Collateral challenges to concluded land acquisition and forest diversion proceedings are barred by principles of finality and res judicata.

The Appellants challenged a Single Judge’s dismissal of their writ petition which sought to quash the revocation of Community Forest Rights (CFR) in village Ghatbarra and the subsequent forest diversion approvals for Phase-II mining in the PEKB coal block

The coal block was originally allotted to Respondent No. 5 in 2006-07; after the Supreme Court cancelled all coal blocks in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, it was re-allotted under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015

In 2013, the District Level Committee (DLC) granted CFRs to the villagers, but revoked them in 2016 on the grounds that they were granted by mistake and interfered with prior mining approvals

The Appellants argued that Phase-II clearances (granted in 2022) violated the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ("FR Act") as Gram Sabha consent was absent

The Single Judge dismissed the petition citing lack of locus, delay, suppression of facts regarding prior litigation (WPC No. 1247/2022), and substantial completion of the project

1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable given the Appellants' failure to challenge foundational diversion orders from 2011-2012 and the non-disclosure of previous unsuccessful litigation involving the same subject matter

2. Whether the provisions of the FR Act, 2006 override the State’s sovereign rights over minerals underneath forest land or can invalidate mining clearances after substantial project execution

3. Whether the doctrine of finality and res judicata barred the Appellants from raising a collateral challenge to the land acquisition and diversion process

The Court applied the principles of res judicata and the "doctrine of finality," as established in Union of India v. S.P. Sharma (Major), which prohibits collateral attacks on issues already adjudicated to ensure legal certainty

It followed the Division Bench precedent in Mangal Sai Armo v. Union of India, holding that the FR Act, 2006 does not divest the State of its ownership of minerals

The Court also applied the principle that a challenge to consequential actions is not maintainable if the foundational orders remain unchallenged

The Court found that the Appellants engaged in "suppression of material facts" by failing to disclose that identical challenges regarding land acquisition in the same area had already been dismissed in WPC No. 1247/2022 and related matters

The Bench reasoned that the current petition was a "collateral assault" on concluded proceedings, which is impermissible under the doctrine of finality

Regarding the FR Act, the Court held that while the Act provides procedural safeguards, it does not grant an absolute veto over state-cleared development projects, particularly when Phase-I is complete and Phase-II is underway

The Court noted that the Appellants' failure to challenge the original 2011-2012 diversion orders at the appropriate time was fatal to their case

Furthermore, the lack of valid authorization for the substituted petitioners and the possibility of monetary compensation for any residual claims justified the refusal of discretionary writ relief

It held that the petition was barred by the principles of res judicata and finality because it sought to re-agitate issues settled in previous litigation

The Court concluded that the FR Act does not invalidate duly granted mining approvals at this advanced stage of implementation, and the Appellants failed to demonstrate enforceable legal rights to halt the project

No order as to costs was made