National Green Tribunal
Colva Civic And Consumer Forum vs State Of Goa on 15 July, 2022
1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
Appeal No.03/2022 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
COLVA CIVIC & CONSUMER FORUM
Registered under No. 268/GOA/2009
H.No. 257/1, Bagdem, Ward 3, Colva,
Salcete -- Goa -- 403708.
Through its President Ms Judith Almeida
Aged 6ó years,
Daughter of Joseph Henry Baptiste
R/o H.No. 257/1, Bagdem,
Ward 3, Colva,
Salcete -- Goa -- 403708
Phone No: 9823085206 Appellant(s)
Versus
1. THE STATE OF GOA,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Having its office at Secretariat
Korvprim- Goa. 403 501.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority.
4'h floor, Dempo Towers, Patto-Plaza
Panaji- Goa, 403 001
Email: [email protected]
3. THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SERNABATIM,
VANELIM, COLVA & GANDAULIM
Through Its Secretary,
Colva, Salcete- Goa 403 708
Ph: 0832 2788485
Email: [email protected]
4. MRS.MARIA FILOMENA FURTADO
Major of age
2
Resident of H No.93.
Ambeaxir, Sernabatim,
Colva, Salcete,
Goa 403 708.
5. ANTONIO BEMARDO MASCARENHAS
Major of age
Resident of H No 15,
Cavorim, Molla, Chandor,
Salcete -- Goa 403 714
Mob No. 9822169183; 9850925616. Respondent(s)
Appellant(s): Ms. Babra Andrade and Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocates
Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Mr. Anurang Sharma
Advocates for GCZMA, R-2
Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for R-4.
Mr. Byron Rodrigues, Advocate for R-5.
PRESENT:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Reserved on : 05.07.2022
Pronounced on : 15.07.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The instant Appeal has been preferred against the permissions dated 06.02.2019, 20.10.2021 and 21.10.2022 granted by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority/Respondent No.2 to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the construction of shacks and huts in the property Survey Nos. 12/1, 12/3,12/1-A and 12/4 of village Sernabatim, Colva, Salcete, Goa and also the prayer is made for directions to be issued to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, restraining them 3 from carrying out construction of retaining wall, shacks and huts on the above said survey numbers.
The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
2. The Appellant is a Forum comprising of citizens of the Villages of Sernabatim Vanelim, Colva, and Gandaulim, (In short "SVCG"), who are concerned about the large scale illegal and unplanned construction and development that is being undertaken in their Villages. The forum has been formed to protect and preserve civic and consumer rights, which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Along with Sernabatim there exists a large immovable agricultural property known as "Adampoi Prias", surveyed under Survey Nos. 12/1, 12/2,12/3,12/4, 12/5 of village Sarnabatim, Salcete-Goa, which predominantly consists of sand dunes as is confirmed by the Expert Member of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) in inspection reports dated 05.05.2014 and 17.12.2019. The complaints were made against Respondent No. 4 with respect to the serious violations by them in the properties bearing Survey Nos. 12/1 to 12/5 of village Sernabatim, wherein they had made illegal construction in the No Development Zone (NDZ) within 200 mtrs of the High Tide Line (HTL), upon which inquiries were conducted by the GCZMA, and vide its order dated 17.09.2014, Respondent No.4 and others were directed to demolish the retaining wall constructed along the sea, concrete rings constructed around the coconut trees and parking lot comprising 4 concrete balusters. The relevant portion of the order is quoted in the memo of Appeal in paragraph-6 as follows:
"NOW, THEREFORE, the GCZMA in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 29 of 1986) read with sub-rule (3) (a) of Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, delegated to the GCZMA, the GCZMA hereby directs Mrs. Marta Filomena Furtado, Mr Shilston Furtado, Mr. Pio Furtado & Mr. Joao Inacio Furtado to demolish the retaining wall constructed along the sea, concrete rings constructed along the coconut tree and parking lot comprises of concrete balusters constructed in survey no. l2/1 to 12/5 of village Sernabatim, Salcete Taluka, Goa and restore the land to its original condition, within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the concerned Deputy Collector of South to verify if the structure is removed and in the event it is not removed as per these directions, then the Deputy Collector shall remove the said structure after the stipulated time of two weeks and recover the expenses incurred from the violators i.e. Mrs Maria Filomena Furtado, Mr. Shilston Furtado, Mr. Pio Furtado Mr. Joao Inacio Furtado including order of disconnection of water/power supply without any further notice; as though they were arrears of Land Revenue and report to this Office in compliance of the directions."
3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.09.2014 Mr Rabindra Dias and another filed Appeal No 35/2014 before this Tribunal, while Respondent No. 4 and others filed Appeal bearing No.33/2014 which were decided by common Judgment and Order dated 2nd July, 2015, allowing the Appeal No.35/2014 and dismissing the Appeal No.33/2014. The relevant portion of the final order is quoted in paragraph 7 of the memo of Appeal.
" 24. Taking a stock of forgoing discussion and reasons, we hold that the impugned order of GCZMA, is illegal, 5 improper and incorrect. It is illegal as regards dismissal of the case put forth by Rabindra Dias and others (Appeal No.35 of 2014) and is legal one to the extent of part of demolition of boundary wall comprising concrete boulders and retaining wall of mesh. Consequently, the Appeal preferred by Mrs. Maria Furtado and others (Appeal No.33 of 2014), is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to Respondent No.2 Rabindra Dias and Respondent No.3- Mr. Santana Piedade Afonso, the Appellants in Appeal No.35 of 2014. Accordingly, the Appeal No.35 of 2014, is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Instead of impugned order, we direct that the entire construction of the house property and retaining wall around the house property, Guest-house, called 'Furtado Guest House' as well all other constructions standing in land Survey Nos.12/1 to 12/5, within NDZ of Sernabatim village, shall be demolished within period of eight (8) weeks by the Collector, South Goa. Compliance of these directions be reported to this Tribunal within two (2) weeks thereafter. If required, the Collector, may use police force, as per the Law for work of demolition, in case of resistance by Furtado family members or any third party put forth by them for such purpose. Both the Appeals are disposed of accordingly i.e. by allowing Appeal No.35 of 2014 and dismissing Appeal No.33 of 2014. Costs as awarded above. All Misc. Applications also stand disposed of in above Appeals as may have been pending."
