NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member
DOMINGOS CRASTO – Appellant
Versus
Goa State Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent
Appeal No.50/2022(WZ)|I.A. No.179/2022(WZ)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pre-1991 structures authorized under crz if documented. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. high court directions mandate gczma re-examination. (Para 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. gczma lacks merits review power; res judicata applies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. post-1991 ndz structures illegal without permissions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. survey maps and missing records prove post-1991 construction. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. appeal dismissed; demolition ordered upheld. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed, under Section 18(1) read-with Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, against the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.1- Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) directing the appellant to demolish the structures in the property bearing Survey No.12/1 of Village Sernabatim, Salcette-Goa within a period of 30 days from the date of decision taken in 325th Meeting of the respondent No.1- GCZMA held on 30.09.2022 and 04.10.2022.
2. In brief, the facts of this case are that the ancestors of the appellant had constructed a house in the property bearing Survey No.12/1 of Village Sernabatim in the year 1948, after obtaining permission from “Camara Municipal De Salcette”, the then administrative body in the erstwhile Portuguese regime, having jurisdiction over the Villages of Salcette Taluka. The said structure was repaired by the father of appellant in the year 1979 after obtaining the permission for repair and renovation from the Village Panchayat of Sernabatim, Vanelim & Colva. The ancestors of appellant and the appellant were always in possession of the said property since 1948 and therefore, the appellant subsequently purchased the said property.
3. It is further mentioned in this appeal that on 23.09.2007, the respondent No.1- GCZMA issued a show cause notice to the appellant based on a complaint from one Mr. Agostinho Godinho (not party herein) for violation of CRZ Notification, to which the appellant filed reply dated 12.11.2007 and thereafter, the respondent No.1-GCZMA carried out site inspection to map the structures and to verify the details on the site. These structures were mapped by a team of officials from the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records (DSLR) in association with the members of the GCZMA. Upon examining the map prepared by the DSLR, the respondent No.1-GCZMA arrived on a conclusion that the structure was old, which existed prior to the year 1991 and accordingly, took a decision vide Order dated 31.12.2008 that the same was held to be an authorized structure, which was in existence prior to coming into force the CRZ Notification, 1991 and decided to drop the said show cause notice.
4. It is further mentioned in this appeal that the respondent No.1 had considered the legality of the structure of the appellant, on the basis of following documents:-
i. The construction licence issued by "Camara Municipal De Salcete" dated 11/05/1948.
ii. Permission dated 31/03/1979 for repairs and renovation of the structure issued by Village Panchayat Sernabatim.
iii. Copy of Form I and XIV.
5. It is further mentioned in this appeal that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in SMWP No.2/2006 had taken cognizance of the illegalities/constructions in CRZ area and vide order dated 26.09.2007, directed all the panchayats/municipalities to submit action taken report as regards the construction in NDZ/CRZ area within the State of Goa. It is further submitted that in the same Writ Petition, vide order dated 12/01/2015, it was further directed to the Village Panchayat of Sernabatim, Vanelim, Colva and Gaundalim to place the material on record before the GCZMA and thereupon the GCZMA was directed to examine the same after according due hearing to the parties. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.3- Private Complainant had intervened in the matter by filing an Intervention Applicat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.