Allowed

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT14 Jul 2025Appeal No. 133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order directing demolishing of sheds built by fisherfolk. Bench held that notification permits reconstruction of traditional coastal community units within specific distance, questioning prohibition on construction type. Allowed appeal and remanded matter.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed, impugned order of 08.04.2024 set aside and matter remanded to Respondent No.1 for fresh decision after hearing.

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.19

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.133 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶6

Mr. Rama Ladu Govekar & Ors.

¶7

…..Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Goa State Coastal Zone Management Authority & Anr.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 14.07.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Supekar, Advocate along-with Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate

¶14

Respondents

¶15

: Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants, seeking setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, whereby the appellants were directed to demolish the structures mentioned therein within 30 days from the receipt of the order, on the ground that Respondent No.1 failed to consider that the Appellants are fishermen/fisherfolks and are protected under CRZ Notification, 2011.

¶18

During argument, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to para no.8 (III) CRZ-III (A) (ii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, wherein following is provided:-

¶19

“No construction shall be permitted within NDZ except for repairs or reconstruction of existing authorized structure not exceeding existing Floor Space Index, existing plinth area and existing density and for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for activities; Construction/

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

reconstruction of dwelling units of traditional coastal communities including fisherfolk may be permitted between 100 and 200 metres from the HTL along the seafront in accordance with a comprehensive plan prepared by the State Government or the Union territory in consultation with the traditional coastal communities including fisherfolk and incorporating the necessary disaster management provision, sanitation and recommended by the concerned State or the Union territory CZMA to NCZMA for approval by MoEF.”

¶22

Having cited above provision, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that even in NDZ, the construction/re-construction of dwelling units of traditional coastal communities including fisherfolk is permitted between 100 and 200 metres from the HTL. He further submits that the sheds, which have been erected at the site in question by the appellants, shown by him in the photographs, which are annexed at page nos.136 to 139 of the paper book, with the rejoinder affidavit of the appellants dated 21.11.2024 to the reply affidavit of Respondent No.1- GCZMA. In order to have a clear view of the kind of constructions, which are said to be there at the site in question, we find it essential to make these photographs part of the present order, which are shown as below:-

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

The ground in the impugned order has been made saying that even if Respondents (appellants herein) belonged to fishermen community, they could not be permitted to use material to erect the sheds, which are not permissible in the NDZ.

¶26

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GCZMA has submitted that in the Site Inspection Report, which is annexed as Annexure- C at page nos.50 to 55 of the paper book, it is clearly mentioned that on site, there were 3 nos. of sheds identified by the Complainant, out of which, 1 no. of shed had collapsed, which belonged to Mr. Ajit Govekar, whereas out of the remaining two sheds, one admeasuring size 9.60m x 6.70m belongs to Mr. Vasant Govekar- Applicant No.3, which has brick masonry on 3 sides of height 120m & one MS gate on front with concrete flooring and covered with GI sheet roof, which is supported with cemented poles (photographs of page no.136 reproduced above). The other structure i.e. 3^rd structure was a shed admeasuring width of 5.00m, length of 8.30m., which was covered with cemented sheets and supported with on cemented poles. Flooring of shed is of concrete, which belongs to Mr. Rama Govekar- Applicant No.1.

¶27

In view of above, when we enquired from learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GCZMA as to where is the provision, which prohibits the use the above-mentioned material, allegedly used, in the said two

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

structures found standing at the site in question, no provision could be shown by her nor did we find the said provision to have been quoted in the impugned order of Respondent No.1.

¶30

On the other hand, from the side of appellants, the provision, which has been cited above by us, has been relied on by the learned counsel representing them, which we find to be applicable herein and are of the view that once there has been made provision that construction/reconstruction of traditional coastal communities, including fisherfolk may be permitted between 100 and 200 metres from the HTL, the type of constructions, which are said to have been constructed by the appellants, why they cannot be permitted at the site in question, is beyond our understanding. In our opinion, if appellants belong to the fishermen community, certainly, they would need some place where they can keep their fishing net and canoes etc.

¶31

In view of above observations, we find force in the argument made by learned counsel for the appellants and are of the view that the above kind of constructions should not be treated to be prohibited at the site in question.

¶32

In view of above, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- GCZMA and remand the matter to Respondent No.1 for deciding afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶33

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶34

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶35

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶36

July 14, 2025 APPEAL NO.133 OF 2024 (WZ) P.Kr

¶37

Page 5 of 5

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar 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

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Forest

Reliance Industries Limited vs Central Pollution Control Board

Ushakumari.K. vs 1. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change Represented by Its Deputy Director General of Forests

Om Prakash Khetan and Anr. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas and Ors.

M/S Tirupati Minerals through Its Proprietor Subham Dinesh Agrawal vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

R Kumar vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 6/2024 in Execution Application No. 4/2024 of Prashant Dattatray Patil vs State of Maharashtra through Its Environment Secretary

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023 in Original Application No. 1/2023 of Machindra Mahadeo Shinde vs Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisess

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Hasmukhbhai Bahecharbhai Parmar vs Bharuch District Collector C/O Mr. Gaurang Makwana (Ias)

Hasmukhbhai Bahecharbhai Parmar vs Bharuch District Collector C/O Mr. Gaurang Makwana (Ias)

Mr Sanjay Gade vs Shree Ganesh Construction