Forest Rights Certificate cannot be cancelled without providing the holder an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner was granted a Forest Rights Certificate (Annexure P-4) and a "Rin Pustika" for land bearing Khasra Nos. 92 and 07 (totaling 2.74 hectares) following an inquiry in Revenue Case No. 113/B-121/2014-15

This certificate recognized his possession of the subject land prior to the year 2000

Based on a complaint filed by the Sarpanch (Respondent No. 6), the Sub-Divisional Level Committee recommended the cancellation of said certificate

On 27.08.2024, the District Level Forest Rights Committee ("the Committee") issued an order (Annexure P-1) cancelling the petitioner’s Forest Rights Certificate, alleging the petitioner had only been in possession since 2019 and had obtained the certificate through false facts

The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226, contending the order was passed without providing him an opportunity of hearing

Whether the cancellation of a Forest Rights Certificate by the District Level Forest Rights Committee without providing an opportunity of hearing to the certificate holder is legally sustainable?

The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It applied the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Forest Rights Act, 2006) regarding the recognition and cancellation of forest rights

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, which requires that a party whose rights are being adversely affected must be given a fair opportunity to be heard

The court noted that because the Forest Rights Certificate was granted after a due inquiry and revenue proceedings, a legal right had accrued in favor of the petitioner

The court reasoned that even in cases where the State alleges that a certificate was obtained through misrepresentation or false facts, the Committee is not absolved of its duty to follow procedural fairness

The State counsel conceded that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing

Consequently, the court found that the principles of natural justice were bypassed, rendering the Committee's unilateral decision to quash the accrued rights of the petitioner procedurally flawed and unsustainable

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the District Level Forest Rights Committee

The petition was allowed to the extent that the matter was remanded to Respondent No. 3 (the Committee) with liberty to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order only after providing a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner