National Green Tribunal
Vernon Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on 2 April, 2025
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ)
I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. VERNON RODRIGUES
Resident of H. No.483,
Vaddy, Candolim Bardez-Goa.
Pin Code: 403 515.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Through its Member Secretary,
C/o Department of Science, Technology &
Environment, Government of Goa,
4th Floor, Dempo towers, Patto,
Panaji, Goa- 403 001.
2. STATE OF GOA
Through the Chief Secretary,
Office at Secretariat, Porvorim,
Bardez, Goa- 403 521.
3. Mrs. Judith Rodrigues,
R/o. H. No. D-6, TRT Holiday Enclave,
Near Hotel Golden Tuli,
Muddo wado, Candolim,
Bardez, Goa- 403 515.
.....Respondents
Counsel for Appellant:
Mr. Kapil D. Kerkar, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA.
Ms. Fawia Mesquita, Advocate for R-3.
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 1 of 17
Reserved on : 10.02.2025
Pronounced on : 02.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, whereby the appellant has been directed to demolish the structures A, B, C, E, F, G & H, as shown in the Survey Plan dated 04.07.2022, which are forming part of the House No.483, Vaddy, Candolim, Bardez, Goa, situated in the property bearing Survey No.135/7 of Candolim Village, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and restore the land within 15 days thereafter, on the grounds that personal hearing was not given to the appellant; the site inspection report does not mention the age of the structure; GCZMA has not followed the procedure laid down by this Tribunal in the matter of Sesa Goa Limited v. State of Goa, [(2013) SCC On Line NGT 27], details of which are mentioned in para no.31 (E); GCZMA has overlooked the permissions earlier granted by the competent authorities; alleged structure is not in violation of CRZ regulations, as the same is constructed prior to coming into force the CRZ regulations and within the permissible limits as prescribed under the CRZ rules; and the impugned order has been passed without considering the para 3 of the CRZ Notification 2011, which categorically provides for exceptions for certain activities, which include as follows:-
"(e) re-construction, repairs works of dwelling units of local communities / especially fisherfolks in accordance with local town and country planning regulations"
2. It would be appropriate for us to take the facts of this appeal from the impugned order itself, in order to make the pleadings brief. According Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 2 of 17 to the impugned order, a complaint/ letter dated 28/01/2022 was sent by Mrs. Judith Rodrigues- Respondent No.3 with respect to illegal construction of multiple structures of Ground +2 nos. 13/14 shops structures, in the property bearing Survey No.135/7 at Vaddy, Candolim, Bardez, Goa within CRZ- III area carried out by the appellant.
3. Pursuant to the receipt of above-mentioned complaint, Respondent No.1- GCZMA issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25/04/2022 to the appellant seeking clarification on the violations and also show the cause as to why the environmental damage compensation and penalty be not levied for environmental damage. Thereafter, impugned order speaks of so many meetings having been held by Respondent No.1, which need not be reproduced here. But in the 381st Meeting of the GCZMA held on 11/01/2024, based on the complaint received from Judith Rodrigues, Respondent No.1 decided to carry out a site inspection on 22/03/2022, wherein the appellant did not allow the officials of the GCZMA to take measurement of the structures, situated in the Sy. No.135/7 of Candolim Village. Thereafter, it was noted by the inspecting team that there were 14 shops in front of the face of the building of masonry structure with permanent plinth. Subsequently, the GCZMA issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellant with a direction to remain present for the hearing. However, the appellant failed to remain present, hence the Authority decided to seal the property of the appellant with a direction to the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Electricity Department to disconnect the connection to the structures in Sy. No.135/7. The property was sealed by the Deputy Collector and report was submitted to Respondent No.1. Thereafter the appellant moved an application to review the order of sealing, stating therein that they would co-operate with the inquiry. In the Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 3 of 17 308th Meeting, the Authority decided to de-seal the property and hold a fresh Site Inspection and hence allowed the application of the appellant.
4. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that thereafter site inspection was conducted and it was noted that there are new as well as old structures at the site in question. The illegal structures on the said site were as follows:-
(1). (G+2) buildings in 2 nos. facing main road are constructed with second floors which are being covered in roofing sheets resting on M.S. structural members. 14 nos, shops are located on ground floor of building (G+2) units. (Marked as A & B).
(2). Ground floor structure with RCC slabs, beams and columns foundation is under construction. (Marked as C) (3). A shed with ground floor height seen touching the southern boundary of the plot. (Marked as H).
(4). Open area lying between two storey building and northern boundary of the plot is finished with cement concrete flooring;
(Marked as E) (5). Construction reached at plinth level with columns casting up to floor level is being executed. (Marked as F) (6). Open underground construction with walls all around in RCC the foundation is being done; (Marked as G) (7). Existing old structure with Mangalore roofing shown in survey plan is noticed on site. (Marked as D)
5. Thereafter, following is mentioned in the impugned order:- Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 4 of 17
"The Areas of the structures were noted as A: (400sqm), B:
(600sqm), C: (360 sqm), D: (214 sqm), E: (52 sqm), F: (119 sqm), G: (92.50 sqm), and H: (140 sqm).
The Respondent were furnished copies of the Site Inspection Report and asked to prove that the structures are standing prior to 1991.
The Respondent has produced three electricity bill to show that the structures are standing prior to 1991 the bill bears meter no 550, 551 and 179. He further stated that the energization date shows as 1980-81 however upon perusal only two bills having no 550 and 551 are produced to the Authority and there is no connection between the structures and the meter numbers.
It is noted that the structure D is an old house which is depicted on the Survey Plan which shows that the Structure was standing prior to 1991; the old structure which is marked as D and is shown on the survey plan, Hence the structure D is a legal structure.
Further, the Authority noted that the excise licence also shows that it was issued to part of the residential house which was used for commercial purpose and that bears the House No 368 which connects to the Meter bearing no 551. The Letter from the Village Panchayat of Candolim dated 17/01/2023; clearly states that the house no 368 was recorded in the name of Balkrishna Bhat in the year 1988-89 and subsequently transferred to the name of Laximikant G. Bhat as per the records maintained by the village Panchayat of Candolim. However the House no 368 never belonged to the Respondent as claim by him. In view of the discrepancies pointed out by the Complainants by way of documentary proof that the house nos does not belong to Respondent and in view that the electricity bill and the excise letter are inter connected by the house numbers these documents cannot be taken into consideration to determine that the structures were standing prior to 1991.
The Authority noted that the Respondent has to prove that the structures are constructed with valid permission. The Respondent Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 5 of 17 is producing utility documents but has failed to produce documents required for the purpose of constructing the structures. The Respondent besides these two documents has failed to show by way of documentary proof that the structures are legal.
The Respondent sought to rely on the order of the Block Development Officer bearing case noBDO-II-BAR/201(A)/4/2022 filed by Judith Rodrigues vs Village Panchayat of Candolim and Vernon Rodrigues; upon perusal of the order it is noted that the same is irrelevant to decide the legality of the structures. However, it is noted that the BDO has stated that the Respondent has a house bearing House no 483 and that it belongs to the father of the Respondent. As per the demand and collection register it bearing old house no 31/5. The Complainant has also produced a letter issued by the Village Panchayat letter dated 17/01/2023 stating that the new house no 483 corresponds to old house no 31/5(old) and was existing since 1972-73. However, the respondent has not relied on this house number to prove the legality of his structures. There being a discrepancy in the house numbers and the respondent not having come clear on the documentation part to prove that the structures are in existence prior to 1991 give a ground to issue demolition order against the structures A,B,C,E,F,G,H structures shown on the survey plan dated 04/07/2022 and discharge order against the old structure shown on the plan dated 04/07/2022 marked as "D".
6. Pursuant to the above, impugned order for demolition of the structures in question was passed by Respondent No.1- GCZMA.
7. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant was asked to point out the documentary evidences, on the basis of which he would be able to establish that all the structures, which are shown in the Site Inspection Report dated 26.07.2022, which is annexed at page nos.67 to 69 of the paper book as Annexure- 'E', were in existence prior to the year Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 6 of 17 1991 and hence would not be ordered to be demolished. He has relied on following documents, which are taken into consideration by us one by one.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to page no.449 of the paper book, which is a letter dated 17.11.1982 written by the father of the appellant- Mr. Victor Rodrigues addressed to the Chairman, Candolim, Bardez, Goa related to the permission for re- construction and development of the building in the property bearing Survey No.133/7, situated at Candolim, Bardez, Goa and stated that the permission was granted by the said letter. Thereafter, he drew our attention to page no.450 of the paper book, which is a reminder letter dated 20.10.1983 again written by the father of the appellant to the same Authority for making inspection of the construction made by the appellant.
9. Having drawn our attention to the above-mentioned letters, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prayer for permission for above-mentioned re-construction was made on 17.11.1982 and when the same was not granted within 30 days, the same was deemed to have been granted to the appellant under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
10. In respect to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant had applied for permission to be allowed for alleged re- construction on 17.11.1982, which was not considered within 30 days' period, the same will be deemed to have been granted under Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is erroneous. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce herein below the Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994:-
"66. Regulation of the erection of buildings.-- (1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, no person shall erect any building or alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 7 of 17 any building without the written permission of the Panchayat. The permission may be granted on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.
(2) If a Panchayat does not, within thirty days from the date of receipt of application, determine whether such permission should be given or not and communicate its decision to the applicant, the applicant may file an appeal within thirty days from the date of expiry of aforesaid period, to the Deputy Director who shall dispose of the same within thirty days from the date of filings of such appeal. If the Deputy Director fails to dispose of the appeal within thirty days, such permission shall be deemed to have been given and the applicant may proceed to execute the work, but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act or any rules or bye-laws made under this Act.
............................................................................................. ............................................................................................"
11. In regard to the above, we are of the view that at the point of time, when the above-mentioned application was moved, the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was not in force, as the same came into in existence on 09.07.1994. Therefore, under this Act, no application will be treated to have been moved, which could have been considered by the Competent Authority. Consequently, the 30 days' period having lapsed and 'communication of no decision' would not amount to mean that the permission will be deemed to have been granted for the same.
12. We are not discussing here the provision of Rule- 3 Sub-Clause- 2
(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules, 1971 because already in this regard, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has raised objections, which, in our opinion, are quite valid, as the structure in question is pucca construction and not kaccha construction and hence, no protection under that Rule would be accrued to the appellant. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing below Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 8 of 17 the Rule- 3 Sub-Clause- 2 (b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules, 1971:-
"3. Procedure for submission and scrutiny of application for development of land or sub-division.-
1) From the date of coming into force of these Rules, no change in the use of land or its development or sub-division of plot or layout of Private Street shall be made except with the written permission of the Panchayat for any land failing within the area of such Panchayat.
