Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 180 OF 2011

Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. .. Petitioner

Versus

Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Orissa  Mining  Corporation  (OMC),  a  State  of  Orissa  

Undertaking,  has  approached  this  Court  seeking  a  Writ  of  

Certiorari to  quash  the  order  passed  by  the  Ministry  of  

Environment and Forests  (MOEF) dated 24.8.2010 rejecting the  

Stage-II  forest  clearance  for  diversion  of  660.749  hectares  of  

forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in

Page 2

2

Kalahandi  and  Rayagada  Districts  of  Orissa  and  also  for  other  

consequential reliefs.   

2. OMC urged that the above order passed by the MOEF has the  

effect of neutralizing two orders of this Court passed in I.A. Nos.  

1324 and 1474 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 with I.A. Nos.  

2081-2082 (arising out of Writ  Petition No.  549 of 2007) dated  

23.11.2007 reported in (2008) 2 SCC 222 [hereinafter referred to  

as ‘Vedanta case’] and the order passed by this Court in I.A. No.  

2134  of  2007 in  Writ  Petition  No.  202  of  1995  on  08.08.2008  

reported  in  (2008)  9  SCC  711  [hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

‘Sterlite case’].   In order to examine the issues raised in this writ  

petition, it is necessary to examine the facts at some length.

FACTS:

3. M/s. Sterlite (parent company of Vedanta) filed an application  

on 19.3.2003 before MOEF for  environmental  clearance for  the  

purpose of starting an Alumina Refinery Project (ARP) in Lanjigarh  

Tehsil  of  District  Kalahandi,  stating  that  no  forest  land  was

Page 3

3

involved within an area of 10 kms.  The 4th respondent – Vedanta,  

in the meanwhile, had also filed an application on 6.3.2004 before  

this Court seeking clearance for the proposal for use of 723.343  

ha of land (including 58.943 ha of reserve forest land) in Lanjigarh  

Tehsil  of  District  Kalahandi  for  setting  up  an  Alumina  Refinery.  

Noticing  that  forest  land  was  involved,  the  State  of  Orissa  

submitted a proposal dated 16.08.2004 to the MoEF for diversion  

of 58.90 hectare of forest land which included 26.1234 hectare of  

forest land for the said ARP and the rest for the conveyor belt and  

a road to the mining site.  The State of Orissa, later, withdrew that  

proposal.   The  MoEF,  as  per  the  application  submitted  by  M/s  

Sterlite, granted environmental clearance on 22.9.2004 to ARP on  

1 million tonne per annum capacity of refinery along with 75 MW  

coal based CPP at Lanjigarh on 720 hectare land, by delinking it  

with the mining project.  Later, on 24.11.2004, the State of Orissa  

informed MOEF about the involvement of 58.943 ha of forest land  

in the project as against “NIL” mentioned in the environmental  

clearance  and  that  the  Forest  Department  of  Orissa  had,  on  

5.8.2004,  issued  a  show-cause-notice  to  4th respondent  for

Page 4

4

encroachment of 10.41 acres of forest land (out of 58.943 ha for  

which FC clearance proposal was sent) by way of land breaking  

and leveling.    

4. The State of Orissa, on 28.2.2005 forwarded the proposal to  

MOEF for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land for mining bauxite  

ore in favour of OMC in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts.  The  

Central  Empowered  Committee  (CEC),  in  the  meanwhile,  

addressed a letter dated 2.3.2005 to MOEF stating that pending  

the examination of the project by CEC, the proposal for diversion  

of forest land and/or mining be not decided.

5. Vedanta, however, filed an application I.A. No. 1324 of 2005  

before  this  Court  seeking  a  direction  to  the  MoEF  to  take  a  

decision on the application for forest clearance for bauxite mining  

submitted by the state Government on 28.2.2005 for the Refinery  

project.    The  question  that  was  posed  by  this  Court  while  

deciding the above-mentioned I.A. was whether Vedanta should  

be  allowed  to  set  up  its  refinery  project,  which  involved  the  

proposal  for  diversion  of  58.943  ha.  of  forest  land.   CEC had,

Page 5

5

however, objected to the grant of clearance sought by Vedanta on  

the  ground  that  the  Refinery  would  be  totally  dependent  on  

mining of bauxite from Niyamgiri Hills, Lanjigarh, which was the  

only  vital  wildlife  habitat,  part  of  which  constituted  elephant  

corridor  and  also  on  the  ground  that  the  said  project  would  

obstruct  the  proposed  wildlife  sanctuary  and  the  residence  of  

tribes like Dongaria Kondha.

6. The Court on 03.06.2006 directed the MoEF to consult the  

experts/organizations  and  submit  a  report.   MoEF  appointed  

Central Mining Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI), Ranchi to  

study the social impact of ground vibration on hydro-geological  

characteristics, including ground propensity, permeability, flow of  

natural resources etc.  CMPDI submitted its report on 20.10.2006.  

MoEF appointed the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun to  

study the impact of the Mining Project on the bio-diversity.  WII  

submitted  its  report  dated  14.06.2006  and  the  supplementary  

report dated 25.10.2006 before the MOEF.  Reports of CMPDI, WII  

were all  considered by the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) on  

27.10.2006 after perusing the above mentioned reports approved

Page 6

6

the proposal of OMC, for diversion of 660.749 ha. of forest land for  

the mining of bauxite in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts subject  

to the conditions laid down by WII.    

7. The State of Orissa had brought to the notice of this Court  

about the lack of basic infrastructure facilities in the Tribal areas  

of both the districts, so also the abject poverty in which the local  

people were living in Lanjigarh Tehsil, including the tribal people,  

and also the lack of proper housing, hospitals, schools etc.  But  

this Court was not agreeable to clear the project, at the instance  

of Vedanta, however, liberty was granted to M/s. Sterlite to move  

the  Court  if  they  would  agree  to  comply  with  the  modalities  

suggested by the Court.  Following were the modalities suggested  

by the Court, while disposing of the Vedanta case on 23.11.2007:  

“(i)  State of  Orissa  shall  float  a  Special  Purpose  Vehicle  (SPV)  for  scheduled  area  development  of  Lanjigarh  Project  in  which  the  stakeholders  shall  be  State of Orissa, OMC Ltd. and M/s SIIL. Such SPV shall  be incorporated under the Companies Act,  1956.  The  accounts  of  SPV  will  be  prepared  by  the  statutory  auditors of OMC Ltd. and they shall be audited by the  Auditor General for State of Orissa every year. M/s SIIL

Page 7

7

will deposit, every year commencing from 1-4-2007, 5%  of  its  annual  profits  before  tax  and  interest  from  Lanjigarh Project or Rs 10 crores whichever is higher for  Scheduled Area Development with the said SPV and it  shall  be the duty of  the said SPV to account for  the  expenses each year. The annual report of SPV shall be  submitted to CEC every year. If CEC finds non-utilisation  or misutilisation of funds the same shall be brought to  the notice of this Court. While calculating annual profits  before tax and interest M/s SIIL shall do so on the basis  of  the market  value of  the material  which is  sold by  OMC Ltd. to M/s SIIL or its nominee.

(ii)  In  addition to what is  stated above,  M/s SIIL  shall  pay  NPV  of  Rs  55  crores  and  Rs  50.53  crores  towards Wildlife Management Plan for Conservation and  Management of Wildlife around Lanjigarh bauxite mine  and  Rs  12.20  crores  towards  tribal  development.  In  addition,  M/s  SIIL  shall  also  bear  expenses  towards  compensatory afforestation.

(iii) A statement shall be filed by M/s SIIL with CEC  within  eight  weeks  from  today  stating  number  of  persons who shall be absorbed on permanent basis in  M/s SIIL including land-losers. They shall give categories  in which they would be permanently absorbed. The list  would also show particulars of persons who would be  employed by the contractors of M/s SIIL and the period  for which they would be employed.

(iv)  The  State  Government  has  the  following  suggestions on this issue:

1.  The  user  agency  shall  undertake  demarcation of the lease area on the ground using  four feet high cement concrete pillars with serial

Page 8

8

number, forward and back bearings and distance  from pillar to pillar.

2. The user agency shall make arrangements  for mutation and transfer of equivalent non-forest  land identified  for  compensatory  afforestation to  the ownership of the State Forest Department.

3. The State Forest Department will take up  compensatory  afforestation  at  Project  cost  with  suitable  indigenous  species  and  will  declare  the  said area identified for compensatory afforestation  as “protected forest” under the Orissa Forest Act,  1972 for the purpose of management.

4.  The  user  agency  shall  undertake  rehabilitation of Project-affected families, if any, as  per  the  Orissa  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement  Policy, 2006.

5.  The user agency shall  undertake  phased  reclamation of  mined-out  area.  All  overburden  should be used for back-filling and reclamation of  the mined-out areas.

6. The user agency shall undertake fencing of  the safety zone area and endeavour for protection  as well  as regeneration of the said area. It  shall  deposit funds with the State Forest Department for  the protection and regeneration of the safety zone  area.

7. Adequate soil conservation measures shall  be undertaken by the lessee on the overburdened  dumps to prevent contamination of stream flow.

8.  The  user  agency  should  undertake  comprehensive study on hydrogeology of the area  and the impact of mining on the surrounding water  quality  and  stream  flow  at  regular  interval  and  take effective measures so as to maintain the pre- mining water condition as far as possible.

Page 9

9

9.  The  user  agency  should  undertake  a  comprehensive  study  of  the  wildlife  available  in  the area in association with institutes of repute like  Wildlife  Institute  of  India,  Dehradun,  Forest  Research  Institute,  Dehradun,  etc.  and  shall  prepare  a  site  specific  comprehensive  wildlife   management  plan for  conservation  and  management of the wildlife in the Project impact  area  under  the  guidance  of  the  Chief  Wildlife  Warden of the State.

