Allowed

Ramesh Laxmanrao Chowgule v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT6 Aug 2025Appeal No. 12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed an appeal by Ramesh Laxmimonrao Chowgule. The court set aside an impugned order demolishing structures as the Gothia Coastal Zone Management Authority failed to consider submitted evidence including a prior map and did not provide adequate opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for rehearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Respondent for reconsideration with hearing.

Ramesh Laxmanrao Chowgule vs Goa Coastal Zone Management… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.10

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.12 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶6

Ramesh Laxmimonrao Chowgule …. Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority …. Respondent

¶9

Date of hearing : 06.08.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant : Mr. Vilas P. Thali, Advocate along with Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate

¶12

Respondents : Ms. V. Gracias, Legal Retainer for Respondent/GCZMA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, who has mainly emphasized on the ground of opportunity of hearing not given to the appellant by the respondent/GCZMA. He has drawn our attention to page 54 of the paper-book, which is part of the impugned order, wherein it is recorded that a show-cause notice dated 23.05.2023 (which date is not disputed by the parties, though not mentioned in the impugned order) issued to the appellant to show cause as to why the structures in question be not ordered to be demolished and the land be not directed to be restored. Thereafter, the appellant sought time on 23.06.2023 before the Authority/GCZMA. Next date when the matter was considered by GCZMA was 29.08.2023. On that day, he was not present due to being abroad. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 03.11.2023. But in the meantime, on 05.09.2023, he had responded to the show-cause

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

notice dated 23.05.2023, a copy of which is annexed at pages226 to 228 of the paper-book. According to the appellant, this document has not been considered by the GCZMA. Learned Legal Retainer appearing for the respondent – GCZMA states that no such document was produced before the GCZMA during hearing, nor the appellant appeared before the Authority. This is being denied by the learned counsel for the appellant and it is submitted by him that this document at page 226, which is response to the show-cause notice has not been considered, as stated above. Besides that, he has also submitted a document, which is at page 196 of the paper-book, which is a map provided by the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, showing existence of the structure in question prior to 1991. Hence, on the basis of this document, it is proved that the structure was in existence prior to 1991 and hence, the same could not have been ordered to be demolished.

¶17

Next learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the sale-deed dated 19.11.1993, which is at page 70 to 93 of the paper-book (Annexure-A6 colly), executed by one Smt. Sumati Xembu Palienkar (seller) and the appellant (his name is at page 74 of the paper-book), whereby some house has been sold, area of which is not mentioned therein. But he drew our attention to page 117 of the paper-book, which is a part of Deed of Rectification, which begins at page 113 onwards, in which it is clearly mentioned that the area of the said house was 300 sq.mtrs. We have not found the length and width of the said structure mentioned in either sale-deed or in the map, which has been cited.

¶18

From the side of respondent/GCZMA, its learned Legal Retainer Ms. V. Gracias has appeared and states that no such plan has been made. We deem it appropriate to note here that this kind of reply should not have been adopted by the GCZMA. According to us, whenever an order is

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

required to be passed for demolition of a structure, it is always required that a site map indicating therein the structure should be shown.

¶21

In view of the fact that we have come to the conclusion that respondent – GCZMA has not given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and since the document/s submitted by the appellant has/have not been taken into consideration by the GCZMA while passing the impugned order, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal. This matter shall be re-considered by the respondent – GCZMA afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and other stakeholders, within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this order.

¶22

Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶23

No order as to costs.

¶24

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶25

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶26

August 06, 2025 APPEAL NO.12/2024(WZ) npj

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Ramesh Laxmanrao Chowgule v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Laxmanrao Chowgule 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sunil Pv vs Kerala Pollution Control Board

Mr. Raphy Ij vs Kerala Pollution Control Board

Mr. Renson Cr vs Kerala Pollution Control Board

Mr. Karuppuswamy Kg vs Kerala Pollution Control Board

Ms Gupta Oil Mill Depot vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Hotel Claridges Nabha Residence Mussoorie vs Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

Felix Fernandes vs Dinar Tarcar Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Paris Sawlo Dessai vs Dinar Tarcar Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Surti Mohmmedirfan vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Surti Mohmmedirfan vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Vijaykumar Jethe vs the Manager Atul Stone Cruser

White Raj Resorts Pvt. Limited through Mr Vladislav Bogmolov vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Adinath Bhujaballi Kuchanur vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 10/2025 in Appeal No. 120/2025 of Himanshu Ramniklal Shah vs Seiaa