before the national green tribunal (western...
Post on 13-May-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
(WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE
APPLICATION No. 125/2015
(M.A.No. 12/2016)
CORAM:
Hon’ble Shri Justice U.D. Salvi,
(Judicial Member)
Hon’ble Mr. Ranjan Chatterjee,
(Expert Member)
B E T W E E N:
1. Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye,
s/o. Jairam Shetye, Major,
Occn : Service, A-102,
Raj Excellency, Patto, Ribandar,
Goa.
2. Mr. Ketan Santikar Govekar,
Major, 3rd floor Wadji Building,
St. Inez Panjim Goa.
3. Shri Sudip Narayan Tamankar,
Occn : Business, R/o. C-5,
Harbans Vihar, Old Goa Kadamba
Bypass Road, Near Saibaba Temple,
Ribandar, Goa.
4. Ms. Sonia d/o. Dnyaneshwar Saterdekar,
Occn : Service, R/o. House No.605,
Butki Wado Succoro Porvorim,
Bardez, Goa.
……Applicants
A N D
1. Jaiprakash A. Sirsaikar,
308, Welcome Rest Chapora Bardez, Goa 403 509.
2 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
2. Eliano Pascol Pereira
R/o. H.No.236/2, Vagator,
Anjuna Bardez, Goa 403 509.
3. The Member Secretary,
Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority,
Dempo Towers, Patto plaza,
Patto, Panaji, Goa 403 001.
4. The Deputy Collector (Bardez)
Bardez, Mapusa Goa 403 508.
5. The Chief Town Planner,
EDC Complex
Dempo Towers, Patto plaza,
Patto, Panajim, Goa 403 001.
…..Respondents
Counsel for Applicants
Shweta Borkar, Adv. and
Mr. Kashinath Shetye in person.
Counsel for Respondent No.1 :
Varsha Waghole & Shilpa Pratap, Advs.
Counsel for Respondent No.2
Shri S.S. Sanyal, Adv.
Ms. Shrilekha P. Golekar, Adv.
Counsel for Respondent No.3 to 5 :
Mr. Aurobindo G. Pereira, A.G.A.
Mr. Raghavendra Kalangutkar, Adv.
Mrs. Fawia M. Mesquita, Adv.
Date: 25th January , 2017
JUDGMENT 1. The Applicants are seeking directions to the
Respondent No.3 Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
(GCZMA) and Respondent No.4- Deputy Collector, Bardez
3 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
Goa to demolish the remaining illegal structures in the
property bearing S.No.213/23-A of village Anjuna, Bardez,
Goa. According to the Applicants, the Respondent No.2-
Eliano Pereira, illegally constructed structures in the
property bearing S.No.213/23-A of village Anjuna, Bardez
Goa No Development Zone falling within 100 mtrs. of High
Tide Line (HTL) declared as per Coastal Regulation Zone
2011 and the said structures were ordered to be demolished
by the Respondent No.3-GCZMA upon the complaint
initially moved by Respondent No.1-Jaiprakash Sirsaikar
on 20th April 2015 vide Order/direction under Section 5 of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 dated 6th August
2015; and Respondent No.1-Jaiprakash Sirsaikar and
Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira had put up a show before
this Tribunal on 13th August 2015 by making a statement
that the directions of the Respondent No.3-GCZMA were
complied with and got the Application No.60/2015 moved
by Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar for action in that
regard disposed of.
2. Actually, the Applicant submits, the demolition of all
the structures had not taken place and partial demolition
occurred later on i.e. on 14th September, 2015. It is in such
circumstances, the Applicants submit through the
Applicant No.1 Kashinath Shetye moved an Application
dated 24th August 2014 before Respondent No.3-GCZMA
4 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
complaining of failure to demolish the said structures. The
Respondent No.3 GCZMA thereupon further directed
Respondent No.2 Eliano Pereira to demolish the illegal
cottages / structures located in the said property and
restore the land to its original condition within seven (7)
days vide order dated 25th August, 2015. It was further
directed that failure on the part of Respondent No.2-Eliano
Pereira to demolish the cottages/structures, the Deputy
Collector and Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Bardez, Goa
would be removing the said cottages/structures and
recovering the expenses incurred therefor from Respondent
No.2-Eliano Pereira.
