Dismissed

Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. the Member Secretary Gdzma

NGT8 Sept 2021Appeal No. 67/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench dismissed an appeal challenging the GCZMA's order quashing proceedings against a developer. The court accepted evidence from a Tribunal-constituted Expert Committee confirming structures were outside the No Development Zone and excepting no sustainable grounds for interference.

What did the court decide?

No further relief as the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kashinath Jairam Shetye vs the Member Secretary Gdzma — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2021)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶2

(By Video Conferencing) **************

¶3

Appeal No. 67/2019(WZ)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶5

Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye,
Residence at A-102, Raj Excellency, Patto,
Ribandar, Goa.
2. Mr. Ketan Govekar,
Residence at 3 rd Floor,
Wadji Building,
St. Inez Panjim, Goa.
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Member Secretary, GCZMA
Dempo Towers, Patto Plaza
Patto, Panaji,Goa-403001.
2. M/s. Palacio Developers Pvt.Ltd. ,
601, Gera Emporium,
Patto, Panaji,Goa-403521.
3. Mr. Niraj Naik
5 th Floor, Meera Residency,
Opp. Madhuban Complex,
Tambi Mati St. Inez,
Panaji, Goa-403001.
And
A/201 Grandeza Building,
Palacio Properties Pvt. Ltd.,
Goa Velha Village, Tiswadi, Goa.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s):
Mr. Kashinath Shetye, First Appellant-in-Person
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Mrs. Fawia Mesquita, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Sarvesh Kamat Mayeka & Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan,
Advocates

¶6

¶7

PRESENT:

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Sathyanarayanan (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Arun Kumar Verma (Expert Member)

¶9

Orders Reserved on: 26.08.2021 Pronounced on: 08.09.2021

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Appellants who are residents of Patto, Ribandar, Goa and St. Inez Panjim, Goa respectively came forward to file this Appeal with the following prayers:-

¶12

¶13

a) Quash and set aside the order of the GCZMA dated 11.02.2019.

¶14

b) Produce the Draft CZMP 2018 prepared by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management Chennai of Goa.

¶15

c) Direct the demolition of all buildings, construction done in 181/1 (part), 181/2, 3, 5 (part),182/7, 183/9, 184/3 & 180/1/2 of Goa Velha Village Tiswadi taluka by Palacio Property Developers Pvt. Ltd by filling slat pans, destroying the mangrove cover in CRZ I and CRZ III Zone.

¶16

d) Direct no further construction 181/1(part), 181/2,3,5 (part), 182/7, 183/9, 184/3 & 180/1/2 of Goa Velha Village Tiswadi taluka by Palacio Property Developers Pvt. Ltd by filling slat pans, destroying the mangrove cover in CRZ I and CRZ III Zone.

¶17

e) Direct the Palacio Property Developers Pvt. Ltd to restore and restitution of the land to its original condition of salt pans and mangroves area by demolishing the constructions.

¶18

f) Direct GCZMA to investigate how CRZ approval was given to the project on 10/10/2005 wherein CRZ line was shown as 40 mts when river width is 75 mts.

¶19

g) Direct the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to revoke the Environment Clearance issued to the extension project.

¶20

¶21

h) Direct Town and Country Planning Department and St. Andre panchayat to revoke the licenses given to the project in violations.

¶22

i) Direct to pay the respondent no. 2 compensation of Rs. 50 crores for filing the salt pans and degrading the environment.”

¶23

The Appellants would contend that the Respondent No.2-Project Proponent (PP) is constructing a huge residential project with amenities in survey nos. 181/2 (P), 181/1, 2, 3, 5(P) 182/7, 183/9, 180/1(P), 180/2(P) and 184/3 of St. Andre V. P., Goa Velha Village of Tiswadi Taluka of North Goa District.

¶24

According to the Appellants, the said construction activities fall within Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) limits and the said Zone has been marked as CRZ I & III in the Approved Coastal Zone Management Plan.

¶25

It is also stated by the Appellants that in terms of concerned CRZ Notification, no construction can come within 100 mts, of High Tide Line (HTL) of salt pans, Mangrove area of more than 1000 sq. mts, tidal river/water body or the width of the river, whichever is less.

