-section is less than one hectare in each case; and (ii) the clearance of such developmental projects shall be subject to the condition that the same is recommended by the Gram Sabha.  Section 4 of FR Act, 2006:- 4. Recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.– (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government hereby recognises and vests forest rights in– (a)the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in States or areas in States where they are declared as Scheduled Tribes in respect of all forest rights mentioned in section 3; (b)the other traditional forest dwellers in respect of all forest rights mentioned in section 3. (2)The forest rights recognised under this Act in critical wildlife habitats of National Parks and Sanctuaries may subsequently be modified or resettled, provided that no forest rights holders shall be resettled or have their 23 rights in any manner affected for the purposes of creating inviolate areas for wildlife conservation except in case all the following conditions are satisfied, namely:– (a) the process of recognition and vesting of rights as specified in section 6 is complete in all the areas under consideration; (b) it has been established by the concerned agencies of the State Government, in exercise of their powers under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972) that the activities or impact of the presence of holders of rights upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible damage and threaten the existence of said species and their habitat; (c) the State Government has concluded that other reasonable options, such as, co-existence are not available; (d) a resettlement or alternatives package has been prepared and communicated that provides a secure livelihood for the affected individuals and communities and fulfils the requirements of such affected individuals and communities given in the relevant laws and the policy of the Central Government; (e) the free informed consent of the Gram Sabhas in the areas concerned to the proposed resettlement and to the package has been obtained in writing. (f) no resettlement shall take place until facilities and land allocation at the resettlement location are complete as per the promised package: Provided that the critical wildlife habitats from which rights holders are thus relocated for purposes of wildlife conservation shall not be subsequently diverted by the State Government or the Central Government or any other entity for other uses. 24 (3) The recognition and vesting of forest rights under this Act to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to other traditional forest dwellers in relation to any State or Union territory in respect of forest land and their habitat shall be subject to the condition that such Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or other traditional forest dwellers had occupied forest land before the 13th day of December, 2005. (4)A right conferred by sub-section (1) shall be heritable but not alienable or transferable and shall be registered jointly in the name of both the spouses in case of married persons and in the name of the single head in the case of a household headed by a single person and in the absence of a direct heir, the heritable right shall pass on to the next-of-kin. (5)Save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. (6)Where the forest rights recognised and vested by sub-section (1) are in respect of land mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 such land shall be under the occupation of an individual or family or community on the date of commencement of this Act and shall be restricted to the area under actual occupation and shall in no case exceed an area of four hectares. (7)The forest rights shall be conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements, including clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), requirement of paying the 'net present value' and 'compensatory afforestation' for diversion of forest land, except those specified in this Act. (8)The forest rights recognised and vested under this Act shall include the right of land to forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who can establish that they were displaced from their dwelling and cultivation without land compensation due to State development interventions, and where the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was acquired within five years of the said acquisition. 25  Section 5 of FR Act, 2006:- 5. Duties of holders of forest rights.– The holders of any forest right, Gram Sabha and village level institutions in areas where there are holders of any forest right under this Act are empowered to– (a)protect the wild life, forest and biodiversity; (b)ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and other ecological sensitive areas are adequately protected; (c)ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any form of destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural heritage; (d)ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to regulate access to community forest resources and stop any activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and the biodiversity are complied with.  Section 6 of FR Act, 2006:- 6. Authorities to vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and procedure thereof.– (1)The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the local limits of its jurisdiction under this Act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of each recommended claim in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of suchrights and the Gram Sabha shall, then, pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub- Divisional Level Committee. (2) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee constituted under sub-section (3) and the Sub-Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition: Provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha: Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been 26 given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. (3) The State Government shall constitute a Sub- Divisional Level Committee to examine the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha and prepare the record of forest rights and forward it through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision. (4) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Sub- Divisional Level Committee may prefer a petition to the District Level Committee within sixty days from the date of decision of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition: Provided that no petition shall be preferred directly before the District Level Committee against the resolution of the Gram Sabha unless the same has been preferred before and considered by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee: Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. (5)The State Government shall constitute a District Level Committee to consider and finally approve the record of forest rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee. (6)The decision of the District Level Committee on the record of forest rights shall be final and binding. (7)The State Government shall constitute a State Level Monitoring Committee to monitor the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights and to submit to the nodal agency such returns and reports as may be called for by that agency. (8)The Sub-Divisional Level Committee, the District Level Committee and the State Level Monitoring Committee shall consist of officers of the departments of Revenue, Forest and Tribal Affairs of the State Government and three members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions at the appropriate level, appointed by the respective Panchayati Raj Institutions, of whom two shall be the Scheduled Tribe members and at least one shall be a woman, as may be prescribed. (9)The composition and functions of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, the District Level Committee and the 27 State Level Monitoring Committee and the procedure to be followed by them in the discharge of their functions shall be such as may be prescribed. Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:- 2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing,– (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.  Section 3 of FC Act, 1980 :- 3. Constitution of Advisory Committee.– The Central Government may constitute a Committee consisting of such number of persons as h may deem fit to advise that Government with regard to– (i) the grant of approval. under Section 2; and (ii) any other matter connected with the conservation of forests which may be referred to h by the Central Government.  Rule 2 (1)(c) of FR Rules, 2008:- 2(1)(c). "claimant" means an individual, group of individuals, family or community making a claim for recognition and vesting of rights listed in the Act; 28  Rule 4 of FR Rules, 2008:- 4. Functions of the Gram Sabha.