2). On receipt of an application for permission under sub-rule (1) above, the Panchayat shall (a) furnish to the applicant a written acknowledgement within a period of one week from its receipt;
*1[(b)] After enquiry as may be necessary, the Panchayat may grant permission for the construction of kacha house in Panchayat areas without the approval of Technical Officer subject to the following conditions, -
i) the construction should be kacha i.e. of mud and no stones should be used in the construction except for laying foundation erecting pillars and fixing windows and doors. No pucca masonry wall should be built towards construction;
ii) the cost of construction should not exceed Rs.10,000/-;
iii) the area covered under the construction should not exceed 60% of the total area of the plot;
iv) a distance of at least 2 metres should be kept between the construction and the field boundaries on all sides;
v) adequate distance should be kept between adjacent buildings. Tle exact distance to be kept may be specified by the Village Panchayat depending upon local conditions;
vi) village Panchayat shall verify the owner-ship of the plot before granting the permission;
vii) no permission shall be granted for kacha construction within a radius of 100 metres from the beach of tourists importance, 50 metres from the P.W.D. road:
Provided that in the towns area, which are not falling within the Municipal limit, shall follow the general provisions of Rules, 1971;
viii). village Panchayat shall ensure that the existing traditional paths are not obstructed before granting permission and shall maintain proper setback for future Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 9 of 17 development of roads; the village Panchayat may permit extension of the existing building provided the proper set backs are maintained;
x) no occupancy certificate from the technical office shall the required for kacha construction;
xi) the application for the building permission shall be accompanied along with a sketch map of the proposed construction in duplicate duly signed by the applicant;
(c) In respect of construction to be carried out in village specified in Appendix A of the Rules, 1971, one copy of the sketch map should be forwarded to the Town and Country Planning Department for information by the Village Panchayat;
(d) The permission shall be issued in a standard form duly signed by the Sarpach or in his absence by the Deputy Sarpanch.
Before grant of permission a formal approval of Block Development Officer shall be taken by the concerned Panchayat."
13. In rebuttal, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has relied upon the Judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by this Tribunal in the matter of Mrs. Libertina Fernandes vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Anr. [(2015) SCC OnLine NGT 61], wherein para nos.14 and 15 of this Judgment have been relied upon, which are as follows:-
"14. At the very threshold of the discussion, we may notice that the case of the applicant during the hearing of the appeal, as well as in this application is that, the construction/renovation of the building was done in furtherance to the permission to reconstruct/re-erect as granted by the Gram Panchayat, vide letter dated 30'h September, 1986 and occupancy certificate which had been issued on 315t March, 1987 and, thereafter, no construction has been done by the applicant. Section 66 of the Act of 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder have no relevancy to the matters in issue before us. The construction, according to the applicant, was raised in the year 1986-1987. At that time, this Act was not in force as it came into force w.e.f. 20th April, 1994. No construction is stated to have been done by the applicant under any permission granted or sanction accorded under the Act of 1994. The law in force at the relevant time (1986-1987) was the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulation Amendment Act, 1969. Section 65 of the said Act read with Section 83, empowered the Government to frame Rules. In exercise of this power, the Government of Goa framed the Goa, Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 10 of 17 Daman and Diu Village Panchayat (Regulation of Building) Rules, 1971 (for short 'Rules of 1971'). These Rules governed the scheme of submission of building plans the manner in which such plans would be sanctioned and the construction which is carried out strictly in terms of the sanctioned plan. Under Rule 37, of the said Rules any construction/development in contravention to the Rules shall be demolished by the owner on receipt of notice from the concerned authorities within the stipulated time. In the event of default, the authorities would demolish the same at the cost of the owner. The expression 'Authority' had not been defined under the Rules which would obviously mean any authority in accordance with law.
15. The most important rule of the Rules of 1971 for purpose of the present case is Rule 3(2)(b), which contemplates various restrictions in relation to construction or development. Significantly, the permission would be granted by the Gram Panchayat only if the cost of construction does not exceed Rs. 20,000/- and the cover area under construction does not exceed the total area of the plot the construction has to be kaccha, i.e. of mud and no stone should be used in the construction, except for laying foundation, erecting pillars and fixing windows and doors. No pucca masonry wall should be built towards construction. The applicant, despite grant of opportunities, did not produce the sanction plan which was granted by the Gram Panchayat on 30 th September, 1986. Even during the course of hearing of the review application, the Counsel was called upon to produce the annexure (sanctioned plan) to the permission dated 30th September, 1986 which, for reasons best known to the applicant, is yet to see the light of the day."
14. Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.3 that the permission, which could be granted by the Gram Panchayat under Rule 3 (2) (b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat (Regulation of Building) Rules, 1971, contemplates various restrictions in relation to the construction or development. Significantly, the permission could be granted by the Gram Panchayat only if the cost of construction does not exceed Rs.20,000/- and the area covered under the construction does not exceed the total area of the plot and that the construction has to be kaccha, i.e. of mud and no stone should be used in the construction, except for laying foundation, erecting Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 11 of 17 pillars and fixing windows and doors. Therefore, it is stated by her that in the case in hand, the cost of the construction is Rs.2.5 Crores, which is apparent from the Panchanama, which is filed by the appellant himself at page no.86 of the paper book, discloses the cost of the construction to be Rs.2 Crore and 50 lakhs. It may also be made clear here that in the Site Inspection Report, the structure- 'D' is found to be in existence prior to the year 1991, while rest of the structures i.e. structures A, B, C, E, F, G & H are found to be not of the period prior to the year 1991 and having found to have been raised without any prior permission for the same.
15. In rebuttal, from the side of appellant, it is being stated by learned counsel that all the structures A to H are a single structure. But we find the stand taken by the appellant to be contrary to the Site Inspection Report dated 26.07.2022, which is annexed at page nos.67 to 69 of the paper book and at page no.70 of the paper book, the sketch of that site is also given, which shows clearly all these structures by letters A to H that are at different locations from structure- 'D'. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2 Crore and 50 lakhs is spent for construction of the all structures or only the structure- D is not made clear by this Panchanama. We certainly find that the total construction cost must have been more than Rs.20,000/-. Hence, Rule 3 (2) (b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat (Regulation of Building) Rules, 1971 would not be applicable here in our estimation and hence deeming provision cannot be taken to have come to the aid of the appellant. In our estimation, appellant should have awaited for approval/grant of permission for raising such constructions instead of presuming that the same would be treated to have been granted under that provision.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 12 of 17
16. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to page no.451 of the paper book, which is a letter dated 07.11.1983 written by the Chairman, Candolim Village Panchayat, Candolim, Bardez, Goa addressed to Mr. Victor Rodrigues, wherein it is recorded that the inspection of the construction on Survey No.135/7 would be carried out with a prior notice from their office.
17. We may also mention here the fact, which has been raised by learned counsel for Respondent No.3 regarding above-mentioned documents. Respondent No.3 had obtained an information under RTI on 4 points, i.e. 1) certified copies of letters dated 17.11.1982 and 20.10.1983 along-with site plan; 2) certified copies of letters issued by the Village Panchayat vide Ref. No.VP/41/45/83-84. (Copy enclosed); 3) copy of resolution if any taken on point no.2; and 4) Inspection of the respective documents, files, registers etc. Regarding all the three documents, which have been relied upon by the appellant, i.e. letters dated 17.11.1982 and 20.10.1983 and the certified copy of the letter Ref. No.VP/41/45/83-84 were found to have not been issued from the Office of Village Panchayat as per their response, which is annexed at page no.232 of the paper book. Therefore, it is urged by learned counsel for Respondent No.3 that these documents appears to be fake documents and hence cannot be relied upon.
18. We find substance in the above argument made by learned counsel for Respondent No.3. Had above-mentioned documents been issued from the side of said Village Panchayat, certainly a copy of those documents could have been retained by the said Village Panchayat, hence we cannot grant any benefit of these documents to the appellant to prove that the Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 13 of 17 above-mentioned structures were in existence at the site in question prior to the year 1991.
19. Thereafter, our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the appellant at page no.104 of the paper book, which is a Certificate (NOC) issued on 03.10.2006 by the Secretary, Village Panchayat of Candolim, Bardez, Goa in favour of the appellant, which contains House No.483 but the same does not refer to survey number in question. He submits that this 'No Objection' was granted by the said Village Panchayat for releasing of the electricity connection in favour of the appellant at the site in question. But we cannot grant any benefit of this document to the appellant because it does not contain any survey number nor can it be believed that the strictures in question existed prior to the year 1991 because this Certificate (NOC) was issued only on 03.10.2006 and not prior to the year 1991. Therefore, it cannot be believed that prior to the year 1991 up to 2006, there was no electricity connection available providing light in the structure in question.