¶26

The construction activities undertaken by the Respondent No.2 are at least 75 mts, while the distance from the river bank to the construction of the super structures, is hardly 40 mts and as such the entire super structure falls within the No Development Zone (NDZ) and contrary to CRZ Notification.

¶27

The Appellants would further state that in terms of Conversion Sanad dated 31.07.1987, the land in question was a coconut garden and, however, it is incorrect for the reason that the google images of the years 2003, 2010 and 2015 (Annexure A-11) which clearly show that the entire areas are nothing but salt pans and it also consist of mangroves also.

¶28

¶29

The Respondent No. 2 said to have purchased the said property from the original owner namely Mrs. Khairunissa Ziauddin Bhukhari in whose favour, the said “Sanad” was granted.

¶30

The Appellants also state that taking of knowledge of the licenses/permissions accorded, the Respondent No.2 started filling of the land with the thousand of truck loads of mud and completed the construction activity of two blocks.

¶31

It is also the case of the Appellants that the Respondent No.1 vide communication date 23.03.2013, has accorded prior Environmental Clearance (EC) of the expansion of the project when the super structure has been completed, partly and the First Appellant in this regard, had also lodged complaints in the form of representations to the various authorities.

¶32

The Respondent No.1 in terms of the orders passed by this Tribunal, directed the Inquiry Committee to look into the allegation of the complaint given by the Respondent No.3 and, accordingly, the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records (DSLR) conducted a detailed survey on 03.03.2014 and gave a report and as per the said report, some portions of the completed construction fall within No Development Zone (NDZ).

¶33

The Inquiry Committee submitted the Report to the Respondent No.1 on 03.04.2014 and it disclosed the fact that three buildings came into being in violation of relevant CRZ Notification and also noted that two buildings have been completed and one is under construction and all of them are illegal and therefore require, demolition.

¶34

The Appellants would further state that the Respondent No.1 has issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 09.04.2014 to the Respondent

¶35

¶36

No.2 to stop the construction and also directed the local body namely St. Andre Panchayat to revoke the licenses granted for expansion of the project.

¶37

However, to the shock and surprise of the Appellants the very same Inquiry Committee has given its second report dated 06.06.2014, by stating that all three buildings are legal and before giving such a finding the Appellants have not been put on notice.

¶38

In the interregnum, Respondent No.1-Goa Coastal zone Management Authority (GCZMA) also issued a show cause notice cum stop work notice to the Respondent No.2.

¶39

The Appellants on becoming aware of the second report, had submitted a representation to the Respondent No.1 not to vacate the stop work order. However, by complete turn around, Inquiry Committee, in the light of the second report dated 06.06.2014 had given a clean chit to the Respondent No.2 and taking into consideration of the same, Respondent No.1 without due and proper application of mind to the materials and the relevant norms, had vacated the stop work order vide impugned communication dated 19.09.2014 and making a challenge to the same, the present Appeal is filed.

¶40

The First Appellant alone made his submissions as a party in person.

¶41

The Respondent No.3 filed the Original Application No.107/2014 on the file of this Tribunal against the Respondent No.1, 2 and other respondents for the following reliefs:

¶42

“

¶43

a) Direct the demolition of the portions of the three buildings which are within 75 m. of the river as per DSLR report.

¶44

¶45

b) Direct no further construction within 75 m. of the river bank as per DSLR Report.

¶46

c) Direct the Palacio Property Developers (Resp. No.1) to restore the land which is within the CRZ (75 m from the river bank) to its original condition.

¶47

d) Direct GCZMA to investigate how CRZ approval was given to the project on 10/10/2005 wherein CRZ line was shown as 40 mts when river width is 75 mts.

¶48

e) Direct the Goa State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority to revoke the Environmental Clearance issued to the extension project

¶49

f) Direct Town and Country Planning Department and St. Andre Panchayat to revoke the licenses given to the project.”

¶50

The Respondent No.3 herein-Original Applicant therein also prayed for interim reliefs.