10. The user agency shall deposit the NPV of  the  forest  land  sought  for  diversion  for  undertaking mining operations.

11.  The  user  agency  shall  prepare  a  comprehensive plan for the development of tribals  in the Project impact area taking into consideration  their  requirements  for  health,  education,  communication, recreation, livelihood and cultural  lifestyle.

12.  As  per  the  policy  of  the  State  Government, the user agency shall earmark 5% of  the net profit accrued in the Project to be spent for  the  development  of  health,  education,  communication,  irrigation  and  agriculture  of  the  said scheduled area within a radius of 50 km.

13. Controlled blasting may be used only in  exigencies  wherever  needed  to  minimise  the  impact of noise on wildlife of the area.

14.  The  user  agency  shall  undertake  development of greenery by way of plantation of  suitable  indigenous  species  in  all  vacant  areas  within the Project.

15.  Trees  shall  be  felled  from the  diverted  area  only  when  it  is  necessary with  the  strict  supervision of the State Forest Department at the  cost of the Project.

Page 10

10

16.  The  forest  land  diverted  shall  be  non- transferable.  Whenever  the  forest  land  is  not  required,  the  same  shall  be  surrendered  to  the  State  Forest  Department  under  intimation  to  Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government  of India.

If M/s SIIL, State of Orissa and OMC Ltd. jointly agree to  comply  with  the  above  rehabilitation  package,  this  Court may consider granting of clearance to the Project.

Conclusion  

12. If  M/s  SIIL  is  agreeable  to  the  aforestated  rehabilitation package then they shall be at liberty to  move this Court by initiating a proper application. This  Court  is  not  against  the  Project  in  principle.  It  only  seeks  safeguards  by  which  we  are  able  to  protect  nature and subserve development. IAs are disposed of  accordingly.  

However,  we  once  again  reiterate  that  the  applications filed by M/s VAL stand dismissed.”

The Court opined that if Sterlite, State of Orissa and OMC jointly  

agree  to  comply  with  the  “Rehabilitation  Package”,  the  Court  

might consider granting clearance to the project.  Stating so, all  

the applications were disposed of, the order of which is reported  

in (2008) 2 SCC 222.

Page 11

11

8. M/s.  Sterlite,  3rd respondent  herein,  then  moved  an  

application  –  being  I.A.  No.  2134  of  2007  –  before  this  Court,  

followed by affidavits,  wherein  it  was stated  that  M/s.  Sterlite,  

State of Orissa and OMC had unconditionally accepted the terms  

and conditions and modalities suggested by this Court under the  

caption  “Rehabilitation  Package”  in  its  earlier  order  dated  

23.12.2007.  Siddharth Nayak, who was the petitioner in WP No.  

549/07,  then  filed  a  Review Petition  No.  100/2008  and  sought  

review of the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by this Court stating  

that this court had posed a wrong question while deciding I.A. No.  

2134 of 2007 and pointed out that Alumina Refinery was already  

set up by Vedanta and production commenced and the principal  

question which came up before this Court was with regard to the  

ecological  and cultural  impact of  mining in  the Niyamgiri  Hills.  

Further, it was also pointed out that if Sterlite was allowed to mine  

in  the  Niyamgiri  Hills,  it  would  affect  the  identity,  culture  and  

other customary rights of Dongaria Kondh.  Review Petition was,  

however, dismissed by this Court on 07.05.2008.  

Page 12

12

9. This  Court  then passed the final  order  in  Sterlite  case on  

8.8.2008, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

“13. For the above reasons and in the light of the  affidavits filed by SIIL, OMCL and the State of Orissa,  accepting the rehabilitation package, suggested in our  order dated 23-11-2007, we hereby grant clearance to  the forest diversion proposal for diversion of 660.749 ha  of forest land to undertake bauxite mining on Niyamgiri  Hills in Lanjigarh. The next step would be for MoEF to  grant its approval in accordance with law.”

10. MOEF, later,  considered the request of the State of Orissa  

dated 28.2.2005 seeking prior approval of MOEF for diversion of  

660.749 ha of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh  

Bauxite Mines in favour of OMC, in accordance with Section 2 of  

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.   MOEF, after considering the  

proposal  of  the  State  Government  and  referring  to  the  

recommendations of  FAC dated 27.10.2006, agreed in principle  

for  diversion  of  the  above  mentioned  forest  land,  subject  to  

various conditions which are as follows:

(i) The  Compensatory  Afforestation  shall  be  raised  over non-forest land, equal in extent to the forest  land proposed to be diverted, at the project cost.  The  User  Agency  shall  transfer  the  cost  of

Page 13

13

Compensatory  Afforestation  to  the  State  Forest  Department.

(ii) The  non-forest  land  identified  for  Compensatory  Afforestation shall be declared as Reserved Forests  under Indian Forest Act, 1927.

(iii) The User Agency shall create fence and maintain a  safety  zone  around  the  mining  area.   The  User  Agency  will  deposit  fund  with  the  Forest  Department  for  creation,  protection  and  regeneration of safety zone area and also will have  to bear the cost of afforestation over one and a half  time  of  the  safety  zone  area  in  degraded  forest  elsewhere.

(iv) The  reclamation  of  mines  shall  be  carried  out  concurrently and should be regularly monitored by  the State Forest Department.

(v) RCC pillars of 4 feet height shall be erected by the  User Agency at the project cost to demarcate the  area and the pillars will be marked with forward and  back bearings.

(vi) The  State  Government  shall  charge  Net  Present  Value  (NPV)  from the  User  Agency  for  the  entire  diverted  forest  land,  as  directed  by  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  and  as  per  the  guidelines  issued  vide Ministry of Environment and Forests letters No.

Page 14

14

5-1/98-FC(Pt.II) dated 18th September 2003 and 22nd  

September 2003. (vii) As  per  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court’s  order  dated  

23.11.2007 and 08.08.2008, M/s SIIL shall pay NPV  of Rs.55 crores.

(viii) An undertaking from the User Agency shall also be  obtained stating that in case the rates of NPV are  revised upwards, the additional/differential amount  shall be paid by the User Agency.

(ix) As  per  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court’s  order  dated  23.11.2007  and  08.08.2-008,  M/s  SIIL  shall  pay  Rs.50.53 crores towards Wildlife Management Plan  for  Conservation  and  Management  of  Wildlife  around Lanjigarh bauxite mine.

(x) As  per  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court’s  order  dated  23.11.2007 and 08.08.2-008, M/s SIIL is required to  contribute  Rs.12.20  crores  towards  tribal  development apart from payment of NPV and apart  from  contribution  to  the  Management  of  Wildlife  around  Lanjigarh  Bauxite  Mine.  Moreover,  while  allocating  CAMPA  Funds  the  said  amount  of  Rs.12.20 crores shall be earmarked specifically for  tribal development.

(xi) The  State  Government  shall  deposit  all  the  funds  with the Ad-hoc Body of Compensatory Afforestation

Page 15

15

Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)  in  Account  No.  CA  1585  of  Corporation  Bank  (A  Government  of  India  Enterprise)  Block-II,  Ground  Floor, CGO Complex, Phase-I, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110 003, as per the instructions communicated vide  letter N.5-2/2006-PC dated 20.05.2006.

(xii) As  per  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court’s  order  dated  23.11.2007 and 08.08.2-008, M/s SIIL shall deposit  5% of its annual profits before tax and interest from  Lanjigarh Project of Rs.10 crores whichever is higher  as  contribution  for  Scheduled  Area  Development.  The  contribution  is  to  be  made  every  year  commencing from 01.04.2007.  The State of Orissa  shall  float  a  Special  Purpose  Vehicle  (SPV)  for  scheduled area development of Lanjigarh Project in  which  the  stake-holders  shall  be  State  of  Orissa,  OMC  Ltd.  and  M/s  SIIL.   Such  SPV  shall  be  incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.  The  Accounts of SPC shall be prepared by the Statutory  auditors of OMC Ltd and they shall be audited by  the Auditor General for State of Orissa every year.

(xiii) The permission granted under FC Act shall  be co- terminus  with  the  mining  lease  granted  under  MMRD Act or any other relevant Act.

Page 16

16

(xiv) Tree felling shall  be done in  a phased manner to  coincide  with  the  phasing  of  area  to  be  put  to  mining with a view to minimizing clear felling.  The  felling  will  always  be  carried  out  under  strict  supervision of State Forest Department.

(xv) All  efforts shall  be made by the User Agency and  the State Government to prevent soil  erosion and  pollution of rivers/nallas/streams etc.

(xvi) The  Wildlife  Management  Plan  (WMP)  shall  be  modified accordingly as suggested by the Wildlife  Institute  of  India  (WII),  Dehradun  and  shall  be  implemented by the State Government/User Agency  at the project cost.  The progress of implementation  of the WMP shall be regularly monitored by the WILL  and Regional Office, Bhubaneshwar.

(xvii)Any other condition that the CCF (Central), Regional  Office, Bhubaneshwar / the State Forest Department  may impose from time to time for  protection and  improvement of flora and fauna in the forest area,  shall also be applicable.

(xviii) All  other provisions under different Acts,  rules,  and  regulations  including  environmental  clearance shall be complied with before transfer of  forest land.

Page 17

17

(xix) The lease will remain in the name of Orissa Mining  Corporation  (OMCL)  and if  any  change has  to  be  done,  it  will  require  prior  approval  of  the Central  Government as per guidelines.

(xx) The present forest clearance will be subject to the  final outcome of the Writ petition No. 202 of 1995  from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Court’s order  dated 23.11.2007 and 08.08.2008.   

(xxi) Other  standard  conditions  as  applicable  to  proposals  related  to  mining  shall  apply  in  the  instant case also.”

