Dismissed

Cavelossim Villagers Forum v. the State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary

NGT3 Dec 2024Appeal No. 54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an impugned order of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) closing proceedings in an environmental complaint alleging CRZ violations. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the GCZMA order and determined no cause of action existed as constructions were beyond the No Development Zone pending further permissions. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal seeking to set aside the GCZMA order closing proceedings is barred as no cause of action exists; appeal dismissed.

Cavelossim Villagers Forum vs the State of Goa through… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶2

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶3

¶4

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

CAVELOSSIM VILLAGERS FORUM

¶7

H. No. 314/L, IBR Plaza, Patrecantem, Cavelossim, Salcete Goa- 403 731. Through its Secretary Mr. Sanford Barretto, R/o. H. No.352/A, Khandi- Bandoi, Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa.

¶8

…..Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. THE STATE OF GOA

¶11

Through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.

¶12

2. THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF CAVELOSSIM , Through its Secretary, Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa.

¶13

3. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER Town & Country Planning Department, South Goa District, Margao, Goa. 4. THE GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Through its Member Secretary, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Bhavan, Pundalik Nagar, Porvorim Bardez, Goa.

¶14

5. MRS. RADHA SATISH TIMBLO Wife of late Satish Timblo, Partner of Respondent No.6 residing at Behind Hotel Majestic, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 6. M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS having its registered office at Kadar Manzil, 1^st Floor, Margao, Goa- 403601. 7. THE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Complex, Aquem Baixo, Rawanfond, Salcete- Goa.

¶15

.....Respondents

¶16

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶17

Page 1 of 9

¶18

Counsel for Appellant:

¶19

Ms. Laxmi Desai, Advocate

¶20

Counsel for Respondents:

¶21

Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-1/State of Goa & R-7/WRD Mr. Abhay Anturkar, Advocate for R-4/GCZMA Mr. Subodh S. Kantak, Senior Advocate along-with Mr. Preetam N. Talaulikar, Advocate for R-5 & 6/PP

¶22

PRESENT:

¶23

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)

¶24

Reserved on : 28.11.2024 Pronounced on : 03.12.2024

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The present appeal has been filed with the following prayers:

¶27

“ A. That the ongoing construction of the proposed resort in survey nos. 90/1, 5, 6(p) and 91/1, 3 to 10 of village Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa be declared to be in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and other enactments and be directed to be stopped forthwith until environment impact assessment studies are carried out and CRZ and Environmental Clearances are obtained.

¶28

B. The respondent no.6 be restrained from carrying out any further construction or development activities in respect of the proposed construction of a resort in survey nos.90/1, 5,6 (p) and 91/1, 3 to 10 of village Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa, pending the hearing and final disposal of this application.

¶29

C. “The respondent no.6 be restrained from carrying out any further construction or development activities in respect of the proposed construction of a building in survey no. 91/5 & 6 of village Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa pending the hearing and final disposal of this application.”

¶30

D. The respondent no.6 be restrained from carrying out the construction of the proposed water body in the NDZ in survey no. 91/1 & 7 of village Cavelossim.

¶31

E. That the respondent no.6 be directed to demolish the construction carried over the water body in Survey No.91/1 of Village Cavelossim and to have the water body be restored to its original condition.

¶32

F. For ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause b.

¶33

G. For costs of these proceedings.

¶34

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶35

Page 2 of 9

¶36

H. Any other order this Hon Tribunal may deem fit in the facts of this case.

¶37

I. That the respondent No.6 be directed to remove the reclaimed and filling done without the NDZ area of River Sal as reported in Site Inspection Report dated 24.06.2014 of the GCZMA and have the land restored to its original condition.

¶38

J. For an order quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.09.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 which was served through a registered AD on the appellant on 15.09.2022.”

¶39

We find that the prayers A to F cannot be made in the present appeal, as for seeking of these reliefs, appellant ought to have moved Original Application. The only prayer out of the above prayers, which is recorded at prayer no.’J’, is maintainable, as the same seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4GCZMA.

