before the national green tribunal …greentribunal.gov.in/writereaddata/downloads/82-2013-wz...1 of...

1 of 49 (J) Application No.82 of 2015 (WZ)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

(WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE

APPLICATION NO.82/2013(WZ) CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.D. Salvi, (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande (Expert Member)

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Mr. Sagardeep A. Sirsaikar,

S/o. Adumber Sirsaikar, Major,

R/o. Badem Assagao, Post : Anjuna,

Goa.

2. Mr. Julian Cipriano D’Souza,

s/o. Joan J. D’Souza,

R/o. H.No.371/2, Dabhol Waddo,

Chapora, Anjuna, Bardez-Goa.

……Applicants

Verses

1. State of Goa,

Through the Chief Secretary,

Office at Secretariat, Porvorim,

Goa.

2. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority,

Through : Member Secretary,

Having Its office at 3rd floor Dempo,

Tower, Patto, Panaji-Goa.

3. Dy. Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer,


Bardez, Sub Division, Mapusa, Goa.

4. Town & Country Planning Department

302, Govt. Building Complex,

Mapusa-Goa.

5. Directorate of Archives and Archaeology,

Govt. of Goa, Rua de Qurem,

Mala, Panaji-Goa-403 001.

6. Goa State Bio Diversity Board,

Department of Science,

Technology & Environment,

Opp. Saligao Seminary Saligao,

Bardez, Goa.

7. Director of Mines and Geology,

Government of Goa,

Panaji-Goa.

8. Health Officer,

Primary Health Center

Stolim, Bardez-Goa.

9. Village Panchyat of Anjuna,

Through : Its Secretary,

Office at Ajuna, Bardez, Goa.

10. Diana Buildwell Ltd.

Vagator Beach, Anjuna,

Bardez, Goa.

… Respondents.

Counsel for Applicants

Mrs. Norma Alwares, Adv. a/w.

Mr. Asim Sarode, Adv.

Counsel for Respondent No.1 to 8 :

Mrs. F.M. Mesquita, Adv.a/w.

Sapna Mordekar, Adv.

Counsel for Respondent No.2 & 3 :

Mr. D. Lawande, Adv.

Counsel for Respondent No.9 :


Mrs. Supriya Dangare, Adv.

Counsel for Respondent No.10 :

Mr. J.E. Coelho Pareira, Sr. Adv.

Mr. V. Korgaonkar & P. Nernekar, Advs.

Date: November 3rd, 2016.

J U D G M E N T

Per Mr. U.D. Salvi J.

1. This is a case where development of a beach side

Resort/Hotel has been challenged by the Applicants

stating violations of the provisions of the Coastal Zone

Regulations, 2011. The Applicants who reside in the

vicinity of the project in question have filed this

Application under Section 14 and 15 of the National

Green Tribunal Act, 2010 alleging the ongoing illegal

Resort development in property bearing Survey Nos.

354/2, 355 and 354/7-A of Anjuna village, Bardez, Goa

bearing Survey No.340/1, 353/5, 354/2, 355, 356/7

and 356/8 of village Anjuna standing in the name of

Respondent No.10-M/s. Diana Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

2. The Applicants claim that on 25th April 2015,

they noticed hill cutting activities going on near the base

of the Chapora Fort hill and ongoing construction of the

road and helipad near the Fort a heritage site and falling

within CRZ-I zone as per the Coastal Regulation Zone

Notification, 2011.


3. The Applicants state that Respondent No.2 i.e.

Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA)

conducted on inspection on 14th May 2015, and found

number of irregularities at the site and consequently

issued directions to Respondent No.10, vide

communication dated 27th May 2015, to remove the

irregularities and restore the land to its original

condition. It is also submitted that the Archaeology

Department also conducted the site inspection and

noted the illegal construction within the CRZ-I area.

Applicants further refer to the Report of Goa State

Biodiversity Board dated 7th May 2015 which also

indicates that certain irregularities and illegalities were

observed in project development being carried out by

Respondent No.10. The Deputy Collector and Sub-

Divisional Officer Mapusa also issued Stop Work orders

on 28th May 2015.

4. The Applicants have averred that the

irregularities and illegalities noticed in development can

be classified area-wise i.e. (1) No

construction/Development Zone (NDZ) of CRA-III i.e.

High Tide Line to 200m from High Tide Line. (2) CRZ-III

area which is from 200m to 500m High Tide Lines and

(3) CRZ-I area. It is also submitted that the area falls


within CRZ-III except area within 100m surrounding

Chapora Fort which is classified as CRZ-I.

5. The Applicants state that several illegal

developments like deep excavations, hill cutting and

levelling of land are made without approval of the

authorities and in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011.

The Applicants have listed details of such infractions

and violations i.e. illegal development in para 9-A of the

Application which is re-produced below :-

S.

No.

Survey

No.

Nature of development Distance

from HTL

(i) 340/1 Excavation of the entire plot (approx.

1.5 m. depth) to lay 33 kv high

tension cable. The Sur.No.is within 30-40 mtr. of the HTL and has sand

dunes.

Within 200

Mtr.

(ii) 354/2 Approx. 20 structures/ cottages

constructed within 30-40 mtr. of the

HTL

Within 200

Mts.

(iii) 354/9 Retaining wall is constructed by

cutting the hill upto 7-8 mtrs.

Partly within

200 Mtrs. and

partly in 200-500 Mtrs.

Construction of approximately

concrete buildings.

Partly within

200 mts. And

partly in 200-

500 mts.

(iv) 355 Construction of sewage treatment

plant and illegal hill cutting to lay sewage system pipelines.

Within 200

Mts.

(v) 356/7 Concrete buildings and wooden

structures.

Partly within

200 mts. And

party in 200-

500 mts.

Helipad Within 200

mtrs.

Concrete steps towards Chapora Fort (CRZ-I)

Within 200 Mtrs.

Barbed wire fencing Within 200

Mtrs.

Hill cutting for construction of 6

Mtrs. wide road towards Chapora

Fort (CRZ-I)

Partly within

200 Mtrs. and

partly in 200-

500 Mtrs.

(vi) 353/5 Excavation of land approxi-

Mately 45 mtr. length and depth of 5-6 Mtrs.

Between 200-

500 Mtrs.

(vii) 356/8 Excavation of land 7-8 mtrs. depth to

construct flyover/hotel building.

Between 200-

500 Mtrs.


6. It is also claimed that the temporary seasonal

structure (24 wooden chalets) erected in survey

No.354/2, 355 and 356/7-A of village Anjuna, which

were expected to be removed by 10th June 2015, have

not been removed fully.

7. The Applicants submit that the present

construction of the hotel in between 200m to 500m can

only be permitted subject to obtaining the prior

clearance of the Ministry of Environment and Forest

(MoEF) as per the CRZ Regulations 2011. It is

submitted that certain authorised structures as of 19th

February 1991, were existing at the site and any re-

construction and extension of hotel would necessarily

require the prior permission of the MoEF.