MOEF, then, vide its letter dated 11.12.2008 informed the State of  

Orissa that it had, in principle, agreed for diversion of 660.749 ha.  

of forest land  for  mining bauxite in favour of OMC, subject to  

fulfillment of the above mentioned conditions, and after getting  

the compliance report from the State Government.  Order dated  

11.12.2008 was slightly modified on 31.12.2008.  It was further  

ordered that the transfer of forest land to the user agency should  

not  be  effected  by  the  State  Government  till  formal  orders  

approving diversion of forest land were issued.

Page 18

18

11. MoEF then granted environmental clearance to OMC vide its  

proceedings  dated  28.04.2009  subject  to  various  conditions  

including the following conditions:

“(iii) Environmental  clearance  is  subject  to  grant  of  forestry  clearance.   Necessary  forestry  clearance  under  the  Forest  (Conservation)  Act,  1980  for  diversion of 672.018 ha forest land involved in the  project  shall  be  obtained  before  starting  mining  operation  in  that  area.   No  mining  shall  be  undertaken  in  the  forest  area  without  obtaining  requisite prior forestry clearance.”

The State Government then forwarded the final proposal to the  

MoEF  vide  its  letter  dated  10.08.2009  stating  that  the  user  

agency  had  complied  with  all  the  conditions  stipulated  in  the  

letter of MoEF dated 11.12.2008.  On the Forest Rights Act, the  

Government letter stated as follows:

“Provisions  of  Scheduled  Tribes  and  other  Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest  Rights) Act, 2006.

Page 19

19

The Govt.  of  India,  MOEF vide their  letter  dated  28.04.2009 have accorded environmental clearance to  Lanjigarh Bauxite Mining Project.  This letter of Govt. of  India, MOEF puts on record that there is no habitation in  the  mining  lease  area  on  the  plateau  top  and  no  resettlement  and  rehabilitation  is  involved.   Public  hearing  for  the  project  was  held  on  07.02.2003  for  Kalahandi  District  and  on  17.03.2003  for  Rayagada  District.   In  both  the  cases,  the  project  has  been  recommended.   Copies  of  the  public  hearing  proceedings have already been submitted to Govt.  of  India, MOEF along with forest diversion proposal.  This  project  was  also  challenged  in  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India  on  the  ground  that  it  violates  the  provisions of the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional  Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006  WP  (C)  No.  549  of  2007  was  filed  in  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India  by  one  Sri  Siddharth  Nayak  challenging  the  project  on  the  above  issue.   After  examining different aspects of the writ petition in IA No.  2081-2082  in  WP  (C)  No.  549/2007,  the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India had cleared the project by way  of  disposing  the  Writ  Petition  vide  their  order  dated  23.11.2007.  Subsequently, Hon’ble Supreme Court had  finally  cleared  the  project  vide  their  order  dated

Page 20

20

08.08.2008.  In view of the above position and orders of  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no further action in this  regard is proposed.”

12. 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  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

Page 21

21

look into the issues relating to the violation of Tribal rights and the  

settlement of Forest rights under the Forest Rights Act.   

13. MOEF then met on 29.6.2010 and decided to constitute a  

team composed of specialists to look into the settlement of rights  

on  forest  dwellers  and  the  “Primitive  Tribal  Groups”  under  the  

Forest Rights Act and the impact of the Project on wildlife and  

biodiversity in the surrounding areas.   Consequently, a 4-member  

Committee was constituted headed by Dr. Naresh Saxena to study  

and assess the impacts of various rights and to make a detailed  

investigation.  The Committee, after conducting several site visits  

and making detailed enquiries submitted its report to MOEF on  

16.8.2010.   

14. 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

Page 22

22

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.   

15. 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:

Page 23

23

“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.

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

Page 24

24

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.

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,

Page 25

25

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.

Page 26

26

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  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

Page 27

27

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  various  violations  in  para  2  of  the  monitoring report.  They observed:

Page 28

28

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.

Page 29

29

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)  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

Page 30

30

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  Rights  Act,  2006.      An  Act  passed  by

Page 31

31

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.  

Page 32

32

16. Shri  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  

OMC, referred to the earlier judgments of this Court in  Vedanta  

as  well  as  Sterlite and  submitted  that  those  judgments  are  

binding on the parties with regard to the various questions raised  

and decided and also to the questions which ought to have been  

raised and decided.  Learned senior counsel also pointed out that  

MOEF  itself,  after  the  above  mentioned  two  judgments,  had  

accorded Stage-I clearance vide its proceeding dated 11.12.2008  

and that the State of Orissa vide its letter dated 10.8.2009 had  

informed  MOEF  of  the  compliance  of  the  various  conditions  

stipulated  in  the  Stage-I  clearance  dated  11.12.2008.  

Consequently,  there  is  no  impediment  in  the  MOEF  granting  

Stage-II  clearance for  the project.   Learned senior counsel  also  

submitted  that  the  reasons  stated  by  the  FAC  as  well  as  the  

Saxena Committee are all untenable and have nothing to do with  

Bauxite Mining Project (BMP) undertaken by OMC.  Learned senior  

counsel  also  submitted  that  the  constitution  of,  initially,  a  3-

Member  Committee  and,  later,  a  4-Member  Committee,  was  

intended only to cancel the Stage-I clearance granted to the BMP

Page 33

33

in compliance with the judgment of this Court.   Learned counsel  

also pointed out that the claim under the Forest Rights Act was  

also raised by Sidharth Nayak through a review petition, which  

was also  rejected by this  Court  on 7.5.2008.   Consequently,  it  

would not be open to the parties to again raise the issues which  

fall under the Forest Rights Act.

17. Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

State  of  Orissa,  submitted  that  various  reasons  stated  by  the  

MOEF for rejecting the Stage-II clearance are unsustainable in law  

as well  as on facts.    Learned senior  counsel  pointed out  that  

reasons stated by the Saxena Committee as well as MOEF alleging  

violation of  the Environmental  Protection Act,  1986,  are totally  

unrelated to the BMP.  Learned senior counsel pointed out that  

Alumina Refinery is an independent project and the violation, if  

any,  in  respect  of  the  same ought  not  to  have  been  relevant  

criteria for the consideration of the grant of Stage-II clearance to  

the  BMP,  being  granted  to  OMC.   Referring  to  the  Monitoring  

Report of Eastern Regional Office dated 25.5.2010, learned senior  

counsel pointed out that the findings recorded in that report are

Page 34

34

referable to 4th respondent and not to the mining project granted  

to  OMC.   Learned  senior  counsel  also  submitted  that  Saxena  

Committee  as  well  as  MOEF  has  committed  a  factual  error  in  

taking into account the alleged legal occupation of 26.123 ha of  

village forest  lands enclosed within the factory premises which  

has no  connection with  regard  to  the  mining  project,  a  totally  

independent project.  Learned senior counsel also submitted that  

in the proposed mining area, there is no human habitation and  

that  the  individual  habitation rights  as  well  as  the  Community  

Forest Resource Rights for all villages located on the hill slope of  

the  proposed  mining  lease  area,  have  already  been  settled.  

Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the Gram Sabha has  

received several individual and community claims from Rayagada  

and Kalahandi Districts and they have settled by giving alternate  

lands.

18. Shri  Sundaram  also  submitted  that  the  Forest  Rights  Act  

deals with individual and community rights of the Tribals which  

does  not,  in  any  manner,  expressly  or  impliedly,  make  any

Page 35

35

reference  to  the  religious  or  spiritual  rights  protected  under  

Articles  25  and  26  of  the  Constitution  of  India  and  does  not  

extend  to  the  property  rights.   Learned  senior  counsel  also  

submitted that the State Government continues to maintain and  

have  ownership  over  the  minerals  and  deposits  beneath  the  

forests and such rights have not been taken away by the Forest  

Rights Act and neither the Gram Sabha nor the Tribals can raise  

any ownership rights on minerals or deposits beneath the forest  

land.

19. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3 rd  

respondent – Sterlite,  submitted that various grounds stated in  

Saxena report as well as in the order of MOEF dated 24.8.2010,  

were urged before this Court when Vedanda and Sterlite cases  

were decided and, it was following those judgments, that MOEF  

granted  Stage-I  approval  on  11.12.2008  on  the  basis  of  the  

recommendation of FAC.   In compliance of the Stage-I clearance  

accorded  by  MOEF,  SPV  (OMC  and  Sterlite)  undertook  various  

works  and  completed,  the  details  of  the  same  have  been  

furnished along with the written submissions filed on 21.1.2013.

Page 36

36

Learned senior counsel submitted that the attempt of the MOEF is  

to confuse the issue mixing up the Alumina Refinery Project with  

that of the Bauxite Mining Project undertaken by Sterlite and OMC  

through a SPV.  The issues relating to expansion of refinery and  

alleged violation of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, the  

Forest Conservation Act, 1980 etc. have nothing to do with the  

mining project undertaken by OMC and Sterlite.   Learned senior  

counsel,  therefore,  submitted  that  the  rejection  of  the  Stage-II  

clearance by MOEF is arbitrary and illegal.

