This order disposes of an application by an intervening heir seeking impleadment in an appeal regarding coastal zone demolition directions. The bench relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that the applicant could have filed an independent appeal.
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.
(Pune Bench)
Item No.10
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) & I.A. No.310/2024(WZ)
Vernon Rodrigues
…..Appellant
Versus
GCZMA & Ors.
….Respondents
Date of hearing: 10.02.2025
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant : Mr. Kapil D. Kerkar, Advocate Respondents : Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA Ms. Fawia Mesquita, Advocate for R-3 Mr. Amay A. Phadte, Advocate for Intervener
ORDER
I.A. No.310/2024(WZ)
Page 1 of 6
Goa, totally admeasuring 5,900 sq. mtrs., comprising of Residential Structure, surrounded by additional structures, comprising of Ground plus one floor, which originally belonged to Mathias Rodrigues i.e. the grandfather of the Intervener and upon his death, the said property was inherited by her father late Victor Rodrigues and his brother Edward Rodrigues, who expired on 22/03/1991 and 07/10/1981 respectively. Accordingly their names are figuring in the Survey Form I & XIV of the said property in the occupant's column as Co-owners of the said property.
Page 2 of 6
coastal ecosystem, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) has issued a directive for demolition of several unauthorised structures in the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) area of Survey No.13517 at Vaddy Candolim”. So, upon perusal of the said newspaper (web-edition), the Intervener immediately tried to contact her brother Mr. Vernon Rodrigues (Appellant herein), who did not show any concern, neither responded back the Intervener then the applicant approached her niece Mrs. Vanessa Mendonca, who having acknowledged the fact of demolition to be true refused to provide any inputs other than only sharing the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1.
Page 3 of 6
this Tribunal to get herself impleaded as one of the respondents in the present appeal.
“29. The respondents in the present case had access to recourse under Section 96 of the CPC, which allows for appeals from an original decree. It must be remembered that the present matter was being heard by the High Court exercising its original jurisdiction. The High Court was in effect conducting a trial, and the final decree passed by the High Court on 19.09.2013 was in effect a decree in an original suit. As such, there existed a right of appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, for the respondents. Though they were not parties to the suit, they could have filed an appeal with the leave of the Court as an affected party. Section 96 of the CPC reads as under:
96. Appeal from original decree .-(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
[(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of
Page 4 of 6
Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed [ten thousand rupees.]
30. Sections 96 to 100 of CPC deals with the procedure for filing appeals from original decrees. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the provisions are silent about the category of persons who can prefer an appeal. But it is well settled legal position that a person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned.
31. In the light of the above, it can be safely concluded any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court.”
Page 5 of 6
free to move an appeal against the impugned order in her independent right, if she feels aggrieved by the same, subject to the limitation and the same is found to be within time.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM
February 10, 2025 Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) I.A. No.213/2024(WZ) & I.A. No.310/2024(WZ) P.Kr
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an intervening heir can file an application for impleadment instead of filing an independent appeal against an order affecting co-owned property.
Whether the TT being a necessary party to the appeal in claim of ownership of the property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MY Palace Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society vs. B. Mahesh & Ors.Referred¶30
MY Palace Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society vs. B. Mahesh & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.5784 of 2022 @ S.L.P. (Civil) No.7015/2022)] [(2022) LiveLaw (SC) 698]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vernon Rodrigues
GCZMA
Viola Lawrence
Judith Rodrigues
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Vijay Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
An application for interim relief made while the main matter is pending.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
