This appeal challenged an order directing demolition of structures. The National Green Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove the structures existed before 1991 and deemed himself barred from relying on the 1994 Act due to filing dates.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. VERNON RODRIGUES Resident of H. No.483, Vaddy, Candolim Bardez-Goa. Pin Code: 403 515.
…..Appellant Versus
1. GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Through its Member Secretary, C/o Department of Science, Technology & Environment, Government of Goa, 4th Floor, Dempo towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. 2. STATE OF GOA Through the Chief Secretary, Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa- 403 521. 3. Mrs. Judith Rodrigues , R/o. H. No. D-6, TRT Holiday Enclave, Near Hotel Golden Tuli, Muddo wado, Candolim, Bardez, Goa– 403 515. Counsel for Appellant:
.....Respondents
Mr. Kapil D. Kerkar, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA.
Ms. Fawia Mesquita, Advocate for R-3.
PRESENT:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 1 of 17
Reserved on : 10.02.2025 Pronounced on : 02.04.2025
JUDGMENT
“(e) re-construction, repairs works of dwelling units of local communities / especially fisherfolks in accordance with local town and country planning regulations"
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 2 of 17
to the impugned order, a complaint/ letter dated 28/01/2022 was sent by Mrs. Judith Rodrigues- Respondent No.3 with respect to illegal construction of multiple structures of Ground +2 nos. 13/14 shops structures, in the property bearing Survey No.135/7 at Vaddy, Candolim, Bardez, Goa within CRZ- III area carried out by the appellant.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 3 of 17
308th Meeting, the Authority decided to de-seal the property and hold a fresh Site Inspection and hence allowed the application of the appellant.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 4 of 17
“The Areas of the structures were noted as A: (400sqm), B: (600sqm), C: (360 sqm), D: (214 sqm), E: (52 sqm), F: (119 sqm), G: (92.50 sqm), and H: (140 sqm).
The Respondent were furnished copies of the Site Inspection Report and asked to prove that the structures are standing prior to 1991.
The Respondent has produced three electricity bill to show that the structures are standing prior to 1991 the bill bears meter no 550, 551 and 179. He further stated that the energization date shows as 1980-81 however upon perusal only two bills having no 550 and 551 are produced to the Authority and there is no connection between the structures and the meter numbers.
It is noted that the structure D is an old house which is depicted on the Survey Plan which shows that the Structure was standing prior to 1991; the old structure which is marked as D and is shown on the survey plan, Hence the structure D is a legal structure.
Further, the Authority noted that the excise licence also shows that it was issued to part of the residential house which was used for commercial purpose and that bears the House No 368 which connects to the Meter bearing no 551. The Letter from the Village Panchayat of Candolim dated 17/01/2023; clearly states that the house no 368 was recorded in the name of Balkrishna Bhat in the year 1988-89 and subsequently transferred to the name of Laximikant G. Bhat as per the records maintained by the village Panchayat of Candolim. However the House no 368 never belonged to the Respondent as claim by him. In view of the discrepancies pointed out by the Complainants by way of documentary proof that the house nos does not belong to Respondent and in view that the electricity bill and the excise letter are inter connected by the house numbers these documents cannot be taken into consideration to determine that the structures were standing prior to 1991.
The Authority noted that the Respondent has to prove that the structures are constructed with valid permission. The Respondent
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 5 of 17
is producing utility documents but has failed to produce documents required for the purpose of constructing the structures. The Respondent besides these two documents has failed to show by way of documentary proof that the structures are legal.