20. Shri  Mohan  Parasaran,  Solicitor  General  of  India,  at  the  

outset,  referred  to  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Sterlite  and  

placed  considerable  reliance  on  para  13  of  the  judgment  and  

submitted  that  while  granting  clearance  by  this  Court  for  the  

diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land to undertake bauxite mining  

in  Niyamgiri  hills,  left  it  to  the  MOEF  to  grant  its  approval  in  

accordance  with  law.  Shri  Parasaran  submitted  that  it  is  in  

accordance  with  law  that  the  MOEF  had  constituted  two  

Committees  and  the  reports  of  the  Committees  were  placed  

before  the  FAC,  which  is  a  statutory  body  constituted  under

Page 37

37

Section 3 of the Forest Conservation Act.  It was submitted that it  

was on the recommendation of the statutory body that MOEF had  

passed  the  impugned  order  dated  24.8.2010.  Further,  it  was  

pointed out that, though MOEF had granted the Stage-I clearance  

on 11.12.2008, it can still examine as to whether the conditions  

stipulated for the grant of Stage-I clearance had been complied  

with  or  not.   For  the  said  purpose,  two  Committees  were  

constituted and the Saxena Committee in its report has noticed  

the  violation  of  various  conditions  stipulated  in  the  Stage-I  

clearance granted by MOEF on 11.12.2008.  Shri Parasaran also  

submitted that the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent have also  

violated the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, the violation of  

which had been specifically noted by the Saxena Committee and  

accepted by MOEF.   Referring to various provisions of the Forest  

Rights Act under Section 3.1(i), 3.1(e) and Section 5 of the Act, it  

was  submitted  that  concerned  forest  dwellers  be  treated  not  

merely  as  right  holders  as  statutory  empowered  with  the  

authority  to  protect  the  Niyamgiri  hills.   Shri  Parasaran  also  

pointed out that Section 3.1(e) recognizes the right to community

Page 38

38

tenures of habitat and habitation for “primitive tribal groups” and  

that Dongaria Kondh have the right to grazing and the collection  

of mineral forest of the hills and that they have the customary  

right  to  worship  the  mountains  in  exercise  of  their  traditional  

rights, which would be robed of if mining is permitted in Niyamgiri  

hills.

21. Shri Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

applicants  in  I.A.  Nos.  4  and  6  of  2012,  challenged  the  

environmental clearance granted to OMC on 28.4.2009 by MOEF  

before  the  National  Environment  Appellate  Authority  (NEAA)  

under Section 4(1) of the NEAA Act, 1997, by filing Appeal Nos. 20  

of 2009 and 21 of 2009 before NEAA.  NEAA vide its order dated  

15.5.2010 allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to MOEF  

to  revisit  the  grant  of  environmental  clearance  to  OMC  on  

28.4.2009.    Later,  MOEF  by  its  order  dated  11.7.2011  has  

withdrawn the environmental clearance dated 28.4.2009 granted  

in favour of OMC and that OMC, without availing of the statutory  

remedy of the appeal, filed I.A. No. 2 of 2011 in the present writ  

petition.   

Page 39

39

22. Shri  Sanjay  Parekh,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

applicants in I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2011, referred to the various  

provisions of the Forest Rights Act and the Rules and submitted  

that  the determination of  rights of  scheduled tribes (STs)/other  

traditional forest dwellers (TFDs) have to be done by the Gram  

Sabha in accordance with the machinery provided under Section 6  

of the Act.  Learned counsel also submitted that the forest wealth  

vests in the STs and other TFDs and can be diverted only for the  

purpose mentioned in Section 3(3).  Learned counsel also referred  

to the Saxena Committee report and submitted that the report  

clearly reveals the community rights as well as the various rights  

and claims of the primitive traditional forest dwellers.   Learned  

counsel  also  submitted  that  if  the  mining  is  undertaken  in  

Niyamgiri  hills,  it  would  destroy  more  than  7  sq.  Km.  of  

undisturbed forest land on the top of the mountain which is the  

abode of the Dongaria Kondh and their identity depends on the  

existence of Niyamgiri hills.

Page 40

40

Judicial Evaluation

23. We may, at the outset, point out that there cannot be any  

doubt that this Court in Vedanta case had given liberty to Sterlite  

to  move  this  Court  if  they  were  agreeable  to  the  “suggested  

rehabilitation package” in the order of this Court, in the event of  

which  it  was  ordered  that  this  Court  might  consider  granting  

clearance  to  the  project,  but  not  to  Vedanta.   This  Court  in  

Vedanta  case had opined that  this  Court  was not  against  the  

project  in  principle,  but  only  sought  safeguards  by  which  the  

Court  would  be  able  to  protect  the  nature  and  sub-serve  

development.  

24. The Sterlite, State of Orissa and OMC then unconditionally  

accepted the terms and conditions and modalities suggested by  

this Court in Vedanta under the caption “Rehabilitation Package”  

and they moved this Court by filing I.A. No. 2134 of 2007 and this

Page 41

41

Court accepted the affidavits filed by them and granted clearance  

to the diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land to undertake the  

bauxite mining in Niyamgiri Hills and ordered that MOEF would  

grant its approval in accordance with law.    

25. MOEF,  then  considered  the  proposal  of  the  State  

Government made under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)  

Act, 1980 and also the recommendations of the FAC and agreed in  

principle for the diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land for mining  

of  bauxite  ore  in  Lanjigarh  Bauxite  Mines  in  favour  of  OMC,  

subject to 21 conditions vide its order 11.12.2008.  One of the  

conditions  was  with  regard  to  implementation  of  the  Wildlife  

Management Plan (WMP) suggested by WII and another was with  

regard to the implementation of all other provisions of different  

Acts, including environmental clearance, before the transfer of the  

forest land.  Further, it was also ordered that after receipt of the  

compliance  report  on  fulfilment  of  the  21  conditions  from the  

State of Orissa, formal approval would be issued under Section 2  

of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Page 42

42

26. MOEF  examined  the  application  of  the  OMC  for  

environmental clearance under Section 12 of the EIA Notification,  

2006  read with  para  2.1.1(i)  of  Circular  dated 13.10.2006 and  

accorded  environmental  clearance  for  the  “Lanjigarh  Bauxite  

Mining Project” to  OMC for an annual  production capacity of  3  

million  tonnes  of  -bauxite  by  opencast  mechanized  method  

involving total mining lease area of 721.323 ha, subject to the  

conditions  and  environmental  safeguards,  vide  its  letter  dated  

28.4.2009.   32 special conditions and 16 general conditions were  

incorporated in that letter.  It was ordered that failure to comply  

with  any  of  the  conditions  might  result  in  withdrawal  of  the  

clearance  and  attract  action  under  the  provisions  of  the  

Environment Protection Act, 1986.  It was specifically stated that  

the environmental clearance would be subject to grant of forestry  

clearance and that necessary clearance for diversion of 672.018  

ha.  Of  forest  land  involved  in  the  project  be  obtained  before  

starting operation in that area and that no mining be undertaken  

in  the  forest  area  without  obtaining  prior  forestry  clearance.  

Condition No. XXX also stipulated that the project proponent shall

Page 43

43

take  all  precautionary  measures  during  mining  operation  for  

conservation  and  protection  of  flora  and  fauna  spotted  in  the  

study area and all safeguards measures brought out by the WMP  

prepared specific to the project site and considered by WII shall  

be effectively implemented.  Further, it was also ordered that all  

the recommendations made by WII for Wildlife Management be  

effectively  implemented  and  that  the  project  proponent  would  

also  comply  with  the  standards  prescribed  by  the  State  and  

Central  Pollution  Control  Boards.    Later,  a  corrigendum dated  

14.7.2009 was also issued by MOEF adding two other conditions –  

one special condition and another general condition.   

27. State  of  Orissa  vide  its  letter  dated  10.8.2009  informed  

MOEF that the user agency had complied with the stipulations of  

Stage-I approval.   Specific reference was made point by point to  

all  the  conditions  stipulated  in  the  letters  of  MOEF  dated  

11.12.2008  and  30.12.2008  and,  in  conclusion,  the  State  

Government has stated in their letter as follows:

“In view of the above position of compliance by the  User Agency to the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court of  India dated 8.8.2008 and stipulations of the Government

Page 44

44

of  India,  MOEF  vide  their  Stage-I  approval  order  dated  30.12.2008,  the  compliance  is  forwarded  to  the  Government of India, MOEF to kindly examine the same  and take further necessary steps in matters of according  final approval for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land for  the project under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,  1980.”

MOEF, it is seen, then placed the letter of the State Government  

dated  10.8.2008  before  the  FAC  and  FAC  on  4.11.2009  

recommended that the final  clearance be considered only after  

ascertaining  the  community  rights  of  forest  land and after  the  

process for establishing such rights under the Forest Rights Act is  

completed.   Dr. Usha Ramanathan Committee report was placed  

before the FAC on 16.4.2010 and FAC recommended that a Special  

Committee under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs be constituted to  

look into the issue relating to violation of  tribal  rights  and the  

settlement of various rights under the Forest Rights Act, which led,  

as already indicated, to the constitution of the Saxena Committee  

report,  based  on  which  the  MOEF  passed  the  impugned  order  

dated 24.8.2010.    

28. FAC, in its meeting, opined that the final clearance under the  

Forest (Conservation) Act would be given, only after ascertaining

Page 45

45

the “Community Rights” on forest land and after the process of  

establishing  such  rights  under  the  Forest  Rights  Act.   After  

perusing  the  Usha  Ramanathan  report,  FAC  on  16.4.2010  

recommended that  a Special  Committee be constituted to  look  

into the issues relating to the alleged violation of rights under the  

Forest  Rights  Act.   MOEF,  then  on  29.6.2010  constituted  the  

Saxena  Committee  and  the  Committee  after  conducting  an  

enquiry submitted its report which was placed before the FAC on  

20.8.2010  and  FAC  noticed  prima  facie violation  of  the  Forest  

Rights Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act.

29. Petitioner has assailed the order of MoEF dated 24.08.2010  

as  an  attempt  to  reopen  matters  that  had  obtained  finality.  

Further,  it  is  also  submitted  that  the  order  wrongly  cites  the  

violation  of  certain  conditions  of  environmental  clearance  by  

“Alumina  Refinery  Project”  as  grounds  for  denial  of  Stage  II  

clearance to OMC for its “Bauxite Mining Project”.  The contention  

is based on the premise that the two Projects are totally separate  

and independent of each other and the violation of any statutory

Page 46

46

provision or a condition of environmental clearance by one cannot  

be a relevant consideration for grant of Stage II clearance to the  

other.