20. Thereafter, our attention is also drawn by learned counsel for the appellant at page no.139 of the paper book, which is a letter dated 20.04.1979 issued by the Chairman, Candolim Village Panchayat, Bardez, Goa addressed to the father of the appellant, issuing 'No Objection' for the construction of slab roofing on the two garages of the property bearing Sy. No.135/7 of Candolim. Based on this document, it is urged by him that this document shows that the structures existed prior to the year 1991. But we are not in agreement with the argument made by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard because it simply grants some permission to construct roofing over two garages, which are not specifically shown by the appellant in the site plan nor by the GCZMA.
Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 14 of 17
21. Thereafter, our attention is also drawn by learned counsel for the appellant at page no.140 of the paper book, which is Form E-25 dated 25.11.1981 issued by the Excise Inspector, Department of Excise, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu in favour of the appellant, granted license to sale foreign liquor/country liquor for consumption on the premises of the licensee. But it does not contain the House Number or the Survey Number, although validity is given from 26.11.1981 to 31.03.1982. It could be possible that the structure- 'D', which was already found in existence prior to the year 1991, could be the structure where this permission might have been granted, which has not been ordered to be demolished.
22. Thereafter, our attention is also drawn by learned counsel for the appellant at page no.141 of the paper book, which is a letter dated 25.11.1981 written by the Superintendent of Excise, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu addressed to the Excise Inspector, Excise Station, Bardez, Goa, on the subject of Issuance of license to the appellant for retail sale of I.M.F. liquor and O. Liquor for consumption in the premises of House No.368, situated at Candolim Vaddy, Bardez, Goa, which does not bear the Survey Number. Therefore, we cannot ensure as to whether the permission for retail sale of liquor was given in the structures in question or not.
23. Thereafter, our attention is also drawn by learned counsel for the appellant at page no.142 of the paper book, which is a letter dated 30.06.1981 written by the Excise Inspector, Department of Excise, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu addressed to the Health Officer, Health Centre, Candolim regarding N.O.C. to be issued to the appellant for the sale of liquor from House No.368, Bardez, Goa. When we enquired about this from him as to what happened after this letter having been Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 15 of 17 written, whether the said permission was granted by the Health Officer, no response could be given by him. Hence, no benefit of this letter can be given to the appellant.
24. Thereafter, our attention is also drawn by learned counsel for the appellant at page no.143 of the paper book, which is a letter dated 30.06.1981 written by the Excise Inspector, Department of Excise, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu addressed to the Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Candolim, in which a request was made by them to inform the Department whether the Sarpanch has any objection for the permission to be granted to the appellant for the sale of liquor. But we cannot give any benefit of this letter to the appellant as well, because what happened thereafter is not made clear.
25. Thereafter, our attention is also drawn by learned counsel for the appellant at page no.144 of the paper book, which is Form E-25 issued to the appellant by the Excise Inspector, Department of Excise, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, but the same is undated, authorizing the appellant for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor/country liquor for consumption in the premises of licensee, which was valid from 01.04.1982 to 31.03.1983. We may mention here that this document is undated and therefore, no benefit of this document can be given to the appellant as to how this would help the appellant in reaching the conclusion that the structure in question existed prior to the year 1991.
26. In view of above observations, we find that all the documentary evidences, which have been extended by learned counsel for the appellant before us, have been dealt with by us one by one and none of them comes to the aid of the appellant to prove that the structures, which have been Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 16 of 17 ordered to be demolished by Respondent No.1- GCZMA, were in existence prior to the year 1991. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal does not have any force and it deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
27. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.
28. We direct that the original documents, i.e. Maps etc., which have been filed by learned counsel for the appellant before this Tribunal, be returned to him after retaining photocopy of the same.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM April 02, 2025 Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) I.A. No.213/2024(WZ) P.Kr Appeal No.143/2024(WZ) [I.A. No.213/2024(WZ)] Page 17 of 17