The Respondent sought to rely on the order of the Block Development Officer bearing case noBDO-II-BAR/201(A)/4/2022 filed by Judith Rodrigues vs Village Panchayat of Candolim and Vernon Rodrigues; upon perusal of the order it is noted that the same is irrelevant to decide the legality of the structures. However, it is noted that the BDO has stated that the Respondent has a house bearing House no 483 and that it belongs to the father of the Respondent. As per the demand and collection register it bearing old house no 31/5. The Complainant has also produced a letter issued by the Village Panchayat letter dated 17/01/2023 stating that the new house no 483 corresponds to old house no 31/5(old) and was existing since 1972-73. However, the respondent has not relied on this house number to prove the legality of his structures. There being a discrepancy in the house numbers and the respondent not having come clear on the documentation part to prove that the structures are in existence prior to 1991 give a ground to issue demolition order against the structures A,B,C,E,F,G,H structures shown on the survey plan dated 04/07/2022 and discharge order against the old structure shown on the plan dated 04/07/2022 marked as "D".
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 6 of 17
1991 and hence would not be ordered to be demolished. He has relied on following documents, which are taken into consideration by us one by one.
“ 66. Regulation of the erection of buildings.— (1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, no person shall erect any building or alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
any building without the written permission of the Panchayat. The permission may be granted on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.
(2) If a Panchayat does not, within thirty days from the date of receipt of application, determine whether such permission should be given or not and communicate its decision to the applicant, the applicant may file an appeal within thirty days from the date of expiry of aforesaid period, to the Deputy Director who shall dispose of the same within thirty days from the date of filings of such appeal. If the Deputy Director fails to dispose of the appeal within thirty days, such permission shall be deemed to have been given and the applicant may proceed to execute the work, but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act or any rules or bye-laws made under this Act.
………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………..”
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 8 of 17
the Rule- 3 Sub-Clause- 2 (b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules, 1971:-
“3. Procedure for submission and scrutiny of application for development of land or sub-division.-
1) From the date of coming into force of these Rules, no change in the use of land or its development or sub-division of plot or layout of Private Street shall be made except with the written permission of the Panchayat for any land failing within the area of such Panchayat.
2). On receipt of an application for permission under sub-rule (1) above, the Panchayat shall (a) furnish to the applicant a written acknowledgement within a period of one week from its receipt;
*1[(b)] After enquiry as may be necessary, the Panchayat may grant permission for the construction of kacha house in Panchayat areas without the approval of Technical Officer subject to the following conditions, -
i) the construction should be kacha i.e. of mud and no stones should be used in the construction except for laying foundation erecting pillars and fixing windows and doors. No pucca masonry wall should be built towards construction;
ii) the cost of construction should not exceed Rs.10,000/-; iii) the area covered under the construction should not exceed 60% of the total area of the plot;
iv) a distance of at least 2 metres should be kept between the construction and the field boundaries on all sides;
v) adequate distance should be kept between adjacent buildings. Tle exact distance to be kept may be specified by the Village Panchayat depending upon local conditions;
vi) village Panchayat shall verify the owner-ship of the plot before granting the permission;
vii) no permission shall be granted for kacha construction within a radius of 100 metres from the beach of tourists importance, 50 metres from the P.W.D. road:
Provided that in the towns area, which are not falling within the Municipal limit, shall follow the general provisions of Rules, 1971;
viii). village Panchayat shall ensure that the existing traditional paths are not obstructed before granting permission and shall maintain proper setback for future
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 9 of 17
development of roads; the village Panchayat may permit extension of the existing building provided the proper set backs are maintained;
x) no occupancy certificate from the technical office shall the required for kacha construction;
xi) the application for the building permission shall be accompanied along with a sketch map of the proposed construction in duplicate duly signed by the applicant;
(c) In respect of construction to be carried out in village specified in Appendix A of the Rules, 1971, one copy of the sketch map should be forwarded to the Town and Country Planning Department for information by the Village Panchayat;
(d) The permission shall be issued in a standard form duly signed by the Sarpach or in his absence by the Deputy Sarpanch. Before grant of permission a formal approval of Block Development Officer shall be taken by the concerned Panchayat.”