3. The Applicants submit that Respondent No.2-Eliano
Pereira challenged the directions dated 25th August, 2015
passed by Respondent No.3-GCZMA in Writ Petition
No.701/2015 preferred before the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay at Goa (Eliano Pereira V/s. State of Goa & Ors.). It
appears that the Applicant No.1 Kashinath Shetye
intervened in the said Writ Petition and the Hon’ble High
Court eventually rejected the said Writ Petition vide order
dated 10th September 2015, with following material
directions :
8. As far the next grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, considering that such directions are stated to be in terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge such directions before the learned National Green Tribunal. Hence, we find that it would not be appropriate for this
5 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
Court to interfere in such directions in the present proceedings considering the stand taken by the respondent no.2 which is otherwise disputed by the petitioner. In case any representation is made as stated by the petitioner, the authorities shall examine the same in accordance with law. 9. Subject to above, the petition stands accordingly rejected. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open.
4. The record reveals that Respondent No.2-Eliano
Pereira thereafter moved an Appeal No.62/2015 alongwith
the delay condonation application M.A. No. 247 of 2015
challenging the order dated 25th August, 2015 passed by
the Respondent No.3-GCZMA before us on 2nd December
2015. The Appeal was found grossly time barred and was
dismissed with following material directions :
“Though, the Appeal/Application made by the
Applicant/Appellant is unsustainable and will have to be
dismissed on merits yet he is at liberty to apply for
permission to get license to erect temporary shacks as per
Tourism Department policy prevailing in the State of Goa, if
it is so permissible in his case and if he apply within given
time. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off. The
Application is accordingly dismissed and disposed off”.
5. Respondent No.1-Jaiprakash Sirsaikar has filed
reply dated 7th December 2015 (pp 58 to 60) in the present
Application. He briefly contends that he was misled by the
compliance report dated 10th August 2015 filed by the
Respondent No.2 Elaino Pareira, therefore, the Respondent
No.3-GCZMA which enclosed pictures of wooden huts being
dismantled and was prompted to make a statement on 13th
August 2015 before the Tribunal that the directions dated
6 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
6th August 2015 passed by Respondent No.3 were complied
with. According to him, he believed the project proponent
that the directions of GCZMA were complied with and that
the said cottages / structures were demolished. He added
that after making such statement before the Tribunal on
13th August 2015, he was hospitalized and was advised
bed-rest for some days and thereafter, when he was passing
by the said property, he had noticed that Respondent No.2
Eliano Pareira had not fully complied with the said
directions and he immediately complained to the
Respondent No.3-GCZMA and lateron moved an Application
under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
bearing M.A.No.214/2015. He further revealed in his reply
that he had lodged the complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mapusa against the project
proponent as per the liberty granted by this Tribunal while
disposing of the said M.A.No.214/2015 (page 83) vide order
dated 29th August 2015.
6. Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira filed exhaustive
reply dated 10th May 2016 alongwith the written notes of
argument dated 9th May 2016 before the Tribunal on 11th
May 2016. The Respondent No.2 questioned the
maintainability of the present Application on the ground
that he cannot be judged twice in view of the liberty granted
to the Applicant in Application No.60/2015 to take steps for
7 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
prosecution under Section 26 of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010, if the non-compliance was noticed vide
order dated 13th August 2015 passed in Application
No.60/2015. The Respondent No.2 further contended that
no substantial question relating to the environment is
involved in the present case and the Applicants,
masquerading as an environmentalist is making false and
baseless allegations with malafide intentions and this can
be perceived from the fact that he is turning a blind eye to
the gross violations of the CRZ Regulations caused due to
raising of structures at Vagator beach, village Anjuna
adjacent to the properties of the Respondent No.2 namely
“Antares Beach Club and Resort” in Survey No.214/4 and
214/5 and “Shalai Cliff Resort” in Survey No.213/4 and
“Sea Palm Bar & Restaurant” in Survey No.213/9. The
Respondent No.2 as a corollary to these contentions,
questioned locus-standi of the Applicants in moving this
Application. The Respondent No.2 denied hill-cutting and
construction of staircase to climb the terrace portion of the
hill in the property in question. According to him, the
staircases are the traditional access and the Restaurant
and structure of restaurant existed in the property since the
times of his ancestors i.e. prior to 1991, and all other
structures of temporary nature were demolished and
dismantled. The Respondent No.2 further explained that
8 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
only stones were used for levelling and the mud-masonry
work raised was plastered by concrete.
