Partly allowed

Colva Civic and Consumer Forum through Its President Judith Almeida v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT9 Jul 2026IA No. 68/2026 in Original Application No. 129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench partially allowed the original application, setting aside the permission issued by GCZMA to use GI-pipes or mild steel for constructing a temporary shack. The court held that such materials indicate a permanent structure, violating CRZ Goa norms for temporary eco-friendly construction. The claim for sand dune restoration was dismissed as the site reportedly contains no dunes.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued that the project proponent shall not use GI-pipes or mild steel framed structures; only bio-degradable materials are permitted for erecting the structure.

Colva Civic and Consumer Forum through Its President… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶2

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶3

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.129 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.68 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

THE COLVA CIVIC AND CONSUMER FORUM through its President- Judith Almeida H. No. 257/1, Ward 3, Bagdem, Colva, Salcete, Goa- 403 708.

¶7

…..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. THE GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY through its Member Secretary, 4^th Floor, Dempo Towers Bldg., Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. 2. GOA STATE BIODIVERSITY BOARD through its Member Secretary, Opp. Saligao Seminary, Saligao, Bardez, Goa- 403 511. 3. MICHAEL FERNANDES Proprietor of Mickeys Bar & Restaurant, R/o. H. No. 36/1 (K-3), Annie Enclave, Opp. Green House, Pequeno Vanelim, Colva, Salcete, Goa- 403 708. 4. STATE OF GOA , through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa- 403 521. .....Respondents Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Sherwyn Filipe Francisco Correia, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Shubham Sinai Priolkar, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA Mr. A. Bhat, Advocate h/f Ms. Maria Correia, Advocate for R-2/GSBB Mr. Abhijit Gosavi, Advocate along-with

¶10

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶11

Page 1 of 20

¶12

Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-3/PP

¶13

PRESENT:

¶14

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member)

¶15

Reserved on : 22.06.2026 Pronounced on : 09.07.2026

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order/permission dated 30.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, whereby permission has been granted to Respondent No.3-Michael Fernandes, Proprietor of Mickeys Bar & Restaurant to construct a temporary restaurant/shack (approximately 340.84 sq. mtrs.) and wooden/bio-fencing (145.20 running m.) on Survey No.96/1, Betalbatim; further, it is prayed that a direction may be issued to Respondent No.1- GCZMA to ensure full and complete restoration of the sand dune in Survey No.96/1, Betalbatim to its original condition, in accordance with the GCZMA's order dated 03.07.2019 and the suggestions of the Goa State Biodiversity Board (GSBB).

¶18

The impugned order/permission dated 30.06.2025, which was issued by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, is annexed as Annexure-13 from page nos.87 to 90 of the paper book, is read out by learned counsel for the applicant, which states that the Authority decided to grant approval for proposed erection of temporary 01 Restaurant/ Shack having total builtup area of 340.84 sq. mtrs. and wooden/ bio-fencing having length of 145.20 R. Mtr. made of wood and/ or natural/ biodegradable material only in the property bearing Survey No.96/1, Betalbatim Village, Salcete, Goa, subject to the compliance of the conditions contained therein, in which condition no.4 has been pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant,

¶19

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶20

Page 2 of 20

¶21

which states “Shacks, huts, tents, cottages and huts / tents/ cottages in private areas shall be erected using eco-friendly materials such as bamboos/wooden poles with thatched palm leaves/ thatched bamboo mat roofing as far as possible and for structural support wherever required GIpipes / mild steel framed structures could be permitted. However, in case of paucity of wood the same may be erected out of the other modern materials such as synthetic, steel, nylon fabric etc. for the purpose of frame work due to unpredictable weather conditions. However, the same shall not plastering laying of PCC/ RCC on the floor/ structure/ digging of soak pits/ digging and laying of pipes/ metal staircases grouted in cement etc. shall not be permitted as per the guidelines issued by the GCZMA” .

