GCZMA's failure to reconcile historical refusals with current approvals undermines the legal basis for constructions in CRZ areas, highlighting the necessity for adherence to coastal regulation guidelines.

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 115^th 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 180^th 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 construction. Respondent No. 4 remained present through its representative and sought additional time to file a submission before the Authority. It was decided in the said meeting that all the parties shall file written submissions before 14.08.2018 and a next date was fixed. Thereafter, the matter was heard in the 180th meeting of GCZMA held on 14.08.2018 but nothing substantial happened except the granting of time for filling replies and submissions, by the parties.

7. Pursuant to directions from the Hon’ble High Court, the office of DSLR conducted the mapping of structures in Colva Village.

8. The matter was considered in the 320^th meeting of GCZMA for hearing on 25.08.2022 wherein, the appellant submitted that permissions were granted for respondent no 4 to construct the structures in 200-500 mtrs. However, the structures were constructed within 200 mtrs. The ISLR report also depicted the structures lyin