¶51

The Tribunal has entertained the said Application and passed an order constituting an Inquiry Committee. Accordingly, site inspection of the properties in survey nos. 180/1, 181/1, 181/2, 3, 5, 182/7, 183/9 and 184/3 of Goa Velha Village was carried out and the report dated 03.04.2014 has been submitted (Annexure A-4). It is relevant to extract paragraph no.8 of the said report which is as follows:-

¶52

“8 . On the Southern side of the property where constructions have been carried out, the tributary of river Zuari is situated in Goa Velha Village. The Width of the river at the location is 75 mts and accordingly the NDZ line is drawn in the site plan. The major portion of the structure under construction, part of the structure G+3 on the western side of the property, part of the structure G+3 on the eastern side, jetty on the southern side of the bank of river, the cemented compound wall on the eastern side falls within NDZ line demarcated in the site plan. The structure existing within the No Development Zone are required to be removed and since the Authority in the letter No. GCZMA/N/12/1073 dated 10/10/2005 stated that CRZ Notification is not applicable and the CRZ line of 40 mts as width of the river is demarcated in the plan attached to the letter dated 10/10/2005 and since the affected party acted upon the

¶53

¶54

letter dated 10.10.2015 and the demarcated CRZ line shown in that plan, differs from the CRZ line shown in the site plan attached to the report, it would be proper for the Authority to decide on the course of action to be taken in accordance with the law.

¶55

However, since on the site plan attached to this report, indicates that there is a structure under construction, the Authority to issue urgently stop work order till the decision on the course of action by the Authority.”

¶56

The Respondent No.1 acting on the said report, has issued show cause notices dated 09.04.2014 and 16.06.2014 to the Respondent No.2 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

¶57

The Respondent No.1 before the said notices, had granted Environmental Clearance for the period of 5 years in respect of the proposed expansion of a commercial residential project comprising of 17 residential buildings (256 flats) with amenities in survey nos.181/(P), 181/2, 181/3, 181/5 (P), 182/7, 183/9, 180/1(P), 180/2(P) and 184/3 of St. Andre, Goa Velha Village in favour of the Respondent No.2 (Annexure A-6).

¶58

The Committee which has submitted the first report, having found that a representation submitted by the Respondent No.1 by placing reliance upon the communication of the Respondent No.1 dated 10.10.2005 in reference no. GCZMA/N/12/1073 differed in respect of CRZ line drawn in the site plan which was the part of the report dated 03.04.2014 has expressed doubt as to which of the CRZ line, is to be accepted in the present case and it is relevant to extract the paragraph no.4 of the second report dated 06.06.2014, which is as follow:-

¶59

¶60

“ 4 . Considering that the CRZ Authority accepted the CRZ line as the width of the river and gave permission to the affected party in the letter dated 10/10/2005, and the affected party acted upon the letter dated 10/10/2005 by building the structures shown in the site plan attached to the report dated 03/04/2014, this CRZ line shown in the plan attached to the letter dated 10/10/2005 will have to be relied upon as the CRZ line was drawn at that time and as such these structures are situated beyond the „No Development Zone' and are constructed in accordance with law.

¶61

However, the cemented platform and the jetty falls within CRZ line and in 'No Development Zone' even in the plan at Annexure A and the CRZ Authority to remove only the cemented platform and the jetty and its access shown in the site plan attached to the report dated 03/04/2014 and restore the land to its original position”.

¶62

The Respondent No.1 acting upon the second report dated 06.06.2014 which was submitted to them on 18.06.2014, has directed the Respondent No.2 to demolish a jetty and its access and the cemented platform and to restore the land to its original condition within 30 days from the date of issuance of the directions and submit a compliance report along with photographs etc.to their office within a period of 7 days thereafter.