¶22

Having drawn our attention to the above, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that granting permission for using GI-pipes/ mild steel framed structures could not have been permitted to be used in the area in question i.e. Survey No.96/1 of Betalbatim village, Salcete, Goa, because it falls within CRZ-III (No Development Zone), i.e. within 0-200 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) as delineated in the CZMP prepared under CRZ Notification, 2011. This fact has also been mentioned in the reply affidavit dated 18.03.2026 of Respondent No.1- GCZMA in para no.6.

¶23

Our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the applicant to para no.8 (III) CRZ-III (ii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, which reads as below:-

¶24

“No construction shall be permitted within NDZ except for repairs or reconstruction of existing authorized structure not exceeding existing Floor Space Index, existing plinth area and existing density and for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for activities; Construction/reconstruction of dwelling units of traditional coastal communities including fisherfolk may be permitted between 100 and 200 metres from the HTL along the seafront in

¶25

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶26

Page 3 of 20

¶27

accordance with a comprehensive plan prepared by the State Government or the Union territory in consultation with the traditional coastal communities including fisherfolk and incorporating the necessary disaster management provision, sanitation and recommended by the concerned State or the Union territory CZMA to NCZMA for approval by MoEF”

¶28

Besides that, learned counsel for applicant has also drawn our attention to para no.8 (3). CRZ of Goa,- In view of the peculiar circumstances of the State of Goa including past history and other developments, the specific activities shall be regulated and various measures shall be undertaken as follows:-

¶29

“(iii). purely temporary and seasonal structures customarily put up between the months of September to May.

¶30

[ (iiia) such structure shall not be removed and dismantled during the month of June to August:

¶31

Provided that the facilities available in these structures shall remain non-operational during the month of June to August .”

¶32

Having drawn our attention to the above relevant provision, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that from a close reading of the abovementioned provision would make it clear that no construction can be permitted apart from the structures, which are permitted under the above provision. Therefore, the construction raised by Respondent No.3-Project Proponent is not falling in the above category of CRZ Regulation.

¶33

In regard to the above submission of learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the opinion that the provision of 8 (3). CRZ of Goa (iii) of the CRZ Notification 2011, which is cited above, would clearly lay down that in the peculiar circumstances in the State of Goa, the developmental activities are permissible of purely temporary and seasonal structures customarily put up between the months of September to May and even

¶34

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶35

Page 4 of 20

¶36

such structure needs not be removed and dismantled during the month of June to August as per the said provision, which is as per the later amendment. Therefore, to say that the permission could not have been granted to Respondent No.3 for setting up of one temporary restaurant/shack, etc. is not a correct statement made by learned counsel for the applicant. But it is true that the same ought to be of temporary nature and that the material, which was used for constructing the same, ought to be of bamboo/wooden poles with thatched palm leaves/ thatched bamboo mat roofing as far as possible and for structural support. As regards using of GI-pipes/ mild steel frame structures in order to give support to the structures, we have to see as to whether the same could have been allowed or not because that would indicate that the structure is of a permanent nature.

¶37

In order to submit before us the objection to the above kind of use of GI-pipes/ mild steel frame structures etc., learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the Judgment dated 05.09.2022 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.22 of 2022 (WZ) [I.A. No.66 of 2022 & I.A. No.69 of 2022] (Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Anr.] along-with Appeal No.23 of 2022 (WZ) [I.A. No.67 of 2022] , wherein he has pointed out para nos.37, 38, 44 and 47, which are quoted herein below for the sake of convenience:-

¶38

“37. Then, he has drawn attention to page no. 500 of the report which deals with the type of material to be used which is as follows:

¶39

“Shacks, huts, tents, cottages and huts/ tents/ cottages in private areas shall be erected using eco-friendly materials such as bamboos/wooden poles with thatched palm leaves/ thatched bamboo mat roofing as far as

¶40

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶41

Page 5 of 20

¶42

possible and for structural support wherever required GIpipes / mild steel framed structures could be permitted. However, in case of paucity of wood the same may be erected out of the other modern materials such as synthetic, steel, nylon fabric etc. for the purpose of frame work due to unpredictable weather conditions. However the same shall not exceed 30% of the total material required. Use of concrete is banned. Grouting, plastering, laying of PCC/ RCC on the floor/ structure/ digging of soak pits/ digging and laying of pipes/ metal staircases grouted in cement etc. shall not be permitted as per the guidelines issued by the GCZMA.”