– (1) The Gram Sabha shall– (a) initiate the process of determining the nature and extent of forest rights, receive and hear the claims relating thereto; (b)prepare a list of claimants of forests rights and maintain a register containing such details of claimants and their claims as the Central Government may by order determine; (c)pass a resolution on claims on forest rights after giving reasonable opportunity to interested persons and authorities concerned and forward the same to the Sub--Divisional Level Committee; (d)consider resettlement packages under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act and pass appropriate resolutions; and (e)constitute Committees for the protection of wildlife, forest and bio-diversity, from amongst its members, in order to carry out the provisions of section 5 of the Act. (2) The quorum of the Gram Sabha meeting shall be not less than two-thirds of all members of such Gram Sabha:Provided that where there is a heterogeneous population of Scheduled Tribes and non-Scheduled Tribes in any village, the members of the Scheduled Tribe, Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) and pre-agricultural communities shall be adequately represented. (3)The Gram Sabha shall be provided with the necessary assistance by the authorities in the State.  Rule 6 of FR Rules, 2008:- 6. Functions of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.– The Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) shall– (a) provide information to each Gram Sabha about their duties and duties of holder of forest rights and others towards protection of wildlife, forest and bio- diversity with reference to critical flora and fauna which need to be conserved and protected; (b)provide forest and revenue maps and electoral rolls to the Gram Sabha or the Forest Rights Committee; (c)collate all the resolutions of the concerned Gram Sabhas; 29 (d)consolidate maps and details provided by the Gram Sabhas; (e)examine the resolutions and the maps of the Gram Sabhas to ascertain the veracity of the claims; (f)hear and adjudicate disputes between Gram Sabhas on the nature and extent of any forest rights; (g)hear petitions from persons, including State agencies, aggrieved by the resolutions of the Gram Sabhas; (h)co-ordinate with other Sub-Divisional Level Committees for inter sub-divisional claims; (i)prepare block or tehsil-wise draft record of proposed forest rights after reconciliation of Government records; (j)forward the claims with the draft record of proposed forest rights through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for final decision; (k)raise awareness among forest dwellers about the objectives and procedures laid down under the Act and in the rules; (l)ensure easy and free availability of pro forma of claims to the claimants as provided in Annexure I (Forms A and B) of these rules; (m)ensure that the Gram Sabha meetings are conducted in free, open and fair manner with requisite quorum.  Rule 8 of FR Rules, 2008:- 8. Functions of District Level Committee.– The District Level Committee shall– (a) ensure that the requisite information under clause (b) of rule 6 has been provided to Gram Sabha or Forest Rights Committee; (b) examine whether all claims, especially those of primitive tribal groups, pastoralists and nomadic 30 tribes, have been addressed keeping in mind the objectives of the Act; (c) consider and finally approve the claims and record of forest rights prepared by the Sub- Divisional Level Committee; (d) hear petitions from persons aggrieved by the orders of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee; (e) co-ordinate with other districts regarding inter- district claims; (f) issue directions for incorporation of the forest rights in the relevant Government records including record of rights; (g) ensure publication of the record of forest rights as may be finalized; and (h) ensure that a certified copy of the record of forest rights and title under the Act, as specified in Annexures II and III to these rules, is provided to the concerned claimant and the Gram Sabha respectively.  Rule 13 of FR Rules, 2008:- 13. Evidence for determination of forest rights.– (1) The evidence for recognition and vesting of forest rights shall, inter alia, include– (a) public documents, Government records such as Gazetteers, Census, survey and settlement reports, maps, satellite imagery, working plans, management plans, micro-plans, forest enquiry reports, other forest records, record of rights by whatever name called, pattas or leases, reports of committees and commissions constituted by the Government, Government orders, notifications, circulars, resolutions; (b)Government authorised documents such as voter identity card, ration card, passport, house tax receipts, domicile certificates; (c)physical attributes such as house, huts and permanent improvements made to land including levelling, bunds, check dams and the like; (d)quasi-judicial and judicial records including Court orders and judgments; 31 (e)research studies, documentation of customs and traditions that illustrate the enjoyment of any forest rights and having the force of customary law by reputed institutions, such as Anthropological Survey of India; (f)any record including maps, record of rights, privileges, concessions, favours, from erstwhile princely States or provinces or other such intermediaries; (g)traditional structures establishing antiquity such as wells, burial grounds, sacred places; (h)genealogy tracing ancestry to individuals mentioned in earlier land records or recognized as having been legitimate resident of the village at an earlier period of time; (i)statement of elders other than claimants, reduced in writing. (2) An evidence for [Community Forest resource] shall, inter alia, include– (a) community rights such as nistar by whatever name called; (b) traditional grazing grounds; areas for collection of roots and tubers, fodder, wild edible fruits and other minor forest produce; fishing grounds; irrigation systems; sources of water for human or livestock use, medicinal plant collection territories or herbal practitioners; (c)remnants of structures built by the local community, sacred trees, groves and ponds or riverine areas, burial or cremation grounds. (3) The Gram Sabha, the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee shall consider more than one of the abovementioned evidences in determining the forest rights.  Section 3(1)(p) of The Act, 2015:- 3.(1)(p)“Schedule I coal mines” means,– (i) all the coal mines and coal blocks the allocation of which was canceled by the judgment dated 25th August, 32 2014 and its order dated 24th September, 2014 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.120 of 2012, including those allotments which may have been de-allocated prior to and during the pendency of the said Writ Petition. (ii)all the coal bearing land acquired by the prior allottee and lands, in or adjacent to the coal mines used for coal mining operations acquired by the prior allottee; (iii)any existing mine infrastructure as defined in clause (j);  Section 4 of Act, 2015:- Eligibility to participate in auction and payment of fees.— (1)Subject to the provisions of section 5, Schedule I coal mines shall be allocated by way of public auction in accordance with such rules, and on the payment of such fees which shall not exceed five crore rupees, as may be prescribed. (2)Subject to the provisions in sub-section (3) of this section and section 5, the Central Government may, for the purpose of granting reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease in respect of coal, select any of the following companies through auction by competitive bidding, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed–– (a)a Government company or corporation or a joint venture company formed by such company or corporation or between the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or any other company incorporated in India; or (b)a company or a joint venture company formed by two or more companies, [to carry on coal mining operations in India, in any form either for own consumption, sale or for any other purpose in accordance with the permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and the State Government shall grant such reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of any area containing coal to such company as selected through auction by competitive bidding under this section.] (3) * * * * * (4)A prior allottee shall be eligible to participate in the auction process subject to payment of the additional levy 33 within such period as may be prescribed and if the prior allottee has not paid such levy, then, the prior allottee, its promoter or any of its company of such prior allottee shall not be eligible to bid either by itself or by way of a joint venture. (5)Any prior allottee who is convicted for an offence relating to coal block allocation and sentenced with imprisonment for more than three years, shall not be eligible to participate in the auction.  Section 29 of Act, 2015:- 29. Act to have overriding effect.– The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. 