The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a challenge concerning the cancellation and implementation of Community Forest Rights (CFR) recognised in favour of the Ghatbarra Gram Sabha, while declining to entertain the challenge to mining operations in the Parsa East and Kete Basan (PEKB) coal block in the present proceedings.
A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter, with Senior Advocate C.U. Singh appearing for the petitioners and Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni for the respondent.
Sr Adv Singh submitted that the principal challenge was to the District-Level Committee’s decision to cancel the CFR title after it had been granted to the Ghatbarra Gram Sabha under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
He submitted that the three principal prayers sought a determination of whether a CFR title, once vested by the District-Level Committee under Section 6(6) of the Forest Rights Act, could subsequently be unilaterally cancelled by the same Committee at the behest of a project proponent.
According to Sr Adv CU Singh, the CFR title had been granted after approval by the Gram Sabha and District-Level Committee, recognising rights including nistar, access to and use of minor forest produce and grazing. The subsequent cancellation, he argued, was made following a representation by the project proponent, without notice to the Gram Sabha or compliance with principles of natural justice.
Sr Adv CU Singh further contended that the District-Level Committee, being a statutory quasi-judicial body, had no power to review or recall its earlier order in the absence of an express statutory provision. If the original decision was erroneous, he argued, it could be challenged before the appropriate higher forum but could not simply be withdrawn by the authority itself.
He also submitted that the High Court had failed to adjudicate the petitioners’ primary challenge to the cancellation of the CFR title, instead dealing with questions relating to locus and the mining-clearance proceedings.
Sr Adv C.U. Singh clarified that the petition did not challenge the allocation of the PEKB coal block, but submitted that the petitioners continued to challenge the forest and environmental clearances, alleging non-compliance with mandatory requirements under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Forest Rights Act, including conditions attached to the Stage-I clearance before grant of Stage-II clearance.
Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, appearing for the respondent, opposed the petitioners’ contentions and sought to place the dispute in the context of the forest-diversion and mining-clearance proceedings, including the relationship between the recognised forest rights and the permissions granted for the project.
The Court issued notice, returnable on a short date, limited to the petitioners’ challenge concerning the Community Forest Rights, including their protection, implementation and the modalities of compensation or other relief in case of any loss of such rights, while declining to entertain the challenge to mining operations in the PEKB Block in the present proceedings; the mining and forest-clearance issues are being considered separately, and no restraint was imposed on continuation of mining operations in the PEKB Block.