¶43

38. Having pointed it out, it is argued by him that for structural support, the GI pipes/ mild steel framed structures are permitted to be used for raising the construction. Hence, it cannot be held that the impugned permission is given for permanent structure rather the same would be treated to be of temporary nature.

¶44

44. We would like to rely upon the Judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Purushottam Das Bangur & Ors. Versus Dayanand Gupta in the case of Civil Appeal No. 7710 of 2012, decided on October 31, 2012 [(2012) 10 SCC 409], the relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:-

¶45

“20. To sum up, no hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed for determining what is permanent or what is not. The use of the word “permanent” in Section 108(p) of the Transfer or Property Act, 1882 is meant to distinguish the structure from what is temporary. The term “permanent” does not mean that the structure must last forever. A structure that lasts till the end of the tenancy can be treated as a permanent structure. The intention of the party putting up the structure is important for determining whether it is permanent or temporary. The nature and extent of the structure is similarly an important circumstance for deciding whether the structure is permanent or temporary within the meaning of Section 108(p) of the Act. Removability of the structure without causing any damage to the building is yet another test that can be applied while deciding the nature of the structure. So also the durability of the

¶46

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶47

Page 6 of 20

¶48

structure and the material used for erection of the same will be help in deciding whether the structure is permanent or temporary. Lastly, the purpose for which the structure is intended is also an important factor that cannot be ignored.

¶49

21. Applying the above tests to the instant case the structure was not a temporary structure by any means. The kitchen and the storage space forming part of the demised premises was meant to be used till the tenancy in favour of the respondent occupant subsisted. Removal of the roof and replacement thereof by a concrete slab was also meant to continue till the tenancy subsisted. The intention of the tenant while replacing the tin roof with concrete slab, obviously was not to make a temporary arrangement but to provide a permanent solution for the alleged failure of the landlord to repair the roof. The construction of the passage was also a permanent provision made by the tenant which too was intended to last till the subsistence of the lease. The concrete slab was a permanent feature of the demised premises and could not be easily removed without doing extensive damage to the remaining structure. Such being the position, the alteration made by the tenant fell within the mischief of Section 108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, constituted a ground for his eviction in terms of Section 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 22. We may at this stage refer to the decision of this Court in Ranju v Rekha Ghosh" where this Court found that cutting of a collapsible gate by 5/6" and replacing the same without the consent and permission of the landlord was tantamount to violation of Section 108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is thus immaterial whether the structure has resulted in creating additional usable space for the tenant who carries out such alteration and additions. If addition of usable space was ever intended to be an essential requirement under Section 108(p) of the Act, Parliament could have easily provided so. Nothing of this sort has

¶50

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶51

Page 7 of 20

¶52

been done even in Section 13(1)(b) o the State Act which clearly shows that addition of space is not the test for determining whether the structure is permanent or temporary.”

¶53

47. The above kind of temporary and seasonal structures only are permissible under CRZ of Goa and therefore, we are of the view that the kind of material which has been allowed to be used of steel and pre-fabricated material, would tend to indicate that the construction is of permanent nature. Moreover, it has also been pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that the same would not be removed/dismantled even for the months of June to August. Therefore, he did admit that they will be allowed to be continued. Therefore following precautionary principle, it would be appropriate for us to not allow this kind of construction to be raised in ecologically sensitive area which are very close to the place of a turtle nesting ground as is apparent from the evidence on record. The kind of construction which has been permitted, is very huge as is apparent from the plan approved by the Respondent No. 1. The plea taken by the Respondent No. 1 that it is within their jurisdiction to grant this kind of permission, we do not agree to the said argument because at the most, temporary structure which would have used only bamboo or wood for construction purposes, could have been allowed to be used. Even if some policy has been brought into force by the GCZMA, permitting use of steel or pre-fabricated material, the same does not appear to be sound policy, which would also need revision on the part of the GCZMA.”

