Dismissed

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT11 Mar 2026Appeal No. 563/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Bench of the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone, Pune Bench dismissed Appeal No. 563/2025 for want of jurisdiction on the ground of delay beyond the limitation period. The appellant had received the impugned order on 05.03.2025 but filed the appeal on 17.07.2025, exceeding the 90-day limit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of time-bar and the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority — Land Acquisition | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No. 9

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO. 563/2025 (WZ) I.A. No. 699/2025 (WZ) I.A. No. 700/2025 (WZ)

¶6

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar

…..Appellant

Versus

GCZMA & Anr.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 11.03.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Amey Phadte a/w Mr. Austin D’Souza, Advocate for appellant Respondents : Mr. Shubham Sinai Priolkar, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA Mr. Ankur Kumar, Advocate for R-5

¶14

ORDER

¶15

I.A. No. 700/2025

¶16

This application has been moved by the appellant seeking condonation of 109 days’ delay is filing the present appeal whereby order dated 28.02.2025 passed by GCZMA has been assailed. By this order, the direction is given to the appellant to demolish the ground floor structure covered with flat roof RCC slab having permanent plinth which is identified as ‘Q’ standing in property bearing Survey No. 119/3 of Morjim Village, Pernem, Goa, decided in 424^th GCZMA Meeting held on

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

10.12.2024 and further to restore the land to its original condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant states that all of a sudden on 12.07.2025, the appellant came to know when he received a call from the Office of the Village Panchayat of Morjim that the structure of the appellant will be demolished within 10 days, on the basis of directions given by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa vide order dated 10.07.2025 in Writ Peition 1716/2025 (F). Thereafter, on 17.07.2025 The appellant immediately applied to the R-1/GCZMA for providing a copy of final order on urgent basis, if any passed in the matter of show cause notice dated 29.10.2024. On applying for the said final order, respondent no. 1-GCZMA issued and communicated to the appellant the impugned order on 28.02.2025.

¶20

Hence, he has filed the present appeal after having received the impugned order.

¶21

We have heard, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, who has admitted during the course of the argument that the copy of impugned order was received by him on 05.03.2025, which is evident from the copy of acknowledgement annexed by the GCZMA with their reply affidavit dated 4^th February, 2026 beginning from page no. 314 to 317.

¶22

On the bases of the above admission, despite evidence that the appellant had come to know about impugned order having been passed on 08.03.2025, so the limitation would be counted from that date, and from that date if you count the days when the appeal was filed i.e. on 17.07.2025, it is beyond 90 days. Therefore, we do not have the

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

jurisdiction to detain this appeal, is being time-barred and accordingly the appeal also stands dismissed at time-barred.

¶25

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶26

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶27

March 11, 2026 APPEAL NO. 563/2025 (WZ) I.A. No. 699/2025 (WZ) I.A. No. 700/2025 (WZ) F.K

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar 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

Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Mr Raja Jebadoss vs Seiaa

Aranya Parisara Madhu Havamana Badalavane Sangha vs State of Karnataka

Jalarm Quarry Works Private Limited vs Seiaa

Hanumant Uttam Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Girdhari Lal Constructions Private Limited vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Mr. Abhishek Vikas Gondane vs Seiaa

Mr. Abhishek Vikas Gondane vs Seiaa

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade vs Seiaa

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Gopalbhai Khodabhai Sanariya vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change