National Green Tribunal
Dilip Mangesh Morje vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on 24 April, 2026
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********
APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ)
CAVEAT NO.02 OF 2025 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Dilip Mangesh Morje
House No.1377, Temb Wada,
Morjim, Pernem,
Goa-403512
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority,
4th Floor, Dempo Towers, Patto,
Panaji, Goa, 403001
2. The Collector and District Magistrate (North),
Office of Collector (North),
Collectorate Building, Panaji,
Goa-403001
3. The Deputy Collector & SDO of Pernem,
Office of the Deputy Collector and SDO,
Pernem, Goa, 403512
4. The Secretary, Village Panchayat of Morjim, Goa,
H. No.498, Varchawada, Near Morjai Temple,
Morjim, Pernem, Goa-403512
5. Mr. Anil Prabhakar Naik
R/at: 64/F, Parel Village,
Parel Mumbai-400012
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Esheta S. Lunkad, Advocate i/b.
Mr. Chetan R. Nagare, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA
Mr. Shubham Sinai Priolkar, Advocate for R-2 & R-3
Mr. Ankur Kumar, Advocate for R-5
PRESENT:
APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 1 of 14
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member)
Reserved on : 10.04.2026
Pronounced on : 24.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, whereby direction has been issued to the appellant to demolish the following structures, standing in the property bearing Survey No.119/3 of Morjim Village, Pernem, Goa and to restore the land to its original condition :-
2. Initially, we would like to take the facts from the impugned order itself wherein it is mentioned that, a complaint was received by Respondent No.1-GCZMA from Mr. Anil Prabhakar Nail- Respondent No.5 on 25.04.2022, complaining about the illegal construction carried out by APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 2 of 14 Mrs. Lourdin D'Silva, Mr. Kundan Shashikant Morje, Mr. Vishal Alias Dipin Shirodkar Morje, Mr. Trivikram Jaidev Morje, Mr. Shamsundar Ramnath Bhosle alias Vagalkar, Dilip Manguesh Morje and one Mrs. D'Souza and her family members, in CRZ area in the property bearing Survey No.119/3 of Morjim Village. In pursuance to this Engineers and Field surveyor attached to the office of the GCZMA inspected the site and following violations were noted:-
APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 3 of 14
3. Thereafter, appellant was issued Show Cause Notice on 05.11.2024, who filed reply along with documents. Matter was considered after completion of the pleadings before the GCZMA. The advocate appearing for the appellant, stated that some of the structures are falling outside the CRZ area. The DSLR officials carried out demarcation of the structures at loco because the structures were partly located within CRZ III and partly outside. The mapping of the structure was found essential to ascertain as to which of the alleged offending structures were located outside the CRZ area. The authority in its meeting held on 14.11.2024, directed the DSLR to map the structures falling outside the CRZ area and also granted time to the complainant/Respondent No.5 to file reply. Thereafter, the matter was placed in the 421th GCZMA Meeting held on 21.11.2024, but no proper hearing could be done.
4. The hearing of substance was conducted by GCZMA on 10.12.2024, when the complainant/Respondent No.5 submitted that the appellant herein was alleging to be a Mundkar without being properly registered or declared and had constructed the structure within the NDZ area. He submitted that the documents relied upon by the appellant were to deceive the authority. The property being Survey No.119/3A was not the property in question which the Hon'ble High Court had taken cognizance of, rather, it was the property Survey No.119/3 of village Morjim. Further, he/Respondent No.5 pointed out that the permission issued by the village panchayat of Morjim dated 16.04.1988, showed the property mentioned therein bearing Survey No.119/3A. The permission which has granted by the Authority dated 27.09.2007 speaks of repair and renovation of the existing house in Survey No.119/3 and not 119/3A. The Respondent No.5/complainant has prayed that the structures in question are put up APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 4 of 14 in violation of the CRZ Notification, without any prior approval and hence prayed that the Show Cause Notice be confirmed.
5. As against this, the appellant stated that he got the requisite permission from the year 1988 and that the Authority (GCZMA) has confirmed about the existence of the structure by means of having granted the permission for repairs and renovation. Thereafter, he has also obtained the Licence from the Village Panchayat of Morjim. The permission for reconstruction and alteration of existing plinth of residential house cum commercial structure of G + 3 is also supported by a plan and thus it is stated by him that the G + 3 structures are structures which were of pre-
1991 era. The appellant clarified that there has been a typographical error at the time of mentioning the survey number in the licence on the occupancy certificate issued by the local body and that he was in the process of taking appropriate steps to rectify the said anomaly. Therefore, he prayed for withdrawal of the Show Cause Notice and drop the proceeding.