¶54

Having drawn our attention to the above Judgment of this Tribunal, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the similar kind of permission has been allowed in the above-mentioned Appeals. Therefore in this case also, this Tribunal should have identical view and should decline the use of GI-pipes/ mild steel framed structures for erecting the structures in question and to that extent, the permission needs to be quashed/set aside.

¶55

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶56

Page 8 of 20

¶57

We agree with the above argument made by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard and are feeling bound by our own Judgment cited above, in which we had held that steel and pre-fabricated material would tend to indicate that the construction is of permanent nature and in CRZ Goa, no such permanent construction can be allowed. Identically, in the case in hand also, we find that the permission for using GI-pipes/mild steel etc. would be treated to be a material, which should not have been permitted to be used by the GCZMA while granting the permission, though every materials, which are bio-degradable, such as bamboos/wooden poles with thatched palm leaves/ thatched bamboo mat roofing, etc., could have been permitted to be used for erecting the structures at the site in question.

¶58

Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention to the Judgment dated 19.06.1964 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Khureshi Ibrahim Ahmed vs. Ahmed Haji Khanmahomad [(1964) SCC OnLine Guj 35: AIR 1965 Guj 152 : (1965) 6 GLR 27] , in which he has placed reliance on para no.4, which is quoted herein below for the sake of convenience:-

¶59

“……..The permanent or temporary character of the structures would have to be determined having regard to the nature of the structure and the nature of the materials used in the making of the structures and the materials used which the structures is erected and not on the basis of how long the tenant intended to make use of the structures…..”

¶60

The other Judgment, which has been relied on by learned counsel for the applicant, is the matter of Dattatraya Savlaram Ghadigaonkar (since deceased) through his LRs. Savita Dattatraya Ghadigaonkar & Ors. vs. Satyapal Uttamchand Chaudhary (since deceased) through his LRs. Vivek Satyapal Chaudhary & Anr.) [(2011 (6)

¶61

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶62

Page 9 of 20

¶63

Mh.L.J.], in which our attention is drawn to para no.18, which is quoted herein below for the sake of convenience:-

¶64

“In order to determine whether the structure is of a permanent character or not, factors which are to be taken into consideration are as follows; (i) nature of the structure, (ii) intention of the party who puts up the structure or, in other words, purpose for putting up the structure and (iii) to see in the proper perspective how it has affected the original (WP2932.99) structure. Therefore, there cannot be any strait jacket formula to decide whether the structure is permanent or temporary. There can be no rigid or hard and fast rule or formula defining the permanent structure. The intention for erecting the structure also has to be gathered from the nature of the structure and surrounding circumstances and, therefore, use of particular type of materials is not decisive though it would be an important material for consideration.”

¶65

Having drawn our attention to the above-mentioned two citations, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that to ascertain as to whether the construction is of a permanent nature or of a temporary nature, what is important to see is the nature of the structure; intention of the party, who put up the structure or, in other words, the purpose for putting up the structure; and to see in the proper perspective as to how it affects the original structure. In view of this, it is urged by him that in case we apply these considerations to the present set of facts, the use of GIpipes/ mild steel framed structures by Respondent No.3 would indicate that the same is intended to be of permanent nature and therefore, the same could not have been permitted at the site in question.

¶66

The next argument, which is made by learned counsel for the applicant, is that the structure, which is permitted to be raised by Respondent No.3, is on the sand dunes where no such permission could be granted and for this, he has drawn our attention to page no.34 of the

¶67

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶68

Page 10 of 20

¶69

paper book, whereat the order dated 03.07.2019 of the GCZMA is annexed, wherein following are recorded:-

¶70

“Therefore, the Authority concluded that all the structures present in Sy No. 96/1 of Betalbatim Village are illegal with no prior permission from any of the Competent Authorities. Therefore, Authority resolved to issue demolition order against all the structures(M,N,O and WC) as shown in the survey plan attached the Inquiry committee Report in Survey No. 96/I of Betalbatim Village.