¶63

The First Appellant who is appearing as party in person has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to page no. 138 -Google Map and would submit that he is concerned with the construction of the super structure in survey no. 181 as mangroves have been destroyed to make a way for the said building and the very same Joint Committee in contrary to the earlier report dated 03.04.2014, has given a totally contrary report for the reason best known to it and the Respondent No.1 over looking the fact that the said construction totally falls within No Development Zone and also prohibited in terms of the CRZ Notification has withdrawn the stop work order and vide impugned order dated 11.02.2019 has discharged

¶64

¶65

the proceedings initiated against the Respondent No.2 and therefore prays for setting aside the order with consequential directions.

¶66

The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has invited the attention of this Tribunal to the reply dated 23.10.2020 and would submit that in Original Application No. 548/2015 (O.A. No. 86/2015(WZ))-Kashinath Shetya & Ors v. Niraj Naik & Ors. filed by the First Appellant herein had put forth very same contentions and the Principal Bench of the NGT, vide order dated 05.10.2018, has disposed of the same with the direction to decide the application of the First Applicant within a reasonable time and in compliance of the same, the impugned order came to be passed after due and proper application of mind to all the relevant materials and it cannot be faulted. It is also contended by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 that apart from the second report, there are other reports filed by the Water Resources Department and the Directorate of Land Survey, which revealed that alleged violations do not fall within the prohibited zones and on the ground also the impugned proceedings cannot be faulted with and prays for dismissal of this Appeal.

¶67

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to their reply dated 03.12.2020 along with annexures and made the following submissions:-

¶68

(i) The Respondent No.2 had purchased the lender property in the above said survey nos. from Mrs. Khairunissa Ziauddin Bhukhari & others as well as from Mr. Menino Piedade D‟Souza & others through registered sale deeds dated 06.03.2006 along with „Sanad‟ Conversion dated 31.07.1987. The Respondent No.1 has also issued a letter dated 10.10.2005 in reference no.

¶69

¶70

GCZMA/N/12/1073 demarcating the High Tide Line/No Development Zone from the bank of the creek adjoining the said property. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 would submit that various permissions/approvals had been obtained and the details of the same have been given in paragraph no.6 of the affidavit that apart after completion of the superstructures completion order as well as occupancy certificates, had also been obtained that the details of which have been given in paragraphs no.8. of the reply.

¶71

(ii) During the course of Inquiry by the Committee, the Member Secretary of the Respondent No.1 also personally conducted the physical site inspection of the site/land owned by the Respondent No.2 also the creek and came to the conclusion that the project of the Respondent No.2, is beyond 60 mts from the creek and width of the creek is 40 mts (Annexure-B) and accordingly, a conclusion has also been reached that the width of the river is 40 mts and High Tide Line has been correctly demarcated (Annexure-C).

¶72

(iii) In so far as the first report dated 03.04.2014 is concerned, it was also placed before the Tribunal in Application No. 548/2015 and Application No. 549/2015 and even then, the Tribunal has directed the fresh physical demarcation of the creek as well as caused verification in the light of allegations leveled. Accordingly, the Committee in compliance of the order dated 14.07.2017, passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, caused inspection on 24.08.2017 and made notice and observations and concluded that “(i) The closest structure „B‟ is located at a distance of 36 mts from edge of the water body and (ii) Cover of Mangroves on the bank of the creek is intact with no sign of damage or interference.”

¶73

¶74

(iv) The said report has also been accepted while disposing of the Application No. 548/2015 and Application No. 549/2015, the Tribunal directed the Respondent No.1 to look into the allegations and in compliance of the same, the Respondent No.1 has withdrawn the stop work order and also closed the proceedings after due, proper and full application of mind to all the materials and hence, it cannot be faulted with.

¶75

(v) As regards, the bona-fide on the part of the First Appellant, the Second Appellant herein has sent a communication withdrawing his name from the proceedings and that apart no fresh or tenable grounds urged in the present Appeal and is nothing but reproduction of the earlier proceedings by the First Appellant on the very same issue and in the way absence of any tenable or sustainable grounds in respect of the challenge to the impugned proceedings of the Respondent No.1, the present Appeal deserves dismissal with exemplary cost.