6. The GCZMA in its 424th Meeting held on 10.12.2024 considered the matter, analysed the documents and was perplexed to note that the plan which is supposedly a part and parcel of the permission so granted by the Village Panchayat of Morjim is crafted with font of computerized print. In fact, in the year 1988 there were no computers in existence in the State of Goa. Besides that the property bearing Survey No.119/3A is not belonging to the appellant herein, rather the appellant was trying to hoodwink the GCZMA by placing concocted and fabricated plan. Besides that the signature of the owner and the engineer were also found missing on this plan. The said plan bears an endorsement of the Assistant Engineer attached to sub division 3 works division 2 of PWD Pernem, which APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 5 of 14 endorsement is dated 16.04.1988. Surprisingly, this very same date is also mentioned on the permission conveyed by Village Panchayat of Morjim. The authority found it hard to conceal and conceptualize that without placing the request of the appellant in the fortnightly meeting of the Panchayat, such permission is granted by the Village Panchayat on the same very day. The plans too stood approved at the hands of the Assistant Engineer of PWD. Hence, the GCZMA was not convinced with the arguments of the appellant as regards the variance of Survey number because the appellant very well knew on which land his house was located, at the time when he had approached the GCZMA in the year 2007 through his mother namely Sarasvati Morji. The application moved by the appellant clearly mentions Survey No.119/3, the authority had also granted him the permission for repairs of house, but the photo annexed at the time of filing the application by the mother of appellant in respect of the house, for which approval was conveyed to repair the same very house is completely different. Hence, no merit is found in the defence placed by the appellant and hence the direction was given to the appellant to demolish all the structures as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice.
7. It is the above order, which has been assailed before us on the following grounds:-
(i) The GCZMA has failed to consider that the father of the appellant is residing at the Survey No.119/3 since before 1975;
(ii) The GCZMA has failed to consider that, the electricity bill submitted by the Appellant in respect of the said house has the date of energisation as 28.03.1975, which would mean that the father of the Appellant was residing in the said property before 1975. APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 6 of 14
(iii) The GCZMA has failed to consider that, the water connection bill has the issue date stated as 01.01.1981.
(iv) The GCZMA has failed to consider that, the father of the Appellant is a Mundkar and the certificate to that effect has been issued by the Joint Mamlatdar on 30.08.1983.
(v) The GCZMA has not considered the House Tax and Light Tax (appears to mean electricity receipts) dated 11.02.1986, issued by the Village Panchayat, Morjim.
(vi) The GCZMA has failed to consider that, the dwelling house is registered in the name of the father of the Appellant, i.e. Late Mr. Mangesh R. Morje, who has been a regular tax payer and the same is evident from the Tax Assessment Register of the Village Panchayat, Morjim.
(vii) The GCZMA has failed to consider that, the traditional rights of fisherman who may be authorized to construct or re-construct the old structure on the existing plan.
(viii) At the time of site inspection the appellant was not present. This fact has not been taken into consideration by GCZMA.
(ix) The GCZMA has erroneously considered the sanctioned plan as a computerized plan when in reality the plan is hand drawn and the same is evident from the bare perusal of the details of the plan.
(x) The GCZMA has failed to consider that the name of the father of the present Appellant was recorded in the revenue records of the said property, wherein it is evident that the House of the Appellant was in existence from prior to 1991.
(xi) The GCZMA has failed to consider that, the Respondent No. 5, i.e. the complainant had not produced any evidence as to what was the structure before renovation in 2008.
APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 7 of 14
(xii) The GCZMA has passed the order erroneously for demolition of entire structure without application of mind, wherein, the Appellant resides in the said house with his family and is the sole bread earner and therefore, the demolition would constitute violation of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(xiii) Lastly, it is said that the GCZMA has substantially failed to consider all the documents submitted by the Appellant.
8. Respondent No.1-GCZMA has filed their reply affidavit dated 26.04.2025, wherein it is submitted that the version of the appellant being licenced traditional fisherman is denied as no document has been filed in support thereof. The claim of the appellant to be a Mundkar is denied, as the same is not supported with any documentary evidence. A declaration of Mundkharship is a formal declaration by the Mamlatdar that a person is indeed a mundkar. Registration of mundkar is the administrative process of listing the person's name in the mundkar register. The declaration is a more conclusive and definitive determination of mundkarial rights, while registration is a preliminary record-keeping step. A mundhkar means, "a person who, with the consent of the bhatkar or the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the bhatkar lawfully resides with a fixed habitation in a dwelling house with or without obligation to render any services to the bhatkar and includes a member of his family.....".
