National Green Tribunal
Shri Sandip Shambu Arolkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on 26 February, 2026
Item No.1 Pune Bench
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Appeal No. 351/2025(WZ)
Sandeep Arolkar Appellant
Versus
GCZMA & Ors. Respondents
Date of hearing: 26.02.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. B. Sardessai a/w Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocates
Respondents: Mr. Gajesh Vinit V. Tari, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Nitesh B. Naik, R-4 in-person (through VC) and Mr. Eeshan Usapkar,
Advocate for R-4
ORDER
1. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by respondent no.1-Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) directing the appellant Mr. Sandeep Arolkar to demolish all the structures in the subject matter of show cause notice dated 22.04.2024 in property bearing survey no.269/2, village Mandrem, Pernem, Goa and restore the land to its original use within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
2. In the impugned order, it is recorded that appellant-violator claimed to be Mundkar of house bearing no.247 (new number) and 562 (old) and stated that the structure in question existed prior to 1991. The structure in question was subsequently repaired and re-constructed vide permission dated 19.11.1986 bearing reference no. VPM/PER/NOC/86-87/191 1 issued by village Panchayat, Mandrem, copy of which is annexed at page no. 84 of the paper book. The said structure was granted Occupancy Certificate dated 14.10.1987 by the Village Panchayat, Mandrem with house no. 454/A, copy of which is annexed at page no. 87 of the paper book. Respondent no. 1-GCZMA has referred to an information obtained under RTI dated 25.09.2024 from the village Panchayat, Mandrem, produced by the complainant/respondent no. 4 where it is recorded that house no. 454/A is not registered in the records of the village Panchayat, Mandrem, the said RTI information is annexed at page no. 135 of the paper book. Further, in this order, it is noted by the authority that the appellant claimed house no. 247 (new) and 562 (old) as part of his mundkarial property but the house no.247 was shown to in existence/assessed in panchayat records only from the year 2005-2006, which is clearly indicated in RTI reply dated 29.03.2018 obtained from Village Panchayat of Mandrem, copy of this reply under RTI is annexed at page no. 88 of the paper book, wherein it is recorded that this house is registered in the name of the appellant while it is registered since the year 2005-2006 till date. Similarly, RTI response dated 29.03.2018 (at page no. 88 of the paper book), RTI response dated 16.09.2024 (at page no. 89 of the paper book) and RTI response dated 25.09.2024 (at page no. 135 of the paper book) are produced on record by respondent no. 4/complainant negates the version of the case setout of the appellant. Further in this order, it is recorded that the authority has conducted site inspection and mapping of the structures which revealed the structures ground plus three RCC structure admeasuring 116.37 square meters, ground floor RCС commercial structure consisting of two shops admeasuring 47.12 square meters and temporary shed admeasuring 27.29 square meters. The appellant did not show any document to indicate that shop existed prior to 1991 and no document is produced by the appellant in respect to temporary shed, therefore, the show cause notice dated 22.04.2024 issued showing therein 2 the illegal structures and was confirmed and the authority decided to pass order of demolition of these structures. The main arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the permission which is obtained by the appellant dated 19.11.1986 (annexed at page no. 84 of the paper book) and the Occupancy Certificate dated 14.10.1987 (annexed at page no. 87 of the paper book) with respect to the impugned structures, were not considered by the authority because these documents prove very well that the said structures existed prior to 1991. But we are not convinced with the said arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant because the RTI information dated 29.03.2018 (at page no. 88 of the paper book) and other RTI informations dated 16.09.2024 (at page no. 89 of the paper book) and 25.09.2024 (at page no. 135 of the paper book) also state that these structures were not in existence prior to 1991 and based on these informations only, GCZMA has discarded the permissions dated 19.11.1986 and the Occupancy Certificate dated 14.10.1987.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has drawn our attention to a judgment passed by the Director of Panchayat, Panaji-Goa in respect of the same property which was delivered on 03.04.2025 in Case No. DP/Appeal/28/2018 (A) & (B), Mr. Sandeep Shambhu Arolkar (appellant) vs. The Village Panchayat, Mandrem and Mr. Nitesh Bhadu Naik, wherein also, it is recorded that the appellant despite having been granted an opportunity to be heard, failed to produce any approval or legal permissions necessary under Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the applicable Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) laws and dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order of demolition passed by village Panchayat, Mandrem dated 28.06.2018.
4. Against this order, the learned counsel for the appellant apprised that a Civil Revision Application No.48/2025 was preferred before the Court of District Judge, copy of which is annexed as annexure-A8 to the 3 defective I.A., copy of it is provided today and the same is taken on record. In this revision, in para no. 3, following is mentioned:
"3. I have heard oral arguments by Ld. Advocate Shri. B. Sardessai for the applicant who has argued that with the stay application, the applicant has relied on various other documents such as application dated 19.08.1986 by Shambu Rama Arolkar, the father of the applicant, requesting for re-construction license from the Village Panchayat of Mandrem for reconstructing his existing house no.454/A at Junaswada, Mandrem in Survey No.269/2, No Objection for reconstruction and renovation of an existing plinth of house and compound wall in Survey No.269/2 of Mandrem issued by Village Panchayat of Mandrem dated 19.11.1986, Occupancy Certificate dated 14.10.1987 issued by the Village Panchayat of Mandrem to Shambu Rama Arolkar, in respect of residential house no.454/A situated in Survey No.269/2 of Junaswada, Mandrem, the copy of proposed plan for regularization of built up ground plus two structure into part of the property bearing Survey No.269/2 at Junaswada, Mandrem by Shambu Rama Arolkar having technical approval by the Asst. Engineer, PWD Health, Primary Health Centre, and based on this it was argued that these documents show that the structure was existing even prior to coming into existence of the Goa/Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 were not produced before the Ld. Director of Panchayat, and therefore, in order to decide the matter finally, the civil revision will have to be remanded back. He has argued that Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, lays down that the decision of the District court shall be final and binding on the parties to the revision, and therefore, this Court is required to protect the structure from demolition."
5. After that argument, this application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that this dismissal should not be interpreted to mean that the village Panchayat's permission dated 19.11.1986 and Occupancy Certificate dated 14.10.1987 which find mentioning in it were dealt with on merits because at the time of the disposal of this application, only urgency was being heard and it was the application for urgent hearing that was dismissed and not the matter on merit and further stressed that the revision is still pending.
6. We do not find much force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and we are of the view that these two documents which he says were not considered by the GCZMA as well as by 4 the Court of District Judge is not correct because GCZMA has discarded those two documents on the basis of RTI information, which was procured by the respondent no. 4 and based on that only, the impugned order has been passed of demolition and as regards of District Judge, despite the urgency being pressed in respect of order of demolition to be stayed, the same was not considered urgent. It would indicate that such consideration must definitely have been made of those documents by that Court also.
7. In view of above analysis made by us, we do not find force in the present Appeal and this appeal has to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM February 26, 2026 Appeal No. 351/2025(WZ) R 5