4. The said order dated 02.07.2015 was assailed by Respondent No.4 and others before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 4444-4445/2017 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.03.2019.
5. Respondent No 4 and others had failed to demolish the illegal retaining wall, concrete pathway, soak pits and tar road in the property mentioned above, required to be demolished as per the order of this Tribunal dated 02.07.2015, hence Execution Application 6 bearing No. 10/2019 was filed by Mr. Santana Afonso and other, wherein the Tribunal passed order dated 28.10.2019 directing the GCZMA to ensure that the retaining wall around the guest house standing on the said property is demolished. The relevant paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the order are quoted in memo of appeal as follows:
"6. Learned counsel for the applicant says that retaining wall around the Furtado Guest house standing on the Land Sy. No. 12/1 to 12/5within the NDZ of Sernabatim village has still not been demolished. This is disputed by learned counsel for the GCZMA.
7. We, however, direct the GCZMA to check up the factual aspect and if the retaining wall which is said to have been demolished has still not been demolished, the same may be ensured expeditiously.
6. Pursuant to the said order dated 28.10.2019, R2-GCZMA issued a site inspection notice dated 14.07.2021 to Respondent No.4 and others, however, the officials of GCZMA till date have failed to carry out site inspection. Thereafter, it is submitted that R2-GCZMA instead of demolishing the illegal retaining wall, proceeded to grant alleged impugned permissions to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 for erecting shacks and huts in the above-mentioned survey numbers. Respondent No.4, besides the construction of shacks and huts by destroying the sand dunes, has also started reconstruction of the retaining wall which had collapsed due to the Monsoon in Survey No.12/1-A, 12/2 and 12/4 of village Sernabatim, it has caused severe damage to sand dunes. It is further submitted that the Expert Members of R2-GCZMA, pursuant to Applications dated 04.11.2019 and 08.11.2019, filed by Respondent No.4 seeking permission of the 7 construction of shacks and huts, conducted a site inspection on 17.12.2019 of Survey No.12/1-A, 12/4 and prepared two site inspection reports, stating that Survey Nos.12/1-A and 12/4, consist of pioneer sand dunes. In spite of the said reports Respondent No.2, went ahead to grant the impugned permission to Respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that Survey No.12/1 and 12/3 of village Sernabatim also consists of pioneer sand dunes but ignoring that permission has been granted by letter dated 06.02.2019 for construction of shacks and huts to Respondent No.5 by R2- GCZMA. Further, it is submitted that in the year 2014, the Expert Members of GCZMA upon conducting site inspection of Survey No.12/1 to 12/5, had drawn a report dated 05.05.2014, mentioning about the existence of sand dunes upon those Survey Numbers, the relevant portion of which is quoted in paragraph 17 of the memo of appeal. Thereafter, R2/ GCZMA, on the basis of the said report dated 05.05.2014, directed vide order dated 17.09.2014 to demolish the illegal construction in Survey No.12/1 to 12/5. The relevant portion of the order is quoted in para No.18 of the memo of appeal. It is further submitted that R2- GCZMA, prior to granting impugned permissions, mentioned about its Expert Members opinion in 242nd minutes of the Meeting dated 07.01.2021, that no more permissions for the construction of huts can be granted in the property Survey No.12/1-A and 12/4, since the limit of beach carrying capacity had already been exhausted. Respondent No.2 also granted to Respondent No.5 permission for the construction of shacks and huts in property 8 bearing Nos.12/1 and 12/3, without asking for the beach carrying capacity report. The GCZMA in its 191st meeting had recommended to grant permission to Respondent No.5 only with regard to Survey No.12/3, however, it fraudulently went ahead and granted permission with regard to Survey No.12/1 as well. The email dated 15.07.2021 of the Expert Member Mr. Flaviano Jose Miranda of Respondent No.2, who had submitted his earlier inspection report dated 17.12.2019, conveyed his decision to R2- GCZMA of not wanting to be part of the decision in approving the temporary structures to be constructed by Respondent No.4 in the impugned survey numbers. It is further mentioned that despite several complaints of various dates made by one Mr Santana Piedade Afonso and the Appellant to Respondent No.2 against Respondent Nos.4 and 5, Respondent No.2 went ahead with granting impugned permissions.
7. It is further submitted that National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) in its beach carrying capacity report has mentioned the carrying capacity of the beaches of Sernabatim beach only to the extent of three (3) shacks. The NCSCM has prepared the beach carrying capacity report in order to enable better planning for development, concurrently safeguarding ecological and environmental social concerns and for sustainable coastal management, since the developmental activities are leading to the deterioration of the coastal areas of Goa. Further, it is submitted that sand dunes are classified as Coastal Regulation Zone-I (CRZ) under the CRZ Regulations, 2011, where no development is permissible, 9 except those specified under Regulation 8 of the CRZ regulations. Construction of shacks are not permitted hence the impugned permissions granted to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are wholly contrary to the CRZ Regulations because the sand dunes are considered eco- sensitive zones as they protect the ecology as they act as barriers and prevent flooding and ingress of tidal waters during storms, cyclones etc. into the settlement areas and also serve as natural anti-erosion protection. It is further submitted that the Appellant came to know about such permissions dated 06.02.2019 granted to Respondent No.5 by Respondent No .2 upon receiving the reply dated 21.12.2020 along with documents from R2-GCZMA made under the RTI Act,2005, and with respect to the permissions dated 20.10.2021 and 21.10.2021 granted to Respondent No.4, he came to know when he received a reply dated 24.11.2021 from Respondent No.2 in response to his the Application dated 25.10.2021 made under the RTI Act. The first cause of action arose on 21.12.2020, and later on 24.11.2021 when the Appellant learnt about the grant of permissions. The main ground which has been stated in the appeal is that the impugned permissions are in direct contradiction to the site inspection reports dated 05.05.2014 and 17.12.2019 submitted by none other than the Expert Member of R2- GCZMA, and by overlooking these two reports of the Expert Members Respondent No.2 has granted the impugned permissions. Hence this appeal.
THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2-GCZMA RECEIVED ON 11.05.2022.
10
8. The stand taken by Respondent No.2 is that the permissions for construction granted by it are for temporary structures as per Clause 8 (V) (3) (iii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, as per the due procedure. The answering Respondent filed a compliance report dated 27.06.2019 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Execution Application No.10/2019. Pursuant to the order dated 28.10.2019, in EA No.10 of 2019 a site inspection was conducted by Respondent No. 2 on 13.04.2022, and it was found that the wall in question was demolished. However, remains/debris was seen on the site. The small portion of Survey No.12/4 had been protected by stacking sandbags. However, debris of the retaining wall was not seen exposed as on date. It is submitted that in the light of above, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. The answering Respondent received the Application on 3.11.2017 from Respondent No.5, seeking permission to erect eight huts and one shack in Survey No.12/3 and in Survey No.12/1, Sernabatim Village, Taluka Salcete, Goa. After considering it, the Expert Member of answering Respondent conducted site inspection and observed the following observations:
" i. No structures are erected at site.
ii. Site is clear with small bushes which needs to be cleared.
iii. CRZ Survey map should be submitted.
iv. consent from GSPCB for establishment should be submitted.
NOC can be issued to the applicant after taking CRZ Survey map and consent to establishment by GSPCB.' 11
10. Pursuant to consideration upon the said the Application in 191st meeting dated 04.01.2019 of the answering Respondent, it granted approval to Respondent No .5 with respect to the above-
mentioned property and granted permission dated 06.02.2019 to Respondent No.4 for the erection of temporary huts in the property bearing Survey Nos.12/1 and 12/3. Thereafter, on 04.11.2019, the answering Respondent received an Application from Respondent No.4 to construct one shack and eight huts on Survey No.12/4, and another Application dated 08.11.2019 to construct one shack on Survey No.12/1-A. Thereafter, the Expert Member of answering Respondent Mr.F.J.Miranda, conducted a Site Inspection of the aforesaid properties on 17.12.2019, in order to ascertain whether the said plot is an ESA/sand dune and it was stated by him that it was not affected by HTL. However, the Expert Member made following remarks:
"4. The proposed structure appears to be on a large Frontal pioneer sand dunes.
...
15. Authority office may prepare a background note on the history of the Court cases related to the applicants and her family properties. Inspection report of Expert Members who have visited the site in the past may be made available for perusal."
11. In the light of the above report, it was concluded that the case will be considered after further scrutiny upon receipt of the above documents and information.
12
12. On 18.12.2019 answering Respondent received a letter from Respondent No.4 along with the NCSCM plan of the properties showing that as per the said plan Survey No.12/4 is clear and open with no sand dunes in it and that no sand dunes are shown in the property Survey Nos.12/1,12/2,12/3,12/4,12/5 and 12/6. Respondent No.4 further submitted that the property bearing Survey No.12/1-A was not the subject matter of dispute before the Court. The answering Respondent deliberated upon the aforementioned issue on 04.03.2020 inter alia to decide on Applications dated 29.10.2019, 08.11.2019 and 04.11.2019 from Mr. Pio Jose Antonio Furtado and Ms.Maria Filomena Furtado in Survey No.12/1-A and 12/4 and decided as follows:
" Applicant was of the opinion that orders of demolition were passed by NGT as against the Applicant to do away with all offending structures that existed in property bearing Survey No. 12/1 to 12/5 in Village Sernbatim, Salcete, Goa. It had also observed that the said structures ordered to be demolished was located on a sand dune in the Order passed by this Authority. The Applicant had disputed the existence of this sand dune stating that it is not reflecting on the draft CZMP prepared for the State of Goa by NCSCM Chennai, The members also pointed out that in the said orders of demolition that had been passed by this Authority in the past, the owners of the offending structure were also directed to pay the costs towards demolition of the same. They stated that machinery of the Govt. cannot be used at the whims of the owners of offending structures who construct illegal structures & go scot free after demolition & that a precedent has to be laid down that the polluter has to pay for the wrongs committed performed by him. The Authority thus deemed it fit to call upon the Applicant to place on record a study report from any accredited agency approved by MoEF & CC., who normally prepare EIA's to ascertain the existence of sand dune & only after payment of the costs incurred towards demolition of the offending 13 structures to give a final call to the request made by the applicant as to whether to give approvals to set up shacks/huts or not."
13. Accordingly, a letter dated 06.03.2020 was written by answering Respondent to Respondent No.4 to place on record a study report from any accredited agency approved by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC), which normally prepared EIA to ascertain the existence of sand dunes and in addition to that answering Respondent also issued a letter dated 28.04.2020 to the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Salcete Margao Goa, with regard to "classification of land bearing Survey No. 12/1-A and 12/4 of village Sernabatim in Salcete Taluka as per sand dune mapping by NCSCM.", seeking the concerned clarification, stating Survey Numbers of the properties are not mentioned in the said sand dune maps prepared by NCSCM, Chennai and hence it becomes difficult to understand and know as to which of the property is sand dunes or not. In response to the letter dated 28.04.2020, the Inspector of Survey and Land records, Margao. Goa wrote back to Answering Respondent on 06.07.2020 stating that the office Field Surveyor conducted a site inspection on 08.06.2020 and reported that the property bearing Survey Nos. 12/1-A and 12/4 of the said Village is not a sand dune as per the sand dune mapping plan and classification plan received along with enclosure which is prepared by the NCSCM, and the following was observed in the site inspection report inter alia;
"It has been verified with the village plan of Sernabatim and seen that the clarification plan of sand dunes is matching 14 only along the sea coast and also carried out site inspection of Survey No. 12/I-A and 12/4 to confirm with the coordinates provided by NCSCM using the latitude longitude Mobile App and has been confirmed that the property bearing Survey No. 12/1-A and 12/4 of Village Sernabatim of Salcete Taluka is not a sand dune as per the sand dune mapping plan & classification plan received along with enclosure which is prepared by the NCSCM."
14. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 09.12.2020, answering Respondent had communicated the Site Inspection Report dated 06.07.2020 to Mrs. Domitra Almeida.
15. It is further submitted that in response to the letter dated 06.03.2020, Respondent No.4 submitted a Site Assessment Report for evaluating the probable presence of sand dunes within the property bearing Survey No.12/1-A and 12/4 of Sernabatim prepared by Sadekar Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., QCI-NABET accredited EIA consultancy wherein it was concluded as inter alia:
i. Site Photographs revealing the physiographic condition of the property indicate a flat and stabilized topography,with the habilitated condition over a longer period, which shows that they are devoid of sand dunes.
ii. The topographical Survey map of India (1967) combined with the latest editions does not indicate the presence of sand dunes within the property. The site is marked as an orchard with a coconut plantation with the presence of Coconut in Sy. No. 12/4, used by local fishermen for storing fishing gears.
iii. Google Image of 2003 displays almost a flat topography, indicating a barren flat terrain, gently sloping in E-W direction, devoid of any significant vegetation cover. Time-series studies of Google Images from 2003 to 2020 indicate little or no change in the topographic conditions within the plots, which suggests that both the plots are devoid of sand dunes.
iv. The report on the "Coastal Sand dunes of Goa", prepared by NCSCM using high resolution aerial photographs indicates that 15 the property with Sy. Nos 12/4 and 12/1-A of Sernabatim Village is devoid of sand dunes.
v. The Contour plan of both the properties depicts a relatively flat terrain, which indicates that the property is devoid of sand dunes.
vi. The Draft CZMP by NCSCM and the revised draft CZMP 2011 of Colva Panchayat (Sernabatim Village) has clearly differentiated between "Sand dune" and "Sand Dune Area", which are clearly marked s CRZ-I areas, whereas, the reference properties with Sy. Nos. 12/4 and 12/1-A do not come under any documentary evidence of such areas marked on these plots. This confirms that the property bearing Sy. Nos 12/4 and 12/1-A do not come under any documentary evidence of such areas marked on these plots. This confirms that the properties bearing Sy. No.s 12/4 and 12/1- A are devoid of Sand Dunes CZA/IP 2006 prepared by Land Department jointly with NICE, Dona Paula depicts the presence of structures in the reference plots in the Village Map of Sernabatim.
vii. The Land and Land Use Pattern which is used for the preparation of Regional plan 2020 of Sernabatim depicts the properties with Sy. Nos 12/4 and 12/1-A in Settlement Zone and no ecologically sensitive area such as Sand Dunes are depicted on the plan of the site under reference, indicating that the property is devoid of any sand dunes. Based On the above-mentioned facts and the analyses of the secondary data sets for the period from 1968 to 2020, followed by the physical and ground truth surveys, it is concluded that:
No sand dunes exists within the site proposed for the placement of temporary structures and within the property bearing Sy. No.s 12/4 and 12/1/A of Sernabatim Village
16. On 07.01.2021 the matter was placed for consideration in the 241st Meeting of R2- GCZMA, wherein the following was observed:
" The case may be considered after scrutiny upon receipt of documents & disposed of complaint. Reports from accredited agencies and payments of the bill raised by PWD for Demolition. "16
17. On the same day, in the Meeting held on 07.01.2021 under the head "Discussion over Beach Carrying Capacity and Sand Dune Survey report of NCSCM" the following was pointed out inter alia:
"The Authority during discussions over applications made by different project proponents for the erection of temporary structures areas coming under CRZ Regulations have observed that quite often the Sand Dune Survey Report is at variance with findings of the Expert Members and thereby cause confusion. Similar is the case with Beach Carrying Capacity Report.
The Chairperson decided to hold an online meeting with NCSCM to have awareness workshop with all the members of the new CZMA as both the report are prepared prior to notification of current CZMA, so that the Authority can have clarity while over the concepts and assumptions used by NCSCM in preparing both documents."
18. Thereafter, the matter again came up for consideration in 244th Meeting held on 25.01.2021, wherein it was observed inter alia:
Proceedings: The Ld. Adv Bhobde appeared for the applicant and argued the matter on ground that beach carrying capacity concerns with public beach, not private areas.
Decision: The Authority decided to defer the matter as in previous meeting the authority has already decided to do consultation with NCSCM over beach carrying capacity."
19. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.10.2021, permission/approval was granted by Respondent No.2/ Answering Authority to Ms. Maria Filomena Furtado, for the erection of one Shack made of wood or any other natural/biodegradable material, for a built-up area of 144.00 sq. mtrs on the property bearing Survey No. 12/1-A under the provisions of Clause 8(V)(3)(iii) of CRZ Notification 2011, subject to conditions specified in beach Carrying Capacity report and other specified conditions.
17
20. Further, vide order dated 21.10.2022 answering Respondent granted the permission/approval to Respondent No.4 for erecting temporary one shack and eight huts for a built-up area of 698.32 sq. mtrs on the property Survey No. 12/4, subject to conditions specified in beach Carrying Capacity report and other specified conditions.
21. It is further submitted that the answering Respondent granted these approvals as per extant Rules and Regulations subject to the beach carrying capacity report after being satisfied that there are no sand dunes on the site as alleged.