8. The Applicants submit that though the

authorities have noted several irregularities and even

issued Stop Work order and demolition order, the

authorities were not serious in ensuring the compliance

of CRZ Notification and taking stringent action on the

observed violations as per Law. In fact their grievance is

that the Authorities acted only when complaint was

lodged by him. The Applicants submit that the cause of

action first arose in this Application on 25th April 2015,

when certain illegal structures and constructions were

noticed by the Applicant and when subsequently, the


concerned authorities confirmed such violations through

their inspections and visit reports followed by directions

issued to Respondent No.10, and therefore, the dispute

as envisaged in Section 14 of the National Green

Tribunal Act, could be raised once the alleged violations

were confirmed by the authorities through their action.

The Applicants therefore, prayed :

A) To appoint an expert committee to look into

the extent of damage cause to the

environment due the illegal constructions

carried out by Resp.No.10 and thereupon the

findings of the Committee to order demolish

the said illegal constructions.

B) Pending hearing and disposal of Application

for and order directing Respondent Nos.2 to 9

to do all necessary work to stop the illegal

construction carried out by the Respdt.No.10.

C) Ad-interim relief in term of prayer clause A

and B.

D) Ad-interim ex-parte relief in term of prayer

clause-C.

9. The Applicants filed additional affidavit dated

12th March 2016, bringing on record new developments

and construction made by Respondent No.10 in the year

2016. It is alleged that Respondent No.10 has recently

constructed number of swimming pools/bathing tanks

in front of the existing reconstructed cottages in CRZ-III

NDZ area. It is submitted that there were existing

structures for which GCZMA in the year 2011 granted

NOC (No objection certificate) for re-construction with


certain terms and conditions. However, Respondent

No.10 has constructed certain new structures i.e.

swimming pools/bathing tanks in the highly protected

NDZ area within 200m of High Tide Line (HTL). It is also

alleged that a new stepped access next to the helipad

has been constructed. Further an access road to the

existing structures is being constructed within 200m

distance. A Sewage Treatment Facility is being

constructed at S.No.355 within NDZ area for which no

permission has been granted by authorities. Further,

the Applicants submit that the reconstruction and

extension of the entire hotel is without the mandatory

permission which is to be obtained from MoEF,

Government of India and Respondent No.10 has

continued with the construction/development without

the required mandatory permission of MoEF.

10. The Respondent No.9- Village Panchayat filed

reply dated 23rd October, 2015, revealing the facts

pertaining to the structures in question and contended

that the Panchayat had not indulged in any illegality and

will abide by the order of this Tribunal. Respondent

No.9- Village Panchayat submitted that the Panchayat

had granted construction licence (i) for re-construction

of structures (subject to existing plinth) in the properties

bearing Survey No.340/1,354/2,355,356/7(p), 356(5) of


village Anjuna on 24.11.2011 and renewed it for further

period of two (2) years vide order dated 29.12.2014,(ii)

for re-construction and extension of hotel property

existing on 7.9.2013, in Survey

No.340/1,354/2,355,356/7(P), 356/8 and 353/3 of

village Anjuna and permission/NOC dated 15.10.2014

for erection of twenty four (24) temporary seasonal

structures in the properties bearing Survey Nos.

354/2,355 and 356/7-A of village Anjuna. Thus,

according to Respondent No.9- Village Panchayat the

construction carried out by the Respondent No.10 was

duly approved/sanctioned by the Panchayat as Local

Authority with condition that they had to take prior

permission from CRZ for the same. Respondent No.9-

Village Panchayat further revealed that the Town and

Country Planning Department informed the Panchayat

that in course of site inspection of the said property

carried on 13.5.2015, five (5) additional structures

within 200m of HTL, construction of helipad, stepped

access at foot hill of Chapora Fort and barbed wire

fencing with cement poles at the boundary of the said

property was found developed by the Respondent No.10,

without taking technical clearance from the Town &

Country Planning Department and further requested the

Panchayat to take appropriate action in the matter.


Based on these observations, Respondent No.9- Village

Panchayat added issued stop-work Notice dated

1.6.2015 to the Respondent No.10 and asked

Respondent No.10 to respond to it. The Respondent

No.10, Village Panchayat added requested it to withdraw

the stop work Notice vide replies dated 19.6.2015 and

20th August, 2015. The Town & Country Planning

Department, thereafter, the Panchayat reveals held joint

inspection of the property on 4.9.2015 and noticed that

all five (5) structures in question with barbed wire

fencing, cement concrete poles and helipad were found

removed in joint site inspection. Respondent No.9-

Village Panchayat submits that the Respondent No.10

wrote a letter dated 21.9.2015, enclosing therewith a

compliance report issued by the Goa Coastal Zone

Management Authority (GCZMA) and the Director of

Archives and Archeology department and requested

Village Panchayat to withdraw stop work Notice dated

1.6.2015. A compliance report dated 7.9.2015 issued by

the Director of Archives and Archeology department, the

Director of Archives and Archeology department added,

reconfirmed the fact that the Respondent No.10 has

stopped hill-cutting, removed Kaccha Road and barbed

wire fencing thereby complied with the directions dated

26.5.2015.


11. Respondent No.10 placed his case before us with

the reply dated 28th September, 2015. Respondent

No.10-M/s Diana Buildwell Pvt. Ltd- the Project

Proponent (PP) contended that after obtaining necessary

permissions and approvals, the properties bearing

Survey Nos.340 /1, 350/2, 355, 356/7A, 356/8 and

353/5 of village Anjuna-Caicua, with running beach

Resort, was purchased by it from Sterling Hotel Resort (I)

Ltd vide sale-deed dated 11.5.2007; and after obtaining

necessary permissions for re-construction of existing

cottages forming part of the Resort complex (22 cottages

as on January 1,1991)/ approvals from GCZMA (NOC for

re-construction dated 30th June,2011) and the Town &

Country Planning Department (dated 21.10.2011),

construction licences from Respondent No.9- Village

Panchayat (licence dated 24.11.2011) and approved

plans (approved by Respondent No.9- Village Panchayat

and Respondent No.4- Town & Country Planning

Department), the Respondent No.10 displayed the Board

citing out details of the said permissions at the site of

hotel at the end of April, 2012 and commenced re-

construction of twenty two (22) existing structures in or

about May, 2012 by dismantling existing structures. The

Respondent No.10 submitted that the Application dated

12.10.2011 was moved for seeking permission to re-


construct or extend the project within part of the said

property from distance of 200-500m from HTL, before

the GCZMA vide Application dated 12.10.2011 and this

Application was accompanied by Environment Impact

Assessment (EIA) report obtained by the Respondent

No.10 from an authorized agency, namely; Aditya

Environmental Services P. Ltd. GCZMA-Respondent

No.10 added, informed it that if the additional built-up

area was falling beyond limitation of 20,000sq.m the

project would be required to be considered by the

Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) and

thereupon the Respondent No.10 reduced built-up area

of the project to 19800sqm. And submitted revised

proposal for consideration of GCZMA to suggest that the

proposal did not come under the purview of EIA

Notification, 2006. The Respondent No.10 submits that

GCZMA upon considering the recommendations of Goa

State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

(SEIAA) issued no objection to re-construct all the

existing Resorts/Hotels in Survey Nos. 340/1, 353/3,

354/2355, 356/17 -Part,354/8 and 353/5 of village

Anjuna subject to certain terms and conditions

mentioned in the letter dated 26.2.2013 (Annexure-R-7).

