Allowed

Alex J. Fernandes v. the State of Goa, Thr. the Cheif Secretary and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2021PILWP/14/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that unauthorized constructions in a CRZ area by Respondents 7 and 8 violated the law due to lack of permissions and occupancy certificate. The Court ordered immediate demolition, disconnection of water and electricity, and sealing of premises. An affidavit and resolution regarding the demolition order were annexed and considered.

What did the court decide?

Directed demolition of the illegal structure, disconnection of water and electricity, and sealing of premises within ten and fifteen days.

Alex J. Fernandes Vs the State of Goa, Thr. the… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶2

Niti

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PIL WRIT PETITION NO.14 OF 2021

¶4

Mr. Alex J. Fernandes, aged 60 years, Indian National, Fisherman and Social Activist, R/o H. No. 140, Umta Vado, Calangute, Bardez, Goa. Mobile No. 9822386955 PAN Card No. ABRPF8287G Aadhar Card No. 9052 4418 5684.

¶5

...PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

¶8

The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, Through the Director, 1st Floor, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhavan, Behind Pundalik Devasthan, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

¶9

The Collectorate, North Goa, Collectorate Building, Panaji, Goa.

¶10

The Mamlatdar of Bardez, Office of the Mamlatdar of Bardez, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.

¶12

The Secretary, Village Panchayat Calangute, Bardez, Goa.

¶13

Page 1 of 11 15^th September 2021

¶14

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶15

Mr. Alex Elvis Fernades, r/o H. No. 140/B, Umta Vado, Calangute, Bardez, Goa. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa with Ms. V. Shet , Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D. Pangam , Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar , Government Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 5.

¶17

Mr. Pankaj P. Pai Vernekar , Advocate for Respondent No.6. Mr. A.D. Bhobe , Advocate for the Respondents No.7 & 8.

¶18

CORAM: M. S. SONAK & M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ DATED: 15^th September 2021

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶21

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶22

3. This petition highlights an extremely disturbing feature as to how constructions are put up in CRZ areas without bothering to obtain any permissions from any Authorities and thereafter some sort of immunities are claimed based on the completion of such constructions at breakneck speeds by taking advantage of the circumstance that the enforcement was lax because the enforcement agencies were battling the COVID 19 pandemic.

¶23

4. In this case, the petitioner filed complaints inter alia to the Panchayat and the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) that respondents no.7 & 8 had commenced

¶24

Page 2 of 11 15^th September 2021

¶25

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶26

construction within 200 meters of the HTL which is a CRZ area.
These complaints were made on 9th and 10th March 2021. Since
no action was taken but respondents no.7 & 8 continued with
their construction activity, the petitioner caused a legal notice
dated 20.03.2021 to be served on the Authorities urging action.

¶27

5. Again, since no action was forthcoming from any of the Authorities and respondents no.7 & 8 were continuing with their construction, the petitioner instituted this petition on 30.03.2021. The petitioner, along with the petition enclosed photographs on pages nos.35, 36 & 37, which indicate that entirely new construction had commenced and such construction was at the preliminary stages. If at that stage itself, the Authorities like the Panchayat and the GCZMA were to have acted then the construction would never have come up.

¶28

6. Unfortunately, none of the Authorities were prompt in taking action. As a result of which the respondents no.7 & 8 have completed the construction within four to five months, named it as "Typsy Villa" and further entered into the same. This is even though the construction has no permission from any of the Authorities. Further, the construction has no occupancy certificate and yet the same has been occupied by respondents no.7 & 8.

¶29

7. According to us, this is a brazen violation of the law and the legal provisions in the matters of putting up constructions in a Panchayat area and that too in a CRZ area. Respondents no.7 & 8 are firmly convinced that as long as they race to complete the illegal construction and occupy the same the law will never be

¶30

Page 3 of 11

¶31

15th September 2021

¶32

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶33

able to catch up with them. The attempt thereafter is to institute
all sorts of proceedings and, delay the action against the wholly
unauthorized construction put up in an eco-sensitive zone
without seeking permissions from any authorities. In the
meanwhile, respondents no.7 & 8 feel that they can continue to
occupy the premises even though the premises were put up
without any permission from any Authorities in an area where at
least prima facie no construction could have even been put up by
them. As noted earlier, respondents no.7 & 8 have also occupied
these premises in the absence of an occupancy certificate. These
Respondents were aware that no occupancy certificate could be
issued to such an unauthorized structure because it was put up
without any permissions possibly at a site where no permissions
could even have been granted by the Panchayat.

