R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.––Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at length, as well as the learned Advocate General. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. The impugned Order is sought to be challenged on three grounds. Firstly, that the learned Single Judge overlooked the survey plan, copy of which was placed on the record of the Writ Petition No. 557/2004 at page 50 which revealed existence of a structure therein and further that the plan annexed to the Sale Deed dated 8.7.1992 also reflected the existence of the structure in the property sold under the said Deed. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the said plan appended to the Sale Deed was prepared on 28.6.1983 as is indicated from the plan itself. Besides, the undisputed photographs of the structure were clicked in the year 1987. The license issued by the panchayat on 20.10.1992 was also overlooked by the learned Single Judge by approving the finding arrived at by the respondents, about the absence of structure in the property prior to 1991. The second ground of challenge is that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the submission as regards Clause II(ii)(a) of Order dated 26.11.1998 regarding the Goa Coastal Zone Management and failed to consider that in order to exercise the powers under the said provision of law, the authority must be satisfied about the specific case necessarily requiring exercise of the powers thereunder and considering the materials placed on record before the authority which apparently disclosed the existence of the old structure, there was no occasion for the authority to exercise the powers under the said provision of law and this aspect was totally overlooked by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition. The third ground of challenge is that the learned Single Judge also overlooked that the power for ordering demolition of such structure could be exercised within a reasonable period from the date of construction of structure, and certainly it cannot be said that the authority acted within the reasonable period in 2004 considering the fact that the structure was in existence much prior to 1991.

3. Three points arise for determination in his appeal. Firstly whether the impugned Order fails to consider the documentary evidence on record? Secondly whether Clause II(ii)(a) of the said Order dated 26.11.1998 has been misconstrued by rejecting the Writ Petition? And thirdly, whether there has been unreasonable delay in taking action and on that count the impugned Order stands vitiated?

4. The perusal of the impugned Order discloses that the appellant has challenged the Order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on two grounds. Firstly, that the materials on record disclosed existence of structure much prior to 1991, which was totally overlooked by the authority and secondly, the authority had exercised the powers in contravention of the provisions of Clause II (ii)(a) of the above referred Notification. The ground of alleged unreasonable delay in exercise of powers was not raised before the learned Single Judge as is apparent from the impugned Order, and it is also an undisputed fact.

5. As regards the first ground of challenge, the learned Single Judge in his Order after reproducing para 6 of the Order of the authority held that the finding arrived at by the authority in the said para does not suffer from any infirmity and clearly disclosed that the offending structure had come into existence after February, 1991. The materials which were placed before the learned Single Judge in support of the contention that the structure existed much prior to 1991 comprised of Sale Deeds along with the plan annexed to the Sale Deed dated 8.7.1992, new survey plan dated 23.4.2003. Records of Right Certificate, N.O.C. for repairs by the panchayat issued on 20.10.1992, two House Tax receipts for the year 2002-03 and 2001-02, as well as for 2003-04, a letter by an Architect d