¶71

Further, this Authority resolved to direct the Respondent Shri Michael Fernandes c/o M/s Mickey's Bar and Restaurant, to take necessary measures for restoration of Sand Dunes to its original condition in coordination with the Goa State Bio Diversity Board. All costs for such restoration would be borne by Shri Michael Fernandes c/o M/s Mickey's Bar and Restaurant. Furthermore, this Authority resolved to issue directions for immediate stoppage of all the commercial activities being carried out by Shri Michael Fernandes in the name of M/s Mickey's Bar and Restaurant in the Survey No. 964/1 of Beralbptim Village. Necessary directions in this regard to be issued to Commissioner Excise, Director of Tourism, FDA and Commissioner Sales Tax" to withdraw all permission, licenses granted to Shri Michael Fernandes in the name of M/s Mickey's Bar and Restaurant by following the due process of law.”

¶72

Thereafter, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to page nos.49 to 50 of the paper book, which is a report of the Joint Site Inspection conducted by the GCZMA on 21.08.2024, wherein following observations and suggestions are made:-

¶73

“ Observations:

¶74

1) Survey No. 96/1 of Betalbatim village, Salcete fall within Om-200m (NDZ) of CRZ III as per CZMP 2011 as confirmed by GCZMA surveyor.

¶75

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶76

Page 11 of 20

¶77

2) Survey no. 96/1 is surrounded by open space/ sand dune vegetation on the northern side, on the eastern and southern side there are structures and on the western side is the Arabian Sea .

¶78

3) Retaining wall of approx. 2m height constructed with lateritic stones exists on the seaward side with attached metal staircase.

¶79

4) Beyond the retaining wall wooden planks/ poles, bamboo, khaddapa, paver blocks, etc. are stacked.

¶80

5) There are couple of coconut trees (Cocos nucifera) and few ornamental plants in Survey No. 96/1.

¶81

6) In the vicinity, on the seaward side patches of vegetation consisting of prominent sand dune flora such as; Vitex negundo, Calotropis sp. and 1pomoea pes caprae were seen along with Spinifex sp., Thespesia populnea and other sand binders belonging to family Poaceae.

¶82

Suggestions:

¶83

1. As per the directions issued by GCZMA vide order S. O.3324 (E) dated 26/10/2016, respondent should take necessary measures to restore the sand dunes to its original condition in coordination with the Goa State Biodiversity Board. Till date there is no official correspondence received by GSBB from the respondent regarding the same .

¶84

2. Nevertheless, it is of utmost importance that all the existing extraneous material existing in the inspected property and towards west side (beyond the existing retaining wall) is removed in such a way that there should be no leftovers which will interfere in the restoration process. GSBB will not be able to proceed with the restoration process if the above is not complied.

¶85

3. During the restoration of sand dune, plantation of species similar to that of vegetation existing in the vicinity could be taken up.

¶86

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶87

Page 12 of 20

¶88

4. Cocos nucifera, Vitex negundo, Calotropis sp., Ipomoea pes caprae, Thespesia populnea, Spinifex sp., Crotolaria sp., Pandanus sp., etc. are some of the promising sand dune species that could be considered for plantation during restoration of sand dune.

¶89

5. Comprehensive list of plants will be provided after removal of concrete and extraneous material.

¶90

6. Single point of contact should be communicated to GSBB.”

¶91

Thereafter, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to page no.54 of the paper book, which is also a Report of the Site Inspection conducted by the GCZMA on 21.08.2024, wherein following observations are made:-

¶92

“ i). The survey number 96/1 of Betalbatim village, Salcete taluka fall within Om-200m (NDZ) of CRZ III as per CZMP 2011.