Subsequently, Respondent No.10- Diana Build-well P.

Ltd submits that it obtained permissions/approvals from


Respondent No.4- Town & Country Planning Department

and Respondent No.9- Village Panchayat and

commenced work of construction in the month of

October, 2013.

12. The Applicant filed additional affidavit dated

12th March, 2016, bringing on record new developments

and construction made by the Respondent No.10 in the

year 2016. It is alleged that the Respondent No.10

recently constructed the number of Swimming

Pools/Bathing Tanks in front of existing re-constructed

cottages in CRZ-III- NDZ area, within 200m of HTL. The

Applicants submitted that there were existing structures

for which GCZMA in the year 2011 granted NOC with

certain terms and conditions. The Applicant further

submits that a new stepped access next to helipad and

access road to the existing structures and Sewage

Treatment Plant (STP) were being found constructed in

NDZ area for which no permission had been granted by

the Authorities.

13. According to the Applicants, re-construction and

expansion of entire hotel s without valid permission from

MoEF.

14. Respondent No.10 Diana Buildwell P. Ltd

contended that the present Application fails to disclose


‘cause of action’ and is barred by limitation, as

prescribed under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

In response thereto, the Applicants submit that cause of

action first arose for filing the present Application on

25th April, 2015, when certain illegal construction

activities were noticed by the Applicants and when

subsequently concerned Authorities confirmed such

violations through their inspection and visit reports

followed by the directions issued to the Respondent

No.10.

15. The Respondent No.10 denied building of any

road or helipad near the Fort and hill-cutting, as alleged

by the Applicants. The Respondent No.10- submitted

that temporary chalets, barbed wire fencing, temporary

labour sheds, helipad, steps access were removed as per

the directions of the Authorities.

16. The pleadings placed before us, therefore, raises

following points for our consideration are:

1) Whether the Application is barred by Limitation/

2) Whether NOCs/Clearances issued by GCZMA can

be regarded as CRZ clearance under the CRZ

Notifications?


3) Whether construction of STP, Rainwater

Harvesting Tank (RWHT)/Bathing tanks, helipad,

stepped access, barbed fencing etc. violate

restrictions imposed under the CRZ Notification,

2011 and, if Yes, what action?

17. Before we dwell upon the issues, we find that the

following facts are undisputed.

Government of India in the Ministry of Environment

and Forest (MoEF) has approved the Goa Coastal Zone

Management Plan, as per the CRZ Notification, 1991,

for the State of Goa on 22nd September, 1996. This

plan is valid even today under the provisions of CRZ

Notification, 2011, in view of the extensions given by

the MoEF to the said plan. The Chapora Fort and area

within 100m of the fort, in village Anjuna, Tq. Bardez

has been classified as CRZ-I. Similarly, the sand dune

have also been classified as CRZ-I.

The CRZ Notification, 2011 has imposed certain

restrictions in the CRZ-III areas, more elaborately

detailed in para VIII of the CRZ Notification, 2011. The

area up to 200m from the HTL in CRZ-III zone, on the

landward side in case of seafront, is required to be

earmarked as No Development Zone (NDZ) and specific

restrictions are applicable in this CRZ-III-NDZ area. In

area between 200 to 500m on the landward side in CRZ

III zone, certain activities are permissible with specific

conditions.

The CRZ Regulation stipulates the Regulation of

permissible activities in the CRZ area and also the

procedure for clearance for permissible activities in

para 4 of this Notification. The prohibited activities

within the CRZ are listed in para 3 of this Notification.


It is not disputed that Respondent No.10 purchased a

property which had 22 existing structures within the

200m from HTL i.e. CRZ-III-NDZ area. GCZMA granted

NOC to Respondent No.10 for reconstructing those 22

existing structures on 30th June 2011 subject to

condition that there should not be increase in the

existing FSI, plinth and density.

18. As far as area between 200m to 500m, the

revised Application by Respondent No.10 to re-

construct and extend the hotel was moved on

26th February, 2013 and GCZMA issued CRZ

Clearance for the proposed re-

construction/extension of the hotel. Thereafter,

on 28th March, 2014, GCZMA clarified that the

clearance granted to the project is valid for five

(5) years from the date of issue of clearance for

commencement of construction and operation,

making it clear that the clearance is valid up to

25th February, 2018.

19. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent No.10 argued that the CRZ Clearance

having been granted on 26th February, 2013 and the

Board displaying grant of Clearances/ Permissions/

Approvals being put at the site in October, 2013

followed by commencement of the construction,

triggered the period of limitation, the first cause of

action having been arose on 26th February, 2013. He


submitted that the Applicant No.1 is busy Body and as

such, have complete and full knowledge of the project

and it cannot be denied that he being resident of village

Anjuna, that while commuting every day, he could view

construction activity and its progress; and inspite of

such clear knowledge he had chosen to file the

complaint to GCZMA only in April, 2015. Learned

Counsel Mr. Pereira appearing on behalf of the

Respondent No.10 further submitted that

MoEF/SEAC/SEIAA, being Statutory Authorities are

necessary parties and having them not made parties,

the Application must fail. He further submitted that the

prayer under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal

Act, 2010 for compensation/restitution/restoration can

be considered by the Tribunal only after hurdle of

Section 14 of the said Act is crossed on determination

of environmental damage. In view of the settled position

taken by this Tribunal in M.A.No.74/2015, Original

Application No.10/2014 (Lakhan Musafir Vs Sardar

Sarovar Narmda Nigam Ltd & Ors).

20. Learned Counsel Mrs. Norma Alvares appearing

on behalf of the Applicants submitted that they are not

questioning merit of NOCs/Permissions/Clearances

given by GCZMA for the project, but raising issue about

competency of GCZMA to issue such


NOC/Permission/Clearance on the premise that the

project requires Clearance/Approval from MoEF as per

the provisions of CRZ Notification,2011 and as such,

NOC/Permission/Clearance issued by GCZMA in the

present case has no force and construction activities

done in pursuance thereto bring in its wake

environmental damage, which warrants restoration.

She further submitted that the dispute in the present

controversy arose only when the local villagers noted

illegal developmental activities in CRZ-I, Chapora Fort

and other developments like landscaping, steps access

construction, Rainwater Harvesting Tanks(RWHT) and

hill cutting around 25th April, 2015; and thereafter the

Authorities had inspected the said site, noticed

illegalities and issued directions.