7. In the written notes of arguments besides referring
to the contentions raised in the reply, the Respondent No.2
commented on the Court Commissioner’s report and
elaborated that there were no concrete or pacca structures
and the masonry work has been plastered to give it a look
as if it is a concrete structure.
8. Respondent No.3-Goa Coastal Zone Management
Authority (GCZMA) joined the issue with reply dated 15th
March 2016. Respondent No.3 GCZMA reveals in its reply
that upon receipt of the complaint dated 20th April 2015 of
Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar in respect of the
illegal construction of cottages by hill cutting in the
property bearing S.No. 213/23-A at Vagator, Anjuna,
Bardez, Goa, it issued show cause notice-cum-stop work
order No. GCZMA/N/ILLE-COMPL/15-16/22/223 dated 5th
May 2015 to the Respondent No.2 with a direction to stop
the work with immediate effect and the Respondent No.2-
Eliano Pereira, gave replies dated 12th May 2015, 3rd July
2015 and 27th July 2015 enclosing certain documents to
the said notice and contended that as a lawful owner of the
said property, he has been operating temporary shacks in
the said property for last several years after obtaining
necessary permission from the Department of Tourism and
9 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
the Village Panchyat, Anjuna-Caisua. The Respondent No.3
GCZMA further reveals that upon perusal of the reply filed
by Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira and the documents
annexed thereto, it was found that no prior approval was
obtained from Respondent No.3 GCZMA as required under
Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 for raising the
said construction/cottages and considering the judgment
dated 17th December 2014 passed in Application
No.3/2014, (Mr. Aleixo Pereira Vrs. State of Goa and Others)
by this Tribunal, setting aside certain permissions it was
noticed that all the structures/cottages constructed by hill
cutting were in violation of CRZ Notification, 1991/2011
and as such the Respondent No.3-GCZMA ordered to
demolish the cottages/structures standing on the said
property upon invoking the provisions of Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 vide order dated 6th August 2015.
The Respondent No.3-GCZMA further reveals that in view of
the complaint made by Applicant No.1 Kashinath Shetye
vide letter dated 24th August, 2015 to the Respondent No.2,
particularly upon noticing that directions dated 6th August,
2015 issued were not complied with in totality and the
structures still existed in violation of CRZ-Notification 2011.
The Respondent No.3-GCZMA stated that in pursuance to
the order dated 10th September 2015 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court Bombay in Writ Petition No.701/2015, the
10 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
Respondent No.2-Eleino Pereira moved an Application dated
27th July 2015 before the authority to put up a temporary
structure in his private property and the said Application
was considered by the authority in 120th Meeting held on
11th September 2015 and after discussion and due
deliberation, it noted that Mr. Eliano Pereira had already
constructed the temporary huts without prior approval of
GCZMA and violated the CRZ Notification, 2011 and there
being no provision in CRZ Notification 2011 to grant ex-
post-facto approval it decided to reject the
Application/proposal for erection of temporary huts moved
by Respondent No.2-Eleino Pereira.
9. Respondent No.3-GCZMA in its reply, however,
confirmed the fact that the demolition was carried out
partly on 14th September 2015 and six structures were
demolished and some remained un-demolished vide letter
dated 15th September 2015 received from Respondent No.4
Deputy Collector, S.D.M. Bardez, Goa. Interestingly, the GCZMA
in its reply reveals that after the correspondence between
the Authorities and Respondent No.4-Deputy Collector and
S.D.M. Bardez, Goa for arranging demolition of the
structures standing on the property in question, the demolition
was carried out on 8th December, 2015 vide letter dated 10-12-
2015 received from Respondent No.4-Deputy Collector and
S.D.M. The Respondent No.3-GCZMA denied that it made
11 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
any false statement before Tribunal regarding any fact
concerning the present case.