10. According to the provisions of Section 6(1) of the FR Act, 2006, the Gram Sabha of the concerned Gram Panchayat has the authority to initiate a process for determining the nature and the extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. The Gram Sabha is authorized to pass a resolution, and same would be forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee. In the present case, a meeting of the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Ghatbarra, was convened on 19.9.2011, wherein a total of 341 villagers participated, and one Dileshwar Singh was nominated as the President for the meeting. In the meeting, the names of claimants were recommended for the grant of lease, and such a proposal was passed by the Gram Sabha with a majority. It is mentioned in the resolution that a total of 135 applications of Scheduled Tribes’ members and 38 applications of other traditional forest dwellers, i.e., a total of 173 34 applications for the grant of forest land rights, and a total of 136 applications were received for the grant of revenue land rights. It is also observed that 16 lease-deeds with regard to forest land rights and 30 lease-deeds with regard to the revenue land rights have already been granted, and the rest of the applications are pending consideration. This resolution was signed by the members of the Gram Sabha. The resolution dated 19.9.2011 would show that no claim was made with regard to community forest rights. The documents filed by respondent no. 5 would show that a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat Ghatbarra on 15.6.2008 vide Annexure R-5/3, whereby consent was given for the coal mining. The other Gram Panchayats had also passed resolutions in the same fashion. 11. Respondent No. 5 applied for the diversion of forest land ad- measuring 2388 hectares before the MoEF on 12.1.2009, thereafter, a revised proposal for the reduced area was submitted on 2.3.2011, which was placed before the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) on 10.3.2011. The FAC rejected the proposal on 20-21.6.2011, but the concerned Minister, MoEF, granted permission. The Central Government, MoEF granted in principle approval for diversion for Phase-I and Phase II coal mining for 1898.328 hectares on 6.7.2011, and permission according to the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1980 was granted for the diversion of 1898.328 hectares of land on 15.3.2012 by Central Government, MoEF. The petitioners never challenged the orders 35 passed by the Central Government under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 granting permission for mining of coal dated 15.3.2012 for both phases and the diversion order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh. Initially, the Forest Rights Committee Ghatbarra challenged the order dated 8.1.2016 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby forest rights granted to the residents of village Ghatbarra were withdrawn. In the entire petition, it is nowhere pleaded that members of Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti moved any applications or made representations for redressal of their grievances. There is no pleading to the effect that the newly added Petitioners 2(a) to 2(e) are members of petitioner No. 2 Samiti or that they are residents of village Ghatbarra, and the forest rights were ever conferred upon them. The newly added petitioners have not produced any document to establish their locus standi. There is no document to establish that any resolution was passed either by Gram Sabha or Gram Panchayat Ghatbarra authorizing pettiioner no. 2 or newly added petitioners to file writ petition before the High Court. 12. Three community forest rights were conferred upon the residents of Village – Ghatbarra on 3.9.2013, and that order was canceled by the District Level Committee on 8.1.2016. Originally, this petition was filed by the Forest Rights Committee, Ghatbarra, and later on, its name was deleted, and this petition is now being contested by Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti and another. This petition was filed on 15.5.2016, and during 36 pendency of this petition, the respondent No. 5 completed Phase-I mining in the year 2021-2022, and permission was granted for Phase-II mining by MoEF on 2.2.2022, and the order of diversion was passed for Phase II by the State of Chhattisgarh on 25.03.2022. The petitioners have challenged only three orders, namely – (i) the order dated 8.1.2016 whereby three community forest rights granted to the residents of Village – Ghatbarra have been canceled by the District Level Committee; (ii) the order dated 2.2.2022 whereby MoEF granted permission for Phase-II mining and; (iii) the order dated 25.3.2022 whereby the State of Chhattisgarh passed the order of diversion for Phase-II mining. 13. Now, coming to the issue with regard to the conferment of forest rights and the powers of the District Level Committee to withdraw it. Section 3 of the FR Act, 2006, deals with forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and it includes individual and community tenure rights; rights to habitation, self-cultivation and livelihood; community rights (e.g., nistar, grazing, fishing); ownership and access to minor forest produce; traditional seasonal resource access; rights over disputed lands; conversion of pattas or leases to titles; settlement and conversion of forest villages; community forest resource management; rights recognized under the State law or traditional law; access to biodiversity and traditional knowledge and other traditional rights. 14. Section 3(2) of the FR Act, 2006, confers right upon Central 37 Government for diversion of forest land for the following facilities managed by the government which include felling of trees not exceeding seventy five trees per-hectare; Schools; Hospitals/dispensaries; Anganwadis; Fair price shops; Electric/telecommunication lines; Water bodies/tanks; Drinking water supply/pipelines; Water harvesting structures; Minor irrigation canals; Non-conventional energy sources; Skill upgradation/vocational training centers; Roads; Community centers. The residents of Village – Ghatbarra had applied for six forest rights, and they were granted three forest rights, which are: (i) community rights of nistar; (ii) the right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce; and (iii) the community right of grazing vide order dated 3.9.2013. The said order was withdrawn by the District Level Committee vide order dated 8.1.2016 inter-alia on the ground that three community forest rights were granted in favor of the residents of Village – Ghatbarra on 3.9.2013, whereas the order of diversion was passed prior to the said date on 28.3.2012. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the order dated 8.1.2016 was passed by the District Level Committee without affording the opportunity of hearing and the right conferred according to the provisions of Section 4 of the FR Act, 2006, cannot be curtailed and such right would prevail over permission granted by MoEF and the order of diversion passed by the State Government. 38 16. The contention made by Ms. Gera cannot be accepted on these grounds – (i) permission under Section 2 of the Act, 1980 was granted by MoEF on 15.3.2012 and this fact was within the knowledge the petitioners, but no steps were taken to avoid such an order and three community forest rights were granted in favor of the residents of Village – Ghatbarra due to a mistake or ignorance of orders issued by Central Government, (ii) the petitioners and village residents were aware of the permission granted by MoEF dated 15.3.2012 but didn't challenge it in this petition, (iii) in the entire petition, the petitioners, including newly added petitioners have not demonstrated that in favor of any one of them, forest rights were conferred, (iv) the petitioners have not produced documents to establish the fact that claims were made for conferment of forest rights at any point of time, and (v) the petitioners no. 2(1) to 2(6) have not placed any documents on record to demonstrate that they are aggrieved persons or they are residents of Village Ghatbarra or any resolution was passed by Gram Sabha in their favor to continue this petition. Further the statuary body i.e. Forest Right Committee has already withdrawn its petition and its name was deleted, (vi) Phase I mining work was completed in the year 2021 -22 and permission was granted by competent authorities to start phase II mining on 2.2.2022 and 25.3.2022; (vii) the residents of village Ghatbarra can be compensated in terms of money, if forest rights have not been conferred according to the Act, 2006. In these circumstances, it 39 wasn't necessary for the respondents to provide the petitioners with an opportunity while taking a decision to withdraw the forest rights conferred on the villagers of Ghatbarra. 17. The petitioners in this petition have not elaborated facts with regard to (I) issuance of orders dated 2.2.2022 and 25.3.2022; (ii) the forest rights conferred on petitioners no. 2(1) and 2(6); (iii) facts with regards to the credentials of the petitioners. In this petition instead of pleading facts and grounds, the petitioners moved application for taking additional facts on record but descriptions and grievances of petitioners have not been pleaded and substantiated. 18. It is well settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case pleadings are not complete, the Court in under no obligation to entertain the plea. In the matter of Bharat Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter- affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction 2. AIR 1988 SC 2181 40 between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” 19. One Sudiep Shrivastava challenged the order dated 23.6.2011 issued by the Union of India, MoEF, and the subsequent diversion order passed by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 28.3.2012 on various grounds before the Learned National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 24.3.2014, set aside the orders dated 23.6.2011 passed by MoEF and the order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh for diversion of forest land. Further, the work commenced by respondent No. 5 pursuant to the above orders was suspended. The matter was remitted back to MoEF with a direction to seek fresh advice from the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) within a reasonable time. 20. