The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to support claims related to land conversion, environmental impact, and construction permissions.

F.M. REIS, J.

Heard Mr. Nigel de Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4, Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

2. The above petition, inter alia, takes exception to the NOC issued by the respondent No.3 dated 28/3/2007, as well as the construction licence dated 31/3/2007, issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.5. The petitioners have also sought a direction to quash the Certificate dated 2/3/2007, issued by the Deputy Collector/respondent No.4 with regard to the conversion of the subject land.

3. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has pointed out that the respondent No.5 has obtained the certificate from the respondent No.4 in terms of the Land Revenue Code on the assumption that such land had structures, to avoid payment of conversion fees in respect of such properties. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, pointed out that on the basis of two mundkarial structures existing in the disputed property, the respondent No.5 has avoided paying conversion charges in respect of the property admeasuring around 25,375 sq. metres. The learned Counsel further points out that this act on the part of the respondent No.4 in granting such certificate is totally erroneous and contrary to the circulars and, as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel further points out that merely because two mundkarial houses were located in the disputed land, it cannot be assumed that the whole property admeasuring around 30,000 sq. metres is nonagricultural. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the said Certificate issued by the respondent No.4 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the conversion fees be rewarded to the respondent No.5 as it is a loss to the exchequer.

The next grievance of Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias is that the survey plan in respect of the disputed property surveyed under No.40/0 of Vanelim shows an area in blue colour which, according to the learned Counsel, was an existing pond. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken us through the plan submitted to the Authorities for obtaining permissions, to point out that in the said portion of the property where such pond was located, the respondent No.5 has misled the Authorities by making a note that the structures existing therein are being demolished. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken us through the photographs produced on record to point out that the existing pond was being filled up by the respondent No.5 which, according to him, is contrary to the provisions of the Town and Country Plan Act, which inter alia provides that for filling up any low lying land permission is required to be obtained. The learned Counsel further points out that this act on the part of the respondent No.5 would lead to degradation of environment at the site, as natural source of water in the pond would be gravely jeopardized. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken us through the report prepared by the local Panchayat to point out that the existence of the pond was, in fact, noticed at the time of the inspection. The learned Counsel as such, submits that the Authorities have to be directed to take necessary action against the respondent No.5 for filling up such a pond.

The learned Counsel has, thereafter, pointed out that this Court, by an order dated 22nd March, 2010, had permitted the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 with regard to the grievances raised in the above petition. The learned Counsel further points out that as no decision was taken with regard to such representations, the petitioners have also amended the petition to place on