“ 14. At the very threshold of the discussion, we may notice that the case of the applicant during the hearing of the appeal, as well as in this application is that, the construction/renovation of the building was done in furtherance to the permission to reconstruct/re-erect as granted by the Gram Panchayat, vide letter dated 30'h September, 1986 and occupancy certificate which had been issued on 315t March, 1987 and, thereafter, no construction has been done by the applicant. Section 66 of the Act of 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder have no relevancy to the matters in issue before us. The construction, according to the applicant, was raised in the year 1986-1987. At that time, this Act was not in force as it came into force w.e.f. 20th April, 1994. No construction is stated to have been done by the applicant under any permission granted or sanction accorded under the Act of 1994. The law in force at the relevant time (1986-1987) was the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulation Amendment Act, 1969. Section 65 of the said Act read with Section 83, empowered the Government to frame Rules. In exercise of this power, the Government of Goa framed the Goa,
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 10 of 17
Daman and Diu Village Panchayat (Regulation of Building) Rules, 1971 (for short 'Rules of 1971'). These Rules governed the scheme of submission of building plans the manner in which such plans would be sanctioned and the construction which is carried out strictly in terms of the sanctioned plan. Under Rule 37, of the said Rules any construction/development in contravention to the Rules shall be demolished by the owner on receipt of notice from the concerned authorities within the stipulated time. In the event of default, the authorities would demolish the same at the cost of the owner. The expression 'Authority' had not been defined under the Rules which would obviously mean any authority in accordance with law.
15. The most important rule of the Rules of 1971 for purpose of the present case is Rule 3(2)(b), which contemplates various restrictions in relation to construction or development. Significantly, the permission would be granted by the Gram Panchayat only if the cost of construction does not exceed Rs. 20,000/- and the cover area under construction does not exceed the total area of the plot the construction has to be kaccha, i.e. of mud and no stone should be used in the construction, except for laying foundation, erecting pillars and fixing windows and doors. No pucca masonry wall should be built towards construction. The applicant, despite grant of opportunities, did not produce the sanction plan which was granted by the Gram Panchayat on 30th September, 1986. Even during the course of hearing of the review application, the Counsel was called upon to produce the annexure (sanctioned plan) to the permission dated 30th September, 1986 which, for reasons best known to the applicant, is yet to see the light of the day.”
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 11 of 17
pillars and fixing windows and doors. Therefore, it is stated by her that in the case in hand, the cost of the construction is Rs.2.5 Crores, which is apparent from the Panchanama, which is filed by the appellant himself at page no.86 of the paper book, discloses the cost of the construction to be Rs.2 Crore and 50 lakhs. It may also be made clear here that in the Site Inspection Report, the structure- ‘D’ is found to be in existence prior to the year 1991, while rest of the structures i.e. structures A, B, C, E, F, G & H are found to be not of the period prior to the year 1991 and having found to have been raised without any prior permission for the same.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 12 of 17
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 13 of 17
above-mentioned structures were in existence at the site in question prior to the year 1991.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 14 of 17
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 15 of 17
written, whether the said permission was granted by the Health Officer, no response could be given by him. Hence, no benefit of this letter can be given to the appellant.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 16 of 17
ordered to be demolished by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, were in existence prior to the year 1991. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal does not have any force and it deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM
April 02, 2025 Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) I.A. No.213/2024(WZ) P.Kr
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)]
Page 17 of 17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant could rely on the 30-day deeming provision of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for construction applied for prior to that Act's inception.
Whether documentary evidence presented by the appellant successfully proves that the structures were in existence prior to 1991 in light of objections regarding authenticity and specificity.
Whether the appellant satisfied the procedural requirement of obtaining valid permission for pucca construction under the applicable Village Panchayat Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sesa Goa Limited v. State of GoaReferred¶20
Sesa Goa Limited v. State of Goa, [(2013) SCC On Line NGT 27] · Who else cites this
Mrs. Libertina Fernandes vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Anr.Explained¶88
Mrs. Libertina Fernandes vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Anr., [(2015) SCC OnLine NGT 61] · Who else cites this
Mr. Vernon Rodrigues
Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
State of Goa
Mrs. Judith Rodrigues
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Vijay Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal before a tribunal against an order of a statutory authority.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