¶40

In order to curtail unnecessary facts of the present appeal, we take facts from the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 itself, according to which an application bearing no.61/2014 was filed by the appellant- Cavclossim Villagers Forum before this Tribunal against the respondent No.6- M/s Balaji Shree Concepts, Margao, Goa for illegal construction activities adversely affecting the natural water bodies/ nallas / channels/ paddy fields. The said application was considered by the Tribunal on 24/04/2019 and thereafter, following order was passed:-

¶41

“Since the matter has been pending for the last about five years, having regard to the need for expeditious disposal based on correct and latest factual position, we consider it appropriate to direct furnishing of a joint report by representatives of the MoEF&CC, GCZMA, Goa State Pollution Control Board and Water Resources Department, State of Goa. The GCZMA will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Such factual report dealing with the issue may be furnished within three months by email at [email protected]. A copy of the order be sent each to the MoEF&CC, GCZMA, Goa State Pollution Control Board and Water Resources Department, State of Goa by email.

¶42

24. It will be open to the parties to furnish their respective versions to the GCZMA. It will also be open to the joint Committee to carry out inspection to ascertain status and assess the

¶43

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶44

Page 3 of 9

¶45

damage to the environment, if any, and suggest remedial measures.”

¶46

It is further recorded in the above-mentioned impugned order that in terms of the said order dated 24/04/2019 passed by this Tribunal, Joint Committee conducted an inspection of the site in question and placed its report before the Tribunal. Pursuant to the consideration of the same, the Tribunal passed following order dated 01.10.2019:-

¶47

“We, therefore, direct that the matter shall be looked into by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) in terms of the Recommendation 3 (xii) on the aspects pointed out in the report. The GCZMA shall issue notice upon the parties and fix a date for consideration of the matter. The parties shall be at liberty to place their respective views and file additional documents, if so advised in the matter. The GCZMA shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law expeditiously within three months from hence.”

¶48

It is further recorded in the above-mentioned impugned order that thereafter, the matter was considered by the respondent No.4- GCZMA in its Meeting held on 29/10/2020, wherein following order was observed:

¶49

“ The Complainant and Respondent to take note of this date and time and appear to advance final arguments. Complainant Iris Prasanna appeared on behalf of Cavellossim Villagers Forum. Adv. P Morals appeared on behalf of Respondent. Complaint and Respondent filed written documents before Authority which were taken on record The Complainant informed that the Respondent had diverted the existing nullah which is denied by the Respondent. Respondent stated that alleged construction is beyond NDZ and that they had obtained required permission to do development in the area.”

¶50

Thereafter, GCZMA heard both the parties and decided to adjourn the matter for 10/12/2020 with a direction to the officials from the WRD and Expert Member (GCZMA) to inspect the site in question and to check the salinity of water and tidal influence of all water bodies and nullah, which have been diverted by tracing their older alignments and submit the report on or before the next date of hearing.

¶51

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶52

Page 4 of 9

¶53

It is further recorded in the above-mentioned impugned order that in the Meeting held on 02/06/2022, the respondent No.4 observed as follows:

¶54

“Advocate B. Pacheco present for the Complainant present, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent present. The Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the construction is beyond CRZ and has valid permissions. The water bodies are been constructed as approved by WRD. He further informed that there is no intention of the Respondent to do any further construction or divert water body without the approval of this Authority. He further pointed out that he has filed application. The Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Respondent has dumped mud in the water bodies destroying the same. The Expert Member and WRD officials had inspected the site and given report and same is available in file. The report speaks about the destruction of the water bodies and requested to pass appropriate order for restoration.”

¶55

It is further recorded in the above-mentioned impugned order that in the next Meeting of the GCZMA held on 02/06/2022, it was decided to carry out fresh inspection, after hearing both the parties at length, on 10/06/2022 through the Expert Members of GCZMA in presence of both the parties and further posted the matter on 16.06.2022. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard by the respondent No.4- GCZMA in its Meeting held on 28.07.2022, wherein order was passed:-

¶56

“Advocate B. Pacheco present for the Complainant present, Ld. Advocate Morias present for the Respondent. Adv. for the Complainant stated that he objects to the Site Inspection report as he was not present for the same at the time of Site Inspection. The Complainant stated that the water body is diverted by shifting the same to another location. The Adv. for complainant stated that the WRD cannot grant permission to shift the water bodies.