22. It is further submitted that in so far as the allegations with respect to the legal antecedents for the subject property and the Execution Application No. 10/2019 are concerned, in 2013, one Mr. Rabindra Dias and Mr. Santana Piedade Afonso filed a PIL WP No. 04/2013 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa, complaining against the illegal permanent constructions in Survey Nos. 12/1 to 12/5, which was disposed of directing the Answering Respondent to conclude on the said issue within two weeks. Accordingly, the Answering Respondent vide Demolition order dated 17.09.2014 directed to demolish the retaining wall constructed along the sea, concrete rings constructed along the coconut tree and parking lot comprising of concrete balusters constructed in Survey Nos. l2/1 to 12/5. Aggrieved by the said order dated I7.09.2014, Mr. Rabindra Dias filed Appeal bearing No. 35/2014 before the this Tribunal against the direction of demolition of aforesaid three structures, and vide 18 common order dated 02.07.2015, the Appeal No. 33/2015 (WZ) and Appeal No. 35/2015(WZ) were decided wherein following was held :
"24. Taking a stock of forgoing discussion and reasons, we hold that the impugned order of GCZMA, is illegal, improper and incorrect. It is illegal as regards dismissal of the case put forth by Rabindra Dias and others (Appeal No.35 of 2014) and is legal one to the extent of the part of demolition of boundary wall comprising concrete boulders and retaining wall of mesh. Consequently, the Appeal preferred by Mrs. Maria Furtado and others (Appeal No.33 of 2014), is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to Respondent No.2 Rabindra Dias and Respondent No.3- Mr. Santana Piedade Afonso, the Appellants in Appeal No.35 of 2014. Accordingly, the Appeal No.35 of 2014, is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Instead of impugned order, we direct that the entire construction of the house property and retaining wall, around the house property, Guest-house, called 'Furtado Guest House' as well all other constructions standing in land Survey Nos.12/1 to 12/5, within NDZ of Sernabatim village, shall be demolished (J) Appeal. Nos.33 & 35 of 2014 Page 24 of 23 within period of eight (8) weeks by the Collector, South Goa....."
23. The Respondent No. 4 along with her other relatives, challenged the aforesaid order dated 02.07.2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal 4444-4445/2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2020, thereafter, Mr. Rabindra Dias filed EA No.10/2019, before this Tribunal for the execution of order dated 02.07.2015, pursuant to which answering Respondent issued a letter dated 08.04.2019 to the Collector & District Magistrate (South), Margao-Goa and to the Deputy Collector & SDO Salcete, Margao-Goa, to comply and execute the directions of the Tribunal and carry out the demolition of illegal structures in terms of the Judgment dated 02.07.2015.
19
24.The R2-GCZMA wrote another letter dated 07.05.2019 to the concerned authority directing strict compliance of the judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed by this Tribunal in letter and spirit; thereafter the compliance report dated 27.0ó.2019 was sent intimating the Answering Respondent that all the structures and the retaining wall around the Furtado Guest House standing on Survey Nos. l2/1 to 12/5 within the NDZ of Sernabatim Village were demolished except for one structure which seemed to be piggery and barring some structures belonging to Mr. Reinedious Goes alias Remy Goes, Mr. Domingos Crasto, and Mr. Lawrence Farnandes. Thereafter vide Order dated 28.10.2020, this Tribunal disposed of Execution Application No. 10/2019 by passing the order which has been quoted above in para-5.
25. With reference to Civil Appeal No. 4444- 4445/20I7 dated 14.07.2021, the Answering Respondent sent the Inspection Notice to Respondent No.4 and her relatives, with regard to Inspection/Verification of the retaining wall of Furtado Guest House in Survey Nos. 12/1 to 12/5 of Village Sernabatim, to be conducted on 23.07.2021. However, the said inspection could not be carried out due to the unavailability of the Expert Member of answering Respondent on the given date. The Answering Respondent thereafter conducted a Site Inspection dated 13.04.2022, wherein it was found that the wall in question had been demolished. Therefore, the impugned permission cannot be held to have been granted on sand dunes.
20
26. As regards the Beach Carrying Capacity having been exhausted in terms of NCSCM Beach Carrying Capacity Report, the said NCSCM Beach carrying capacity report was prepared prior to Notification of GCZMA, therefore answering Respondent decided to do a consultation with NCSCM over beach carrying capacity. But on this issue, the explanation from NCSCM is awaited. It is further submitted that after due deliberations, the applications of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were granted considering the availability of 33 per cent coverage of the plot and also considering the socio-economic factors of providing support employment/livelihood to the local community. REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 07.03.2022 OF RESPONDENT NO.4:
27. It is submitted that pursuant to the request of Respondent No.4 for permission to erect a temporary shack (1) in the property bearing Survey No. 12/1-A and shack (1) and huts in the property bearing Survey No. 12/4 of village Sernabatim, Respondent No. 2 after inspection of the site and considering the matter from all angles, had called upon answering Respondent vide letter dated 06/03/2020 to place on record study report from any accredited agency approved by MoEF & CC, who normally prepares EIAs to ascertain the existence of sand dunes. Pursuant to that Respondent No. 4 engaged the services of an EIA consultant i.e. M/s. Sadekar Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., QCI-NABET, accredited EIA consultancy to conduct the study and report on the existence of sand dunes in the property where the answering Respondent had proposed the erection of the temporary huts and shacks. The said agency concluded in its report 21 that there were no sand dunes where the answering Respondent had proposed to erect the temporary shacks/huts. The said report was placed before Respondent No.2 for consideration which has been deliberately ignored by the Appellant. Further, it is submitted that Respondent No.2 vide l e t t e r dated 28/04/2020 called upon the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Government of Goa to verify and ascertain whether the property in question was sand dunes or not as per the sand dune mapping prepared by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), then the said Inspector of Survey and Land Records, stated that the properties in question were not sand dunes, even this fact was concealed by the Appellant. The Appellant has not produced any material to rebut the said opinion expressed by the Expert Agency. Further, it is submitted that there are various other structures/shack/hut/retaining walls in Survey No. 12/1 to 12/29 and other Survey Numbers of Village Sernabatim, some of which may even not possess any license/permission, but the Appellant has not raised any issue with regards to them. Therefore, it shows the selective objection of the Appellant against Respondent No.4 in order to harass him. Thus, denying all the contentions of the Appellant, it is submitted that appeal be dismissed.
REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.03.2022 OF RESPONDENT NO.5:
28. It is submitted that the plan of the CRZ in the said area is not showing any sand dunes. It is submitted that answering Respondent owns part property bearing Survey Nos. 12/1 and 12/3 of village Sernabatim, purchased through the Sale Deed dated 5/09/2005 and 22 Sale Deed dated 20/07/2004, which stands mutated in his name. The said property does not have any sand dunes. The site inspection was carried out in absence of the answering Respondent and the said land is beyond the NDZ (200 meters) and is flat land. He obtained consent from the Goa State Pollution Control Board on 08/01/2019 and has not built any compound wall as there was an old existing barbed wire fence. He has obtained NOC from the Panchayat, as well as has taken necessary permission to obtain electricity and water connection. He plans principally to use the said land to erect temporary wooden huts and has erected shacks on a frame which does not include construction or digging on the ground. Thus, no prejudice would be caused to environment as the shacks are to be erected 01 meters on stilts.
COMPOSITE RE-JOINDER AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST AFFIDAVITS OF RESPONDENT NOS.2, 4 & 5:
29. Re-asserting the facts stated by the Appellant in his affidavit, it is stated that the properties consist of sand dunes which stands confirmed by the reports of the Expert Members of the GCZMA stating that the property bearing Survey Nos. 12/1-A and 12/4 consist of pioneer sand dunes. But in spite of the above inspection reports, Respondent No.2 went ahead and granted permissions for the construction of shacks and huts to Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.4 on Survey Nos. 12/1-A and 12/4. Similarly Survey Nos. 12/1 and 12/3 also consist of pioneer sand dunes, yet permission for 23 construction has been granted by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.5 for raising construction of shacks and huts thereon.
30. Further, it is submitted that way back in 2014 also the Expert Member of Respondent No.2 upon conducting the site inspection of the property bearing Survey Nos. 12/1 to 12/5 of village Sernabatim had drawn the report dated 05.05.2014 and found in existence the frontal pioneer sand dunes there. Respondent No.2 after taking into consideration the said report dated 05.05.2014 directed the demolition of the illegal constructions in the aforesaid property. Regulation 8(V) (3) (iii) deals with granting permissions for construction within CRZ areas but not on sand dunes. The sand dunes fall in the CRZ-I area. The Sand dunes are classified as CRZ-1 under the CRZ Regulations 2011, where no development is permissible.
31. Further, it is submitted that after the plan was prepared and submitted by the NCSCM to Respondent No.2 a public hearing was conducted during which several objections were filed by the public against the NCSCM mapping etc., and based on these objections Respondent No. 2 decided to conduct ground-truthing in its meeting dated 19.08.2021. After the ground-truthing an area of more than 46 lakhs sq. mtrs consisting of sand dunes was identified which was not included by the NCSCM in their earlier plan. Further, it is submitted that Respondent No.2 in its 279th Meeting recorded that the village of Semabatim showed a difference of 115437 sq. mtrs of area consisting 24 of sand dunes in excess of area shown by the NCSCM in their earlier plan.
32. Further, it is submitted that with respect to the Sadekar report relied upon by Respondent No.4 the said agency is an EIA consultant and not an authority in sand dunes. The said agency has relied upon the NCSCM mapping which cannot be considered due to the above-mentioned reasons. Further, it is stated that Sadekar Report has relied upon Dr. Antonio Mascarenhas's report who himself is the author of the report of 2014 wherein Dr. Antonio stated that the said property bearing Survey No.12 of village Sernabatim consists of pioneer sand dunes.
33. Further, it is submitted that DSLR Survey Report cannot be relied upon as the same has been prepared at the request of private parties. Moreover, DSLR is not an authority which deals with sand dunes survey or mapping, rather the GCZMA Report/mapping prepared by the Expert Member of Respondent No.2 needs to be considered. The National Green Tribunal had passed the judgment dated 02.07.2015 in Appeal No.35/2014, against the Respondent No. 4 based on the Expert Member's report dated 05.05.2014 directing Respondent No.2 to demolish the illegal constructions constructed in the said property, but in violation of the said judgment Respondent No.2 has gone ahead to grant permission of constructions to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Further, it is submitted that the Expert Member of Respondent No.2 by letter dated 12.12.2020 addressed to Respondent No.2 objected to NOC being granted in Survey No.16/4 of 25 village Sernabatim on the ground that there exist sand dunes in the property Survey No. 12 which is situated across the road from the property bearing Survey No.16 of village Sernabatim.
34. Further, it is submitted that the survey plan prepared by the Director of Survey and Land Records pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble High Court PIL WP No.10 of 2020 which dealt with the illegal construction in NDZ in the village of Colva and Sernabatim, shows that there were illegal structures constructed by Respondent No.4 on the property bearing Survey No.12/4 in village Sernabatim. RE-JOINDER DATED 07.04.2022 OF RESPONDENT NO.4:
35. Respondent No.4 has denied all the averments made by the Appellant in the above rejoinder affidavit and has re-asserted his version given in his earlier affidavit.
36. Heard arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
37. Based on the respective versions stated by the parties, following issues need to be determined, which are as follows:
ISSUES
1. Whether the sand dunes exist in Survey Nos.12/1,12/1-A,12/3 and 12/4 of village Sernabatim Vanelim, Colva, and Gandaulim ?
2. Whether permission for construction of shacks/huts Over the above properties granted 26 by Respondent No.2 is a violation of Regulation 8(V) (3) (iii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011?
3. To what relief, if any, the Appellant is entitled ?
ANALYSIS ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:
38. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn attention to the Regulation 7 of CRZ Notification, 2011 and has argued that it provides classification of CRZ.
"7. Classification of the CRZ - For the purpose of conserving and protecting the coastal areas and marine waters, the CRZ area shall be classified as follows, namely:-
(i) CRZ-I,-
A. The areas that are ecologically sensitive and the geomorphological features which play a role in maintaining the integrity of the coast,-
(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(c) Sand Dunes;
(d) xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx"
And thereafter he has drawn attention to Regulation 8(V) (3) (iii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, which is as follows:
" 8. Norms for regulation of activities permissible under this notification,-
(i) xxx xxx xxx xxx
V. Areas requiring special consideration:
.....
3. CRZ of Goa.-
27
In view of the peculiar circumstances of the State Goa including past history and other developments, the specific activities shall be regulated and various measures shall be undertaken as follows:-
(i) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(iii) purely temporary and seasonal structures customarily put up between the months of September to May;
(iv) xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx"
On the basis of the above Regulations, it is argued that no construction is permissible under the ecologically sensitive area i.e. CRZ-I where the sand dunes are found, but in the present case, the said Regulation has been violated by Respondent No.2 granting permission for construction of huts/shacks to Respondent Nos.4 and
5. He has vehemently relied upon site inspection reports conducted by the Expert Member of Respondent No.2 GCZMA on 17.12.2019 in respect of Survey Nos.12/1-A and 12/4 of village Sernabatim, wherein frontal pioneer sand dunes were said to have been found by him and, therefore, the said Survey Numbers would fall in NDZ of CRZ-I. Hence, there was no question of Respondent No.2 allowing any kind of developmental activity/permission to raise construction even of temporary nature. As already stated above in the affidavit of the Appellant the second report of the Expert Member of Respondent No.2 dated 05.05.2014 with respect to Survey No.12/1 to 12/5 of village Sernabatim also was to the effect that the sand dunes were around 2.5 mtrs high from the base all along the frontal dune face 28 which is quoted above in the affidavit of the Appellant and that in spite of all the demolition orders, Respondent No.2 went ahead to grant construction permissions to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which is illegal and in contravention of the CRZ Notification,2011, as stated above.
39. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the NCSCM beach carrying capacity report has mentioned that the carrying capacity of the Sernabatim beach is only to the extent of three (3) shacks, therefore, the impugned permissions are also against the said beach carrying capacity. Accordingly, the said permissions should be set aside.
40. As against this, from the side of Respondent No.2, it is informed that the matter was considered on 04.01.2019 in its 191st Meeting and approval was given to Respondent No.5 regarding the construction of temporary huts on Survey Nos.12/1 and 12/3. Similarly, Respondent No. 4 was also given permission to construct one shack and eight huts in Survey Nos.12/1-A and 12/4. It is further argued that the Expert Member of Respondent No.2 Mr.F.J.Miranda had conducted the site inspection of the aforesaid properties on 17.12.2019, wherein it was submitted that the property is not affected by HTL, however, it was remarked by the Expert Member that the proposed structure appears to be on a large frontal pioneer sand dunes and that Authority Office may prepare a background note on the history of the Court cases related to the applicants and her family properties and that the Inspection Reports of the Expert Members who 29 have visited the site in the past may be made available for perusal. In the light of above, it was concluded that the case may be considered after further scrutiny upon receipt of the above documents and information. Thereafter, on 18.12.2019, Respondent No.2 received a letter from Respondent No.4 that the NCSCM complied with the plan of the properties showing that Survey No.12/4 is clear and open with no sand dunes in it. In fact, there were no sand dunes shown in Survey Nos.12/1 to 12/6. It was resolved by Respondent No.2 that Respondent No.4 shall place on record the site information with respect to the existence of sand dunes on the impugned survey numbers from accredited agency approved by the MoEF & CC. Respondent No.4 thereafter submitted a Site Assessment Report conducted and prepared by accredited EIA consultancy namely; Sadekar Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., which clearly noted that there were no sand dunes existing within the property bearing Survey No.12/1-A and 12/4 of Sernabatim. It is further argued that the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Salcete Margao Goa, also submitted its report stating that the survey numbers in question were not mentioned in the sand dune maps prepared by the NCSCM, Chennai. In its 242nd Meeting of Respondent No.2, it considered the applications made by different Project Proponents for the erection of temporary structures areas coming under the CRZ Regulations and observed that quite often the sand dunes survey report is at variance with the findings of the Expert Members which causes confusion and hence the Respondent No.2 granted approval as per the extant Rules 30 and Regulations subject to Beach Carrying Capacity Report, after being satisfied that there were no sand dunes on the site as alleged by the Appellant.
41. The Appellant mainly emphasized upon the point that in 2013, Mr. Rabindra Dias and Mr. Santana Piedade Afonso had filed a PIL WP No. 04/2013 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa, with respect to the illegal permanent constructions in Survey Nos. 12/1 to 12/5 of Sernabatim village Selcete, Taluka Goa, wherein, vide order dated 01.09.2014, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court disposed of the matter directing Respondent No.3 to conclude the said issue within two weeks and accordingly, Respondent No.2 directed demolition order of the retaining wall constructed along the sea, concrete rings constructed along the coconut tree and parking lot comprising of concrete balusters constructed in Survey Nos. l2/1 to 12/5. Aggrieved by the said order dated I7.09.2014, Mr. Rabindra Dias filed Appeal bearing No. 35/2014 before this Tribunal while Respondent No.4 filed the Appeal No. 33/2015 (WZ) against the direction of demolition which was disposed of by the common order dated 02.07.2015, wherein following were passed:
23. So far as construction of Furtado's Guest House, is concerned, it is significant to note that originally there was no construction made by anyone/traditional occupant of the land Survey Nos.12/1 to 12/5. There is no document to show that permission was accorded to such erstwhile owner, nor any kind of permission was obtained by the members of Furtado family for construction of 'Guest House'. In our opinion, under guise of so called repairs, the members of Furtado family, entrenched the tentacles like 'occupant octopuses' for expansion of construction activity on sand beach itself, in order 31 to earn easy money. In fact, they have continued to earn such easy money by doing illegal business of running the guest house from at least 2006-07, till the date. We are of the opinion that maintaining construction at the place will permit continuity of violation of CRZ Notifications. The violators cannot be encouraged by applying the principle of 'fait accompli' in such a situation where the CRZ Regulations are violated in blatant manner and the authorities have violated directions of the Hon'ble High Court issued in the Writ Petition No.58 of 2010, as well as in Suo-Moto Writ Petition No.2 of 2006. This is not a case in which environmental degradation can be allowed to be continued and violator may be directed to only pay amount of certain compensation, which will tantamount to encouragement to similar violators for committing breach of the CRZ Notifications and then to get away scot-free merely by making payment of some amount towards compensation for damage caused to the environment. In the present case, the sand dunes have disappeared, the flora and fauna is seriously affected and endangered. The conduct of members of Furtado family is dubious since the time they acquired said property.
