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) 5518

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member
Gopal Vithal Bholnekar – Appellant
Versus
Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority – Respondent
Original Application No.87/2022(WZ)



Advocates:
For the Applicant(s): Mrs. Fawia M. Mesquita
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Supriya Dangare, Mr. Pronoy Kamat

Structures beyond 100m from HTL/bay in CRZ-II municipal area governed by local planning, not GCZMA; private property dispute not maintainable before NGT.

Headnote:(A) CRZ Notification, 2011 - Provisions 7(ii), 8.II - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - S.14(4) - Structures in CRZ-II area (developed municipal limits with infrastructure) on landward side of pre-1991 road, beyond 100m from HTL/bay, governed by local town planning regulations, not requiring GCZMA permission. (Paras 38-46)

(B) Limitation - Continuing cause of action not established for structures existing since pre-1991/2012; application filed after 10 years barred under S.14(4) NGT Act. (Paras 18-19,47)

Facts of the case:
Co-owners dispute over ancestral property in Nagarcem-Palolem, Goa (Survey Nos.134/4, 136/1). Applicants alleged illegal reconstructions without permission, CRZ violations, environmental damage from sewage, commercial use; sought demolition, compensation, restoration. Respondents denied new construction, claimed pre-1991 existence, private property dispute, obtained soak-pit NOCs post-disconnections.

Findings of Court:
Property outside CRZ area (286m from bay), under municipal/TCP regulations; no GCZMA jurisdiction; application not maintainable as private dispute with prior litigations.

Issues: Whether structures violate CRZ requiring demolition; limitation applicability; environmental damage from constructions/soak-pit.

Ratio Decidendi: CRZ applies only up to 100m from HTL/bay in this case; beyond that, local regulations apply in developed municipal areas; Tribunal not forum for private co-owner property disputes lacking substantial environmental harm. (Paras 43-47)

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. alleged illegal crz constructions by co-owners causing environmental damage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. crz regulations limit dwelling reconstruction; prior complaints and litigations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. respondents deny violations, claim pre-1991 structures, limitation bar, private dispute. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. gczma clarifies crz-ii status, no permission needed under tcp. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. property outside crz; application dismissed as private litigation. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT

1. This Original Application has been filed with the prayers that the respondent No.1-GCZMA be directed to conduct a site inspection of the land bearing Survey Nos.134/4 and 136/1 of Nagarcem-Palolem, Canacona, Goa, in which illegal tenements has been constructed and take action against the respondent No.3- Meena Ulhas Bholnekar, respondent No.4- Nikita Ulhas Bholnekar and respondent No.5- Namita Ulhas Bholnekar, who have raised the said construction within the Municipal Limits of respondent No.2-Canacona Municipal Council, in order to pass a demolition order of the said illegal construction; compensation be ordered to be paid to the applicants, who are co-owners of the said properties, which have been damaged; and respondent Nos.3 to 5 be ordered to restore the same.

2. In brief, the facts of this case are that the Applicant No.1- Gopal Vithal Bholnekar and Applicant No.2- Sudha Gopal Bholnekar are husband and wife respectively. The respondent No.3- Meena Ulhas Bholnekar is the mother of respondent No.4- Nikita Ulhas Bholnekar and respondent No.5- Namita Ulhas Bholnekar. The Applicant No.1 and the deceased husband of respondent No.3, Ulhas Vithal Bholnekar are brothers and sons of late Shri Vithal Gopal Bholnekar and Smt. Rukmini Vithal Bholnekar respectively, who were the original owners of the subject properties. Thus, the present Applicants and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are co-owners of the properties in question i.e. Survey Nos.134/4 and 136/1 of Nagarcem-Palolem, Canacona, Goa.

3. It is further mentioned in this application that in Survey No.134/4, there existed an ancestral house bearing H. No.174/4, admeasuring an area of about 200 square meters, which originally belonged to the father of Applicant No.1, who lived in that house till he died in the year 1977 and thereafter, his wife Mrs. Rukmini continued to live therein till her death on 16-01-1998. After Rukmini’s death, the brothers- Gopal and Ulhas took the possession of this house in equal portion and divided the same by a common wall, each portion comprising 100 sq. mtrs. approximately and were allotted H. No.10/174 and H. No.10/174-A respectively by the respondent No.2-Canacona Municipal Council.

4. It is further mentioned in this application that the applicants are residing in their land portion even today. But the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have completely re-constructed their portion into a Ground + 1 structure by increasing the plinth, with RCC Slabs, and additionally obliterating the existing sewage system and soak-pit by erecting 3 new constructions bearing House Nos.170/3, 168, 174A thereon in the subject property bearing Survey No.134/4 without seeking any permission/s from any authority/ies. In the other property bearing Survey No.136/1 also, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have also erected new constructions without any permission/s from the appropriate authority/ies.

5. It is further mentioned in this application that pursuant to the complaints made by the applicants, the respondent No.2- Municipal Council dr“ew a Document of Transgression on 10-01-2012 pertaining to the violations in Survey No.134/4, which would clearly point out the Transgressions/illegal new constructions along-with a sketch thereof. The details of the sites and areas of these illegal constructions are as follows:-

6. It is furth

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