SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 710

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member
Colva Civic & Consumer Forum – Appellant
Versus
Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent
APPEAL NO.49 OF 2022 (WZ)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Judith Almeda
For the Respondents: Ms. Supria Dangare, Mr. P. Dangui

CRZ authorities must verify prior refusals, FAR compliance, site conditions via inspection before discharging proceedings on alleged NDZ violations, considering HTL shifts; inadequate orders warrant remand.

Headnote:(A) Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 - Structures in No Development Zone (NDZ) (0-200 m from HTL) - Challenge to order discharging proceedings against constructions alleged to be illegal - Permissions granted in 1995 by predecessor authority for structures shown beyond 200 m HTL - Subsequent mappings showing partial overlap due to HTL line shift - No new constructions in NDZ post-1991; one additional structure removed - Permissions attained finality; change of user and FAR disputes require verification - Impugned order set aside for inadequate consideration of prior refusals, FAR consumption, and site inspection. (Paras 72-74)

(B) Environmental Law - Precautionary Principle - Duty of authority to conduct physical site inspection and verify violations before dropping proceedings - Remand for fresh decision with speaking order after hearing parties. (Paras 21, 72)

Facts of the case:
Appeal against order discharging proceedings for alleged unauthorized constructions/extensions in CRZ area within NDZ. Originated from High Court directions for action taken reports on illegal CRZ structures. Authority framed issues on location vis-à-vis 200 m HTL and validity of permissions, concluding structures beyond NDZ as per 1995 approvals, with mappings showing shifts in HTL line.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order cryptic; failed to address prior permission refusals (1989, 1992), FAR discrepancy (alleged 49.01% vs claimed 30.90%), actual constructed area vs permitted, compound wall vs bio-fencing, water body conversion. No site inspection despite request.

Issues: Whether structures within 200 m HTL/NDZ without valid permission; validity of 1995 approvals ignoring prior refusals; compliance with FAR, user change, and CRZ norms.

Ratio Decidendi: Authorities must diligently verify documents, mappings, prior refusals, FAR, and conduct site inspections before concluding no violation; HTL shifts noted but construction per contemporaneous approvals upheld if no new NDZ builds; remand for comprehensive re-adjudication.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and remanded to authority for fresh decision within two months.

Table of Content
1. high court directed action on crz illegal constructions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. gczma meetings verified structures beyond ndz. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. gczma found structures compliant with permissions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. appellant alleges ndz violations and unauthorized changes. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. temporary structures challenged under beach capacity. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
6. respondents defend valid pre-1991 compliant permissions. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
7. rejoinder highlights illegal post-1991 ndz constructions. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
8. tribunal notes unresolved far and htl shift issues. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)
9. remand to gczma for fresh site verification. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal No. 49 of 2022[WZ] has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by respondent no.1 - The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), discharging the proceedings against respondent No. 4 - M/s. Soul Vacation-Colmar Condominium Pvt. Ltd, alleged of illegal unauthorized construction extensions carried out in survey no.40/4(part) of Colva Village, Taluka Salcete.

2. In short, the facts of the case that have been taken from the impugned order as well as the facts mentioned in the memo of appeal are as follows; The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa took Suo Moto cognizance of illegal construction in the CRZ area in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 02/2006, and vide order dated 26.09.2007 directed all the Panchayats/Municipalities to submit an action taken report with regard to constructions in NDZ/CRZ area as per the terms mentioned therein.

3. Thereafter, on 12.01.2015 it directed respondent No 19 (before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa) – Village of Colva to furnish material on record to suggest the structures were not illegal, before the GCZMA and that such authorities shall examine such material after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

4. Thereafter, Village Panchayat of Sernabatim, Vanelim, Colva, and Gandaulim produced an action taken report along with all material record, along with material record before the office of GCZMA, and the action taken report was also placed before the Hon’ble High Court with two additional affidavits annexing all the documents of the structures pointed out by the intervenor (Colva Civic and Consumer Forum, who is appellant before us in the present appeal).

5. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the GCZMA in its 115th meeting held on 04.04.2015 wherein, it decided to refer the matter to the Inquiry Committee of GCZMA to examine all the documents and hear the parties and submit the detailed report to the GCZMA within 30 days. The inquiry committee completed its inquiry and submitted its report dated 28.09.2015. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing before the Hon’ble High Court on 21.06.2016 and disposed off the matter with the following direction:- “Besides the above directions, the Anjuna as well as Colva Panchayats namely respondent no. 9 and 19 and the GCZMA are direction to take necessary action with regard to the structures identified in the report of the GCZMA and proceed to take necessary action in accordance with law within three months from today and file a compliance report with that regard.”

6. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the GCZMA in its 180th meeting for hearing held on 31.07.2018, wherein the appellant remained present and submitted that the GSCCE had not granted the approved plan. The permission that was taken for the residential complex is converted into a resort. The water body that was present at the site was converted into a swimming pool and permission granted by GCZMA for bio fencing wall is actually seen as a concrete wall at the site. It was also submitted by her that completion certificate is not given for co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top