10. Rival pleadings before us thus beg a short question
as to :
“Whether all the cottages/structures on the
property S.No.213/23-A at Vagator, Anjuna, Bardez
Goa which were ordered to be demolished as per the
order dated 6th August 2015 annexed by Respondent
No.2 to the present Application were actually and
completely demolished or not ?
11. Genesis of the present controversy arises from the
complaint made by the Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash
Sirsaikar vide letter dated 20th April 2015 annexed to the
Application No.60/2015 moved by Respondent No.1-
Jaiprakash Sirsaikar at Exh.B. Respondent No.1-
Jaiprakash Sirsaikar made complaint to the Member
Secretary, GCZMA regarding work of construction of
structures/cottages carried out in S.No.213-23-A, area
falling in No Development Zone i.e. less than 100 mtrs. in
High Tide Line at Vagatar, Anjuna, Bardez by hill cutting
without any approval from Competent Authority-GCZMA.
This prompted the Respondent No.3-GCZMA to issue a
show cause notice dated 5th May 2015 Exh.C annexed to
the Application No.60/2015 to the Respondent No.2 Eleino
Pereira wherein GCZMA described the details of violations
as follows :
12 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
S.No. Name of the
Party/alleged violator
Survey No.7
Village
Type of
Construction
Distance
from HTL
1 Mrs. Eliano Pereira
213/23-A Vagator,
Anjuna Village, Bardez, Goa
Illegal construction
of cottages by hill cutting
No Developm
ent Zone.
12. Copy of the complaint dated 20th April 2015 was
enclosed with show cause notice dated 5th May 2015. It is
not in dispute that the show cause notice was replied and
order dated 6th August 2015 to demolish the illegal
construction of cottages located in the said property under
Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read
with Rule 4 of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 as per
annexure R-2 came to be issued by Respondent No.3-
GCZMA. Infact, the Respondent No.2 Eliano Pereira herein
appeared before us in Application no.60/2015 moved by the
Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar for directions to
Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira, GCZMA and Revenue
Authorities to demolish the illegal construction carried out
by Respondent No.7 therein i.e. Respondent No.2-Eliano
Pereira herein in the said property and made a statement
that the directions for demolition issued by the Respondent
No.3-GCZMA to remove the structures from S.No.213-23-A
were complied with by him vide order dated 13th August
2015 passed in Application No.60/2015.
13 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
13. Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira gave series of
replies dated 12th May 2015, 3rd July 2015 and 27th July
2015 to the show cause notice dated 5th May 2015 which
have been annexed at Ex.2 collectively to reply of
Respondent No.3 dated 15th March, 2016. Significantly,
perusal of these replies reveal reference to only erection of
temporary wooden terrace, cottages, huts and not to any
structure/restaurant constructed prior to 1991. Reply
dated 27rd July 2015 Ex.2 collectively as well as
communication dated 10th August 2015 to GCZMA
categorically makes assertions as under :
“I am inherited lawful owner in possession of the property bearing S.No. 213/23A of village Anjuna, Bardez-Goa, property being garden of nature (A2) with fruit bearing tress such as coconut, cashew etc. and planted at various terraced levels in my sloppy land terrain. Since rocky land and not conducive for plantation the plants started to slowly diminish. So in the year 2004/2005, I decided to begin with temporary seasonal huts for tourist purpose. And, while doing such tourist related business I have been granted, all necessary permission from Tourism department & Local Panchyat body respectively”.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.2 Eliano Pereira submitted that the original
complaint dated 20th April 2015 made to GCZMA was in
respect of construction of cottages in the said property and
as a corollary thereto the show cause notice dated 5th May
2015 describing the construction as cottages was issued.
He added that the demolition which was ordered by the
Respondent No.3-GCZMA vide order dated 6th August 2015
was in respect of the cottages in the said property and not
the restaurant which is shown to be existing at the spot as
14 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
per the Commissioner’s Report. Pertinently, the revenue
record produced by Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira form-I
and XIV in respect of the survey No.213 Sub-division 23/A
of village Anjuna at Annexure ‘C’ to the reply affidavit dated
10th May 2016 shows the property as agricultural property
having garden (Bagayat). Even the plan of the said property
drawn by DSLR, Government of Goa does not show
existence of any structure, much less the Restaurant.
Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira has not produced any
material to suggest that any restaurant existed in the said
property prior to 1991.