¶76

In the light of the communication of the Respondent No.1 dated 24.08.2017 bearing no. GCZMA/ILLE-COMPL/13-14/14/939 coupled with other materials and also the fact that the Respondent No.1 with an oblique motive repeatedly instituting legal proceedings against the Respondent No.2 in respect of the very same project, prays for dismissal of this Appeal with exemplary cost.

¶77

There is no representation on behalf of the Respondent No.3.

¶78

The question arises for determination “ whether the impugned proceedings of the Respondent No.1 warrants interference in the light of the grounds urged by the First Appellant that the super structure put up by the Respondent No.2 in survey no. 181/(P), 181/2/3, 5(P) 182/7, 183/9,

¶79

¶80

184/3 and 180/1, 2 of Goa Velha Village falls within the No Development Zone and in the process any growth of mangroves have been destroyed?.

¶81

It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture, that the Respondent No.3 herein has filed the Original Application No. 107/2014 (WZ) and the First Appellant along with others filed Original Application No. 86/2015 (WZ) alleging the same violations on the part of the Respondent No.2 herein. Both Applications which were filed on the file of the Western Zone of this Tribunal got transferred to the file of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi and renumbered as Original Applications No. 549/2015 and Original Applications No. 548/2015 respectively. Original Application No. 107/2014 (WZ) –Original Application No. 549/2015 -NGT Principal Bench are placed as documents in this case, the compilation of the documents include first report of the Inquiry Committee dated 03.04.2014 as well as the second report of the very same Inquiry Committee dated 06.06.2014, the Respondent No.1 acting on the first report had issued show cause notices to the Respondent No.2, and also passed an order forbearing from proceeded with the construction activity and later on the Respondent No.2 submitted a representation for vacating the said order.

¶82

The Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 14.07.2017 in Original Application No. 548/2015 and Original Application No. 549/2015 has passed the following order:-

¶83

“ The Learned counsel appearing for Coastal Zonal Management Authority submits that a senior most officer would be deputed to conduct a fresh inspection and the report would be submitted to the Tribunal.

¶84

We make it clear that while the inspection is conducted video graphs will be prepared and submitted to the Tribunal.

¶85

¶86

Google images of the area in question should also be submitted to the Tribunal.

¶87

List this matter on 21^st August, 2017 .”

¶88

Accordingly, both Applications were listed for hearing on

¶89

21.08.2017 and the following order came to be passed:-

¶90

“ The Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Goa submits that she will file report within one week from today.

¶91

Let the report be filed within one week from today.

¶92

In the event of default the concerned officer shall be present before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing.

¶93

List the matter on 30^th August, 2017.”

¶94

In compliance of the said order, a Committee consisting of Field Surveyor, DSLR, Two Expert Members of GCZMA and One Technical Officer of GCZMA caused the site inspection of the property bearing survey no. 180 and 181 of Goa Velha Village, and submitted the site inspection report to the Registrar of the National Green Principal Bench, New Delhi vide communication dated 24.08.2017 bearing no. GCZMA/ILLE-COMPL/13-14/14/939. It is relevant and useful to extract the site inspection report which is as follows:-

¶95

“ In terms of order of Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, at New Delhi dated 14-07-2017, site/property bearing survey no.180 & 181 of Goa velha Village, Tiswadi Taluka, belonging to Palacio Property Developers Private Ltd. was inspected by Dr. Prabhakar Shirodkar, Expert Member of GCZMA, Shri Audhut J. Bhounsale, Expert Member of GCZMA, Shri Fletcher Fernandes, Technical Officer of GCZMA, Shri Rajesh Harmalkar, Field Surveyor DSLR, Panaji on 14-08-2017 and following was observed:-

¶96

¶97

1) There exist three structures, which are classified for the purpose of this report as B-Western structure, D- Central structure and E-Eastern structure, in Survey no. 181/3,2 & 5(Part) and are the subject matter of present inspection as they are in close proximity to the water body which can be termed as creek.

¶98

2) On physical measurements taken from the bank of the creek to the plinth it is observed that, „B‟-Western structure is located at a distance of 36 metres (because of protruding of river into a Nalla), 'D‟- Central structure is locate at distance of 62 metres and „E-„Eastern structure is located at the distance of 64 metres. The building classified as B-Western structure and E- Eastern structure has Ground plus three floors and construction as far as structure is concerned is complete however D- Central structure presently contains Ground plus three floors and appears to be under construction.