¶93

ii). As per Order bearing ref. no. GCZMA/ILLE-COMPUL/1415/05/970 dated 03/07/2019 five structures namely M, N, O, P and WC were identified in old DSLR plan File No. 19/DSLR/Resurvey cell/CRZ-Mapping/84/14 dated 07/05/2014. However, no structures were existing on site at the time of inspection conducted on 27/03/2024. Whereas, an overhead water tank was earlier present onsite inspection held on 27/03/2024 has ceased to exist at site.

¶94

iii). Overhead water lank made with steel fabricated structure is not present on site at the time of inspection on 21/08/2024 in Sy. No 96/1 of Betalbatim village, Salcete taluka.

¶95

iv). Retaining wall of approx. 2m height with lateritic stones exist on the seaward side with attached metal staircase is observed.

¶96

v). Wooden planks and Paver Blocks are seen stacked at the site.

¶97

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶98

Page 13 of 20

¶99

vi). As per CZMP — 2011, there is no Sand Dunes shown in the Sy. No. 96/1 of Betalbatim, Salcete-Goa.

¶100

vii). As far as measures to restore the Sand dunes to its original condition is concerned, same has to be done in coordination with the Goa State Bio Diversity Board.

¶101

viii). The photographs of the subject matter site are attached as “Annexure – I.”

¶102

Having drawn our attention to the above excerpts of the Site Inspection Reports and the order of the GCZMA dated 03.07.2019, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that based on these reports, it is quite evident that the site in question, i.e. Survey No.96/1, was sand dune, which was destroyed by the construction made by Respondent No.3Michael Fernandes, Proprietor of Mickeys Bar & Restaurant, which was ordered to be restored, and without restoration of the same, this new permission of construction has been granted by the GCZMA in such a prohibited area, which should be quashed/set aside.

¶103

In rebuttal to the above arguments made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for Respondent No.3-Michael Fernandes, Proprietor of Mickeys Bar & Restaurant has submitted that there is no sand dune at the site in question. The sand dunes were around the area outside the Survey No.96/1 of Betalbatim Village, which is also evident from the Map, which is annexed by the GCZMA in their reply affidavit dated 18.03.2026 as Annexure- ‘A’. Besides, it is also submitted by him that the GCZMA in their reply affidavit has clearly denied in para no.8 to the effect “ ….a perusal of the notified CZMP indicates that no sand dunes are delineated, depicted or recorded in respect of the subject property….” and that the NOC/Permission has been granted by the GCZMA in accordance with the CZMP prepared under CRZ Notification, 2011.

¶104

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶105

Page 14 of 20

¶106

In regard to the above submission of learned counsel for Respondent No.3, learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GCZMA has submitted that the use of GI-pipes/mild steel framed structures, which is being objected to by the appellant, is an afterthought because the same was never a ground taken by them in the memo of appeal.

¶107

Learned counsel for Respondent No.3-Project Proponent has also drawn our attention to the same report at page no.49 of the paper book, wherein it is recorded that “Survey no.96/1 is surrounded by open space/ sand dune vegetation...” . Having drawn our attention to it, it is urged by him that it means that in Survey No.96/1 itself, there is no sand dune, but the same is surrounded by the sand dunes, which are also evident from the Map, which is annexed at page no.233 of the paper book.

¶108

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.3-Project Proponent has also drawn our attention to page no.54 of the paper book, which is a Report of the Site Inspection conducted by the GCZMA on 21.08.2024, in which at serial no.(vi), it is recorded “As per CZMP - 2011, there is no Sand Dunes shown in the Sy. No. 96/1 of Betalbatim, Salcete-Goa” . Further, he has drawn our attention to page no.29 of the paper book, whereat the order dated 03.07.2019 of the GCZMA is annexed, in which certain points of determination are framed as below:-

¶109

“ (i). To prove that all the structure in Sy. No. 96/1 of Betalbatim Village is legal.

¶110

(ii). To produce the approved plan for the structures.

¶111

(iii). To produce any subsequent approvals if any obtained from any departments for the extensions /alteration of the structures as shown in DSLR Plan.”