30. Petitioner’s assertion that the Alumina Refinery Project and  

the  Bauxite  Mining  Project  are  two  separate  and  independent  

projects, cannot be accepted as such, since there are sufficient  

materials  on  record  to  show  that  the  two  projects  make  an  

integrated unit.   In  the two earlier  orders of  this  Court  (in  the  

Vedanta case and the Sterlite case) also the two Projects are seen  

as comprising a single unit.   Quite contrary to the case of the  

petitioner,  it  can be strongly  argued that  the  Alumina Refinery  

Project  and  Bauxite  Mining  Project  are  interdependent  and  

inseparably  linked  together  and,  hence,  any  wrong  doing  by  

Alumina  Refinery  Project  may  cast  a  reflection  on  the  Bauxite  

Mining Project and may be a relevant consideration for denial of  

Stage II clearance to the Bauxite Mining Project.

In this Judgment, however, we do not propose to make any  

final pronouncement on that issue but we would keep the focus

Page 47

47

mainly on the rights of the Scheduled Tribes and the “Traditional  

Forest Dwellers” under the Forest Rights Act.

STs and TFDs:

31. Scheduled Tribe, as such, is not defined in the Forest Rights  

Act, but the word “Traditional Forest Dweller” has been defined  

under Section 2(o) as any member or community who has at least  

three  generations  prior  to  the  13th day  of  December,  2005  

primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forests land  

for bona fide livelihood needs.  Article 366(25) of the  Constitution  

states that STs means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of  

or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are defined  

under Article 342 to be the Scheduled Tribes.  The President of  

India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article  

342  of  the  Constitution,  has  made  the  Constitution  (Schedule  

Tribes) Order, 1950.  Part XII of the Order refers to the State of  

Orissa.  Serial No. 31 refers to Dongaria Kondh, Kutia Kandha etc.  

32. Before we examine the scope of the Forest Rights Act, let us  

examine,  how  the  rights  of  indigenous  people  are  generally

Page 48

48

viewed  under  our  Constitution  and  the  various  International  

Conventions.  

Constitutional Rights and Conventions:

33. Article 244 (1) of the Constitution of India which appears in  

Part X provides that the administration of the Scheduled Areas  

and Scheduled Tribes in States (other than Assam, Meghalaya and  

Tripura) shall be according to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule  

and Clause (2)  states that  Sixth Schedule applies  to  the tribal  

areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.  Evidently, the  

object of the Fifth Schedule and the Regulations made thereunder  

is  to  preserve  tribal  autonomy,  their  cultures  and  economic  

empowerment to ensure social, economic and political justice for  

the preservation of peace and good Governance in the Scheduled  

Area.  This Court in  Samatha v. Arunachal Pradesh (1997) 8  

SCC 191 ruled that all relevant clauses in the Schedule and the  

Regulations  should  be  harmoniously  and  widely  be  read  as  to  

elongate the Constitutional objectives and dignity of person to the

Page 49

49

Scheduled Tribes and ensuring distributive justice as an integral  

scheme thereof.   The Court noticed that agriculture is the only  

source of livelihood for the Scheduled Tribes apart from collection  

and  sale  of  minor  forest  produce  to  supplement  their  income.  

Land  is  their  most  important  natural  and  valuable  asset  and  

imperishable  endowment  from  which  the  tribal  derive  their  

sustenance,  social  status,  economic  and  social  equality,  

permanent place of abode, work and living.  Consequently, tribes  

have great emotional attachments to their lands.   

34. Part  B of the Fifth Schedule [Article 244(1)]  speaks of the  

administration  and  control  of  Schedules  Areas  and  Scheduled  

Tribes.  Para 4 thereof speaks of Tribes Advisory Council.  Tribes  

Advisory Council used to exercise the powers for those Scheduled  

Areas where Panchayat Raj system had not been extended.  By  

way of the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, Part IX was  

inserted in the Constitution of India.  Article 243-B of Part IX of the  

Constitution mandated that there shall be panchayats at village,  

intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions

Page 50

50

of that Part.  Article 243-C of Chapter IX refers to the composition  

of Panchayats.  Article 243-M (4)(b)  states that Parliament may,  

by law, extend the provisions of Part IX to the Scheduled Areas  

and the Tribal areas and to work out the modalities for the same.  

The  Central  Government  appointed  Bhuria  Committee  to  

undertake  a  detailed  study  and  make  recommendations  as  to  

whether  the  Panchayat  Raj  system  could  be  extended  to  

Scheduled  Areas.   The  Committee  submitted  its  report  on  

17.01.1995  and  favoured  democratic,  decentralization  in  

Scheduled Areas.  Based on the recommendations, the Panchayat  

(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (for short ‘PESA Act’)  

was enacted by the Parliament in the year 1996, extending the  

provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to Panchayats to  

the Scheduled Areas.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons of  

the Act reads as follows:

“There  have  been  persistent  demands  from  prominent  leaders  of  the  Scheduled  Areas  for  extending  the  provisions  of  Part  IX  of  the  Constitution to these Areas so that  Panchayati  Raj

Page 51

51

Institutions may be established there.  Accordingly, it  is  proposed  to  introduce  a  Bill  to  provide  for  the  extension  of  the  provisions  of  Part  IX  of  the  Constitution  to  the  Scheduled  Areas  with  certain  modifications  providing  that,  among  other  things,  the State legislations that may be made shall be in  consonance  with  the  customary  law,  social  and  religious  practices  and  traditional  management  practices of community resources;….. The offices of  the Chairpersons in the panchayats at all levels shall  be  reserved  for  the  Scheduled  Tribes;  the  reservations  of  seats  at  every  panchayat  for  the  Scheduled Tribes shall not be less than one-third of  the total number of seats.”

35. This court had occasion to consider the scope of PESA Act  

when the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 4(g) of  

the PESA Act and few sections of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj  

Act, 2001 were challenged in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar,  

(2010) 4 SCC 50 and this Court upheld the Constitutional validity.

Page 52

52

36. Section 4 of the PESA Act stipulates that the State legislation  

on Panchayats shall be made in consonance with the customary  

law,  social  and religious  practices  and traditional  management  

practices of community resources.  Clause (d) of Section states  

that  every  Gram  Sabha  shall  be  competent  to  safeguard  and  

preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural  

identity,  community  resources  and  the  customary  mode  of  

dispute resolution.  Further it also states in clause (i) of Section 4  

that the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level  

shall  be consulted before making the acquisition of land in the  

Scheduled Areas for development projects and before re-settling  

or  rehabilitating  persons  affected  by  such  projects  in  the  

Scheduled Areas and that the actual planning and implementation  

of the projects in the Scheduled Areas, shall be coordinated at the  

State  level.   Sub-clause  (k)  of  Section  4  states  that  the  

recommendations of the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the  

appropriate  level  shall  be  made  mandatory  prior  to  grant  of  

prospective  licence  or  mining  lease  for  minor  minerals  in  the  

Scheduled Areas.  Panchayat has also endowed with the powers

Page 53

53

and  authority  necessary  to  function  as  institutions  of  Self-

Government.    

37. 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 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).

38. 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

Page 54

54

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.

39. 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

Page 55

55

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.   

40. We notice,  bearing  in  mind the  above objects,  the  Forest  

Rights  Act  has  been  enacted  conferring  powers  on  the  Gram  

Sabha  constituted  under  the  Act  to  protect  the  community  

resources, individual rights, cultural and religious rights.

The Forest Rights Act

41. The  Forest  Rights  Act  was  enacted  by  the  Parliament  to  

recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land

Page 56

56

in forest dwelling STs and other TFDs who have been residing in  

such  forests  for  generations  but  whose  rights  could  not  be  

recorded and to provide for a framework for recording the forest  

rights  so  vested and the nature  of  evidence required  for  such  

recognition and vesting in respect of forest land.  The Act also  

states that the recognized rights of the forest dwelling STs and  

other  TFDs  include  the  responsibilities  and  authority  for  

sustainable use, conservation of bio-diversity and maintenance of  

ecological  balance  and thereby  strengthening  the  conservation  

regime of the forests while ensuring livelihood and food security  

of the forest dwelling STs and other TFDs.  The Act also noticed  

that the forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not  

adequately recognized in the consolidation of State forests during  

the colonial  period as well  as in independent India resulting in  

historical injustice to them, who are integral to the very survival  

and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.

42. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act states that  

forest dwelling tribal people and forests are inseparable and that  

the simplicity  of  tribals  and their  general  ignorance of  modern

Page 57

57

regulatory  framework  precluded  them  from  asserting  their  

genuine  claims  to  resources  in  areas  where  they  belong  and  

depended upon and that only recently that forest management  

regimes  have  initiated  action  to  recognize  the  occupation  and  

other right of the forest dwellers.  Of late, we have realized that  

forests have the best chance to survive if communities participate  

in their conservation and regeneration measures.  The Legislature  

also has addressed the long standing and genuine felt need of  

granting  a  secure  and  inalienable  right  to  those  communities  

whose  right  to  life  depends  on  right  to  forests  and  thereby  

strengthening  the  entire  conservation  regime  by  giving  a  

permanent stake to the STs dwelling in the forests for generations  

in symbiotic relationship with the entire ecosystem.

43. We, have to bear in mind the above objects and reasons,  

while  interpreting  various  provisions  of  the  Forest  Rights  Act,  

which is a social welfare or remedial statute.  The Act protects a  

wide  range  of  rights  of  forest  dwellers  and  STs  including  the  

customary  rights  to  use  forest  land  as  a  community  forest

Page 58

58

resource and not restricted merely to property rights or to areas  

of habitation.

