Disposed

Peter Coutinho v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT3 Mar 2025IA No. 292/2024 in Appeal No. 18/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an IA seeking inspection of additional satellite imagery and RSI reports to prove pre-1991 structure existence, the Tribunal rejected the application to remand the main appeal. It decided the matter on merits to prevent undue advantage from litigation delays, while listing the appeal for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

I.A. rejected; main appeal listed for final hearing on 04.07.2025.

Peter Coutinho vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.8

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

I.A. No.292/2024 (WZ) In Appeal No.18/2023(WZ) [Earlier Diary No.2704137001742023] I.A. No.113/2023(WZ)

Peter Coutinho

…..Appellant

Versus

Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Anr.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 03.03.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate along-with Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate Respondents : Mrs. V. Gracias, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA Mrs. Judith Almeida, for R-2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

I.A. No.292/2024 (WZ)

¶16

Today, we have heard the argument of learned counsel Mr. Shivan Desai representing applicant/appellant on this I.A., by which prayer is made by the applicant/appellant to permit him to produce additional documents, i.e. letter dated 28/05/2024 along-with the entire RSI Report dated 07/05/2024, to be taken on record.

¶17

This I.A. is being vehemently opposed by Respondent No.2- Colva Civic and Consumer Forum, which is being represented today by Mrs. Judith Almeida, although learned counsel Mrs. V. Gracias representing

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

Respondent No.1- GCZMA submits that the said additional documents may be taken on record and the appeal may be allowed and thereafter, the matter may be remanded to be decided afresh by Respondent No.1 in the light of the newly filed documents.

¶20

In this I.A., it is submitted by the applicant/appellant that vide letter dated 28/05/2024, Respondent No.1 has forwarded the Report dated 07/05/2024 issued by RSI, which was based on the data obtained from Russian MIR Imagery of the year 1991 and Indian Air Force Aerial Data of the year 1993. Both these Satellite Images establish that the subject structures have been in existence since prior to the year 1991. The said report is prepared by an expert agency based on the authentic data and has a direct bearing in the controversy involved in the present appeal. The applicant/appellant could not produce the said documents earlier because the said report was not in existence at the time when the impugned order was passed by the GCZMA and hence, the same could not form part of the proceedings before the GCZMA, hence abovementioned prayer has been made.

¶21

Against this I.A., Respondent No.2 has filed reply/objection dated 29.11.2024, wherein it is submitted that the purported Russian MIR Imagery of 1991 and Airforce Aerial Data of 1993 have no Geo-referencing and therefore, the location cannot be established. The alleged satellite imagery has been tampered with by the addition of survey number boundary lines and profiles of purported existing structures. Such alterations render the imagery unauthentic and unreliable, creating serious doubt.

¶22

It is further mentioned in this reply/objection by Respondent No.2 that RSI Softech India Pvt. Ltd. must be directed to produce a certificate

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

or authorization issued by the owners of the Russian MIR imagery and the Indian Airforce aerial data, verifying their permission to utilize such data as a source for preparing reports concerning coastal areas. Even if, the Russian MIR and Airforce Imagery are considered, both do not show any structure marked in plots of the applicant/appellant pre-1991. Exhibit ‘A’ Colly (at page nos.370 to 371 of the paper book) is the Satellite imagery superimposed on the survey plan of the DSLR (refer to Survey plan dt. 12.12.1996 at page 205 of the Appeal Memo), the Appellant’s structures are not seen in the Bhunaksha document and the Regional Plan 2021 of the Government of Goa, which are annexed as Exhibit- B Colly (at page nos.372-373 of the paper book).

¶25

In addition to the above, Respondent No.2 has submitted that she is not ready for remanding the matter to Respondent No.1- GCZMA to be decided afresh because the 1^st demolition order was passed by Respondent No.1 on 05.12.2018, which is annexed as Annexure- ‘A-5’ at page nos.316 to 320 of the paper book, which was challenged before this Tribunal in Appeal No.04/2019 (WZ) (Peter Joseph Coutinho vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Anr.) and vide order dated 15.02.2019 (annexed at page nos.104-105 of the paper book), the Tribunal disposed of the matter with a direction that GCZMA shall consider the documents produced by the appellant and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 passed 2^nd demolition order on 30.05.2019, which is annexed at page nos.117 to 126 of the paper book.

¶26

Thereafter, appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa by filing Writ Petition No.469 of 2019 challenging the above-mentioned impugned order passed by the GCZMA, in which the Hon’ble High Court had passed the order dated 11.06.2019 (annexed at

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

page nos.127-128 of the paper book), wherein it is recorded that the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the petition, as the petitioner intends to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Thereafter, appellant filed Appeal No.46/2019(WZ) challenging the above-mentioned impugned order, which is annexed at page nos.160-161 of the paper book. But later on, the same was withdrawn because the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority was reconsidering the matter and accordingly, the prayer for withdrawal of appeal was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2020.

¶29

Respondent No.2 has also pointed out to us that Review Application dated 09.07.2019 was also preferred by the appellant before the GCZMA, which was decided vide order dated 22.03.2021, which is annexed at page nos.213 to 222 of the paper book, whereby the review application was held to be maintainable and thereafter, order impugned herein was passed on 14.02.2023. Having cited the course of litigation in the past, it is urged by Respondent No.2 that since on 05.12.2018 when the 1^st order of demolition was passed by the GCZMA, it has been kept lingered so long, as we are in the year 2025 and the demolition is still not done by the GCZMA and again the GCZMA has given consent to the matter being remanded to them for reconsideration in the light of that fresh documents having been submitted by the applicant/appellant, which should not be allowed at all.

¶30

After having heard the arguments of both the sides, we are of the view that we find substance in the argument made by Respondent No.2 that the matter being kept pending for long time for consideration and even today, if we remand it for being decided afresh by the GCZMA, it may take again very long time and giving undue advantage to the

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

applicant/appellant. Hence, we deem it appropriate to decide this appeal on our own and accordingly, we reject this I.A.

¶33

I.A. No.292/2024 (WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

We direct the Registry to list main appeal for final hearing on

¶35

04.07.2025.

¶36

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶37

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶38

March 03, 2025 I.A. No.292/2024 (WZ) In Appeal No.18/2023(WZ) Earlier Diary No.2704137001742023 I.A. No.113/2023(WZ) P.Kr

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Peter Coutinho v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peter Coutinho 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

Dr Bina Basnett vs State of Sikkim

Shakuntla Devi vs Ms Kiran

Vivek Mahna vs

Vivek Mahna vs

Nitin Srivastava vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Tai Maya S/O Shri Tai Nuku vs the Principal Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ia No. 20/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 19/2024 of James Teli Camder vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Subhas Datta vs Department of Environment

Robert Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Robert Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Calangute Constituency Forum vs State of Goa

Db View Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

Reagan Rodrigues Represented by His Poa Rousseau Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Tousif Bagnikar vs Nix Polymers