Remanded

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT24 Mar 2022Appeal No. 12/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged an order directing demolition of structures violating the CRZ Notification 2011. The Tribunal partially modified the order, allowing the body of structures the appellant admitted were within the NDZ to remain pending verification by the NCSCM, while the admitted WDZ portions were to stay demolished.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; certain structures to await verification by NCSCM before demolition; structure within NDZ as admitted must not be demolished.

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes vs Goa… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Appeal No. 12/2022(WZ) IA No. 26/2022 & IA no. 27/2022

¶6

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Goa Coastal Zone & Anr. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 24.03.2022

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Byron Rodrigues, Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This appeal has been preferred under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, against the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Goa Coastal

¶14

Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) against which review application was dismissed on 13.01.2022 by the GCZMA.

¶15

Order dated 24.12.2021 directs demolition of the structures in the ‘No Development Zone’ (NDZ) as per Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:

¶16

“xxx ……………………………….xxx…………………………………xxx

¶17

AND WHEREAS, upon close perusal of the complaint letter dated 27/09/2019 from Mr. Churchill Alemao and report of the Expert Members and the plan drawn by the ISLR, the following alleged illegal activity resulting in blatant and serious violation of CRZ

¶18

¶19

Notification 2011 is noticed. The details of the violations are indicated here below:-

¶20

Sr. No.	Name of the Party/alleged violator	Survey No. /Village	Type of Construction	Distance from HTL
1.	M/s Velorians by the River, through 1. Shri Gregorio Judy Fernandes alias Bruno Fernandes. 2. Caetana Juliana Fernandes alias Julana Fernandes. 3. Duarte Santana Camilo Rebelo. 4. Perpetua Sandra Barreto. 5. Maria Angela Benedicta Caldeira. 6. Benigna Chagas Livramento Dias Diniz.	47/23 Varca	 Illegal Structure on north-western corner touching river bank. (within Mangrove buffer area)  Illegal construction of toilet and soak pit. (within Mangrove buffer area).  Illegal pump house.  Illegal swimming pool.  Illegal structure to south of pump house.  Illegal buffet Hall.  Illegal restaurant.  Illegal Labour hut structure on south- western corner.  Illegal construction of Shed adjoining labour hut.  Illegal DG set enclosure.  Illegal dance floor with concrete base.  Illegal stage/band stand.  Illegally constructed couple sit out.  Illegal construction of concrete walkways.  Illegal construction of Bar counter structure on north eastern side next to internal drain.	Within NDZ of river Sal;
		48/1 Varca	 Illegal construction of structure with balcony.  Illegal construction of part of G+1 structure at eastern end.	Within NDZ of river Sal;
		48/2 Varca	 Illegal construction of Security Cabin	Within NDZ of river Sal;
		48/6 Varca	 Illegal construction of eight wooden sheds / cottages.  Illegal construction of Swimming pool (under construction)  Illegal construction	Within NDZ of river Sal;

¶21

¶22

	of Restaurant shed (partly encroached into riverine area)
48/7	 Illegal construction	Within
Varca	of structure with balcony  Illegal construction	NDZ of river Sal;
	of part of G+1
	structure at eastern end.
	 Illegally filling the
	properties bearing
	Sy. No. 47/23;
	48/1 and 48/7
	with mud / earth
	and above
	development /
	structure erected
	thereon

¶23

AND WHEREAS, as per the CRZ Notification, 2011; the entire belt of 100 mts. from the High Tide Line (HTL) of river and 200mts. from the HTL from the sea is designated; as the No Development Zone(NDZ) and hence no construction/development whatsoever are permissible in the said belt;

¶24

AND WHEREAS, all proposed `re-construction/ construction/ development/ repair' between 200 mts. to 500 mts. of the High Tide Line(HTL) from Sea and 100 mts. from the River, and those permissible activities, require the prior approval of the GCZMA under the CRZ Notification, 2011.

¶25

WHEREAS, the alleged illegal construction is highly detrimental to the Coastal ecosystem / riverine ecosystem. Further it is observed that you have not obtained any prior approval of the GCZMA for the purpose of alleged construction as required under the CRZ Notification 1991/2011.