¶34

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a modus operandi where constructions are put up without any permissions, relying on the fact that Authorities refuse to take any action or at least refuse to take any prompt action despite complaints.

¶35

9. On 08.09.2021, we were constrained to make the following order in this matter :

¶36

“P.C. :

¶37

1. Prima facie we feel that this is a case of remiss in
the discharge of duties on the part of the Sarpanch
and Deputy Sarpanch in not taking any action
whatsoever against the construction which is put by

¶38

Page 4 of 11

¶39

15th September 2021

¶40

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶41

Respondent Nos.7 and 8, possibly at the breakneck
speed to avoid any restraint orders from the Court or
statutory authorities.

¶42

2. When this petition was filed on 30.03.2021, the
same was accompanied by a picture of the
construction in progress. The construction had not
significantly progressed at that stage. However, today
to present fait accompli a picture is placed on record
indicating that the construction is complete in a
record period.

¶43

3. The complaint in the petition was precise that the
illegal and unauthorized construction is being put up
by Respondent Nos.7 and 8 without seeking
permission inter alia from the Village Panchayat and
the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
(GCZMA).

¶44

4. Before filing the petition, a complaint was made to
the Village Panchayat on 09.03.2021. There is no
explanation as to why no cognizance was taken of
this complaint and the powers under Section 64 of
the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to stop such
construction were exercised by the Sarpanch.

¶45

5. As a result of inaction, Respondent Nos.7 and 8
admittedly have not bothered to obtain permission
from any authorities and put up a huge villa and even
proceeded to name the said villa as "Typsy Villa".

¶46

Page 5 of 11 15^th September 2021

¶47

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶48

There is neither any license nor there is any
occupancy certificate for its occupation.

¶49

6. This is the construction which is hardly a
kilometer away from the Panchayat office. The
Sarpanch cannot claim ignorance in the matter
because on 09.03.2021 the Petitioner had brought
this prima facie illegal activities to the notice of the
Sarpanch himself. Besides notices were issued in this
petition on 05.04.2021 and notice was served in the
Panchayat office on 06.04.2021.

¶50

7. Prima facie it is clear that the construction of this
nature which is backed by no permissions whatsoever
could be completed on account of inaction on the
part of the Panchayat and its Sarpanch.

¶51

8. Mr. Vernekar, learned counsel appearing for the
Panchayat expresses helplessness on behalf of the
Panchayat to seal the unauthorized structure. He
states that the Sarpanch of the Panchayat has no such
powers. All that he offers is that the Panchayat will
issue show-cause notice and thereafter dispose of the
same within eight weeks. At least prima facie all this
appears to be aimed at assisting Respondent Nos. 7
and 8 who have put up an illegal construction
without seeking any permissions and further entered
into the structure without there being any occupancy
certificate.

¶52

Page 6 of 11 15^th September 2021

¶53

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶54

9. The affidavit should also place on record the
number of complaints received in this Panchayat
during the tenure of the present Sarpanch about
illegal constructions and action taken if any. An
affidavit should also indicate the timeline within
which the action, if any, was taken.

¶55

10. Depending upon the affidavit so filed, this Court
will consider whether the Director of Panchayat
should be directed to consider whether any case is
made out for action under Section 50(4) of the
Panchayat Raj Act against this Sarpanch.

¶56

11. Stand over to 15th September 2021.”

¶57

10. In response to our order, Mr. Shawn Martins, the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat of Calangute has filed an affidavit. He has submitted that he assumed the charge as Sarpanch only on 09.04.2021. He has pointed out that after that date there was a lockdown and the Panchayat was involved in measures concerning the COVID 19 pandemic. In the affidavit, there is a reference to the measures that were being taken by the Panchayat. He has, therefore, stated in the affidavit that there was no intention of protecting respondents no.7 & 8, and the delay in initiating action was for the reasons indicated in the affidavit, which mainly concern combatting the COVID 19 pandemic.