15. Oxford dictionary of English, 3rd edition gives the
meaning of word “cottage” and “house” as follows :
‘Cottage : a small house, typically one in the country :
a simple house forming part of a farm, used by a
worker.
‘House’ : A building for human habitation, especially
one that consists of a ground floor and one or more
upper storeys: A building in which people meet for a
particular activity:, A firm or institution: A restaurant or
inn:
Essentially, therefore, a cottage is a species of house, the
dimensions of which are small and it can be a simple house
forming part of a farm. Broadly, such house also can be
used as a restaurant or inn.
15 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
16. Significantly, what was ordered to be demolished
vide direction/order dated 6th August 2015 were all cottages
on the said property with no distinction being made as to its
user. Nothing existed even going by his own (i.e.
Respondent No.2 Eleino Pereira) showing prior to 2004-05
on the said property and the entire property was a garden
(Bagayat).
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of GCZMA
submitted that it relied upon the report of Dy. Collector
dated 8th December 2015, accompanying the letter dated
10th December 2015 and would be bound by the
Commissioner’s Report as regards the factum of the
execution of the orders of demolition passed by GCZMA.
18. We had appointed Registrar to act as a Court
Commissioner to carry out local investigation upon visit to
the site in question vide order dated 18th December 2015.
The Court Commissioner filed a Report dated 18th February
2016 upon carrying out the local investigation before us.
The report dated 18th February 2016 reveals that local
investigation was carried out in presence of Applicant No.1
Kashinath Shetye, Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar,
Mr. Kundlik Khurjuvekar, Deputy Collector, Mapusa and
other six local officers on 6th February 2016. The Court
Commissioner described the disputed site as follows :
16 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
Part-I
1. The disputed site/property bearing “Survey
no.213/23-A of village Anjuna, Bardez Taluka, Mapusa,
Goa is having two wooden restaurant sheds with
concrete basement upto plinth level which can be seen
in Photographs 1 & 3 to 8. It is having Southern and
Northern concrete compound walls which can be seen in
Photographs 9 to 15. It is divided in two parts i.e.
upper (eastern) part and lower (western) part by making
South-North hill cutting which can be seen in
Photographs 2, 9 and 12 to 14. There are two stare
cases in disputed site out of which one is from Northern
side of the disputed site and another is at the middle
which can be seen in Photographs 9 to 11. The
disputed site is situated on the coastal part of Arabian
sea and it is also situated within 500 metres from the
High Tide Line as well as Arabian sea which can be
seen in Photograph 10.
Besides describing what was demolished, the Court
Commissioner described the structures and wooden sheds
which were not demolished as follows :
Part-II
1. Two wooden sheds of restaurants having concrete
base upto plinth level are not demolished. The furniture
of restaurant like chairs, tables and other articles like
refrigerator, fans etc. are lying there which can be seen
in Photographs 1, 3 to 8 & 16.
2. South-North hill cutting which has divided the
disputed site into two parts i.e. upper part and lower
part are still as it is. The stair cases to approach the
lower part of the disputed site are not demolished. The
17 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
said hill cutting, two stair cases and the Southern &
Northern compound walls are not demolished which can
be seen in Photographs 2 & 9 to 15. The South-North
hill cutting is not restored to its original position which
can also be seen in those photographs.
3. The Northern compound wall and adjacent stare
case to it in disputed site are not demolished which can
be seen in Photograph 11.
4. The cottages are demolished/removed but the
concrete/paka structure upto the plinth level and the
flooring of cottages as well as restaurant basement are
not demolished/removed which can be seen in
Photographs 5, 7 to 13 & 19.
5. Paka/concrete structure of the Eastern, Western
and other compound walls upto the plinth level is not
demolished which can be seen in Photographs 2 & 17
to 19.
19. In the reply dated 10th May 2016 to the
Commissioner’s report, the Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira
has made an attempt to qualify the observations made by
Court Commissioner with a statement that the structures
which have been described as concrete base/structures is
infact a masonry structure plastered by concrete and not a
permanent structure and such structure existed prior to
1991 and no hill cutting was carried out after 1990. The
Respondent No.2 also contended that the Court
Commissioner has not taken into consideration the scope of
demolition order dated 25th August 2015 and has made
observations on the premise that everything at the disputed
18 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
site was supposed to be demolished. Pertinently,
demolition order dated 25th August 2015 passed by
Respondent No.3 GCZMA directs demolition of illegal
construction of cottages/structures located in the said
property and restore the land to its original condition
without any exception. Perusal of the photographs
produced by the Court Commissioner with the said Report
betrays real character of the existing structures at the site
which appear to be newly made cottages/ structures of
permanent nature.