44. Forest rights of forest dwelling STs and other TFDs are dealt  

with in Chapter II of the Act.  Section 3 of that chapter lists out  

what are the forest rights for the purpose of the Act.  Following  

are some of the rights which have been recognized under the Act:

(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  entitlement  such as  fish  and other  products  of

Page 59

59

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) ---------- (g) ----------- (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 recognized 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  bio-diversity  and  community  right  to  intellectual  property  and

Page 60

60

traditional knowledge related to bio-diversity 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.

45. The above section has  to  be read along with  a  definition  

clause.  Section 2(a) defines “community forest resource”:

“(a) “Community  Forest  Resource”  means  customary  common forest land within the traditional  or customary  boundaries of the village or seasonal use of landscape in  the  case  of  pastoral  communities,  including  reserved  forests,  protected  forests  and  protected  areas  such  Sanctuaries and National Parks to which the community  had traditional access.”

“Critical wildlife habitat” is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act,  

which reads as follows:

Page 61

61

“(b) “critical  wildlife  habitat”  means  such  areas  of  National  Parks  and  Sanctuaries  where  it  has  been  specifically and clearly established, case by case, on the  basis of scientific and objective criteria, that such areas  are required to be kept as inviolate for the purposes of  wildlife conservation as may be determined and notified  by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment  and  Forests  after  open  process  of  consultation  by  an  Expert  Committee,  which  includes  experts  from  the  locality  appointed  by  that  Government  wherein  a  representative of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs shall also be  included,  in  determining  such  areas  according  to  the  procedural requirement arising from sub-sections (1) and  (2) of Section 4.”

“Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes” is defined under Section 2(c) of  

the Act, which reads as follows:

“(c) “Forest  dwelling  Scheduled  Tribes”  means  the  members  or  community  of  the  Scheduled  Tribes  who  primarily  reside  in  and  who  depend  on  the  forests  or  forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes  the Scheduled Tribe Pastoralist communities.”

Page 62

62

“Forest  land”  is  described  under  Section  2(d),  which  reads  as  

follows:

“(d) “forest land” means land of any description falling  within any forest area and includes unclassified forests,  undemarcated  forests,  existing  or  deemed  forests,  protected  forests,  reserved  forests,  sanctuaries  and  National Parks.”

“Gram  Sabha”  is  defined  under  Section  2(g),  which  reads  as  

follows:

“(g) “Gram  Sabha”  means  a  village  assembly  which  shall consist of all adult members of a village and in case  of States having no Panchayats,  Padas, Tolas and other  traditional  village  institutions  and  elected  village  committees,  with  full  and  unrestricted  participation  of  women.”

“Habitat” is defined under Section 2(h), which reads as follows:

“(h) “habitat”  includes  the  area  comprising  the  customary  habitat  and  such  other  habitats  in  reserved  forests  and  protected  forests  of  primitive  tribal  groups

Page 63

63

and  pre-agricultural  communities  and  other  forest  dwelling Scheduled Tribes.”

“Scheduled Areas” is described under Section 2(m), which reads  

as follows:

“(m) “Scheduled Areas” means the Scheduled Areas referred  to in clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution.”

“Sustainable use” is described under Section 2(n), which reads as  

follows:

“(n) “sustainable  use”  shall  have  the  same  meaning  as  assigned to it in clause (o) of Section 2 of Biological Diversity  Act, 2002 (18 of 2003).”

46. Chapter III of the Act deals with recognition, restoration and  

vesting of forest rights and related matters.   Section 4 of that  

chapter deals with recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in  

forest dwelling STs and other TFDs.  Section 5 lists out duties in  

whom the forest rights vests and also the holders of forest rights

Page 64

64

empowers  them  to  carry  out  duties.   Those  duties  include  

preservation  of  habitat  from any  form of  destructive  practices  

affecting their cultural and natural heritage.

47. 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.   

48. Chapter  IV  of  the  Act  deals  with  the  authorities  and  

procedure for vesting of forest rights.  That chapter has only one  

section  i.e.  Section  6,  which  has  to  be  read  along  with  The  

Scheduled  Tribes  and  Other  Traditional  Forest  Dwellers

Page 65

65

(Recognition of Forest Rights) Amendment Rules,  2007 and the  

Amendment Rules 2012.

49. Ministry of Tribal Affairs has noticed several problems which  

are impeding the implementation of the Act in its letter and spirit.  

For proper and effective implementation of the Act, the Ministry  

has issued certain guidelines and communicated to all the States  

and UTs vide their letter dated 12.7.2012.  The operative portion  

of the same reads as follows:

“GUIDELINES:

i) Process of Recognition of Rights:   

(a)The State Governments should ensure that  on  receipt  of  intimation  from  the  Forest  Rights Committee, the officials of the Forest  and  Revenue  Departments  remain  present  during the verification of the claims and the  evidence on the site.  

b)   In the event of modification or rejection of a  claim  by  the  Gram  Sabha  or  by  the  Sub- Divisional  Level  Committee  or  the  District  Level  Committee,  the decision on the claim  should be communicated to the claimant to  enable  the  aggrieved  person  to  prefer  a  petition  to  the  Sub  Divisional  Level  Committee  or  the  District  Level  Committee,

Page 66

66

as  the  case  may  be,  within  the  sixty  days  period prescribed under the Act and no such  petition  should  be  disposed  of  against  the  aggrieved person, unless he has been given a  reasonable opportunity to present his case.  

c)  The  Sub-Divisional  Level  Committee  or  the  District  Level  Committee  should,  if  deemed  necessary,  remand  the  claim  to  the  Gram  Sabha for reconsideration instead of rejecting  or modifying the same, in case the resolution  or the recommendation of the Gram Sabha is  found  to  be  incomplete  or  prima-facie  requires additional examination.

d)  In cases where the resolution passed by the  Gram  Sabha,  recommending  a  claim,  is  upheld  by  Sub-Divisional  Level  committee,  but the same is not approved by the District  Level  Committee,  the  District  Level  Committee should record the reasons for not  accepting the recommendations of the Gram  Sabha  and  the  Sub-Divisional  Level  Committee, in writing, and a copy of the order  should be supplied to the claimant.  

e)  On completion of the process of settlement of  rights  and  issue  of  titles  as  specified  in  Annexures  II,  III  &  IV  of  the  Rules,  the  Revenue / Forest Departments shall prepare a  final map of the forest land so vested and the  concerned  authorities  shall  incorporate  the  forest  rights  so  vested  in  the  revenue  and  forest records, as the case may be, within the  prescribed cycle of record updation.

Page 67

67

f)  All  decisions  of  the  Sub-Divisional  Level  Committee and District Level Committee that  involve  modification  or  rejection  of  a  Gram  Sabha resolution/ recommendation should be  in the form of speaking orders.  

g)  The  Sub-Divisional  Level  Committee  or  the  District Level committee should not reject any  claim  accompanied  by  any  two  forms  of  evidences,  specified  in  Rule  13,  and  recommended  by  the  Gram  Sabha,  without  giving reasons in writing and should not insist  upon  any  particular  form  of  evidence  for  consideration  of  a  claim.  Fine  receipts,  encroacher  lists,  primary  offence  reports,  forest  settlement  reports,  and  similar  documentation  rooted  in  prior  official  exercises, or the lack  -thereof, would not be  the sole basis for rejection of any claim.  

h)  Use  of  any  technology,  such  as,  satellite  imagery,  should  be  used  to  supplement  evidences  tendered  by  a  claimant  for  consideration of the claim and not to replace  other evidences submitted by him in support  of his claim as the only form of evidence.  

i)   The status of all the claims, namely, the total  number of claims filed, the number of claims  approved by the District Level Committee for  title, the number of titles actually distributed,  the number of claims rejected, etc. should be  made available at the village and panchayat  levels  through  appropriate  forms  of  communications,  including  conventional  methods, such as, display of notices, beat of  drum etc.

Page 68

68

j)   A question has been raised whether the four  hectare limit specified in Section 4(6) of the  Act,  which provides for  recognition of  forest  rights  in  respect  of  the  land  mentioned  in  clause (a)  of sub-section (1) of section 3 of  the  Act,  applies  to  other  forest  rights  mentioned  in  Section  3(1)  of  the  Act.  It  is  clarified that the four hectare limit specified  in Section 4(6) applies to rights under section  3(1)(a) of the Act only and not to any other  right under section 3(1), such as conversion  of  pattas  or  leases,  conversion  of  forest  villages into revenue villages etc.

ii)  Minor Forest Produce:   

(a)  The State Government should ensure that the  forest  rights  relating to  MFPs under  Section  3(1)(c) of the Act are recognized in respect of  all MFPs, as defined under Section 2(i) of the  Act, in all forest areas, and state policies are  brought  in  alignment  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act.  Section  2(i)  of  the  Act  defines  the  term “minor  forest  produce”  to  include  "all  non-timber produce of plant origin, including  bamboo,  brush  wood,  stumps,  cane,  tussar,  cocoons,  honey,  wax,  lac,  tendu  or  kendu  leaves,  medicinal  plants   and  herbs,  roots,  tubers, and the like".  

(b)  The monopoly of the Forest Corporations in  the trade of MFP in many States, especially in  case of high value MFP, such as, tendu patta,  is  against  the  spirit  of  the  Act  and  should  henceforth be done away with.  

c)  The forest right holders or their cooperatives/  federations should be allowed full freedom to

Page 69

69

sell  such  MFPs  to  anyone  or  to  undertake  individual  or  collective  processing,  value  addition, marketing, for livelihood within and  outside  forest  area  by  using  locally  appropriate means of transport.  

d)  The  State  Governments  should  exempt  movement of all MFPs from the purview of the  transit rules of the State Government and, for  this  purpose,  the  transit  rules  be  amended  suitably.  Even  a  transit  permit  from  Gram  Sabha should not be required.  Imposition of  any  fee/charges/royalties  on the  processing,  value  addition,  marketing  of  MFP  collected  individually  or  collectively  by  the  cooperatives/ federations of the rights holders  would also be ultra vires of the Act.  