21. At the outset, the Application as placed before us

reveals that there is no challenge to any

NOC/Permission/Clearance except raising a contention

that the construction in question is in violation of CRZ

Notification, 2011 and seeks demolition of such

constructions or developments. In substance therefor

the Applicants state that the constructions/

developments carried has no sanction in the eye of law.

The NOCs/ Permissions/Clearances are granted by

GCZMA an Authority not competent to grant/issue


such NOCs/Permissions/Clearances under CRZ

Notification, 2011, and prayed for demolition of such

constructions raised in pursuance thereto i.e. for

restoration of environment damaged due to such

constructions/developments.

22. An examination of Ss.14 and 15 of the National

Green Tribunal Act, 2010, reveals that they operate in

distinct fields. Under Section 14 of the said Act, the

Tribunal deals with the disputes arising from

substantial question relating to environment and

arising out of implementation of the Enactments

specified in Schedule-I of the Act, whereas, the Tribunal

has to deal with the issues concerning:

(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other

environmental damage arising under the enactments

specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring

while handling any hazardous substance);

(b) for restitution of property damaged;

(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the

Tribunal may think fit.

in the Application under Section 15 of the NGT Act.

23. It is the case of the Applicants that after noticing

excavation being carried out near the beach and close

to the Chapora Fort on 25th April, 2015, they were

prompted to move the Authorities and as such, a

substantial question relating to cumulative impact of

entire development of the project on environment arose


in their mind and subsequent to the said inspection

carried out by GCZMA and directions issued, they were

prompted to move an Application for restoration of

environment and damage caused due to such

constructions and prayed for demolition of such

constructions. Section 15 (3) of the National Green

Tribunal Act, 2010 prescribes the period of five (5) years

for moving an Application for restitution/restoration of

environment from the date of its cause of action for

such relief first arose, assuming that accrual of cause of

action is to be reckoned from grant of

NOC/Permission/Clearance dated 26th February, 2013

by the GCZMA and commencement of construction in

or abound October, 2013, the Application for

restoration of environment is not barred by limitation,

much less, from the date of noticing

construction/development activity, namely; hill-cutting

near Chapora Fort on 25th April, 2015. Hence, Point

No.1 is answered negatively.

Issue No. 2

24. Chief bone of the contention raised by the

Applicants is that NOCs/Clearances purportedly issued


by GCZMA, particularly, CRZ Clearance dated 26th

February, 2013, read with communication dated 20th

March, 2014, is non-est, as GCZMA is not empowered

to issue such CRZ Clearance under the CRZ

Regulations, 2011.

25. Before dealing with this issue, it would be

necessary to refer to both these documents in order to

understand the conspectus of the litigation. It is an

admitted fact that the proposed development envisaged

by Respondent No.10 is in the CRZ-III area between

200m to 500m from the high tide line (HTL). The

communication dated 26th February 2013 refers to the

subject as “Proposed re-construction of the existing

Resort/Hotel in survey Nos. 353/5, 354/2, 355,

356/17(Part), 356/8 and 353/5 beyond 200m of

Anjuna Village, Bardez Taluka”. Thereafter, it refers to

the re-construction of the existing Resort/Hotel in plot

Survey No. 340/1, 353/5, 354/2, 355, 356/17(Part),

356/8 and 353/5 beyond 200 m. of HTL at village

Anjuna. The Communication also refers to the approval

by the Goa SEIAA in its meeting dated 13th February

2013.

26. Thereafter, the GCZMA issued a

Communication dated 28th March, 2014 regarding the


extension of validity and the operative part of this

communication is as follows :

“With reference to your letter No.NIL dated 04/02/2013 on

the above subject mentioned, with a request of extension of

permission, I am to inform you that as per the Regulation

No.4.2(IV) of the CRZ Notification shall be valid for the

period of five years from the date of issue of the clearance

for commencement of construction and operation. As such,

the clearance granted vide this Office letter No.

GCZMA/N/12-13/14/1477 dated 26/02/2013 is valid upto

25/02/2018.

This is for your kind information and further needful action”.

27. Learned counsel Mrs. Norma Alwares, highlighted

that it is clear from the conjoint reading of both these

communications that the GCZMA has issued these

communication, which as per the GCZMA are purported

to be CRZ clearance issued under para 4.2 of the CRZ

Notification, 2011. She elaborately emphasised the

provisions of para 4 and particularly para 4.2 to

contend that the GCZMA is not the competent

authority to grant any CRZ clearance but is only a

recommendatory body. She contended that the

Applicants have set the procedure for such clearance in

motion by submitting revised Application for less than

20,000 m. built up area. As per para 4.2(ii) of CRZ

notification 2011, GCZMA was required to make

recommendations either to MoEF/SEIAA, if the Project

attracts EIA Notification 2006 and if such project is not

attracting the EIA Notification, then the

recommendation should have been sent to MOEF. She


argued that the GCZMA in utter disregard to these

statutory provisions has granted the CRZ clearance

itself. She further submits that in the year 2014, the

para 4.2(ii)(b) of notification has been amended and

SEIAA has been designated as authority for grant of

CRZ clearance for the projects not covered by the EIA

Notification. However, she contends that while issuing

such clearance in February 2013, GCZMA was not

competent to issue such communication, even if the

SEIAA has looked into it.

28. Countering this argument, learned Sr. counsel

Mr. Pareira for Respondent No.10 highlighting the

procedure laid down in para 4.2(ii) submits that the

project proponents are duty bound to apply in

prescribed format to the GCZMA with the necessary

documents for seeking prior CRZ clearance. Other

aspects of the procedure are entirely within the domain

of Regulatory Authorities including GCZMA, SEIAA and

MoEF. He submits that as a project proponent, they do

not have any say in this procedural aspect and they had

bonafide belief that GCZMA, being Regulatory Authority

under the CRZ Notification, is competent to issue the

CRZ clearance. He submits that what is envisaged in

para 4.2(ii) is that the project in CRZ area needs to be

holistically considered both from CRZ considerations as


well as for environmental impacts. He contends that in

the instant case, both these issues have been

thoroughly looked into by concerned Regulatory

Authorities i.e. GCZMA and Goa SEIAA. He further

contends that the MoEF in order to streamline the

procedure and expedite the same has authorised the

SEIAA to deal with CRZ clearance for the projects not

attracting the EIA Notification, 2006. He emphasises

that the present project has been appraised by both Goa

SEAC and Goa SEIAA and they have approved the

project. He, therefore, submits that even if, para

4.2(ii)(b) is to be applied today, the SEIAA is the

competent authority and therefore as the Goa SEIAA

has already approved this project, there is no

irregularity or illegality in this regard.

