Green Space Ngo v. State of Goa

NGT20 Apr 2026IA No. 143/2026 in Original Application No. 126/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nicholas Green Space (NGO) sought expert inspection of alleged illegal constructions in CRZ zone. GCZMA submitted that ongoing detailed mapping and adjudication make the application premature. Court allowed withdrawal with liberty to approach later.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as not pressed; liberty granted to applicant to approach Tribunal after GCZMA decision.

Green Space Ngo vs State of Goa — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No. 17

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

I.A. NO. 08/2026 (WZ) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 126/2025 (WZ) I.A. NO. 143/2026 (WZ)

Green Space (NGO)

…..Applicant

Versus

State of Goa & Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 20.04.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Applicant in-person Respondents : Mr. Shubham S. Priolkar, Advocate for R-2/GCZMA Mr. Manish Salkar, Advocate for R-3/GSPCB Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate for R-7

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application has been filed with a prayer that a team of experts be constituted preferably of MoEF&CC to inspect and ascertain the illegal constructions done by respondent no. 7- Riviera Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no. 8- Sameer Sibal in Survey Nos. 175/1, 175/3, 175/4, 175/5, 175/5-A, 175/6, 175/6-A, 175/9, 175/10, 175/11, 175/12 and 175/13 of Village Arpore, Bardes, Goa, which is falling in NDZ of CRZ where no permanent construction is permissible except the repair and construction of the old structure, existing prior to the 1991 with prior permission from the respondent no. 2- GCZMA.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Respondent no. 2- GCZMA has filed an affidavit dated 20.03.2026, wherein it is submitted by them that site inspection was conducted on 30.04.2025 in presence of the complainant of the site in question. Site Inspection Report dated 30.04.2025 reveals that Survey No. 175/1 falls within CRZ-III (NDZ) along a river/creek, while Survey Nos. 175/3, 175/4, 175/5-A, 175/6-A, 175/9 and 175/13 fall partly within CRZ-III, NDZ. It is further revealed that Survey Nos. 175/5, 175/6, 175/10, 175/11, 175/12 fall outside the CRZ jurisdiction. The said inspection report, taking into account the peculiar configuration and shape of the subject property, specifically recommended that detailed DSLR mapping be undertaken to accurately determine the precise location of the existing structures vis-àvis the CRZ boundaries.

¶18

It is further mentioned that in compliance with the principles of natural justice, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2025 was issued to respondent no. 7, calling upon them to show cause as to why the appropriate directions, including demolition of the alleged unauthorized structures, be not issued against them.

¶19

In 466^th Meeting of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) held on 17.07.2025, the authority after considering the Inspection Report dated 30.04.2025 and the recommendation contained therein, resolved that detailed mapping of structures at the subject site be carried out so as to bring clarity to the matter and to enable an informed adjudication of the issues involved.

¶20

The DSLR mapping report dated 01.10.2025 clearly establishes that the substantial majority of the permanent structures existing at the subject site fall outside the CRZ area and are therefore beyond the regulatory jurisdiction of the answering respondent under the applicable

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

CRZ notification. It was further revealed that only two temporary structures, demarcated as “A” and “B”, fall within the CRZ area and are within the limited jurisdiction of the GCZMA.

¶23

In 494^th Meeting of the GCZMA held on 16.12.2025 the matter was taken up, in which, both the complainant, applicant herein and the respondent no. 7 were afforded opportunity to file their respective responses to the DSLR mapping report. Respondent no. 7 was further granted time to place on record additional documents in support of its case. Therefore, it is emphasized that the authority is still considering the matter, which is ongoing and hence, it is submitted that there is a clear duplication as parallel invocation is made of remedies by the applicant by moving this Tribunal. This application is premature.

¶24

When we confronted the learned counsel for the applicant with the contents of the affidavit, he agreed to withdraw this application and wait for the final decision to be taken by the GCZMA and if he would feel aggrieved by the decision to be taken by the GCZMA, he may approach this Tribunal. We grant him this liberty.

¶25

From the side of respondent no. 7 reply affidavit has been filed, which is taken on record.

¶26

In view of the above facts, we dispose of this application as not pressed, with liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal as and when decision is taken by the GCZMA and if he feels aggrieved by that decision.

¶27

We also direct the GCZMA to conclude the hearing within a period of one month positively in this matter.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

From the side of respondent no. 3- GSPCB, learned counsel Mr. Manish Salkar has appeared.

¶30

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶31

Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶32

April 20, 2026 I.A. NO. 08/2026 (WZ) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 126/2025 (WZ) I.A. NO. 143/2026 (WZ) F.K

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Green Space Ngo v. State of Goa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Green Space Ngo v. State of Goa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

K. Saravanan vs the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority Rep by Its Member Secretary

Jitender Gautam Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Shakti Plastic Industries vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Ajay Pratap Singh vs the District Magistrate

Citizen Action Forum vs Union of India

Ranu Bala vs Mo.Efcc

Green Space Ngo vs State of Goa

Green Space Ngo vs State of Goa

Devraj Bhatia vs