¶58

Page 7 of 11

¶59

15th September 2021

¶60

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶61

11. The affidavit also refers to the resolution of the Panchayat in its special meeting held on 13.09.2021. This is followed by an order of demolition under Section 66(4) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. All this has been annexed to the affidavit of the Sarpanch.

¶62

12. The resolution states that the site was inspected on 09.09.2021 and the site inspection report indicates that the structure is totally illegal, in the sense that there was no existing structure but an entirely new structure has been put up. Admittedly, respondents no.7 & 8 have obtained no permission from any of the Authorities. The resolution also noted that respondents no.7 & 8 have occupied the house without obtaining any occupancy certificate from the Panchayat, which is also mandatory.

¶63

13. The Panchayat has considered the usual contention about the old existing structure and the carrying out of any minor repairs to the same and, thereafter, rejected the same. Even according to us, the material placed on record establishes that this usual contention is false and this is not a case where some existing structure has been repaired or that any minor repairs are carried out to some existing structure. The photographs on record and

¶64

Page 8 of 11

¶65

15th September 2021

¶66

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶67

the site inspection referred to in the Panchayat’s resolution clearly
bear out this position.

¶68

14. This is a case where an entirely new structure was put up by respondents no.7 & 8 without obtaining permission from any Authorities in an eco-sensitive CRZ area taking advantage of the fact that all Authorities were busy combatting the COVID 19 pandemic.

¶69

15. The demolition order dated 13.09.2021 gives respondents no.7 & 8 ten days to demolish their structure. Respondents no.7 & 8 to demolish this structure within ten days from today, as directed, failing which the Panchayat to demolish this structure within a maximum period of 15 days thereafter.

¶70

16. In the meanwhile, we direct the electricity department to forthwith disconnect the electricity supply and the water department to forthwith disconnect the water supply. Respondents no.7 & 8 shall forthwith vacate the premises and the Panchayat shall forthwith seal the premises. The seals can be removed only to facilitate the demolition if respondents no.7 & 8 seek to demolish the structure by themselves.

¶71

Page 9 of 11 15^th September 2021

¶72

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶73

17. The learned Advocate General states that the demolition squad has to spend 5.00 lakhs to 6.00 lakhs to demolish this ₹ ₹ kind of structure. The respondents no.7 & 8 to deposit with the Panchayat an amount of 2.00 lakhs within three days from ₹ today. If respondents no.7 & 8 demolish the structure by themselves then the Panchayat will refund this amount. If the structure is not demolished by respondents no.7 & 8 then respondents no.7 & 8 will have to bear the further expenses concerning demolition.

¶74

18. The GCZMA should also visit the site and determine the damage to the environment on account of putting up such a structure in the CRZ area. Ultimately, respondents no.7 & 8 will have to make good the loss which they have caused to the environment by putting up a brazen, illegal, and unauthorized structure without permission from any Authorities whatsoever in a CRZ area. This exercise must be completed within six weeks from today.

¶75

19. The State to provide police assistance for implementation of our order. If respondents no.7 & 8 resist any Authorities, including police Authorities, action in terms of the law will have to be initiated against them.

¶76

Page 10 of 11 15^th September 2021

¶77

7-PILWP-14-2021.DOC

¶78

20. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

21. All concerned to act based on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶80

M. S. JAWALKAR, J.

¶81

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶82

NITI K Digitally signed by NITI K HALDANKAR HALDANKAR Date: 2021.09.15 18:23:01 +05'30'

¶83

Page 11 of 11 15^th September 2021

Alex J. Fernandes v. the State of Goa, Thr. the Cheif Secretary and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alex J. Fernandes v. the State of Goa, Thr. the Cheif Secretary and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharti Juwatkar., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Excellency Services, Thr. Its Prop., Brian Cosme Fernandes Vs Union of India, Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, New Delhi and 4 Ors.

Shaikh Ayaz Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

The Goa Foundation, Thr. Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares., Vs Goa State Pollution Control Board, Thr. Its Member Secretary and 5 Ors.

Dadapir K. Navalgund and Anr. Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Maria Antoneta Menezes and 21 Ors., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary (Revenue) and 2 Ors.