¶57

Further, he stated that the 2^nd site inspection report states that the Respondent has filled the water body falling outside CRZ with permission of WRD. The Adv. for the Respondent states that there are two water bodies in the property one lies in the NDZ and another falls outside NDZ. The Adv. for the Respondent states that he has not filled the water bodies and that he would obtain the required permissions before starting the work from the CRZ He further stated that the respondent had not carried of t any construction within NDZ and the constructions which are carried out with the approval of authority are falling beyond NDZ.

¶58

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶59

Page 5 of 9

¶60

After the above-mentioned order, following decision was taken by the

¶61

GCZMA in the same Meeting held on 28.07.2021:-

¶62

“The Authority noted the present matter is before it pursuant to order dated 24/04/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Original Application no.61/2014.

¶63

The said order constituted a Joint Committee who was required to present correct and factual position at loco vis-a-vis the property of the Respondent. The said Committee has submitted the report dated 31/05/20.19. The Authority perused the said report and noted that no construction has been done by the Respondent within the riverine NDZ area by the Respondent. Further the Joint Committee gave certain recommendation in said report.

¶64

The said joint report of Joint Committee was placed before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the Original Application no.61/2014 vide order dated 01/10/2019 and inter-alia directed to deliberate upon issues raised report of the Joint Committee.

¶65

The Authority after hearing the parties in the 236^th meeting held on 12/11/2020 was pleased to order joint site inspection along with Department of Water Resources. The report submitted by Expert Member GCZMA also noted no changes at site subject matter property.

¶66

Further after hearing the matter, the Authority further called for report in the matter. The officials of GCZMA conducted a site inspection on 29/06/2022 and submitted a report. The said report of the officials of GCZMA have observed that Syno.91/1, 91/6 and 91/5 (partly) (village Cavelossim) falls in CRZ III and partly outside CRZ area. The Syno.90/6 (village Cavelossim) falls within NDZ area of River Sal. The said site inspection has revealed that there is no construction work during site inspection.

¶67

The Authority noted that major construction work approved i.e. Villas are beyond the No Development Zone of Sal River. The Authority noted that the Respondent has obtained necessary permissions from Town and Country Planning Department, Village Panchayat of Cavelossim and Water Resources Department.

¶68

The Authority after considering the all inspection report observed that the any activity including filling of water, creation of water body and nallah etc. would mandate N.O.C/ permission under CRZ Notification 2011.

¶69

The Authority observed that presently the Respondent has not carried out any activity/ construction activity at site within CRZ area. The mandate of prior N.O.C/ permission from Authority has to be scrupulously followed by

¶70

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶71

Page 6 of 9

¶72

Respondent M/s. Shree Balaji Concepts for carrying out any activity within CRZ Area. The Authority considering the above accordingly decided to close the proceedings before it .”

¶73

Based on above-mentioned analysis by the respondent No.4GCZMA, charges levelled against the respondent No.6- M/s Shree Balaji Concepts, Margao, Goa were discharged.

¶74

We had finally considered the present appeal on 28.11.2024 and after hearing all the parties concerned, following order was passed:-

¶75

“1. Heard the argument of learned counsel Ms. Laxmi Desai representing appellant in this case for about one hour. She read out before us relevant para of the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4-GCZMA. During argument, she has drawn our attention to the Inspection Report, which is annexed at page no.188 onwards of the paper book, which was conducted by the GCZMA on 31.05.2019 in compliance with the previous order of the Tribunal dated 24.04.2019 passed in Original Application No.61/2014, a copy of which is annexed at page nos.133 to 155 of the paper book. This inspection report was considered by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 01.10.20219 in the said Original Application, a copy of which is annexed at page nos.431 to 435 of the paper book, wherein following direction is issued:-

¶76

“4. As would be apparent from the above, out of the approved 35 villas, 28 have been constructed beyond the NDZ areas of River Sal and is yet to be completed. The rest of the activities appear to be within the applicable norms except that certain modifications have been made to the project as would be apparent from the observations in recommendation 3 (x). It has been observed that such modifications/changes approved by Town and Country Planning (TCP) without obtaining permission from GCZMA would lead to violation of CRZ Rules and, finally in recommendation 3 (xii), it has been recommended that this issue requires to be deliberated by the authority for taking appropriate decision.