¶112

Having cited above points of determination, it is urged by learned counsel for Respondent No.3 that there was no issue of sand dune

¶113

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶114

Page 15 of 20

¶115

involved in the said matter pertaining to Survey No.96/1. Otherwise, a question certainly would have been framed as to whether there was sand dune in Survey No.96/1 which needed to be restored.

¶116

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has drawn our attention to page no.67 of the paper book, whereat Report of the Joint Site Inspection held on 06.01.2025 is annexed, in which following are recorded:-

¶117

“ 2. Observations and conclusions:

¶118

1. As desired in the last report, retaining wall on the seaward side with attached metal staircase has been removed. All the extraneous material from the inspected site has also been cleared.

¶119

2. Some of the plant species recommended for plantation are Cocos nucifera (Coconut), Vifex negundo (Nirgundi), Calotropis sp. (Rui) and Thespesia populnea (Bheni). 1pomoea pes caprae (Bangda vel) should be allowed to grow as it can tolerate stresses such as high salinity, strong wind and sand movement. Pandanus tectorius (Bonddgi) could be planted on the seaward side (close to the area where retaining wall existed) as Pandanus trees help prevent sand erosion and bind sand on the seaward slopes of sand dunes. They are tolerant to salt spray and strong winds .”

¶120

Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.3 that the kind of plantations, which are recorded therein, have already been done at the site in question by Respondent No.3.

¶121

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has drawn our attention to the prayer clause (b) of the present Original Application, which seeks relief to the effect that Respondent No.1- GCZMA may be directed to

¶122

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶123

Page 16 of 20

¶124

ensure full and complete restoration of the sand dune in Survey No.96/1, Betalbatim to its original condition, in accordance with the GCZMA's order dated 03.07.2019 and the suggestions of the Goa State Biodiversity Board (GSBB). Regarding this relief, it is urged by him that it is time barred because by this relief, the applicant is seeking the compliance of the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the GCZMA, while the present Original Application has been filed on 25.08.2025, which is beyond 5 years’ limitation period. So, the same cannot be considered.

¶125

We are convinced with the above argument made by learned counsel for Respondent No.3 with respect to the relief (b) made by the applicant because first of all, in the Joint Inspection Report dated 28.04.2024, which is annexed at page no.54 of the paper book, it was noted by the GCZMA that as per CZMP-2011, there is no Sand Dune shown in the Survey No.96/1 of Betalbatim, Salcete, Goa. Also from the Map, which is annexed at page nos.72 & 233 of the paper book, it clearly shows Survey No.96/1 having no sand dune. So, there is no question of any restoration of the sand dune in Survey No.96/1.

¶126

The only relief, which remains to be considered by us, is as to whether the permission, which has been granted for erecting the shack in Survey No.96/1 using GI-pipes/ mild steel framed structures, could have been granted or not.

¶127

Now, we would like to go through the grounds, which have been set up by the applicant in the present Original Application, wherein it is mentioned that the GCZMA has erred in law and in its duty to protect the coastline by indiscriminately granting the impugned Permission dated 30.06.2025 to Respondent No.3. The Authority ought to have first ensured compliance with its earlier order (demolition and restoration) before

¶128

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶129

Page 17 of 20

¶130

entertaining any new proposal on the same site; the GCZMA has acted in violation of the Precautionary Principle because there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment. In the present case, rather than ensuring the sand dune was fully restored, the GCZMA allowed further construction, thereby exacerbating the risk to an already damaged ecosystem; the applicant submitted a timely objection letter dated 27.05.2025 apprising the GCZMA of the on-going non-compliance with the 2019 restoration order. However, the Authority ignored this representation outrightly. The Authority did not give the applicant an opportunity of being heard, nor did it investigate the issues raised before the proceedings to uphold the approval; further the Authority has acted with apparent negligence and malafides intention, etc.