29. While advancing another limb of argument on

this issue, Learned counsel Mrs. Norma Alwares also

relied on part 8(i)(III)(B)(i) of notification, wherein

development of vacant plots in designated areas for

construction of hotel/resort for tourists/visitors subject

to the guidelines as Annexure III of CRZ Notification,

2011 are permissible. A plain reading of Annexure III

would refer to guidelines for development of beach

Resort/Hotel in the designated area of CRZ-III and CRZ-

II for occupation of tourists or visitors with prior


approval of Ministry of Environment and Forest. She,

therefore, contends that in view of particular provision

in para 8, the MoEF is the competent authority to grant

clearance for proposed resort/hotel. She also submits

that though the GCZMA communication dated 26th

February, 2013 refers to re-construction but in fact,

even as admitted by the Applicants and the Town

Planning department, complete demolition of the

existing structures is planned for re-development and

extension of the Resort/project. She refers to

communication from the Town Planning department

dated 6th March, 2013 (page 164) to submit that this is

re-construction and extension of hotel/swimming pool

by the Respondent No.10. She also refers to the

approved drawing which is at page 163 of the file to

indicate that several small existing structures will be

demolished to construct the main building. She also

relied on the internal noting of the Town Planning

department to show that there will be demolition of the

existing structures and construction of a new structure

with significant increase in the built up area and also

an extension.

30. She further relied on the communication of the

Goa SEAC dated 31st October 2011 (page 156) wherein

the Goa SEAC has elaborately dealt with this issue. She


relied on para (a) and (b) of this communication which is

re-produced below:

a) The proposed site is located in between 200-500 mts. From

the HTL and falls in the CRZ-III zone of Anjuna village, Bardez

taluka. As such, the proposed developmental activity (i.e.

reconstruction of existing Resort/Hotel) warrants NOC from the

CRZ Authority concerned (MoEF / MoEF / NCZMA) at the first

instance, subject to recommendation from the GCZMA as per

CRZ Notification, 2011.

b) The PP proposes to reconstruct the existing Resort/Hotel by

increasing its original plinth area in CRZ-III zone. As such, the

proposed activity comes under the purview of Hon’ble High

Court directives / legal intervention in respect of W.P. No. 422

of 1998 with W.P. No.99 of 1999. However, it is inferred that

the said proposal, being a reconstruction of Resort / Hotel and

that too with excess plinth area, does not qualify to be

categorized as a project falling under “development in open plot

in CRZ-III zone for construction of hotels / beach resorts as per

Hon’ble High Court directions / judgment (refer 32(P) of the

High Court directives).

As such, it is submitted that:

1. Either Hon’ble High Court may please be informed about the

aforesaid site-specific development activity proposed in CRZ-

III zone and obtain suitable opinion on this matter so as to

make it applicable to all such similar cases, likely to be

addressed/considered by the GCZMA in future.

2. Or the said proposal may please be forwarded to the MoEF

for suitable comments/observations/consideration in light of

the CRZ Notification, 2011.

31. She further submits that once the issue of CRZ

clearance is clear, Goa SEIAA also suggested action to be

taken for the EIA Clearance. The Goa SEIAA has


accordingly appraised the project and as per para ‘C’ of

that communication noted that the proposal is not for

new hotel construction but for reconstruction of existing

hotel/Resort and as such, SEIAA recommended it to be

considered favourably with a request to GCZMA to

appraise the same as per the provisions of CRZ

Notification, 2011. She, therefore, contends that the

Goa SEAC and Goa SEIAA were of the considered

opinion that the proposal is to be cleared in view of the

provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 by MoEF and,

therefore, asked GCZMA to appraise the same as per

provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011.

32. Countering this argument, learned Sr. Counsel

Mr. Pareira submits that the provisions of para 8 of

notification are limited to vacant plots and after due

consideration, the GCZMA has considered it to be a

reconstruction as there were existing structures on the

plot. He categorically submits that in view of the

appraisal by the GCZMA, the Goa SEAC/Goa SEIAA

both the environmental as well as coastal zone issues

have been thoroughly appraised and at this stage, after

near three years, the decision of both the authorities

shall not be reviewed for legality by the Tribunal, as if in

Appeal proceedings. Such considerations would then be

effectively dealt with in the Appeal proceedings which


are hopelessly time barred. He submitted that what is

legally impermissible directly, cannot be done indirectly.

He laid emphasis on the principle of sustainable

development enunciated in Section 20 of the National

Green Tribunal Act, 2010. He further submits that the

project is environmentally benign and sustainability of

the project has been appraised by the concerned

authorities and in fact, the Respondent No.10 is willing

to take any other constructive environmental measures

as directed by the Tribunal.

33. Learned Counsel Mrs. F.M. Mesquita appearing

for all Government Respondents, elaborately explained

the procedure adopted by the GCZMA and submitted

that only after the approval/appraisal by the Goa

SEAC/Goa SEIAA, they have granted this clearance.

She also submits that being a regulatory authority, the

GCZMA has powers to regulate the permissible activities

and the Regulation also includes issuance of permission.

She also submits that this particular case cannot be

considered under para 8 which is distinctively confined

to development of open vacant plots for resorts, as there

was an existing resort even prior to 1991 and therefore,

the area is already used for Tourism purposes. She,

therefore, contends that the Application in such instance

need not be sent to MoEF.


34. We have given our considered thought on the

issue involved. The alleged CRZ clearance is granted in

February 2013 which was amended by communication

of March 2014 and as such we would like to make it

clear that we are not dealing with the present issue as

would be dealt within an Appeal proceeding. What we

are confronted with is the material proposition advanced

by learned counsel Mrs. Norma Alwares that such

development requires CRZ clearance from MoEF under

the provisions of para 4.2(ii) read with para 8 of the CRZ

Notification.

35. In this regard, it is an admitted fact that there

was a Resort existing on the said property (200m to

500m) prior to 1991 and Respondent No.10 proposed to

demolish the entire existing structure and construct a

new building for the Resort. From submissions on

record, the built up area will be increased from

7266.25m to 15,463.98m. The CRZ Notification has

rightly identified the vacant plots as virgin areas and

kept it on higher pedestal of environmental sensitivity

amongst the areas under CRZ-III areas. The legislature

intention to be more cautious while allowing the

development of Resorts at the vacant plots in order to

conserve the pristine CRZ-II area. In the instant case,

the existing resort seems to have existing built up 7000


sqm indicating that the Resort activity had an extensive

environmental footprint in terms of tourist’s

accommodation, restaurants, traffic and transport etc.

These structures are proposed to be demolished and new

construction of about 18,000 sqm would come in the

said property. Obviously, this is a significant expansion

of the resort by demolishing the existing structure.

However, in our considered opinion, this cannot be

considered and deemed as development on a vacant plot.

The CRZ Notification, 2011, para 8 clearly deals with

development of Resorts on vacant plots. And therefore,

we hold that this material yardstick of development of

resort on vacant plot cannot be applied in the present

case.

36. The Hotel projects and construction projects

have been distinctively dealt in CRZ Notification, 2011

and also have been separately enlisted in subsequent

classification of the industry published by the

MoEF/CPCB on 29th February 2016. In view of such

environmental consideration, we are of the view that

though the hotel/Resort development is essentially

construction activity but as far as the pollution and

environmental aspects are considered, they need to be

treated on different yardstick as evident from the


provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 and classification of

industries.