¶77

We, therefore, direct that the matter shall be looked into by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) in terms of the Recommendation 3 (xii) on the aspects pointed out in the report. The GCZMA shall issue notice upon the parties and fix a date for consideration of the matter. The parties shall be at liberty to place their respective views and file additional documents, if so advised in the matter.”

¶78

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶79

Page 7 of 9

¶80

Pursuant to the above-mentioned direction, the matter was considered by the GCZMA and subsequently, two inspections were held. 1^st inspection was carried out on 14.01.2021 pursuant to the site inspection notice dated 11.12.2020, report of which is annexed at page nos.487 to 489 of the paper book. A perusal of the same would indicate that no changes at the site in question were found by the GCZMA, since the last report submitted by the Joint Committee dated 11.05.2019. Thereafter, 2^nd inspection was conducted by them on 29.06.2022, report of which is annexed at page nos.495 to 496 of the paper book, wherein following observations, conclusion and recommendation have been made:-

¶81

“

¶82

It was observed during site inspection that there are two nallas present on site which originates towards Northern side of the property from survey no 88/39 and 89 till the Southern side which joins the river Sal. There is attached sluice gate which is not maintained.

¶83

The proposed water body shown in the submitted plan near existing old' house in survey no 91/7 which falls in CRZ III is not present on site.

¶84

No construction work was going on during time of site inspection.

¶85

As per the site inspection report submitted by WRD dated 17/02/2021 the water body(pond) which does not falls in CRZ area was already buried by M/s Balaji Concept with the permission granted by WRD department with condition of crating new water body in adjoining area which is not yet implemented by M/s Balaji Concept.

¶86

There exists one more water body (pond) at South Eastern side of the property which falls in survey no.91/8, which comes under NDZ of river Sal.

¶87

The Respondent has provided the N0C and permission with approved plan from WRD department for alteration of water bodies and nallas in the property.

¶88

Conclusion and Recommendation:

¶89

The plan which is approved by WRD as per the same some part falls under CRZ which requires the permission of this Authority.

¶90

Authority may deliberate and decide.”

¶91

Learned senior counsel Mr. Subodh S. Kantak, representing respondent No.6M/s. Shree Balaji Concepts/Project Proponent, has submitted that respondent No.6 has already applied for permission for approval of the Plan, approved by the respondent No.7- Water Resource Department (WRD), before the GCZMA, which is pending consideration. Therefore, it is

¶92

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶93

Page 8 of 9

¶94

submitted by him that till the permission is granted, they will not be raising any construction as the site in question.

¶95

We lastly enquired from the learned counsel for appellant as to which para of the impugned order is found to be erroneous, to which she read out the last para of the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the GCZMA.”

¶96

In view of the above-mentioned arguments made by the parties concerned, we have gone through the entire record of the present appeal and found that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, as whatever constructions were found to have been raised by the respondent No.6- M/s Shree Balaji Concepts, Margao, Goa, were found lying beyond the NDZ area and that the Plan, which has been submitted for construction by the respondent No.6 before the respondent No.4- GCZMA, which was approved by the WRD, is pending consideration before the GCZMA. Therefore till the said permission is granted by the GCZMA, no further construction would be allowed to be done. Therefore, as of now, we do not find that there is any cause of action arisen to the appellant.

¶97

With the above observations, we dispose of this appeal accordingly.

¶98

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶99

No order as to cost.

¶100

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶101

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶102

December 03, 2024 Appeal No.54/2022(WZ) P.Kr.

¶103

Appeal No.54/2022(WZ)

¶104

Page 9 of 9

Cavelossim Villagers Forum v. the State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cavelossim Villagers Forum v. the State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary

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

Siddesh Salgaonkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mr Fidales Paulo Dsouza vs Zonal Officer Greater Chennai Corporation

Pawan Mool Chand Arora vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Union of India

Dr. Sushmitha vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Ms Swaad E Punjab vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Lukose K T Alias Luka vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

M/S Sandhar Technologies Limited vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Mr. Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale vs Union of India

Mr. Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale vs Union of India

Lyndford D Souza vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2024 in Original Application No. 220/2024 of News Item Titled Wagholi Residents Hit the Roads Appearing in the Pune Mirror Dated 11.02.2024 vs Member Secretary Mpcb

Sagardeep Sirsaikar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Asha Recyclean India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board