Statutory limitations restrict the Tribunal's jurisdiction over invalidated claims unless compliant with court mandates.

ORDER

1. These three Applications involve common issue of legality of constructions in ‘No-development Zone’ (NDZ) that is within 200 mtrs. along the High Tide Line (HTL) of the beach of Utorda in Goa. The applications were filed in the year 2015.

2. According to the applicants, the unauthorized constructions in question include structures of the private respondents which are of permanent nature. Members of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) and some Ministers of Goa have direct nexus with such illegal constructions. The constructions extend right upto the HTL where night parties and wedding parties are held. This calls for restoration of damaged environmental areas in the NDZ. Illegal constructions were carried out in the year January, 2012. Damage caused by the private respondent is to the extent of 75 crores (as alleged in O.A No. 165/2015).

3. The matter was initially dealt with vide order dated 30.11.2015. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 5000/- by way of security vide order dated 22.12.2015 which was deposited. On 12.01.2016, the Tribunal issued notice and directed the Directorate of Survey and Land Records (DSLR), Goa to visit the beach and identify the structures within the NDZ. On 01.04.2015, the Tribunal gave three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. The matter was adjourned from time to time. However, no counter affidavit was filed by the GCZMA for five years.

4. On 07.10.2020, the Tribunal took up the matter for consideration and noted orders of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 422 of 1998 directing fixing of responsibility for violation of CRZ Notification and removing of illegal constructions. Reference was also made to Suo- Moto Writ Petition No. 02 of 2006 before the said High Court requiring identification of structures existing as of 19.02.1991 which is the cut-off date for prohibiting further constructions. The High Court vide order dated 26.09.2017 directed the authorities to take action. The Tribunal noted that in spite of notice and repeated opportunities, the GCZMA had not given reply for which there was no justification. Prayer for further adjournment for filing reply was granted subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- per case to be deposited with the CPCB for being utilised for protection and restoration of the environment.

5. The matter was last considered on 03.11.2020 and since the reply of the GCZMA was not available, the matter was deferred to today with a direction that the cost imposed in terms of order dated 07.10.2020 be deposited. Accordingly, GCZMA has filed proof of payment of costs and also the affidavit in reply of the GCZMA is available for consideration.

6. In the reply, the stand of the GCZMA is that the constructions in question have been in existence for the last two decades while the limitation for this Tribunal to take up the matter within five years of the accrual of cause of action. There is a detailed report of the DSLR dated 28.03.2016.

7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the report of the DSLR does not contain any finding that the constructions in question are legal. The reply also does not show that the constructions are legal. The orders of the High Court have thus not been complied with. He is however unable to respond on the point of limitation.