9. The Section 2(23) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 defines the "tenant" as a person who on or after the date of commencement of this Act holds land on lease and cultivates it personally and includes a person who is/was deemed to be a tenant under this Act.
10. A person cannot be a tenant and also a Mundkar at the same time of the same property and the same Bhatkar.
APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 8 of 14
11. Further, it is mentioned that the electricity bill, water bill, house tax might be of the old house which is now not standing in the same position as it was earlier. As the violations noted at the time of Site Inspection by the Engineers of the GCZMA are that all the 8 structures are used for commercial purpose and that too without any permissions from the GCZMA.
12. The appellant had obtained permission for repairs of the structure, but there are 8 structures on site which belong to the appellant and all are used for commercial purposes.
13. The appellant has filed the Mundkar application for registration as Mundkar, which is a temporary process and does not confirm that the appellants are a Mundkar. They have not filed any application for declaration of the Mundhkarship. A Mundkar house cannot be a G+3 structure in the NDZ. The very fact that the nature of the house has changed, the old house is demolished and a new building is standing would clearly prove that the appellant has not obtained fresh permission from the GCZMA.
14. The document produced by the appellant at page No.57 of the paper book says a "Ground Floor Structure" but the violations noted by the Inspecting team of the GCZMA noted 8 structures as shown in the directions listed at page No.21 of the paper book.
15. The plan produced by the appellant, wherein the GCZMA had granted approval, it was for repairs of the structure, but the structure is not standing in the same position as it was in 2007. The plan which is supposedly a part and parcel of the permission so granted by the Village Panchayat of Morjim, is crafted with font of computerized print. This APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 9 of 14 permission is of the date 16.04.1988, when computers were not existing or available in the State of Goa. Secondly, the property bearing Survey No 119/3A does not belonging to the appellant but the appellant was trying to hoodwink the Authority by placing concocted and fabricated plan.
16. Respondent No.5- Mr. Anil Prabhakar Naik has filed reply affidavit dated 25.02.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the appellant is claiming that the house/structure is in existence even prior to 1969 and he is a mundkar, but he has not placed on record any supporting documents in his favour. There was a mud structure existing in the Survey No.119/3 and the appellant has made a false claim of Mundkarship to the illegally constructed commercial structure and is now claiming to be a Mundkar only to cover up his false and frivolous misdeed by illegal construction of structure. The answering respondent/original complainant is the owner of the Survey No.119/3. The old mud house that existed in the property bearing survey No.119/3 was illegally demolished without the permission of the village panchayat of Morjim. That the said property bearing Survey No.119/3 comes under CRZ, wherein the appellant's mother Late Smt. Saraswati M Morje obtained the permission for proposed repair and renovation of the existing house in Survey No.119/3 of Morjim, Village, Pernem Taluka dated 27.09.2007. The said permission was misused by supporting fabricated plan.
17. Further, it is mentioned that the permission for repair and renovation was limited to property bearing No. 119/3, which was misused and misled by the appellant for illegal construction in property bearing Survey No. 119/3-A, which did not exist till 2008.The property bearing Survey No. 119/3-A is belonging to M/s True Axiz Resort Pvt which was purchased from M/s R & R Resorts of West Bengal. The Appellant APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 10 of 14 manipulated and forged the House Tax by taking permission for repair in the name of his mother Late Smt. Saraswati M Morje and house Tax is in the name of his father Late Shri. Manguesh R Morje. The Appellant misused the permission for repair and renovation and managed the village panchayat Morjim by forged documents showing the year 1988 for the survey No. 119/3-A, which survey number never existed before 2008.
18. Another reply affidavit dated 09.04.2025 has been filed by the Respondent No.5- Mr. Anil Prabhakar Naik, wherein we find that the same facts have been reiterated, which are submitted in the earlier affidavit.
19. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record as well as the impugned order thoroughly.
20. The question, which has to be decided by us in this appeal, is as to whether the order of demolition passed with respect to 8 structures cited above by us, is erroneous and needs to be set aside.
21. For this, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to show the documents to prove that the said structures existed prior to 1991 and therefore, they could not be ordered to be demolished.
22. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention at page No.103A of the paper book, a plan which is signed by Village Panchayat, Pernem Goa as well as by Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-III, W.D.II (R&D), PWD Department. If we make a close scrutiny of this plan, Area Statement is showing as Ground Floor = 283.12 Sq. Mtrs.; First Floor = 122.29 Sq. Mtrs.; Total = 407.11 Sq. Mtrs. and by the side of it Area Statement is recorded of Ground Floor = 170.12 Sq. Mtrs.; First Floor = 170.12 Sq. Mtrs.; Second Floor = 217.45 Sq. Mtrs.; Third Floor = 222.81 Sq. Mtrs.; Total = 780.61 Sq. Mtrs. A perusal of these details would APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 11 of 14 indicate that this plan cannot be a genuine one because the structure is said to be G+1 Floor while the area is recorded of G+1+2+3 Floor which is incongruous. We find that GCZMA has also discarded this plan because this plan is forged and at the time this plan was prepared, when the computers were not in existence in the State of Goa, while it appears that it was made by the computer. More so, it relates to the Survey No.119/3- A, which is not the survey number in question as the same is Survey No.119/3. For these anomalies we are also of the view that the GCZMA has rightly discarded this plan which is being said to be basis on which construction was done at the site in question.
23. Next our attention was drawn to page No.29 of the paper book, which is electricity bill energized on 28.03.1975 in the name of the father of the appellant issued by the State Electricity Department, Government of Goa. Based on this, it is said by learned counsel for the appellant that this State of energisation will prove prima facie that the structure in question existed prior to 1991, but we are not in agreement with the said argument because electricity bill cannot be taken to prove that the structure in question existed prior to 1991 and the view taken in this regard by the GCZMA is also found to be correct.
24. Next our attention was drawn to page No.30 of the paper book, which is water tax pertaining to house No.1377 in the name of Mangesh Morje father of the appellant which shows that meter was fixed on 01.01.1981 and the bill was issued on 10.05.2011. But we do not find this document sufficient to prove that the disputed structure existed prior to 1991 on the basis of this document.
25. Next our attention was drawn to page No.31 of the paper book, which is a receipt of house tax in the name of Mangesh R. Morje father of APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 12 of 14 the appellant, is of the year 1985 to 1986 and has been issued on 11.02.1986. But this house tax receipt cannot prove that it relates to the same structure which is impugned herein. Moreover, house No.32 is also indicated in this receipt. Nowhere, in the pleadings have we found that the house No.32 belongs to the appellant. This receipt is also rightly discarded.
26. Next our attention was drawn to page No.81 of the paper book, which is an occupancy certificate issued by village Panchayat Morjim in the name of Mangesh R. Morje father of the appellant, but it bears the Survey No.119/3-A which is not the survey number involved herein therefore this document will not have any benefit to the appellant.
27. Next our attention was drawn to page No.82 of the paper book, which is a certificate issued by village Panchayat Morjim to certify the house number of the appellant's-father from time to time. But this document will not give any benefit with respect to the structure in question being in existence prior to 1991.
28. Next our attention was drawn to page No.35 of the paper book, which is house tax assessment register wherein the name of Mangesh R. Morje father of the appellant is recorded and it belongs to 1988-1989 and based on that, it is urged that the structures in question existed prior to 1991. But, it is not possible to conclude that the structures in question is prior to 1991 based on this document and tax assessment was done for the disputed structures.
29. Next our attention was drawn to page No.51 of the paper book, which is a permission granted by Member Secretary, GCZMA to the mother of the appellant i.e. Smt. Saraswati M. Morje for proposed repair and APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 13 of 14 renovation of the existing house in Survey No.119/3 of Village Morjim, wherein permission for repair and renovation of the existing house in Survey No.119/3 of Morjim village, not exceeding existing FSI, existing plinth area and existing density has been granted, subject to certain conditions laid down therein. Perusal of this document would show that though the permission was granted by Member Secretary, GCZMA for repair of the earlier house which stood at that point in time at the site in question belonging to the mother of the appellant but instead of its repair it appears that the entire house was demolished and new structures have been erected in its place, misusing this permission. The said structures is not standing in the same position as it was in 2007 and therefore in this regard the conclusion drawn by the GCZMA is found to be correct.
30. Therefore we, after having scrutinized the above documents and all the other documents, which were placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant for proving that the impugned structures stood prior to 1991, the same is not found established and therefore, we do not find infirmity in the impugned order and order of demolition of eight structures cited in the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly we uphold the order passed by GCZMA and dismiss this appeal.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM April 24, 2026 APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) CAVEAT NO.02 OF 2025 (WZ) SAR APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 14 of 14