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 5 by filing Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 2014, and vide order dated 28.4.2014, the following observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- “In the meanwhile, we stay the direction in the impugned order that all works commenced by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 28th March, 2012 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 shall stand suspended till further orders are passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.” 41 Subsequently, Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 2014 was disposed of as “not pressed” on 16.10.2023, as MoEF granted permission to commenc Phase-II mining operations vide order dated 2.2.2022, and pursuant to it, the order of diversion was passed by the State of Chhattisgarh on 25.3.2022. In the order dated 16.10.2023, it was observed that “Since the order of the NGT has resulted in the above orders of MoEF & CC dated 2 February 2022 and of the State of Chhattisgarh dated 25 March 2022, Mr. ANS Nadkarni, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the appeal is not pressed”. After completion of Phase-I mining operation, respondent No. 5 applied for Phase- II mining operation before MoEF, and the same was granted on 2.2.2022. The petitioners have not placed any document to demonstrate that MoEF has not complied with the directions issued by the learned National Green Tribunal, and orders have been passed without complying with the directions issued therein. 21. The important aspect of the matter has not been argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the allotment of various coal blocks was canceled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) vide judgment dated 21.10.2014, and the coal blocks allotted to respondent No. 5 were also canceled. Subsequent to the passing of the judgment on 21.10.2014, the Parliament promulgated The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014, and later on, enacted The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. According to the provisions 42 of the Act, 2015, an authority was nominated, which invited applications from government companies for allotment of coal blocks that were the subject matter of cancellation by the Supreme Court, in order to meet the requirement of coal supply to various power plants all over India. For the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 5 chose the Parsa Coal Block and submitted an online application on 26.2.2015 for allotment of the said coal block. The authority concerned found respondent No. 5 suitable and issued the allotment order dated 8.9.2015, allotting Parsa Coal Mines located in Hasdeo-Arand Coalfields in Surguja and Surajpur Districts of the State of Chhattisgarh. In Schedule–I appended to Section 3(1)(p) of the Act, 2015, the name of respondent No. 5 appears at S.No. 42. 22. Section 29 of The Act, 2015 deals with “Act to have overriding effect” and this provision specifically states that “The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law”. Thus, it can safely be held that The Act, 2015, being a special legislation, has the overriding effect over any law or instrument inconsistent with it. 23. Section 3(1)(p) of the Act, 2015 defines “Schedule I coal mines” and it includes all coal mines and all coal blocks, whose allotments were canceled vide judgments dated 25.8.2014 and 24.9.2014. Section 4 of the Act, 2015, deals with the eligibility to 43 participate in an auction and payment of fees; Section 6 empowers the Central Government to act through a nominated authority, and Section 8 deals with the power of the nominated authority to issue a vesting order or allotment order. Schedule – I describes (i) the name of the coal mine/block; (ii) the name of the prior allottee, and (iii) the State where the coal mine/block is located. Entry No. 42 of Schedule – I would show that Parsa East Coal Block has been allotted to Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. [respondent No. 5]. Thus, the subject coal block was allotted to respondent No. 5 pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by the authority/committee nominated by the Central Government, according to the Act, 2015. It would be worth noting that, as the petitioners have not challenged the order of allotment either before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or in this petition and thus, the order of allotment has attained finality. Further, the order of allotment was issued in the year 2015 itself, whereas this petition was filed in the year 2016; thus, the fact of allotment of Parsa Coal Block to respondent No. 5 was within the knowledge of the petitioners, but the same was not challenged for the reasons best known to the petitioners. The amendment application moved by the petitioners was allowed on 2.5.2024, but in the said application also, the order of allotment of coal block was not challenged. 24. Rule 13 of the Rules, 2008, deals with evidence for the determination of forest rights. According to this provision, evidence 44 for recognition and vesting of forest rights would include (i) public records like gazetteers, census reports, maps, forest records, government orders; (ii) government documents like ID Cards, ration cards, passports, tax receipts; (iii) physical attributes like houses, permanent land improvements; (iv) judicial records like court orders and judgments; (v) research studies and documentations conducted on customs and traditions; (vi) traditional structures like wells, burial grounds and sacred placed; (vii) genealogy tracing ancestry to earlier land records and; (vii) written statement from village elders who are not claimants. This provision further states that evidence for community forest resources shall include (i) community rights such as nistar and other traditional rights; (ii) traditional grazing grounds, collection areas for forest produce, fishing grounds, irrigation systems, water sources and (iii) sacred and community sites such as structures built by local community, sacred trees, ponds, riverine areas and burial grounds. In furtherance, this provision also states that Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, and District Level Committee shall consider more than one of the above-mentioned evidence in determining the forest rights. 25. In the entire petition, the petitioners have not pleaded with regard to evidence led before the Gram Sabha or the Sub-Divisional Level Committee or District Level Committee. There is no reference to any kind of evidence, either in the facts or grounds of writ petition. The documents annexed to this petition would show 45 that 250 objections regarding individual rights through the concerned Gram Sabha were raised before the Collector, Surguja, and Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja, which were settled, and certificates were granted but no claims for community forest rights were raised by any of the villagers or any statutory body. Even the Gram Sabha did not raise any claim, which is a statutory body under the provisions of the FR Act, 2006. 26. Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 2008 deals with the definition of “claimant” which includes an individual, group of individuals, family, or community making a claim for recognition and vesting of rights listed in the Act. In the instant case, most of the villagers of Gram Panchayat Ghatbarra were members of Gram Sabha, which was convened on 19.9.2011, and they never raised any claim with regard to community forest rights and accepted the resolution passed therein. At the onset, this petition was filed by Forest Rights Committee Ghatbarra, but it withdrew its petition, and now, petitioner No. 2 i.e. Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, is contesting this petition, despite not being a statutory body or the authority with the power to challenge the impugned orders. Most of the villagers of the village Ghatbarra were members of the Gram Sabha, and they failed to claim community forest rights when their individual rights were being settled. The Collector, Surguja and Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja had issued certificates to the forest dwellers and their claims for individual rights were decided/settled by the District Level Committee. 46 According to the provisions of Rule 8(g) of the Rules, 2008, the same were notified and published, but no objection was raised. 