Back
1998 Supreme(Bom) 386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
A.A. Desai R.K. Batta, JJ.
Leonard J.S. Fernandes others..... Petitioners.
Versus
The Canacona Municipal Council,
through its Chief Executive Officer others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 150 of 1998, decided on 18-7-1998.
Advocates appeared :
Ms. Norma Alvares, for the petitioners.
S. Usgaonkar, for respondent No. 1.
C.A. Ferreira, A.G.A, for respondents No. 2, 13 and 14.
A.N.S. Nandkarni, for the respondent No. 3.
G.V. Tamba, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 4.
Mrs. A.A. Agni, for respondent No. 6.
S.G. Dessai, S.A. with S.D. Padiyar, for respondents No. 8 and 9.
S.D. Lotlikar, for respondent No. 12.
Constructions made in violation of Building Laws and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification are liable to be demolished.
Headnote:
BUILDING LAWS - COASTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION - CONSTRUCTION - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - DIRECTIONS: The Court directed the demolition of illegal constructions made by respondents 5 to 12 near Palolem Beach, Canacona, Goa, in violation of Building Laws and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. The Court also directed the Canacona Municipal Council to take action against illegal constructions made by the petitioners if any, in accordance with the Building Laws.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, residents of the area where the violations are alleged to have taken place, and Goa Foundation, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, filed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the authorities to demolish the impugned constructions made by respondents 5 to 12 and to fix responsibility for such violations. The violations alleged were that no construction licenses had been obtained, constructions were made in CRZ-III of the Coastal Zone Notification, no approval had been taken from the Goa State Committee of Coastal Environment (G.S.C.C.E.), constructions made had been occupied without occupation certificate, and in some cases demolition orders had been issued.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the constructions in question were made in violation of Building Laws and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. The Court held that the area upto 200 metres from High Tide Line is earmarked as 'No Development Zone' and no construction is permitted within this Zone except for repairs of existing authorised structures not exceeding existing F.S.I., existing plinth area and existing density.
Issues: 1. Whether the constructions made by respondents 5 to 12 were in violation of Building Laws and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification? 2. Whether the Canacona Municipal Council had taken appropriate action against the illegal constructions?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the constructions made by respondents 5 to 12 were in violation of Building Laws and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. The Court also held that the Canacona Municipal Council had not taken appropriate action against the illegal constructions.
Final Decision: The Court directed the demolition of illegal constructions made by respondents 5 to 12 within a period of one month from the date of the order. The Court also directed the Canacona Municipal Council to take action against illegal constructions made by the petitioners if any, in accordance with the Building Laws.
2. The violations alleged are that no construction licences had been obtained and where construction licences were obtained, they were merely for repairs and not for construction; that the constructions are made in CRZ-III of the Coastal Zone Notification; that no approval has been taken from the Goa State Committee of Coastal Environment (G.S.C.C.E. for short); that the constructions made have been occupied without occupation certificate and that in some cases demolition orders have been issued. The violations are reported to have been committed by the respondents No. 5 to 12 on whose behalf the matter was argued by their Counsel separately. Therefore, we shall take up the case in respect of the alleged violations against each respondents No. 5 to 12 separately.
3. Before taking up the case of each respondent separately, it is necessary to note the restrictions in respect of the developments which can be carried out in CRZ-III. In CRZ-III fall areas that are relative undisturbed and those which do not fall either in CRZ-I or CRZ-II and they include coastal zone in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) as also areas within Municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up. In CRZ-III the area upto 200 metres from the HTL is to be earmarked as 'No Development Zone' and no construction shall be permitted within this Zone except for repairs of existing authorised structures not exceeding existing FSI, existing plinth area and existing density (emphasis supplied). In this zone upto 200 metres agriculture, horticulture, garden pastures, parks, play fields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water are permitted. The development of vacant plots between 200 and 500 metres of High Tide Line in designated areas of CRZ-III with prior approval of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF for short) is permitted for construction of hotels /beach resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions as stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II. Construction/ reconstruction of dwelling units between 20 and 500 metres of HTL is permitted so long as it is within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and gaothans. There are further restrictions namely that building permission for such construction/reconstruction will be subject to the conditions that the total number of dwelling units shall not be more than twice the number of existing units; total covered area on all floors shall not exceed 33 per cent of the plot size and overall height of construction shall not exceed 9 metres and construction shall not be more than 2 floors (ground floor plus one floor). The reconstruction/ alterations of an existing authorised building is permitted subject to the above restrictions (emphasis supplied). Thus, we have to examine the case of the respondents keeping in view the above restrictions for development which exist in CRZ-III areas. It has also to be borne in mind that the area upto 200 metres from High Tide Line is earmarked as 'No Development Z