¶26

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with sub-rule (3) (a) of rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, delegated to the GCZMA, the GCZMA hereby directs you STOP WORK and OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED SURVEY NUMBERS AND SHOW CAUSE as to why a direction to demolish the structures and to restore the land to its original condition should not be issued to you. Further, you are directed to ensure that no civil work of whatsoever kind and nature is carried out at said site.

¶27

FURTHER TAKE NOTE THAT, you are required to file your reply along with compliance report and produce construction/ reconstruction/repair licence/approvals, if any, issued by the concerned Authorities including GCZMA along with approved, plan, as also documents to show the title to the Office of the GCZMA, having its Office at 4^th Floor, Dempo Towers, Patto, Panaji Goa on or before 05/02/2021 and remain present for the personal hearing on 11/02/2021 at the 04^th Floor, Conference Hall, Dempo Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa at 3.30 p.m. onwards. Take note that if you fail to submit your reply along with the required documents, the

¶28

¶29

GCZMA will come to the conclusion that you have no justification to carry out its activities as above stated and the Authority shall proceed to issue final directions to you in this regard without any further notice which inter alia includes order of demolition of structures, disconnection of water/power supply etc.”

¶30

Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly stated that a part of the structure is within the NDZ, within the prohibited distance from the river and the appellant has no objection to its demolition to that extent. However, the remaining part is beyond the CRZ line. Demarcation needs to be done based on the CZMP. The appellant has filed a plan, prepared by the appellant itself which is not an authorized plan.

¶31

We find it difficult to accept the stand of the appellant. The impugned order shows that the constructions in question are within NDZ, being within 100 meters from the River Sal. The finding in the impugned order is based on site inspection carried out on 24.01.2020. The impugned order also refers to map prepared by ISLR. In its reply to the show cause notice, only plea taken by the appellant is that the property in question is substantially within less than 100 meters and abuts the River Sal. According to the private surveyor hired by the appellant, part of survey no. 47/23 is within NDZ which has already been demolished. Toilet block is also within NDZ which has been demolished. Swimming pool has been filled. Further demolition should be after due verification. In objections to the inspection report dated 29.07.2021, the appellant has stated that width of the river is 35 meters at some places and 60 meters at other places. On that basis, some structures are beyond CRZ line.

¶32

Thus, the appellant has not made out a case to show that the structures in question are beyond NDZ.

¶33

¶34

However, by way of precaution, we give an opportunity to the appellant to file a clear statement about the structures which, according to the appellant, are beyond the NDZ with the GCZMA within 15 days, indicating the basis for such claim. The GCZMA may verify the same with the assistance of National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), Chennai at the cost of the Project Proponent. This exercise may be completed within two months. Further action may be taken based on the report of the NCSCM, Chennai and fresh order passed in the light thereof. The appellant may demolish such of the structures which appellant admits to be within NDZ. Till this exercise is carried out, the disputed part of the structure may not be demolished. The impugned order is modified accordingly. It will be open to the appellant to take remedies against the fresh order which may be passed.

¶35

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

All pending IAs will also stand disposed of.

¶37

Since the above order is being passed without notice to the GCZMA, if the GCZMA is aggrieved, it is at liberty to move this Tribunal.

¶38

A copy of this order be forwarded to GCZMA by e-mail for compliance.

¶39

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶40

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶41

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶42

¶43

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶44

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶45

March 24, 2022 Appeal No. 12/2022(WZ) IA No. 26/2022 & IA no. 27/2022 DV

¶46

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

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 Manisha Construction Co. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Ramiro Mascarenhas vs State of Goa

Ankush Arora vs Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee

Pramod vs State of Uttar Pradesh

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Shekhupur District Badaun Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Puranpur District- Pilibhit Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Gajraula Hasanpur Amroha Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Bisalpur District- Pilibhit Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Ramdas Ashok Dorge vs State of Maharashtra

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment and Forest

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment and Forest

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Inacio Domic Pereira vs Dwarka Eco Beach Resort