National Green Tribunal
Nifty Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on 17 March, 2026
Item No.1
(Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
I.A.No.49/2026(WZ)
I.A.No.50/2026(WZ)
In
Appeal No.66/2026(WZ
Nifty Fernandes
.....Appellant
Versus
Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Ors.
....Respondents
Date of hearing: 17.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant : Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Shubham Sinai Prilokar, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the order dated 19.11.2025, whereby the respondent no.1- Goa Coast Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) has ordered to demolish the offending structure in the property bearing Survey No. 119/1 of Village Siolim of Bardez Taluka within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
2. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Site Inspection Report (Mapping), which is annexed from page no. 43 to 45, the appellant namely Nifty Fernandes, is entered at Serial No. A, indicating therein that the structure under consideration lies in Survey No. 119/1 of Siolim Village Bardez Taluka and within CRZ III (River-NDZ) as per CZMP 2011. As per the mapping, the plinth area of structure is approximately 153.00 sqm. The structure is a ground +1 floor permanent structure. This structure is not specifically indicated in the map which is annexed at page no. 45 of the paper book. Therefore, he prays that a clarification from the GCZMA may be sought as to which part of the structure is ordered to be demolished, before passing the order in the present case.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.04.2022, which is annexed as Annexure A-3, wherein the description of property, which is ordered to be demolished, records Illegal Construction of Ground + 1 floor in Survey No. 119/1 Siolim Village.
4. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the GCZMA upon the receipt of the report from the Additional Collector -I North Goa, which listed the various encroachments in Government land bearing Survey No. 119/1 of Village Siolim Bardez Goa carried out by various individuals, forwarded to CRZ with a direction to initiate action. The appellant had relied on the judgment passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez in case no. MND/Reg/Siolim/8/95 dated 12/12/2000; wherein their claim was that they had been in occupation of the structure prior to 1991 and that they had a house which was surveyed under Survey No. 119/12 and outhouse in Survey No. 119/11.
5. Further, in this order, it is also recorded that the Joint Mamlatdar has declared a person a Mundkar in two Survey Nos. i.e. 119/12 and 119/11. Both the survey numbers form a distinct property far away from each other. The Mundkar Act clearly states that Section 2(p) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, is that a "mundkar" is a person who resides with a "fixed habitation" in a dwelling house. The court ruled that a person cannot claim "fixed habitation" in two different places simultaneously within the same city. Therefore, an individual who has already been registered or declared as a Mundkar for one house cannot claim Mundkar status for a second house.
6. The GCZMA noted that the same Mundkar order dated 12/12/2000, has been used by Esmeralda Fernandes (mother of the appellant), Joe Fernandes (father of the appellant) and the appellant- Nifty Fernandes.
7. Further, it is recorded in this order that as per the admission of the appellant, they have undertaken reconstruction of the existing structures without permission from the GCZMA.
8. The appellant has taken undue advantage of the Mundkar Order and under this Act is now trying to legalize the illegal structure erected by them. The appellant says that he is using the structures bearing Survey No. 119/12 as his house. The appellant is also relying on the same Mundkar Order saying that he is residing in the house situated in Survey No. 119/12 and has carried out reconstruction of the structure without obtaining permission from the GCZMA. The authority, therefore, held three people are claiming ownership of one Mundkarial house, therefore, a fresh site inspection was conducted. The GCZMA in order to confirm the location of the structures on site, carried out ground trothing of the structures on 04/09/2024 and plotted the same on the survey plan (Structure of the appellant is identified in the blue colour).
9. We may mention here that the survey which is said to have been conducted does not appear to have been placed on record in which the said structure is shown in blue colour. Therefore, we direct the GCZMA as well as the learned counsel for the appellant to place this survey on record for our perusal.
10. Further, it is mentioned in this order that thereafter, the GCZMA superimposed the structures on site with the structures existing at the time of promulgation (we are not sure of what it means therefore we need a clarification from the GCZMA as well as from the appellant in this appeal before the next date).
11. It is further mentioned that the Plan clearly shows that the structure bearing Survey No. 119/12 and 119/11 are not in the same position as they were at the time of promulgation.
12. Further in this order, it is noted by the GCZMA that even though it shows that there existed a small structure on site at the time of promulgation of the survey records. In the present case, the structure existing on the appointed day is no longer in existence but has been demolished and reconstructed with both horizontal and vertical extensions without taking any permission. Therefore, in the considered opinion of GCZMA, the entire structure is in violation and hence is ordered to be demolished. Further, it is directed to the Deputy Collector to identify the legal plinth available in the Survey records and demolish all constructions beyond available legal plinth.
13. Further, it was directed to the Deputy Collector to correctly identify the illegal portion/structure before demolishing it.
14. We find the impugned order to be erroneous because it appears from a perusal of the same that without proper identification of the structure, it has ordered to be demolished.
15. The appellant has moved an I.A. No. 49 of 2026 seeking condonation of 56 days' delay in filing the present appeal.
16. Registry is directed to issue Notice to the Respondent nos. 2 to 5, on delay condonation application as well as in the main appeal, returnable within 04(four) weeks. Till then, no demolition order of the structure in question shall be done.
17. Appellant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the Respondents by both ways (Dasti as well as by Registered Post) and also on available e-mail/Whatsapp., and submit service affidavit within one week.
18. Appellant is also directed to supply copy of the application and relevant documents to the Respondents within a week.
19. Respondents are directed to submit their reply affidavits within four weeks through e-filing and also circulate the same to the appellant and also the other Respondents by available e-mail.
20. Put up this matter for next consideration on 24.04.2026.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM March 17, 2026 I.A.No.49/2026(WZ) I.A.No.50/2026(WZ) In Appeal No.66/2026(WZ J.G.