20. Facts observed by the Court Commissioner,
therefore, cannot be brushed aside to say that demolition of
all the cottages which even included all structures standing
on the said property was complete. The report of the
Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa, Goa dated 10th
December 2015 and the accompanying panchnama dated
8th December 2015 Exhibit-VIII to the affidavit dated 15th
March, 2016 of the Respondent No.3 is cryptic and makes a
bland statement that cottages/structures have been
removed by the project proponent Eliano Pereira as per the
order of GCZMA dated 25th August 2015 without making
specific reference to the said structures seen existing in
Court Commissioner’s Report. We cannot place any
credence on the report of the Deputy Collector which
palpably appears to be false as follows :
19 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
“It was noticed that the cottages/structures have
been removed by opponent i.e. Mr. Eliano Pereira. Your
office representative Mr. Fletcher Fernandes, Technical
Officer of GCZMA has confirmed that nothing more is
required to be removed and satisfied that the aforesaid
order is complied in toto. The photocopy of the
Panchnama is enclosed herewith”.
21. The Respondent No.2 Elaino Pereira has questioned
the maintainability of the present Application on the ground
that Applicant No.2 is at liberty to take steps for
prosecution under Section 26 of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 and therefore, the Respondent No.2
cannot be judged twice. The Applicant is essentially
seeking demolition of the structures on the said property
which were required to be demolished and land restored as
per the order passed by GCZMA. It is certainly not the case
of judging the Respondent No.2 twice. The Respondent
No.2-Eliano Pereira, further challenged the locus of the
Applicants on the ground that he is habitual litigant who
files false cases. In the instant case, the Respondent No.2-
Eliano Pereira, was expected to remove all
structures/cottages constructed without permission of
GCZMA on the said property and restore the Bagayat land.
The inquiry in the present case has revealed that all the
structures on the said property which were constructed
without permission of GCZMA have not been demolished
20 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
and the land has not been restored. Firstly, therefore, it
cannot be said that the present case is a false case. The
Respondent No.2 is under obligation to remove all such
structures on the said property and any individual or
representative body has a right to ask for discharge of such
obligations in the environmental interest. The Applicant,
therefore, cannot be said to be without any locus in the
present case
22. Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira, further contended
that the present case does not pertain to any substantial
question relating to environment as envisaged under
Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Such
a plea cannot be raised by the Respondent No.2 as he
remains under obligation to remove all structures
constructed without permission of GCZMA on the said
property. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we pass the
following directions.
1) Respondent No.3-GCZMA and Respondent No.4-
Deputy Collector, S.D.M. Bardez, Goa shall
demolish and remove all structures including the
foundations/plinth standing on survey No.213/23-
A of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa and restore the
said land as Garden (Bagayat) land.
2) Respondent No.2 Eleino Pereira shall bear the
expenses of such removal of structures/plinth etc.
21 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)
on the said property and restoration of the land
bearing Survey No.213/23-A of village Anjuna,
Bardez, Goa as aforesaid.
3) Issue show cause to Respondent No.2 Eliano
Pareira, Respondent No.3-Mr.Pundlik K.
Khorjuvekar, Dy. Collector and SDM Mapusa,
Respondent No.4 Madhu G. Narvekar, Mamlatdar of
Bardez Taluq, Mapusa Goa and Mr. Fletcher
Fernandes, Technical Officer, GCZMA, Panaji, as to
why prosecution under Section 193 and 219 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 should not be initiated
against them..
4) Notice made returnable on 23rd February, 2017.
Application No.125/2015 stands disposed of
accordingly. M.A.No. 12/2016 no longer survives and
stands disposed of.
….…………….………………., JM (Justice U.D. Salvi)
…...….…….……………………., EM (Mr. Ranjan Chatterjee) Date : 25th January 2017 ajp
top related