¶131

Learned counsel for Respondent No.3-Project Proponent has filed reply affidavit dated 16.01.2026, wherein it is submitted that the Order dated 03.07.2019 of the Goa Costal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), has been duly complied with by the Answering Respondent and that the same has been duly verified by the Authorities. As regards the allegation of the applicant that there exists sand dune in Survey No.96/1 of Village Betalbatim and the same is required to be restored, it is stated that the same is a factually incorrect statement and that the same is clearly evident from perusal of the documents which are enclosed by the Applicant himself in the captioned application. The factum of non-existence of sand dune in Survey No.96/1 is evident from a bare perusal of the duly approved Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan 2011, in which it is categorically shown that there exists no sand dune in Survey No.96/1 of Village Betalbatim, Salcete Goa.

¶132

Further, it is mentioned in the above affidavit by Respondent No.3Project Proponent that the Order dated 03.07.2019, issued by the GCZMA,

¶133

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶134

Page 18 of 20

¶135

nowhere states that the sand dunes are present in Survey No.96/1 of Village Betalbatim and/ or restoration of sand dunes specifically qua the Survey No.96/1 (in respect of which survey number, the permission has been granted by the GCZMA). In the present case, since there is no sand dune in Survey No.96/1 (as per the approved GCZMA 2011 and inspection reports of the authorities), directions, if any, directing restoration of sand dune in Survey No.96/1 will be nullity in eyes of law, since authority cannot direct performance of impossibility. Hence, the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of deliberate suppression of material facts.

¶136

Further, it is mentioned in the above affidavit by Respondent No.3Project Proponent that present application is also liable to be dismissed on account of the fact that the same is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which prescribes 6 months’ period and further a condonable period of 60 more days from the date of cause of action having first arisen, which has already long passed.

¶137

As regards taking into consideration the reply affidavit dated 18.03.2026 of Respondent No.1- GCZMA, we are of the view that the relevant part of the same has already been narrated above by us, while dealing with the arguments of learned counsel for Respondent No.3-PP, therefore, the averments of the same need not be repeated again.

¶138

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire records thoroughly, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned permission granted by Respondent No.1-GCZMA for the erection of temporary restaurant/shack, wooden/biofencing, etc. at the site in question, but provided therein the condition for

¶139

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶140

Page 19 of 20

¶141

using GI-pipes/ mild steel framed structures, should not have been given because as per our own Judgment delivered in the above-mentioned Appeals, we had already expressed our opinion that such kind of permission to use GI-pipes/ mild steel framed structures would give shape of permanent structure, which ought not to have been permitted, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 8 (3) (iii) of the CRZ Goa which permits temporary kind of structures to be set up.

¶142

In view of above observations, we partly allow this appeal to the extent that in the permission granted to Respondent No.3-Project Proponent by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, they shall not be allowed to use GI-pipes/ mild steel framed structures for erecting the structures in question and shall use only bio-degradable material for erecting the same.

¶143

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

¶144

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶145

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶146

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶147

July 09, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.129 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.68 OF 2026 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶148

Original Application No.129 of 2025 (WZ)

¶149

Page 20 of 20

Colva Civic and Consumer Forum through Its President Judith Almeida v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Colva Civic and Consumer Forum through Its President Judith Almeida 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramaniyam Towers Residents Association Represented by Mr. Kannan Subbiah vs Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority Represented by Its Member Secretary

Nizamuddin West Association vs Union of India

Nizamuddin West Association vs Union of India

Nizamuddin West Association vs Union of India

Dr Jeet Singh Yadav vs

Dr Jeet Singh Yadav vs

Akhilesh Kumar vs Union of India

Arvind Singh vs Union of India

Sushilkumar Mulchandji Agrawal (Propriter of M/S Bravim Enterprise) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Rameshkumar Nanjibhai Patel vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Bhakhariya Majesh Jayantibhai (Proprietor of Maa Ambe Quarry Works) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Anita Kakkad vs Secretary Moefcc

Anita Kakkad vs Secretary Moefcc

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 7/2026 in Original Application No. 93/2023 of Taloja Industries Association vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change