37. The proposed construction of resort has been

considered by SEIAA/SEAC and as per their report, the

built up area is less than 20,000 sq.m and hence, the

project do not attract Environment Clearance

Regulation, 2006. As per own showing of GCZMA, the

CRZ clearance has been granted as per para 4 of the

Notification. As this proceeding is not Appeal

proceedings, we are not dealing with the merit or

reasonability of such decision, but are dealing with an

issue of competence of the authority to grant CRZ

clearance under para 4 of CRZ Notification. The close

scrutiny of para 4(ii) read with para 4.2(ii) would

manifest that as per the amendment dated 28th

November 2014, the delegation of powers to grant the

clearance has been substantially amended. The relevant

paras are reproduced below for clear understanding:

4.(ii) : The following activities shall require clearance from

MoEF, after being recommended by the concerned CZMP.

(a) Those activities listed under category (A) of the EIA

Notification, 2006, and permissible under the said

Notification.

4.2(ii) : The concerned CZMA shall examine the above

documents in accordance with the approved CZMP and in

compliance with CRZ Notification and make

recommendations within a period of sixty days from date of

receipt of complete application.—


(a) MoEF or State Environmental Impact Assessment

Authority (hereinafter referred to as the SEIAA) as the case

may be for the Project attracting EIA Notification 2006.

(b) MoEF for the projects not covered in the EIA Notification,

2006 but attracting para 4(ii) of the CRZ Notification.

(c) SEIAA, for the projects specified under paragraph 4(i)

(except with respect to item (d) thereof relating to building

projects with less than 20,000 sq.mts. of built-up area) and for

the projects not attracting EIA notification, 2006.

Para 8(i)(III)(B) which deals with hotels and

beach Resort project which reproduced below :

8(i)III(B) : Area between 200 mts. To 500 mts.-

The following activities shall be permissible in the above

areas:

(i) Development of vacant plot in designated areas for

construction of Hotels or beach Resorts for tourists or visitors

subject to the conditions as specified in the Guidelines at

Annexure III;

It would be manifest from the plain reading of

these provisions that only, either MoEF or SEIAA, are

competent to issue the CRZ clearance. In the instant

case, the resort activities, having less than 20,000

sq.mtr. built up do not attract EIA Notification 2006.

And therefore, this project falls in 4.2(ii)(c), wherein

SEIAA is the competent authority to grant CRZ

clearance, as amended in 2014 for such clearance under

para 4 of the Notification. However, we would like to

observe that during the grant of such clearance or for


that matter, GCZMA was not vested with such powers to

issue CRZ clearance.

38. In the instant case, we have taken a judicial

note of the fact that Respondent No.10 has submitted

the revised proposal for less than 20,000 sqm built up

area and the same was appraised by GCZMA and

submitted to Goa SEAC. The SEAC and SEIAA

appraised the project and by communication dated 26th

February, 2013 informed that the project was appraised

during the 6th Goa-SEIAA Meeting held on 7th February

2013 and further recommended the project for appraisal

of the same as per the provisions of CRZ Regulation,

2011.

39. Based on above discussion, one thing that can

emerge is that the project of Respondent No.10 was

appraised by GCZMA, Goa SEAC and Goa SEIAA and

therefore, it can be reasonably construed that both the

environmental as well as coastal impacts of the proposed

developments have been appraised by the authorities.

What emanates from the entire chronology is that the

GCZMA has mis-intercepted the provisions of para 4.2(ii)

and has taken the mantle to issue the CRZ clearance

themselves and have usurped the power to grant CRZ

clearance which vested in Goa SEIAA. Hence, issue No.2

is answered negatively.


40. For such procedural lapse, we however, do not

find fault with the Respondent No.10 as this was not the

result of any such specific submission or information

provided by the project proponent. They had applied to

the authorities and have presented their project as per

the legal requirement. It is also to be noted that the

hotel development was allowed in February 2013 and

subsequently required permissions including Town

Planning department were obtained by the project

proponent. It is also noticed that the project of

construction is in advance stage nearing completion.

Under these circumstances, we are inclined to apply the

principle of sustainable development in the instant case

Nonetheless, even if, Respondent-10 would have pleaded

for approval at GCZMA level, the authority has to

independently appraise the same as per law. However,

as abundant precaution to ensure that the proposed

project is environmentally benign, we are inclined to

direct Goa SEIAA to consider the project and

environmental impacts including the CRZ aspects,

considering the present construction activities, if

necessary by site inspection and issue necessary

clearance, if they find it appropriate.

Issue No.3:


41. Before we deal with this issue, it would be

pertinent to understand topography of the project site in

question. The project location is abutting Arabian Sea in

the West. Survey No.354/2 is facing the Arabian Sea and

accommodates the old existing chalet structures (22 in

number) for which permission for reconstruction was

granted by GCZMA in the year 2011. Survey No.355 is

within the CRZ-III- NDZ area. Part of survey No.354,

356, 352 and 353 are beyond 200m and its juxtaposition

is clear through the map of Directorate of Settlement &

Land Record Panaji dated 24th June 2015 which is at

page 55 of record. As mentioned in above paras, the

violations of non-compliances as alleged by the

Applicants can be grouped in three (3) zones, namely

within 100m from Chapora fort which is CRZ-I area,

secondly within the CRZ-III NDZ area and CRZ-III

beyond 200m area. The main allegations are related to

unauthorised construction and development in NDZ

area, development of helipad and road in CRZ-I and hill

cutting and road in CRZ-I and hill cutting in CRZ-III

beyond 200m besides issues related to landscaping

stepped access etc.

42. It is manifest from the provisions of CRZ

Notification that no development can be carried out in

CRZ-III NDZ area, save and except permissible activities.


It will be pertinent to refer to the Inspection Report of the

authorities to understand the nature and scale of the

violations observed by the authorities. GCZMA

conducted inspection through its Expert Member and a

Technical Officer on 14th May, 2015 and the facts have

been mentioned in para 13 above. Subsequently,

GCZMA carried out inspection through its Technical

Officer on 28th August 2015 who observed as under :

1. The M/s. Dyna Buildwell has removed all the

huts/cottages/structures and has grown plants in that

space where the Huts/Cottages were constructed.

2. The kuchcha road and the helipad has been removed by

the M/s. Dyna Buildwell.

3. The M/s. Dyna Buildwell has complied with the direction

issued by GCZMA in terms of it letter bearing

No.GCZMA/ N/ ILLE/ Compt/15-16/21/410 dated 25th

May, 2015.

43. The Goa State Bio-diversity Board also

submitted a report of the site inspection dated 13th May,

2015 and have reported that hill cutting and land-filling

has been carried out to facilitate construction of road

leading uphill to a helipad. Rampant cutting of existing

flora of hilly terrain has been carried out. A small area

was excavated for building a swimming pool. The area

around helipad has been widely cut into terraces with

provision made for planting large number of exotic


ornamental plants and actually some already planted.