27. Admittedly, the villagers of Ghatbarra had filed WPC No. 1247 of 2022 challenging therein acquisition of land for Parsa Coal Block, situated in villages Tara, Janardanpur of District Surajpur and villages Fatehpur, Ghatbarra, Hariharpur, Salhi of District Sarguja in the State of Chhattisgarh, under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (for short “The Act, 1957”) for Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. [respondent No. 5 herein]. The land acquisition was challenged by Gram Panchayat Tara by filing WPC No. 302 of 2022 ; Gram Panchayat Salhi by filing WPC No. 560 of 2022 ; Gram Panchayat Charpara by filing WPC No. 698 of 2022 along with WPC No. 1247 of 2022. Petitioners of those petitions had challenged the land acquisition proceeding and notification issued by the authorities on various grounds. Those petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 11.5.2022. Villagers of Ghatbarra were petitioners in WPC No. 1247 of 2022 and after dismissal of that writ petition, an application for amendment was moved in the instant petition but these facts were not disclosed ; thus petitioners herein suppressed material facts. Further, the land acquisition proceeding carried out under The Act, 1957 has already been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and said judgment has not been assailed by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus, it attained finality. 47 28. With respect to the legal position on reviewing of an order by a quasi-judicial body, Ms. Gera has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kalabharati Advertising Versus Hemant Vimalnath Narichania3, Patel Narshi Thakershi Versus Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji4 and Industrial Infrastructure Development Corpn (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. Versus CIT5. She has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Nirmala Toppo (died through LRs) Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPC No. 541 of 2018. 29. Relevant paras of Kalabharati Advertising (supra) are reproduced herein below:- 12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1457; and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 641). 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273; Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814; Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2186; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 162; and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 705, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary 3 . (2010) 9 SCC 437 4 . (1971) 3 SCC 844 5 . (2018) 4 SCC 494 48 implication and in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in absence of any statutory provision for the same is nullity being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/ modification/correction is not permissible. 30. Relevant paras of Patel Narshi Thakershi (supra) are reproduced herein below:- 4. The first question that we have to consider is whether Mr. Mankodi had competence to quash the order made by the Saurashtra Government on October 22, 1956. It must be remembered that Mr. Mankodi was functioning as the delegate of the State Government. The order passed by Mr. Mankodi, in law amounted to a review of the order made by Saurashtra Government. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. The question whether the Government's order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored The Subordinate Tribunals have to carry out that order. For this reason alone the order of Mr. Mankodi was Liable to be set aside. 31. Relevant paras of Industrial Infrastructure Development Corpn (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. (supra) are reproduced herein below:- 49 17. In our considered opinion, the CIT had no express power of cancellation of the registration certificate once granted by him to the assessee under Section 12A till 01.10.2004. It is for the reasons that, first, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with the power to cancel the registration certificate granted under Section 12A of the Act. Second, the order passed under Section 12A by the CIT is a quasi judicial order and being quasi judicial in nature, it could be withdrawn/recalled by the CIT only when there was express power vested in him under the Act to do so. In this case there was no such express power. 18. Indeed, the functions exercisable by the CIT under Section 12A are neither legislative and nor executive but as mentioned above they are essentially quasi judicial in nature. 19. Third, an order of the CIT passed under Section 12A does not fall in the category of "orders" mentioned in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The expression "order" employed in Section 21 would show that such "order" must be in the nature of a "notification", "rules" and "bye laws" etc. ( see – Indian National Congress(I) vs. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors., 2002 (5) SCC 685). 20. In other words, the order, which can be modified or rescinded by applying Section 21, has to be either executive or legislative in nature whereas the order, which the CIT is required to pass under Section 12A of the Act, is neither legislative nor an executive order but it is a "quasi judicial order". It is for this reason, Section 21 has no application in this case. 21. The general power, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to rescind a notification or order has to be understood in the light of the subject matter, context and the effect of the relevant provisions of the statute under which the notification or order is issued and the power is not available after an enforceable right has accrued under the notification or order. Moreover, Section 21 has no application to vary or amend or review a quasi 50 judicial order. A quasi judicial order can be generally varied or reviewed when obtained by fraud or when such power is conferred by the Act or Rules under which it is made. (See Interpretation of Statutes, Ninth Edition by G.P. Singh page 893). 22. Relying upon the aforementioned rule of interpretation, this Court has held that the Government has no power to cancel or supersede a reference once made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [See- State of Bihar vs. D.N. Ganguly & Ors. (AIR 1958 SC 1018)]. Similarly, on the same principle it is held that the application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application to amend or rescind or vary a notification issued under Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act for reconstituting the commission by replacement or substitution of its sole member except applicable for a limited purpose for extending the time for completing the enquiry. (See- State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ajay Singh, AIR 1993 SC 825). It is also held while construing the provisions of Citizenship Act that the certificate of registration of citizenship issued under Section 5(1)C of the Citizenship Act cannot be cancelled by the authority granting the registration by recourse to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. (See- Ghaurul Hasan vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 107 and Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi, AIR 2001 SC 3689). And lastly, while construing the provisions of the Representation of People Act, it is held that the Election Commission cannot, by recourse to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, deregister or cancel the registration of a political party under Section 29A of the Act for the decision of the Commission to register a political party under Section 29A(7) of the Act is a quasi judicial in nature. 32. It is a well settled principle of law that the authority can’t review its earlier order without affording opportunity of hearing or in contravention to the principle of natural justice but in the present 51 case due to a mistake, three forest rights were conferred on the villagers of Ghatbarra on 3.9.2013 as the order passed by Central Government under the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 passed on 15.3.2012 and the order of diversion passed by the State Government on 28.3.2012 were not taken into consideration. Further, the villagers upon whom forest rights were conferred have not approached this Court against order dated 8.1.2016 and the Forest Rights Committee has already withdrawn its petition, and its name has been deleted. The members of Sangharsh Samiti are the residents of Village Ghatbarra or not, in this regard, no document has been placed on record. The petitioners have also not pleaded that the members of Sangharsh Samiti ever claimed forest rights. Therefore, the petitioners would not get any help from the judgments cited above. 33. In the matter of Nirmala Toppo (supra), this Court has opined as under:- 15. From a bare reading of Section 6 (6) of the Act. 2006, it is quite vivid that any decision taken by the Committee while granting a '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 entire Act, there is no provision for appeal, review, revision, etc, and 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. In the opinion of this Court, there was no such power vested with the Committee, 52 therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Committee cancelling the 'forest right lease' of the original petitioner is hereby set aside. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed. No costs. 