Nay, they were obstinate and continued with illegal construction under the guise of so-called NOC of the Village Panchayat. Under peculiar circumstances of the present matter, we find it difficult to consider plea of protection by applying the principle of 'fait accompli'. Having regard to the fact that the members of Furtado family illegally expanded the construction activities after CRZ Notification, 1991, knowing very well that construction of the Guest House required CRZ Clearance, shows their utter disregard for the Law. They are not entitled for any protection, therefore, as the damage caused to the coastal eco-system is irretrievable but for relief of restitution. In such a case the principle of 'fait accompli' is not applicable.
24. Taking a stock of forgoing discussion and reasons, we hold that the impugned order of GCZMA, is illegal, improper and incorrect. It is illegal as regards dismissal of the case put forth by Rabindra Dias and others (Appeal No.35 of 2014) and is legal one to the extent of the part of the demolition of boundary wall comprising concrete boulders and retaining wall of mesh. Consequently, the Appeal preferred by Mrs. Maria Furtado and others (Appeal No.33 of 2014), is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to Respondent No.2 Rabindra Dias and Respondent No.3- Mr. Santana Piedade Afonso, the Appellants 32 in Appeal No.35 of 2014. Accordingly, Appeal No.35 of 2014, is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Instead of the impugned order, we direct that the entire construction of the house property and retaining wall, around the house property, Guest-house, called 'Furtado Guest House' as well all other constructions standing in land Survey Nos.12/1 to 12/5, within NDZ of Sernabatim village, shall be demolished within a period of eight (8) weeks by the Collector, South Goa. Compliance of these directions be reported to this Tribunal within two (2) weeks thereafter. If required, the Collector may use police force, as per the Law for work of demolition, in case of resistance by Furtado family members or any third party put forth by them for such purpose. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly i.e. by allowing Appeal No.35 of 2014 and dismissing Appeal No.33 of 2014. Costs as awarded above. All Misc. Applications also stand disposed of in above Appeals as may have been pending."
42. Against the said order dated 02.07.2015 a Civil Appeal No. 4444-4445/2017 was preferred before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by Respondent No.4 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.03.2019 and thereafter EA No.10/2019 was moved for carrying out directions of demolition of illegal structures which were later on demolished. Based on this, it was argued by the Appellant that once a demolition order was passed by Respondent No.2 in the same Survey Nos. 12/1 to 12/5, of which impugned survey numbers are only the part, how was it legal for Respondent No. 2 to grant approval for the construction of temporary huts/shacks to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. This argument has been resisted by the Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 by saying that the subject matter of the said PIL Writ Petition No.04 of 2013 was illegal permanent construction lying in Survey Nos.12/1 to 12/5, which were ordered to be demolished because the same were found to be illegal, 33 having been constructed after coming into force of the CRZ Notification, 1991, without any valid permission from the authorities concerned, while in the present matter, question is that the permission for raising even temporary construction of shacks/huts could not have been given, the impugned Survey Numbers being sand dunes, falling in NDZ under the CRZ-I. Therefore, there could be no assistance drawn by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant from the order of demolition passed in EA No.10/2019.
43. We find force in the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Appellant, after having gone through the judgment and order of this Tribunal dated 2nd July, 2015, because it does appear that there was no question involved in the said case with respect to permanent construction having been made on the area containing the sand dunes and hence falling in NDZ area. The said demolition order was passed because the permanent constructions had been found to be illegal because they were made subsequent to the order of 1991 without any valid permissions from the concerned authority.
44. Now, we would like to consider the next argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there were earlier two reports of the Expert Members of Respondent No.2, one of 17.12.2019 and another of the year 2014. We find that the report of 2014 has already been dealt with in the earlier case which culminated in filing the Execution Application and demolition order, but that was on a different line and not relevant to the sand dunes, while another report of 17.12.2019 which is annexed at pages 48-52, it is stated in the said 34 report that the proposed structures appear to be on large frontal pioneer sand dunes. The word "appeared to be" tends to indicate that the Expert Member, who prepared these reports after inspecting the site was not sure that the said survey numbers were containing the sand dunes. As against this, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/GCZMA has distinctly stated on affidavit that the permission has been granted after ascertaining that there were no sand dunes on the spot. Regarding this not only the report of the Expert Member was taken into consideration rather the beach carrying capacity and the report of the Inspector of Survey and Land Records dated 06 July,2020, were also taken into consideration which were to the effect that there were no sand dunes on the impugned survey numbers and also the report of accredited agency namely; Sadekar Environ Engineering Pvt. Ltd had been relied upon.
45. Above documentary evidence is quite substantial in nature which goes to show that there were no sand dunes on the impugned Survey Numbers where permission for construction has been granted for temporary shacks/huts to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by Respondent No.2. As against this, there is no strong evidence laid from the side of the Appellant to rebut it despite sufficient opportunity. Hence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the stand taken by Respondent No.2 that there were no sand dunes on impugned Survey Numbers.
46. In view of the above analysis, Issue No.1 is decided to the effect that Survey Numbers upon which permission for construction of 35 temporary shacks/huts is given by Respondent No.2 do not contain any sand dunes.
47. Accordingly, the second issue No.2 is also decided in the affirmative holding that the permission for construction is not in violation of Regulation 8(V)(3)(iii) of CRZ Notification 2011. ISSUE NO.3 The Appellant does not deserve to be granted any relief and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM July 15, 2022.
Appeal No.03/2022 (WZ) HK