Significantly, the report also indicates presence of

indigenous herbaceous floral species including sand-

dune flora. The report also lists out large number of

indigenous flora species.

44. Though the initial inspection was carried out by

a team comprising the Expert Member of GCZMA it is

not clear why the same team has not carried out the

inspection for the better understanding of the

compliances. Be that as it may, it is observed from the

report of the Technical Officer that all the issues raised

during the visit on 14th May, 2015 have not been

addressed by the GCZMA. However, the report

specifically refers to removal of certain structures for

M/s. Diana Buildwell Ltd. i.e. Respondent No.10.

45. The Town and Country Planning Department

also carried out inspection on 13th May 2015 which

records that five (5) numbers of additional structures are

constructed within 200m without any technical

clearance. It also mentions that some portion has been

levelled with landscaping which appears to be helipad.

Further, a stepped access is developed at the foothill of

Chapora fort and also barbed wire fencing has been

erected with cement poles on the boundary of the plot.

The Department further noted that excavation for


basement of the banquet hall has been carried out as

per approved plan.

46. The Archaeology department also carried out

inspection and by letter dated 7th September, 2015

reported the compliances of directions issued to

Respondent No.10 by order dated 26th May 2015. It is

submitted that Respondent No.10 was directed to stop

hill cutting, remove road and barbed wire fencing with

cement poles falling within 100m from Chapora fort. It

is further submitted that the gravel from the road and

barbed wire fencing along with cement poles has been

removed and hill cuttings has been stopped. However,

incident of soil erosion was noticed at the base of the

hill.

47. Learned counsel Mr. Norma Alwares, relying on

these violations detected by the authorities and

subsequently acted upon, claimed that Respondent

No.10 is continuing with major violations and drew our

attention to the stepped access and landscaping

developed by the Respondent No.10 (photographs are at

page 306 and 307) and to the helipad area and

landscaping done near the alleged sand dune vide

photographs at page 222 and 223. The construction of

retaining wall and other development particularly at

Survey No.355 which is in NDZ, were pointed out by the


learned counsel through photographs on record. She

also has drawn our attention to the structures titled as

Rain Water Harvesting Tank (RWHT) which she alleges

to be private swimming tanks/pools, particularly for the

reason of its size, aesthetics and construction material

used. She claims that the RWHT are not permitted by

the GCZMA and cannot be allowed in NDZ area.

48. Countering such allegations, learned Sr.

Counsel Mr. Pareira submits that all the inspection

Reports relied upon are carried out without due notice to

the Respondents and principle of natural justice were

not followed. He submits that the authorities acted with

alarming speed upon a complaint from the Applicants

received by them. He also claims that proper scientific

and technical assessment has not been done by the

GCZMA while issuing the directions which in fact was

subsequently acknowledged in the final directions. As

far as RWHT, he submits that they are constructed as

per the conditions of the Town Planning department for

rain water harvesting purpose, which is environment

friendly. He submits that there is no hill cutting and

only ground plus one structure is being constructed

strictly as per the permissions. Regarding construction

of road in S.No.354/2 and S.No.340/1, he submits that

the same existed prior to 1991 and they are only


strengthening the same in order to get proper access

from the village road.

49. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Pareira further makes

a statement that a Rain Water Harvesting Tank (RWHT)

will not be used as swimming tank under any

circumstances and further no development over and

above the pre-existing structures, will be carried out on

S.No.355. He also makes statement that S.No.355 will

be restored to its original condition. He further submits

that the barbed wire fencing, stepped access and

construction material dumped for road development

near Chapora fort have been removed. In view of

compliance reported by Authorities, he contends that

there is no further cause for action which requires

Tribunal’s consideration.

50. We have gone through the entire documentation

and also perused the reports of authorities. We will deal

with the issues in sequential manner for different class

of areas under the CRZ Notification.

51. CRZ-III-NDZ AREA : It is not disputed that there

were 22 structures existing prior to 1991 and GCZMA

issued permission for reconstruction of the same.

However, from the record, particularly, plan attached at

page 161, we notice that the RWHTs have not been


approved and only reconstruction was allowed by the

GCZMA. In any case, the permission of the GCZMA is

conditional one which clearly mentions that there should

not be increase in plinth or FSI or density. The

construction of such RWHT is therefore, an additional

built up and increase in plinth and increase in therefore,

is in clear violation of CRZ Regulations. Further a mere

look at the photograph makes us to wonder whether

these are Rain Water Harvesting Tanks in reality. These

tanks are tiled with high end glazed tiles, have unique

large size and have been designed for aesthetic look,

rather than conventional water storage tanks. At the

same time, these RWHT are aligned with the existing

structures in such a manner that would abundantly

make it clear that they are developed as private

swimming pools for the occupants of the rooms. We have

reasonable apprehension that these RWHT are

camouflaged to be the RWHT but in fact, they are the

private swimming pools. And therefore, we have no

hesitation to hold that these Rain Water Harvesting

Tanks are illegal and unauthorised and have been

constructed by abusing the process of law.

52. As far as car parking in the plot S.No.340/1,

and road being developed for existing structure from the

village road leading to sea is concerned, the Applicant


argues that they were not allowed by the Town Planning

department. Whereas, according to learned Sr. Counsel

Mr. Pareira, the road as well as parking was approved by

the Town Planning department through subsequent

amendments of permission. However, no such records

are produced before us. We have noticed some

observations of TCP in the noting on record regarding

road, but no submissions have been made either by

GCZMA or TCP in this regard. Hence, issue No.2 is

answered negatively

53. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that

the authorities of GCZMA and Town Planning have to re-

examine the proposed parking at SN 340/1 and access

road, in view of the provisions of CRZ Notification and

take a call on a permissibility of road as well as parking

area in S.No.340/1 and 354/2. Till the time, the

authorities take a decision on such permissibility; no

work on both these projects can be allowed to continue.

In case the authorities take a negative call on such

proposal, the Respondent No.10 will be liable to restore

the land to its original condition.

54. In CRZ-I Area, the hill cutting, particularly near

the Chapora Fort, the Department of Archaeology has

already reported stoppage of road development work but

restoration work is pending. Similarly the hutments and


the barbed wire fencing have been removed. As regards

to stepped access, helipad and the landscaping, the

authorities have taken certain actions. However, it is

not clear whether the restoration work has been

completed. It is, therefore, necessary that the GCZMA

shall carry out necessary inspection through its

Members and if required inviting other subject Experts

and ensure that the restoration of the area shall be

completed expeditiously.

55. In CRZ-III area, beyond 200 mtr from HTL, the

main allegation is regarding retaining wall and hill

cutting. TCP is on record through their site inspection

dated 13.5.2015 that they have granted permission for

ground + one floor permission for the hotel and

construction is as per approved plan. We do not have

any reason to further deal with this issue.