(e)  The  State  Governments  need  to  play  the  facilitating  role  in  not  only  transferring  unhindered absolute rights over MFP to forest  dwelling  Scheduled  Tribes  and  other  traditional forest dwellers but also in getting  them  remunerative  prices  for  the  MFP,  collected and processed by them.

iii) Community Rights  :

(a)  The District Level Committee should ensure  that  the records  of  prior  recorded nistari  or  other  traditional  community  rights  (such  as  Khatian part  II  in  Jharkhand,  and traditional  forest  produce  rights  in  Himachal  and  Uttarakhand)  are provided to  Gram Sabhas,  and if claims are filed for recognition of such  age-old  usufructory  rights,  such  claims  are

Page 70

70

not rejected except for  valid  reasons,  to  be  recorded  in  writing,  for  denial  of  such  recorded rights;  

(b)  The  District  Level  Committee  should  also  facilitate  the  filing  of  claims  by  pastoralists  before the concerned Gram Sabha (s)  since  they  would be  a  floating  population for  the  Gram Sabha(s) of the area used traditionally.  

(c)  In  view  of  the  differential  vulnerability  of  Particularly  Vulnerable  Tribal  Groups  (PTGs)  amongst  the  forest  dwellers,  District  Level  Committee  should  play  a  pro-active  role  in  ensuring that all  PTGs receive habitat rights  in  consultation  with  the  concerned  PTGs’  traditional  institutions  and  their  claims  for  habitat rights are filed before the concerned  Gram Sabhas.  

(d)   The forest villages are very old entities,  at  times of pre-independent era, duly existing in  the forest records. The establishment of these  villages was in fact encouraged by the forest  authorities  in  the  pre-independent  era  for  availability of labour within the forest areas.  The well defined record of each forest village,  including  the  area,  number  of  inhabitants,  etc. exists with the State Forest Departments.  There  are  also  unrecorded  settlements  and  old  habitations  that  are  not  in  any  Government record. Section 3(1)(h) of the Act  recognizes  the  right  of  forest  dwelling  Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest  dwellers  relating  to  settlement  and  conversion on forest villages, old habitation,  un-surveyed villages  and other  villages  and

Page 71

71

forests, whether recorded, notified or not into  revenue villages. The conversion of all forest  villages into revenue villages and recognition  of the forest rights of the inhabitants thereof  should  actually  have  been  completed  immediately  on  enactment  of  the  Act.  The  State  Governments  may,  therefore,  convert  all such erstwhile forest villages, unrecorded  settlements and old habitations into revenue  villages  with  a  sense  of  urgency  in  a  time  bound manner. The conversion would include  the  actual  land-use  of  the  village  in  its  entirety,  including lands required for current  or  future  community  uses,  like,  schools,  health facilities, public spaces etc. Records of  the forest  villages maintained by the Forest  Department  may  thereafter  be  suitably  updated on recognition of this right.

iv)     Community Forest Resource Rights:

(a)  The State Government should ensure that the  forest rights under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act  relating  to  protection,  regeneration  or  conservation  or  management  of  any  community  forest  resource,  which  forest  dwellers  might  have  traditionally  been  protecting and conserving for sustainable use,  are recognized in all villages and the titles are  issued as  soon as  the  prescribed Forms for  claiming  Rights  to  Community  Forest  Resource and the Form of Title for Community  Forest  Resources  are  incorporated  in  the  Rules. Any restriction, such as, time limit, on  use of community forest resources other than  what  is  traditionally  imposed  would  be  against the spirit of the Act.

Page 72

72

b)   In case no community forest resource rights  are  recognized in  a  village,  the  reasons  for  the same should be recorded. Reference can  be  made  to  existing  records  of  community  and  joint  forest  management,  van  panchayats, etc. for this purpose.  

c)  The Gram Sabha would initially demarcate the  boundaries of the community forest resource  as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act for the  purposes  of  filing  claims  for  recognition  of  forest right under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act.  

d)  The Committees constituted under Rule 4(e) of  the  Forest  Rights  Rules,  2008  would  work  under the control of Gram Sabha. The State  Agencies should facilitate this process.  

e)    Consequent  upon the  recognition of  forest  right  in  Section  3(i)  of  the  Act  to  protect,  regenerate  or  conserve  or  manage  any  community forest resource, the powers of the  Gram Sabha would be in consonance with the  duties as defined in Section 5(d), wherein the  Gram Sabha is empowered to regulate access  to community forest resources and stop any  activity  which  adversely  affects  the  wild  animals,  forest  and  the  bio-diversity.  Any  activity that prejudicially affects the wild-life,  forest and bio-diversity in forest area would  be  dealt  with  under  the  provisions  of  the  relevant Acts.  

v)    Protection Against Eviction, Diversion of  Forest Lands and Forced Relocation :

(a)  Section 4(5)  of  the  Act  is  very  specific  and  provides that no member of a forest dwelling

Page 73

73

Scheduled  Tribe  or  other  traditional  forest  dwellers shall be evicted or removed from the  forest  land  under  his  occupation  till  the  recognition  and  verification  procedure  is  complete. This clause is of an absolute nature  and  excludes  all  possibilities  of  eviction  of  forest  dwelling  Scheduled  Tribes  or  other  traditional forest dwellers without settlement  of  their  forest  rights  as  this  Section  opens  with the words “Save as otherwise provided”.  The  rationale  behind  this  protective  clause  against eviction is to ensure that in no case a  forest  dweller  should  be  evicted  without  recognition of his rights as the same entitles  him  to  a  due  compensation  in  case  of  eventuality  of  displacement in  cases,  where  even after recognition of rights, a forest area  is  to  be  declared  as  inviolate  for  wildlife  conservation  or  diverted  for  any  other  purpose.  In  any  case,  Section  4(1)  has  the  effect of recognizing and vesting forest rights  in  eligible  forest  dwellers.  Therefore,  no  eviction should take place till  the process of  recognition and vesting of forest rights under  the Act is complete.  

(b)  The Ministry of  Environment & Forests,  vide  their  letter  No.11-9/1998-FC(pt.)  dated  30.07.2009, as modified by their subsequent  letter of the same number dated 03.08.2009,  has issued directions, requiring the State/ UT  Governments  to  enclose  certain  evidences  relating  to  completion  of  the  process  of  settlement  of  rights  under  the  Scheduled  Tribes  and  other  Traditional  Forest  Dwellers  (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, while  formulating  unconditional  proposals  for

Page 74

74

diversion  of  forest  land  for  non-forest  purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act,  1980.  The State  Government  should  ensure  that all diversions of forest land for non-forest  purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act,  1980  take  place  in  compliance  with  the  instructions  contained  in  the  Ministry  of  Environment  &  Forest’s  letter  dated  30.07.2009, as modified on 03.08.2009.  

(c) There may be some cases of major diversions  of forest land for non-forest purposes under  the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 after the  enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and other  Traditional  Forest  Dwellers  (Recognition  of  Forest Rights) Act, 2006 but before the issue  of  Ministry  of  Environment  &  Forests’  letter  dated 30.07.2009, referred to above. In case,  any  evictions  of  forest  dwelling  Scheduled  Tribes  and  other  traditional  forest  dwellers  have taken place without settlement of their  rights due to such major diversions of forest  land  under  the  Forest  (Conservation)  Act,  1980, the District Level Committees may be  advised  to  bring  such  cases  of  evictions,  if  any,  to  the  notice  of  the  State  Level  Monitoring Committee for appropriate action  against violation of the provisions contained  in Section 4(5) of the Act.  

(d) The Act envisages the recognition and vesting  of  forest  rights in  forest  dwelling Scheduled  Tribes  and  other  traditional  forest  dwellers  over all forest lands, including National Parks  and  Sanctuaries.  Under  Section  2(b)  of  the  Act, the Ministry of Environment & Forests is  responsible for determination and notification  of  critical  wildlife  habitats  in  the  National

Page 75

75

Parks  and  Sanctuaries  for  the  purpose  of  creating  inviolate  areas  for  wildlife  conservation, as per the procedure laid down.  In  fact,  the  rights  of  the  forest  dwellers  residing in the National Parks and Sanctuaries  are required to be recognized without waiting  of  notification  of  critical  wildlife  habitats  in  these areas. Further, Section 4(2) of the Act  provides for certain safeguards for protection  of the forest rights of the forest rights holders  recognized  under  the  Act  in  the  critical  wildlife  habitats  of  National  Parks  and  Sanctuaries, when their rights are either to be  modified  or  resettled  for  the  purposes  of  creating  inviolate  areas  for  wildlife  conservation. No exercise for modification of  the  rights  of  the  forest  dwellers  or  their  resettlement  from  the  National  Parks  and  Sanctuaries can be undertaken,  unless their  rights  have  been  recognized  and  vested  under  the  Act.  In  view of  the  provisions  of  Section  4(5)  of  the  Act,  no  eviction  and  resettlement is permissible from the National  Parks  and  sanctuaries  till  all  the  formalities  relating to recognition and verification of their  claims  are  completed.  The  State/  UT  Governments may, therefore, ensure that the  rights of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes  and other traditional forest dwellers, residing  in  National  Parks  and  Sanctuaries  are  recognized  first  before  any  exercise  for  modification  of  their  rights  or  their  resettlement, if necessary, is undertaken and  no member of the forest dwelling Scheduled  Tribe  or  other  traditional  forest  dweller  is  evicted  from  such  areas  without  the  settlement of their  rights and completion of

Page 76

76

all other actions required under section 4 (2)  of the Act.  