34. It is true that the Committee which granted forest rights has no authority of law to revoke it, but the aggrieved party has to establish that such rights were conferred upon them and the decision to withdraw such forest rights was deliberate and malafide. Further, villagers of Ghatbarra have not approached this Court and the petitioners have not been authorized by Gram Sabha to file this petition. As discussed above, the forest rights were granted due to a mistake of the Committee, and subsequently the said mistake was rectified; as such, the order dated 3.9.2013 was void ab initio. In my opinion, the facts of the cited case are entirely different from the facts of the instant case. 35. With respect to the legal position on protecting the forest of the country and balancing development and environment, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Versus Ministry of Environment and Forests and Others.6 Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced herein below:- 16. State of Orissa’s final proposal was then placed before the FAC on 4.11.2009. FAC recommended that the final clearance would be considered only after ascertaining of the community rights on forest land and after the process for establishing such rights under Forest Rights Act was completed. FAC also decided to constitute an Expert Group to carry out a site 6 . (2013) 6 SCC 476 53 inspection. Consequently, on 1.1.2010, a three-member Team composed of Dr. Usha Ramanathan and two others, was constituted to consider and make recommendations to MOEF on the proposal submitted by OMC. The Team carried out the site inspection during the months of January and February, 2010 and submitted three individual reports to MOEF on 25.2.2010 which were not against the project as such, but suggested an in-depth study on the application of the Forest Rights Act. FAC also, on 16.4.2010, considered all the three reports and recommended that a Special Committee, under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, be constituted to look into the issues relating to the violation of Tribal rights and the settlement of Forest rights under the Forest Rights Act. 18. The State Government then submitted their written objection on 17.08.2010 to the MoEF on the Saxena Committee Report and requested that an opportunity of hearing be given to it before taking any decision on the report. MoEF, however, called a meeting of FAC on 20.8.2010 and placed the Saxena Committee report before FAC, for consideration. Minutes of the Committee meeting was released on 23.8.2010, stating that the Primitive Tribal Groups were not consulted in the process of seeking project clearance and also noticed the violation of the provisions of Forest Rights Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and also the impact on ecological and biodiversity values of the Niyamgiri hills upon which the Dongaria Kondh and Kutia Kondh depend. FAC opined that it was a fit case for applying the precautionary principle to obviate the irreparable damage to the affected people and recommended for the temporary withdrawal of the in-principle/State I approval accorded. FAC recommended that the State Government be heard before a final decision is taken by the MoEF. 19. The recommendations of the FAC dated 23.8.2010 and Saxena Committee report were considered by MOEF and the request for Stage-II Clearance was rejected on 24.8.2010, stating as follows: “VIII. Factors Dictating Decision on Stage-II Clearance I have considered three broad factors while arriving at my decision. 1. The Violation of the Rights of the Tribal Groups including the Primitive Tribal Groups and the Dalit Population. 54 The blatant disregard displayed by the project proponents with regard to rights of the tribals and primitive tribal groups dependant on the area for their livelihood, as they have proceeded to seek clearance is shocking. Primitive Tribal Groups have specifically been provided for in the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and this case should leave no one in doubt that they will enjoy full protection of their rights under the law. The narrow definition of the Project Affected People by the State Government runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Simply because they did not live on the hills does not mean that they have no rights there. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 specifically provides for such rights but these were not recognized and were sought to be denied. Moreover, the fate of the Primitive Tribal Groups need some emphasis, as very few communities in India in general and Orissa in particular come under the ambit of such a category. Their dependence on the forest being almost complete, the violation of the specific protections extended to their “habitat and habitations” by the Forest Rights Act, 2006 are simply unacceptable. This ground by itself has to be foremost in terms of consideration when it comes to the grant of forest or environmental clearance. The four-member committee has highlighted repeated instances of violations. One also cannot ignore the Dalits living in the area. While they may technically be ineligible to receive benefits under the FRA 2006, they are such an inextricable part of the society that exists that it would be impossible to disentitle them as they have been present for over five decades. The Committee has also said on p.40 of their report that “even if the Dalits have no claims under the FRA the truth of their de facto dependence on the Niyamgiri forests for the past several decades can be ignored by the central and state governments only at the cost of betrayal of the promise of inclusive growth and justice and dignity for all Indians”. This observation rings true with the MoE&F and underscores the MoE&F’s attempt to ensure that any decision taken is not just true to the law in letter but also in spirit. 55 2. Violations of the Environmental Protection Act 1986: (i) Observations of the Saxena Committee and MoE&F Records: In additional to its findings regarding the settlement of rights under the FRA 2006, the four-member Committee has also observed, with reference to the environmental clearance granted for the aluminum refinery, on p.7 of its Report dated 16th August 2010 that: “The company/s Vedanta Alumina Limited has already proceeded with construction activity for its enormous expansion project that would increase its capacity six fold from 1 Mtpa to 6 Mtpa without obtaining environmental clearance as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 under the EPA. This amounts to a serious violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act. This expansion, its extensive scale and advanced nature, is in complete violation of the EPA and is an expression of the contempt with which this company treats the laws of the land.” I have reviewed the records of the MoE&F and have found no documentation which establishes such activity to have been granted clearance. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that such requirement was waived by the Ministry. The TORs for the expansion of the project from 1 million tones to 6 million tones were approved in March 2008. No further right has been granted in any form by the Ministry to the project proponents to proceed with the expansion. While any expansion without prior EC is a violation of the EIA Notification/EPA 1986 this, itself, is not a minor expansion and is therefore a most serious transgression of the EPA 1986. There also appear to have been other acts of violation that emerge from a careful perusal of the evidence at hand. This is not the first act of violation. On March 19th, 2003 M/s Sterlite filed an application for environmental clearance from the MoE&F for the refinery. In the application it was stated that no forest land is involved in the project and that there was no reserve forest within a radius of 10 kms of the project site. Thereafter on September 22nd, 2004, environment clearance was granted by the MoE&F for the refinery project. While granting 56 the environmental clearance, the MoE&F was unaware of the fact that the application for forest clearance was also pending since the environmental clearance letter clearly stated that no forest land was involved in the project. In March 2005, in proceedings before itself, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) too questioned the validity of the environmental clearance granted by the MoE&F and requested the Ministry to withhold the forest clearance on the project till the issue is examined by the CEC and report is submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (ii) Case before the MEAA by the Dongaria Kondhs: After the grant of Environment Clearance, the local tribals and other concerned persons including the Dongaria Kondhs challenged the project before the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA). [Kumati Majhi and Ors Vs Ministry of Environment. and Forest, Srabbu Sikka and Ors. Vs Ministry of Environment and Forests, R Sreedhar Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest, Prafulla Samantara Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors Appeal No. 18, 19, 20 and 21 of 2009]. It is brought to my attention that this is the first time that the Dongaria Kondha have directly challenged the project in any Court of law. The Appeals highlighted the several violations in the Environmental Clearance process. Some of the key charges raised were that the full Environmental Impact Assessment Report was not made available to the Public before the public hearing, different EIA reports made available to the public and submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the EIA conducted was a rapid EIA undertaken during the monsoon months. The matter is reserved for judgment before the NEAA. (iii) Monitoring Report of the Eastern Regional Office dated 25th May, 2010: On 25th May 2010, Dr. VP Upadhyay (Director ‘S’) of the Eastern Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests submitted his report to the MoE&F which listed 57 various violations in para 2 of the monitoring report. They observed: (a) “M/s Vedanta Alumina Limited has already proceeded with construction activity for expansion project without obtaining environmental clearance as per provisions of EIA Notification 2006 that amounts to violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act. (b) The project has not established piezometers for monitoring of ground water quality around red mud and ash disposal ponds; thus, the condition no. 5 of Specific Condition of the clearance letter is being violated. (c) The condition no. II of General Condition of environmental clearance has been violated by starting expansion activities without prior approval from the Ministry.” Furthermore all bauxite for the refinery was to be sourced from mines which have already obtained environmental clearance. The Report listed 14 mines from which Bauxite was being sourced by the project proponents. However out of these 11 had not been granted a mining license while 2 had only received TORs and only 1 had received clearance. 