56. Hon’ble Apex Court in “Intellectuals Forum,

Tirupathi vs State Of A.P. & Ors in Appeal (civil) 1251 of

2006” on 23 February, 2006, decided on 23/02/2006

has elaborately dealt on sustainable development,

principle of state responsibility to protect environment

and principle of public trust. Some of the relevant paras

are reproduced for ready reference:

“The responsibility of the state to protect the environment is now

a well-accepted notion in all countries. It is this notion that, in


international law, gave rise to the principle of “state

responsibility” for pollution emanating within one’s own

territories [Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports (1949) 4]. This

responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations

Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972

(Stockholm Convention), to which India was a party. The

relevant Clause of this Declaration in the present context is

Paragraph 2, which states: “The natural resources of the earth,

including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially

representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be

safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations

through careful planning or management, as appropriate. Thus,

there is no doubt about the fact that there is a responsibility

bestowed upon the Government to protect and preserve the

tanks, which are an important part of the environment of the

area”.

57. In summary, what we have observed in the

instant case is that Respondent No.10 has carried out

several developments and constructions in NDZ area in

blatant violation of the CRZ notification and there is no

regulatory enforcement by the GCZMA. It is also

observed that so called clearance granted by the GCZMA

is cryptic and do not clearly indicate even the scope of

project. Neither this clearance is hosted on website in

the public domain nor has any condition been stipulated

for publicity to said clearance. This Tribunal has time

and again directed the GCZMA to host all the

complaints, inspection reports, clearances, directions

etc. on its own website as mandated by the notification

of MoEF constituting the GCZMA. However, in spite of

such specific directions, particularly in Application


No.3/2014, (Alexio Pareira Vrs. State of Goa & Ors.

disposed of on 17th December 2014)”, we have noticed its

non-compliances by the GCZMA.

58. The actions of Respondent No.10 in carrying out

development in NDZ area particularly RWHT,

development in plot No.355, helipad stepped access need

to be seriously looked into. Violations are also observed

in CRZ-I area by construction of road, access and

fencing. The CRZ Notification is aimed to conserve the

pristine coastal environment. No doubt, the Tourism

Industry in Goa has to play an important role in socio-

economic development of the State but the

Environmental Protection and coastal preservation

cannot be ignored. It must be realised that unless

serene and pristine coasts of Goa are protected, the

Tourism Industry in Goa will not survive. Goa is blessed

with a unique coastal eco-system with aesthetic beauty

which is exploited for tourism purposes, but what is

missing is an ecological consideration while exploiting

the tourism potential, and turn its beaches, sand

dunes and coastal flora and fauna often get a raw deal.

59. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro Legal

Action Vs. Union of India and others (1993 (3) SCC

579), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:


“A law is usually enacted because the legislature feels that it is

necessary. It is with a view to protect and preserve the

environment and save it for the future generations and to

ensure good quality of life that the Parliament enacted the Anti-

Pollution Laws, namely the Water Act, Air Act and the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These Acts and Rules

framed and Notification issued thereunder contains provisions

which prohibit and / or regulate certain activities with a view to

protect and preserve the environment. When a law is enacted

containing some provisions which prohibits certain types of

activities, then, it is of utmost importance that such legal

provisions are effectively enforced. If a law is enacted but is not

being voluntarily obeyed, then, it has to be enforced.

Otherwise, infringement of law, which is actively or passively

condoned for personal gain, will be encouraged which, will in

turn lead to a lawless society. Violation of anti-pollution laws

not only adversely affect the existing quality of life but the non-

enforcement of the legal provisions often result in ecological

imbalance and degradation of environment, the adverse effect

of which will have to be borne by the future generations.”

60. In view of the above discussions, we pass the

following directions:

1. The Respondent No.2-Goa Coastal Zone

Management Authority shall place the case of

the Respondent No.10 for reconstruction and

extension of the proposed resort / hotel with

its recommendations, both positive and/or

negative, before Goa SEIAA for taking its

decision in the matter of grant of CRZ

Clearance to the proposal for reconstruction

and extension of resort/hotel referred to

hereinabove within four (4) weeks.


2. The Respondent No.1-State of Goa, the

Respondent No.2-Goa Coastal Zone

Management Authority, the Respondent No.3

Dy. Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer,

Bardez, Sub Division, Mapusa, Goa shall

ensure the demolition of Rain Water

Harvesting Tanks and other illegal structures

referred to herein situate in NDZ area falling

in the property owned and possessed by the

Respondent No.10 M/s. Diana Buildwell Ltd.

within eight (8) weeks.

3. The Respondent No.2-GCZMA shall appoint a

Committee of its Experts including a

Representative of Bio-diversity Board to

assess the damage caused to the environment

by unauthorized and illegal construction of

helipad, stepped access and prepare a plan

for its restoration and give tentative costs for

such restoration within eight (8) weeks.

4. The Respondent No.2-GCZMA shall execute

such plan within next three (three) months.

5. The Respondent No.2-GCZMA and

Respondent No.4-Town & Country Planning

Department, Goa shall re-examine the issue

of development of road and parking in


S.No.354/2 and 340/1 of village Anjuna

Bardez, Goa within next one month and there

shall be no construction/development at the

said site till the issue is re-examined as

aforesaid, and if such permission is not

granted, the Respondent No.10-M/s. Diana

Buildwell shall restore the said land to its

original condition at his own cost.

6. Entire costs of restoration and restitution as

envisaged above shall be borne by Respondent

No.10-M/s. Diana Buildwell Ltd. and

Respondent No.10 M/s. Diana Buildwell Ltd.

shall tentatively deposit Rs.5 crores (Rs. Five

crores) in the escrow account of Collector,

North Goa, within eight (8) weeks and the

amount deposited shall be utilized by the

Collector, North Goa for restoration and

restitution work with the assistance of

Respondent No.2-GCZMA.

7. The Respondent No.10-M/s. Diana Buildwell

Ltd. shall pay additional amount of Rs.10

lakhs (Rs. Ten lakhs) to the Collector, North

Goa within eight (8) weeks which shall be

spent on Coastal Protection, sanitation


facilities in the Coastal area for tourists in

consultation with Respondent No.2-GCZMA.

8. Respondent No.2-GCZMA shall deposit an

amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rs. Five lakhs) as the

costs of the Application in escrow account of

the Collector, North Goa, within four (4) weeks

which shall be spent for activities, such as

Coastal Protection and sanitation facilities in

Coastal area.

9. No completion or occupation certificate shall

be granted in respect of the properties

developed by Respondent No.10 M/s. Diana

Buildwell Ltd. till the directions at clause

Nos.2, 6 and 7herein are complied with.

….…………….………………., JM (Justice U.D. Salvi)

….....…..……………………., EM

(Dr. Ajay.A. Deshpande) Date: November 3rd, 2016 PUNE hkk

before the national green tribunal …greentribunal.gov.in/writereaddata/downloads/82-2013-wz...1 of...

Documents