¶99

3) There is no disturbance noticed to the growth of mangroves on the bank of the said creek and the growth appears to be intact.

¶100

4) The width of river was again measured at the time of inspection. While granting permission in the year 2005 records indicate that the width of river was 45 mts. The present measurements taken on 14-8-2017 pursuant to the order of the tribunal indicate that it would be around 40 mts at the narrower point and as it goes travel further varies to ó0 mts at some point, and 65 mts further down.

¶101

5) During monsoon which is the present season the level of water is high and on account of land being marshy on either sties it is difficult to measure the width with exactitude, even canoe were used for measurements.

¶102

6) However, near the project the width was measured as 60 mts and river goes further at different points vary from 62 mts to 65 mts. Some of portions would also include marshy

¶103

¶104

land with river water protruding on account of monsoon season.

¶105

To Summarize:-

¶106

(i) The closest structure „B‟ is located at a distance of 36 mts from edge of the water body;

¶107

(ii) Cover of Mangroves on the bank of the creek is intact with no sign of damage or interference.

¶108

The Pen Drive and CD containing videography and of the inspection of property construction taken during the Site inspection dated 14-8-2017 and the Sketch Plan showing the location of the Structures and the Google image of the site is attached to this report in compliance of order of Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, at New Delhi dated 14-07-2017.”

¶109

The Tribunal vide final order dated 05.10.2018, has disposed of the Original Application No.548/2015 filed by First Appellant and Others by directing the Respondent No.1 herein to decide the application of the First Applicant namely-Mr. Kashinath Shetye who is also the First Appellant herein within a reasonable time of two months.

¶110

The Respondent No.1 in compliance of the said order, has passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 and prior to that he is also placed it as a subject in their 190^th meeting held on 18.12.2018 which is made available as Annexure-A.

¶111

A perusal of the said proceedings would disclose that the Respondent No.1 vide reference no GCZMA/N/12/1073 dated 10.10.2005 (cited supra) addressed to the Mr. Bryan Soares, demarcation of the CRZ of „100 mts. from the High Tide Line‟ for plots under survey nos. 181/1 (P), 181/2, /3, 5 (P), 182/7, 183/9 & 180/1/2 of Goa Velha Village was done and the following observations came to be made:-

¶112

¶113

“

¶114

1 ) The entire land under Survey Nos. 182/7, 183/9 & 181/1(Part) of Goa Velha Village, is located beyond the CRZ on the landward side and, as such the provisions of the CRZ Notification are not applicable to the same.

¶115

2) With respect to the remaining plots under Survey Nos. 180/1, 2 & 181/2,3 5(part) of Goa Velha Village, please find enclosed herewith certified survey plans showing the CRZ area, as applicable.”

¶116

Along with the said communication, a sketch is also available which would also disclose the land in survey no. 181, does not fall in the prohibited / No Development Zone.

¶117

In the committee meeting, the Respondent No.1 also noted that in compliance of the order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Original Application No. 548/2015 and Original Application No. 549/2015, physical measurement as well videography was also done, and the report of the Expert Members dated 24.08.2017 also clearly established the fact that there is no violation of CRZ Notification as alleged by the complainant namely the First Appellant and the similar allegations raised by Mr. Niraj Naik-Respondent No.3 herein, also came to be disposed of. In the committee meeting of the Respondent No.1, it was also noted that the report of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department has been considered in the 158^th GCZMA meeting held on 26.09.2017 and the said report has also disclosed the fact that the identified „B‟ Building falls outside the No Development Zone.

¶118

As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 that no sustainable or tenable grounds have been made out, in making a challenge to the impugned order/proceedings of the Respondent No.1 dated 11.02.2019 which in turn came to be based upon

¶119

¶120

the report of the Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal dated 24.08.2017.

¶121

It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture, that the constitution of the committee, was as per the orders of this Tribunal in the earlier round of proceedings in Original Application No. 548/2015 and Original Application No. 549/2015, though the First Appellant chose to make allegations of mala fide, this Tribunal is not inclined to accept the said submissions for the reason that the allegations of mala fide are to be proved strictly. The composition of the said committee which has submitted the site inspection report, consists of Field Surveyor of DSLR, Two Expert Members of GCZMA and One Technical Officer of GCZMA and they are done their exercise in a fair, proper and scientific manner and as such, it deserves acceptance.

¶122

If at all the Hon‟ble Principal Bench doubted the correctness of the said report definitely, further orders would have been passed either for constitution of the fresh Committee or revisit by the same committee but the same has not been done and while disposing of the matter the Hon‟ble Principal Bench merely directed the Respondent No.1 to look into the application of the First Appellant herein and give a disposal within a stipulated time.

¶123

The primordial submission made by the First Appellant is that once the Inquiry Committee has submitted the report dated 03.04.2014 against, the Project Proponent-Respondent No.2 the same committee cannot turn around and give a contrary report dated 06.06.2014 and the same is tainted with some oblique and mala fide motives. The said submission made on behalf of the First Appellant deserves outright rejection for the reason that in the first report dated 03.04.2014, the Committee having noted the communication of the Respondent No.1

¶124

¶125

dated 10.10.2005 thought fit to direct the authority namely Respondent No.1 to decide the course of action to be taken in accordance with law and till such time the construction being put up by the Respondent No.2 is to stop and accordingly, stop work order came to be issued. The Committee in the second report dated 06.06.2014, had taken note of the DSLR site plan, which came into being after 9 years from the date of the site plan in the year 2005, found that the structures which were beyond No Development Zone and also constructed in accordance with law and however, noted that the cemented platform and jetty fall within the CRZ line and the No Development Zone even as per the plan in Annexure-A, therefore directed removal of the same.

¶126

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 on instruction would submit that the offended construction pointed out in the said report dated 06.06.2014 has been removed completely and the rest of the construction are in strict compliance of the various permissions/licenses granted by the concerned authorities. The said submission on instruction is also placed on record.

¶127

It is also a well settled position of law, a report/opinion of the expert committee is put on higher pedestal and of course it needs to be appreciated like any other documentary evidence.

¶128

As already pointed out that the Committee came to constitute only by virtue of the orders of the Hon‟ble Principal Bench in Original Application No. 548/2015 and Original Application No. 549/2015 and the said committee, has done the site inspection in a scientific manner and reached the conclusion that constructions do not fall in No Development Zone and having noted some portion of the constructions have to be demolished and accordingly the Respondent No.1 sent a

¶129

¶130

communication to the Respondent No.2 dated 19.09.2014 bearing no. GCZMA/ILLE/COMPL/13-14/14/1218. According to the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 the terms of the said notice/communication had also been completed with in full.

¶131

In the light of the said reasons assigned above, the question arises for consideration, is decided against the Appellants.

¶132

In the result, Appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶133

M. Sathyanarayanan, JM

¶134

Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶135

08^th September, 2021 Appeal No. 67/2019(WZ) JG

¶136

Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. the Member Secretary Gdzma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. the Member Secretary Gdzma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Madadh Poultry Farm through Its Partner Mr Surjit Singh vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Albino Madeira vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Amarsinh Jujarsinh Vaghela vs State of Gujarat

Joaquim Patrick Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Green Gene Enviro Protection & Infrastructure Private Limited vs Daman Diu & Dadra Nagar Haveli Pollution Control Committee

Disha a Life School vs Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Disha a Life School vs Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Jaigopal Soni vs Secretary Ministry of Enviroment

01. Smt. Sushilam. Naik Widow of Late Mukund B. Naik vs 1. Goa Coastal Zone Managment Authority

Tausif Bagnikar vs M/S Auto India Bajaj

Tausif Bagnikar vs M/S Auto India Bajaj

Jivabhai Ganeshbhai Bada vs State of Gujarat

Jivabhai Ganeshbhai Bada vs State of Gujarat

Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd.