ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the following relief(s) have been sought:-

“10.1 This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorary/mandamus or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 and order dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P/1 & P/2), reinstating the lease/Van Adhikar Patta of the petitioners with suitable direction to protect her rights.

10.2 Command /direction may kindly be issued to call for the entire records pertaining to the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

10.3 Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.”

2. During the pendency of this petition, the sole petitioner (Smt. Nirmala Toppo) expired on 10.02.2021, and her legal representatives have been brought on record as the petitioners.

3. The facts of the present case are as follows:-

a. The original petitioner was a member of the aboriginal tribe and she was staying along with her family in a scheduled area at Village Kumdewa, Tahsil Udaipur, District Surguja.

b. An application was moved by the original petitioner for the grant of ‘forest right lease’ concerning land bearing survey No. 233/1, admeasuring 2.558 hectares, situated at the said village on the ground that she remained in possession of the land for a considerable period, and a dwelling house was also constructed on some part of the land, which is being used for residential purposes by her and her family. The application of the petitioner was registered by the competent authority and after due scrutiny, the ‘forest right lease’ was granted on 15.01.2012, in her favour.

c. A complaint was made against the original petitioner to the effect that the aforesaid ‘forest right lease’ has been granted against the grazing land, which has been recorded as Chote Jhad Ka Jungle/grazing land in the revenue records.

d. An enquiry was conducted, and statements of the witnesses including the original petitioner were recorded by the concerned authority, thereafter, the Committee/concerned authority cancelled the said ‘forest right lease’ granted in favour of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2017 issued by the District Level Forest Right Committee, (for short, the Committee), comprising of the Collector cum Chairperson of the District Level Forest Right Committee, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur and Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja Forest Division, whereby the ‘forest right lease’ (for short, the lease), granted in favour of the original petitioner, has been cancelled.

5. Mr. Ashok Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the original petitioner would submit that a lease was granted by the Committee. He would further argue that the lease was granted in favour of the original petitioner after; following due process of law as also with the consent of Gram Sabha of Panchayat Kumdewa, and consent was given by Gram Sabha for allotment of the land in favour of the original petitioner. He would further submit that according to Section 6 (6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, (for short, the Act, 2006), any decision taken by the District Level Committee shall be final and binding, therefore, the Committee had no authority to review its own order. He would also submit that an aggrieved person has only remedy to approach this Court. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 476.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose and submit that though the lease was granted in favour of the original petitioner after scrutiny, but it was found that the leased land is recorded as Grazing land/Chote Jhad ka Jungle, and the Committee had no authority of law to grant such lease. He would further submit th