3.Violations under the Forest Conservation Act: The Saxena Committee has gone into great detail highlighting the various instances of violations under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. All these violations coupled with the resultant impact on the ecology and biodiversity of the surrounding area further condemn the actions of the project proponent. Not only are these violations of a repeating nature but they are instances of willful concealment of information by the project proponent. IX. The Decision on Stage-II Clearance The Saxena Committee’s evidence as reviewed by the FAC and read by me as well is compelling. The violations of the various legislations, especially the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Scheduled Tribes and Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) 58 Act, 2006, appear to be too egregious to be glossed over. Furthermore, a mass of new and incriminating evidence has come to light since the Apex court delivered its judgment on August 8th, 2008. Therefore, after careful consideration of the facts at hand, due deliberation over all the reports submitted and while upholding the recommendation of the FAC, I have come to the following conclusions: 1. The Stage II forest clearance for the OMC and Sterlite bauxite mining project on the Niyamgiri Hills in Lanjigarh, Kalahandi and Rayagada districts of Orissa cannot be granted. Stage-II Forest Clearance therefore stands rejected. 2. Since forest clearance is being rejected, the environmental clearance for this mine is inoperable. 3. It appears that the project proponent is sourcing bauxite from a large number of mines in Jharkhand for the one million tonne alumina refinery and are not in possession of valid environmental clearance. This matter is being examined separately. 4. Further, a show-cause notice is being issued b y the MOE&F to the project proponent as to why the environmental clearance for the one million tonnes per annum alumina refinery should not be cancelled. 5. A show-cause notice is also being issued to the project proponent as to why the terms of reference (TOR) for the EIA report for the expansion from one million tones to six million tones should not be withdrawn. Meanwhile, the TOR and the appraisal process for the expansion stands suspended. Separately the MoE&F is in the process of examining what penal action should be initiated against the project proponents for the violations of various laws as documented exhaustively by the Saxena Committee. On the issues raised by the Orissa State Government, I must point out that while customary rights of the Primitive Tribal Groups are not recognized in the National Forest Policy, 1988 they are an integral part of the Forest 59 Rights Act, 2006. An Act passed by Parliament has greater sanctity than a Policy Statement. This is apart from the fact that the Forest Rights Act came into force eighteen years after the National Forest Policy. On the other points raised by the State Government officials, on the procedural aspects of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, I expect that the joint Committee set up by the MoE&F and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs would give them due consideration. The State Government officials were upset with the observations made by the Saxena Committee on their role in implementing the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Whether State Government officials have connived with the violations is a separate issue and is not relevant to my decision. I am prepared to believe that the State Government officials were attempting to discharge their obligations to the best of their abilities and with the best of intentions. The State Government could well contest many of the observations made by the Saxena Committee. But this will not fundamentally alter the fact that serious violations of various laws have indeed taken place. The primary responsibility of any Ministry is to enforce the laws that have been passed by Parliament. For the MoE&F, this means enforcing the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, the Scheduled Tribes and Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and other laws. It is in this spirit that this decision has been taken.” The order dated 24.8.2010 was communicated by MOEF to the State of Orissa vide its letter dated 30.8.2010, the legality of those orders are the subject matter of this writ petition. 45. The customary and cultural rights of indigenous people have also been the subject matter of various international conventions. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No.107) was the first comprehensive international instrument setting forth the rights of indigenous and tribal populations which emphasized the necessity for the protection of social, political and cultural rights of indigenous people. Following that there were two other conventions ILO Convention (No.169) and Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 60 Convention, 1989 and United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007, India is a signatory only to the ILO Convention (No. 107). 46. Apart from giving legitimacy to the cultural rights by 1957 Convention, the Convention on the Biological Diversity (CBA) adopted at the Earth Summit (1992) highlighted necessity to preserve and maintain knowledge , innovation and practices of the local communities relevant for conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity, India is a signatory to CBA. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 and Forestry principle also encourage the promotion of customary practices conducive to conservation. The necessity to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources have also been recognized by United Nations in the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. STs and other TFDs residing in the Scheduled Areas have a right to maintain their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands. 47. Many of the STs and other TFDs are totally unaware of their rights. They also experience lot of difficulties in obtaining effective access to justice because of their distinct culture and limited contact with mainstream society. Many a times, they do not have the financial resources to engage in any legal actions against development projects undertaken in their abode or the forest in which they stay. They have a vital role to play in the environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. State has got a duty to recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interest so that they can effectively participate in achieving sustainable development. 55. The definition clauses read with the above mentioned provisions give emphasis to customary rights, rights to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce, community rights like grazing cattle, community tenure of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups, traditional rights customarily enjoyed etc. Legislative intention is, therefore, clear that the Act intends to protect custom, usage, forms, practices and ceremonies which are appropriate to the traditional practices of forest dwellers. 61 58. State of Orissa has maintained the stand that the State has the ownership over the mines and minerals deposits beneath the forest land and that the STs and other TFDs cannot raise any claim or rights over them, nor the Gram Sabha has any right to adjudicate such claims. This Court in Amritlal Athubhai Shah and Ors. v. Union Government of India and Another (1976) 4 SCC 108, while dealing with the scope of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 held as follows: “3. ……the State Government is the “owner of minerals” within its territory, and the minerals “vest” in it. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to detract from this basic fact. That was why the Central Government stated further in its revisional orders that the State Government had the “inherent right to reserve any particular area for exploitation in the public sector”. It is therefore quite clear that, in the absence of any law or contract etc to the contrary, bauxite, as a mineral, and the mines thereof, vest in the State of Gujarat and no person has any right to exploit it otherwise then in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.” The Forest Rights Act, neither expressly nor impliedly, has taken away or interfered with the right of the State over mines or minerals lying underneath the forest land, which stand vested in the State. State holds the natural resources as a trustee for the people. Section 3 of the Forest Rights Act does not vest such rights on the STs or other TFDs. PESA Act speaks only of minor minerals, which says that the recommendation of Gram Sabha shall be made mandatory prior to grant of prospecting licence or mining lease for minor minerals in the Scheduled Areas. Therefore, as held by this Court in Amritlal (supra), the State Government has the power to reserve any particular area for Bauxite mining for a Public Sector Corporation. 67.The Gram Sabha is also free to consider all the community, individual as well as cultural and religious claims, over and above the claims which have already been received from Rayagada and Kalahandi Districts. Any such fresh claims be filed before the Gram Sabha within six weeks from the date of this Judgment. State Government as well as the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, would assist the Gram Sabha for 62 settling of individual as well as community claims. 68. We are, therefore, inclined to give a direction to the State of Orissa to place these issues before the Gram Sabha with notice to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and the Gram Sabha would take a decision on them within three months and communicate the same to the MOEF, through the State Government. On the conclusion of the proceeding before the Gram Sabha determining the claims submitted before it, the MoEF shall take a final decision on the grant of Stage II clearance for the Bauxite Mining Project in the light of the decisions of the Gram Sabha within two months thereafter. 36. Admittedly, the respondents were under an obligation to comply with provisions contemplated under the Act of 2006 and the Rules made thereunder, and any deviation may be fatal, but in the instant case, initially, the Forest Right Committee challenged the order dated 8.1.2016, whereby conferment of forest rights was withdrawn. There is no challenge to the order dated 23.6.2011 issued by MoEF and forest clearance orders dated 6.7.2011 and 15.3.2012, and the diversion order issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 28.3.2012. The respondent No. 5 completed Phase I mining, and permission for Phase II mining was granted by the Central Government vide order dated 2.2.2022. In between, earlier orders of coal block allocation were set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Manohar Lal Sharma (Supra) and a fresh decision was taken by the Nominated Authority according to the Act of 2015 and the very allotment has not been challenged by the petitioners rather the orders issued by MoEF and State Government have been challenged, whereas those orders were issued according to the notification issued under the 63 provisions of the Act of 2015; therefore, the petitioners would not get any help from the case cited. 37. Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Mangal Sai Armo and Others Versus Union of India Through Secretary and Others and other connected matters wherein their Lordships have made certain observations regarding the FR Act, 2006, and its implications on mining rights. The relevant paras are reproduced herein below:- 41. With regard to submission advanced on the basis of FR Act, 2006, it will be appropriate to take note of the decision rendered in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (supra). In the aforesaid case, it has been observed that the FR Act, 2006, neither expressly nor impliedly, has taken away or interfered with the right of the State over mines or minerals lying underneath the forest land, which stand vested in the State. State holds the natural resources as a trustee for the people. Section 3 of the FR Act, 2006 does not vest such rights on the Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers. PESA Act of 1996 speaks only of minor minerals. It provides that the recommendation of Gram Sabha shall be made mandatory prior to grant of prospecting licence or mining lease for minor minerals in the Scheduled Areas. Accordingly, it was held that the State Government has the power to reserve any particular area for Bauxite mining for a Public Sector Corporation. 45. Section 105 of the Act of 2013 provides that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. CB Act is listed at S.No. 11 of the Fourth Schedule. Section 105(3) provides that the Central Government shall by notification direct that any of the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of the compensation in accordance with First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement 64 specified in Second and infrastructural amenities in Third Schedule shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. 46. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 103 of Act of 2013, the Central Government issued Order of 2015, which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2015. By the aforesaid Order, the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and re-settlement in accordance with the Second Schedule, and infrastructural amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule, are to apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013. It is to be noted that Section 41 of the Act of 2013 which provides for consent of Gram Sabha in case of land acquisition under the Act of 2013 is not applicable in respect of acquisition under CB Act. CB Act is a special Act for acquisition which provides for acquisition of land in case the Central Government is of the opinion that the land or any part thereof contains coal. CB Act provides a complete mechanism. Section 26 to 30 as well as First Schedule of the Act of 2013, which relate to determination of compensation; Section 31 and Second Schedule, which relate to rehabilitation and resettlement and Section 32 and Third Schedule, which relate to provisions for infrastructural amenities in re-settlement area are now made applicable in respect of acquisition under the CB Act. As the CB Act is a valid piece of legislation for a specific purpose, the Parliament has, advisedly, included the CB Act in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013. 38. In the instant case also, the land has been acquired according to the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas Act. It has been held in the above cited case that the FR Act, 2006, neither expressly nor impliedly, has taken away or interfered with the right of the State over mines or minerals lying underneath the forest land, which 65 stand vested in the State. The State holds the natural resources as a trustee for the people. Section 3 of the FR Act, 2006, does not vest such rights on the Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers. 39. In the result, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the following grounds- (i) respondent No. 5 has completed Phase I mining in the year 2022 and permission was granted for Phase II mining by the Central Government vide order dated 2.2.2022 and three years have passed since then and claims of the residents of village Ghatbarra with regard to individual or community forest rights, if any, can be compensated in terms of money. (ii) initially resolution was passed by Forest Right Committee and decision was taken vide resolution dated 24.4.2016 to challenge the order dated 8.1.2016 issued by respondent no. 4 but subsequently Forest Right Committee withdrew its petition and there is no authorization in favor of the petitioners no. 2(1) to 2(6) to continue this petition. These petitioners failed to establish their locus also. (iii) there is suppression of material facts as the petitioners failed to disclose the fact with regard to the dismissal of WPC No. 1247 of 2022; (iv) the petitioners failed to challenge the orders dated 23.6.2011, 15.3.2012, and 28.3.2012 in the present petition, 66 whereas the petition was filed on 10.5.2016; (v) locus standi of Petitioners No. 2(1) to 2(6) has not been established, and documents have not been placed to prove the fact that they are aggrieved with any of the decisions taken by authorities; (vi) the petitioners failed to lead evidence to establish the fact that individual or community forest rights were conferred upon them at any point in time; (vii) the petitioners also failed to challenge the allocation of coal blocks in favor of respondent No. 5 pursuant to the Act of 2015, whereas the petition was filed in the year 2016; (viii) the petitioners also failed to substantiate the fact that prior to the issuance of the order dated 2.2.2022 and 25.3.2022, the provisions of the FR Act, 2006 were not complied with; (ix) as held in the matter of Mangal Sai Armo (supra), the FR Act, 2006 neither expressly nor impliedly, has taken away or interfered with the rights of the State over mines or minerals lying underneath the forest land. 40. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.08 14:34:35 +0530