(e) The State Level Monitoring Committee should  monitor  compliance  of  the  provisions  of  Section 3(1)(m) of the Act, which recognizes  the  right  to  in  situ  rehabilitation  including  alternative  land  in  cases  where  the  forest  dwelling  Scheduled  Tribes  and  other  traditional forest dwellers have been illegally  evicted or displaced from forest land without  receiving  their  legal  entitlement  to  rehabilitation,  and  also  of  the  provisions  of  Section 4(8) of the Act, which recognizes their  right  to  land when they  are  displaced from  their  dwelling  and  cultivation  without  land  compensation  due  to  State  development  interventions.

vi)  Awareness-Raising, Monitoring and Grievance  Redressal:

a) Each  State  should  prepare  suitable  communication and training material  in  local  language  for  effective  implementation of the Act.  

b)   The State Nodal  Agency should ensure that  the Sub Divisional Level Committee and the  District  Level  Committee  make  district-wise  plans  for  trainings  of  revenue,  forest  and  tribal  welfare  departments'  field  staff,  officials,  Forest  Rights  Committees  and  Panchayat  representatives.  Public  meetings  for  awareness  generation  in  those  villages  where process of recognition is not complete  need to be held.

Page 77

77

c)   In  order  to  generate  awareness  about  the  various provisions of the Act and the Rules,  especially the process of filing petitions, the  State  Government  should  organize  public  hearings  on  local  bazaar  days  or  at  other  appropriate locations on a quarterly basis till  the process of recognition is complete. It will  be helpful if some members of Sub Divisional  Level  Committee  are  present  in  the  public  hearings. The Gram Sabhas also need to be  actively  involved  in  the  task  of  awareness  raising.  

d)   If any forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe in case  of a dispute relating to a resolution of a Gram  Sabha  or  Gram Sabha  through  a  resolution  against any higher authority or Committee or  officer  or  member  of  such  authority  or  Committee gives a notice as per Section 8 of  the  Act  regarding  contravention  of  any  provision  of  the  Act  or  any  rule  made  thereunder  concerning  recognition  of  forest  rights  to  the  State  Level  Monitoring  Committees,  the  State  Level  Monitoring  Committee  should  hold  an  inquiry  on  the  basis of the said notice within sixty days from  the receipt of the notice and take action,  if  any,  that  is  required.  The  complainant  and  the  Gram Sabha  should  be  informed  about  the outcome of the inquiry.”

Forest Rights Act and MMRD Act:

Page 78

78

50. 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……….”

Page 79

79

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.   

Gram Sabha and other Authorities:

51. Under  Section  6  of  the  Act,  Gram  Sabha  shall  be  the  

authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and  

extent of individual or community forest rights or both and that  

may be given to the forest dwelling STs and other TFDs within the

Page 80

80

local  limits  of  the jurisdiction.   For  the said  purpose it  receive  

claims,  and  after  consolidating  and  verifying  them  it  has  to  

prepare a plan delineating the area of each recommended claim  

in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of such rights.  

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. Any aggrieved person may move a petition before the  

Sub-Divisional  Level  Committee  against  the  resolution  of  the  

Gram Sabha.  Sub-section (4) of Section 6 confers a right on the  

aggrieved  person  to  prefer  a  petition  to  the  District  Level  

Committee  against  the  decision  of  the  Sub-Divisional  Level  

Committee.   Sub-section  (7)  of  Section  6  enables  the  State  

Government to 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 shall be  

called for by that agency.  

52. Functions  of  the  Gram  Sabha,  Sub-Divisional  Level  

Committee,  District  Level  Committee,  State  Level  Monitoring

Page 81

81

Committee  and  procedure  to  be  followed  and  the  process  of  

verification  of  claims  etc.  have  been  elaborately  dealt  with  in  

2007  Rules  read  with  2012  Amendment  Rules.   Elaborate  

procedures have therefore been laid down by Forest Rights Act  

read with 2007 and 2012 Amendment Rules with regard to the  

manner in which the nature and extent of individual or customary  

forest rights or both have to be decided.  Reference has already  

been  made  to  the  details  of  forest  rights  which  have  been  

conferred on the forest dwelling STs as well as TFDs in the earlier  

part of the Judgment.

Individual/Community Rights

53. Forest  Rights Act  prescribed various rights to tribals/forest  

dwellers as per Section 3 of the Act.  As per Section 6 of the Act,  

power is conferred on the Gram Sabha to process for determining  

the nature and the extent of individual or community forests read  

with or both that may be given to forest dwelling STs and other  

TFDs, by receiving claims, consolidate it, and verifying them and  

preparing a map, delineating area of each recommended claim in

Page 82

82

such  a  manner  as  may  be  prescribed.   The  Gram Sabha  has  

received  a  large  number  of  individual  claims  and  community  

claims  from  the  Rayagada  District  as  well  as  the  Kalahandi  

District.   From  Rayagada  District  Gram  Sabha  received  185  

individual claims, of -which 145 claims have been considered and  

settled by granting alternate rights over 263.5 acres of land.  40  

Individual claims pending before the Gram Sabha pertain to areas  

which falls outside the mining lease area.  In respect of Kalahandi  

District 31 individual claims have been considered and settled by  

granting alternate rights over an area of 61 acres.

54. Gram Sabha has not received any community claim from the  

District of Rayagada.  However, in respect of Kalahandi District 6  

community claims had been received by the Gram Sabha of which  

3 had been considered and settled by granting an alternate area  

of 160.55 acres.  The balance 3 claims are pending consideration.

Customary and Religious Rights (Sacred Rights)

Page 83

83

55. Religious  freedom guaranteed  to  STs  and  the  TFDs  under  

Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is intended to be a guide to  

a community of life and social demands.  The above mentioned  

Articles guarantee them the right to practice and propagate not  

only  matters  of  faith  or  belief,  but  all  those  rituals  and  

observations which are regarded as integral part of their religion.  

Their right to worship the deity Niyam-Raja has, therefore, to be  

protected and preserved.  

56. Gram Sabha has a role to play in safeguarding the customary  

and religious rights of the STs and other TFDs under the Forest  

Rights Act.   Section 6 of  the Act  confers  powers  on the Gram  

Sabha  to  determine  the  nature  and  extent  of  “individual”  or  

“community rights”.  In this connection, reference may also be  

made to Section 13 of the Act coupled with the provisions of PESA  

Act, which deal with the powers of Gram Sabha.  Section 13 of the  

Forest Rights Act reads as under:

“13.  Act not in derogation of any other law. –  Save  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Act  and  the

Page 84

84

provisions  of  the  Panchayats  (Extension  of  the  Scheduled  Areas)  Act,  1996  (40  of  1996),  the  provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in  derogation of the provisions of any other law for the  time being in force.”

57. PESA Act has been enacted, as already stated, to provide for  

the  extension  of  the  provisions  of  Part  IX  of  the  Constitution  

relating to Panchayats to the Scheduled Areas.  Section 4(d) of  

the  Act  says  that  every  Gram  Sabha  shall  be  competent  to  

safeguard  and  preserve  the  traditions,  customs  of  the  people,  

their cultural identity, community resources and community mode  

of dispute resolution.  Therefore, Grama Sabha functioning under  

the Forest Rights Act read with Section 4(d) of PESA Act has an  

obligation to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs  

of  the  STs  and  other  forest  dwellers,  their  cultural  identity,  

community resources etc., which they have to discharge following

Page 85

85

the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs vide its letter  

dated 12.7.2012.   

58. We are, therefore, of the view that the question whether STs  

and other TFDs, like Dongaria Kondh, Kutia Kandha and others,  

have  got  any  religious  rights  i.e.  rights  of  worship  over  the  

Niyamgiri hills, known as Nimagiri, near Hundaljali, which is the  

hill top known as Niyam-Raja, have to be considered by the Gram  

Sabha.    Gram Sabha can also examine whether the proposed  

mining area Niyama Danger, 10 km away from the peak, would in  

any way affect the abode of Niyam-Raja.  Needless to say, if the  

BMP,  in  any  way,  affects  their  religious  rights,  especially  their  

right to worship their deity, known as Niyam Raja, in the hills top  

of the Niyamgiri range of hills, that right has to be preserved and  

protected.  We find that this aspect of the matter has not been  

placed before the Gram Sabha for their active consideration, but  

only the individual claims and community claims received from  

Rayagada and Kalahandi Districts, most of which the Gram Sabha  

has dealt with and settled.

Page 86

86

59. 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 settling of  

individual as well as community claims.   

60. 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

Page 87

87

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.   

61. The Alumina Refinery Project is well advised to take steps to  

correct and rectify the alleged violations by it of the terms of the  

environmental clearance granted by MoEF.  Needless to say that  

while  taking  the  final  decision,  the  MoEF  shall  take  into  

consideration  any  corrective  measures  that  might  have  been  

taken by the Alumina Refinery Project for rectifying the alleged  

violations of the terms of the environmental clearance granted in  

its favour by the MoEF.   

62. The proceedings of the Gram Sabha shall be attended as an  

observer  by a judicial  officer  of  the rank of  the District  Judge,  

nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa who

Page 88

88

shall  sign  the  minutes  of  the  proceedings,  certifying  that  the  

proceedings  of  the  Gram Sabha  took  place  independently  and  

completely uninfluenced either by the Project proponents or the  

Central Government or the State Government.

63. The Writ  Petition is  disposed of with the above directions.  

Communicate  this  order  to  the  Ministry  of  Tribal  Affairs,  Gram  

Sabhas  of  Kalahandi  and Rayagada Districts  of  Orissa  and the  

Chief Justice of High Court of Orissa, for further follow up action.

……………………...……J.            (Aftab Alam)

…………………….……..J.                                                                 (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………….……..……J.      (Ranjan Gogoi)

New Delhi, April  18, 2013