National Green Tribunal
Goa Paryavaran Savrakshan Sangharsh ... vs M/S. Govia Resorts Pvt. Ltd/ Govia ... on 15 December, 2022
Item No. 5 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 03/2018(WZ)
Goa Paryavaran Savrakshan Sangharsh Samitee
.....Applicant
Versus
M/s Govia Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 15.12.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : None appeared
Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-1/PP
Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Advocate for R-3/GCZMA
Mr. Manish Salkar, Advocate for GSPCB.
ORDER
1. None has appeared from the side of Applicant despite repeated calls, though service affidavit has been filed according to which all the Respondents have been served.
2. From the side of Respondent No.1-M/s Govia Resorts Pvt. Ltd., learned Counsel Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan has appeared and appraised that reply affidavit has already been filed.
3. None has appeared from the side of Respondent No. 2/State of Goa through Chief Secretary and Respondent No. 4/The Dy. Collector/SDM, Bardez, Goa.
4. From the side of Respondent No. 3/Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, learned Counsel Ms. Ruchira Gupta has appeared and appraised that reply affidavit has already been filed. Page 1 of 8
5. From the side of Goa State Pollution Control Board, learned Counsel Mr. Manish Salkar has appeared.
6. In absence of the Applicant, we have gone through the details mentioned in the said application, where-in it is stated that Respondent No.1-M/s. Govia Resorts Pvt. Ltd./Project Proponent is carrying on commercial activities unauthorisedly in Survey No. 318/2, 319/2 and 320/2 of Village Siolim by raising permanent buildings/structures in CRZ/No Development Zone land. Enormous damage is caused to the existing lagoon, which connects to Creek with a wide opening of 12 mtrs. A connected pathway is constructed around the said Lagoon. A huge amount of reclamation has been done in the said lagoon and paddy filled portion has been converted into garden with ornamental trees besides constructing a large RCC building having several rooms meant for tourists accommodation. The two permanent structures have been constructed on the Southern boundary of the said property right on the high tide line of the creek. In addition to all these NDZ offending land development, a huge and thick concrete platforms of 12 mtrs. wide and 32 mtrs. long along the creek has been barricaded with stone masonry wall. All these constructions lie in the NDZ area of the creek as well as the lagoon. Despite the order of demolition passed by the Respondent No. 3/GCZMA, Respondent No. 1/Project Proponent carried on its commercial activities undeterred. The Respondent No. 3/GCZMA after holding necessary inquiry in its Meeting held on 28.02.2017 resolved to demolish the aforesaid different structures of different dimensions, but it did not ensure their demolition. Hence, the present application has been moved with the prayer that the Respondent No. 1 be directed to immediately discontinue all the commercial activities and demolish the unlawfully constructed building/structures in the aforesaid Survey Page 2 of 8 numbers in NDZ area and that the Respondent No. 3/GCZMA and Respondent No. 4/The Dy. Collector/SDM, Bardez, Goa be directed to ensure that the Respondent No. 1 discontinues all its commercial activities immediately and stops using Swimming Pool.
7. From the side of Respondent No. 3/GCZMA, a reply affidavit dated 08.12.2022 has been filed, where-in it is submitted that a site inspection was carried out by the Expert Member- Dr. Prabhakar Shirodkar and Engineer Audhoot Bhonsule along-with DSLR representatives Mr. Sudesh Sawant and Mr. Pramod Naik on 20.06.2018 in the presence of Respondent No. 1 and recorded there-in as follows:-
" i). Of the 04 items suggested by GCZMA to the violator for Compliances, the alleged violator M/s Goveia Resorts has done the Compliance for 03 things.
ii). These include removal of platform from the lagoon, sluice gate reconstruction and restoration of the opening, demolition of the boundary wall from both sides.
iii). The compliance done also has been confirmed by the complainants at site.
iv). As regards point No.04, the mud filling done by the violator in the lagoon and its removal, the details have been verified with the complainant and the representative of the violator at site and they are as follows:-
a) Width of the Creek is 43.00 m, which is the length of the NDZ of Chapora River at site.
b) Sluice gate constructed by the violator had a bund of 2.5m width earlier needs to be restored in continuance to the bund on either side of the sluice gate opening.
c) The depth of construction of sluice gate opening should be maintained below the lowest tide level.
d) After restoration of 2.5m width of the bund with sluice gate, the balance filling has to be removed and the length of the lagoon which is 9 m as per the DSLR plan has to be restored.
e) To maintain the 96.00 length of the lagoon, the necessary filling done of water body from the southern side of the lagoon has to be removed.
f) Whereas, the original width of the lagoon of 67m has been maintained the same without any change.Page 3 of 8
g) This way, the site can be restored and the compliance will be done.
h) This may be deliberated in the Authority meeting for a decision."
8. The directions which were given above from "a to h" have not been complied with till now, has been made clear by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3/GCZMA.
9. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 moved a letter dated 03.06.2019 before the GCZMA for recall of those directions dated 29.09.2018 quoted above, where-in following was submitted by them:-
" 1) Kindly refer to our letter dated 22/05/2018 by virtue of which we had reported part compliance of the order dated 07/04/2017 bearing No. GCZMA/PAR/Siolim/12-12/17.
Thereafter we have complied with the other direction also. Your office was pleased to conduct a site inspection on 02/06/2018.
2) In our earlier letter dated 22/05/2018 at Para 3 we had brought it to your kind notice that the area of the lagoons/ponds that was alleged to be filled with mud was beyond the CRZ demarcated areas.
3) In terms of your site inspection it is written on Para 2 Clause 6 there is mention that the width of the river was 43 meters and therefore the NDZ applicable towards the lagoon side is 43 meters, a conjunct reading of Para 3 of our application dated 22/05/2018 and clause 6 of your report clearly points out that the area alleged who have been filled is beyond NDZ and therefore beyond the purview of the Powers vested in this Hon'ble Authority.
4) We would therefore request you to consider this issue before initiating any action in the matter. We are in receipt of an order dated 18/02/2019 issued by the office of the Dy. Collector of Panaji.
5) By virtue of this letter the Dy. Collector under instruction from the office had requisition the demolition squad for execution of the Original order dated 07/04/2017. We have to state that by virtue of your site inspection report dated 22/06/2003 there is no compliance required to be done vis- a-vis the removal of the concrete platform and the demolition of the boundary wall and building sluice gate filling carried out since the issue of mud filling would be beyond powers vested in this Hon'ble Authority the execution of such an order would be bad in law it appears that this Hon'ble Authority is being provided with incorrect information about the possession on loco by the Talathi of Siolim. Page 4 of 8
6) We are in receipt of a copy of a report dated 12/10/2018 submitted by the Talathi of siolim to the Mamlatdar of Bardez at Mapusa Goa which mention that the concrete platform and the boundary wall has not been removed as on the date of the inspection such a report is contrary to site inspection report of Inspection carried out by your office dated 20/12/2018 the report of the Talathi has been made the base for issuance of fresh direction by your office to the Dy. Collector of Panaji for compliance of your original order dated 07/04/2017.
7) We would be pleased to state that the mischief played by the Talathi at the instance of the complainant would lead to wastage of Public Money and precious time of the various officials that would visit the site to carry out the execution of an order that has already been complied with.
8) You are therefore requested to
i). Revoke the instruction issued to the Deputy Collector and stop for the process in the matter.
ii). Take strict action against the Talathi of Village Panchayat of Siolim for submitting false report.
iii). If required conduct of fresh inspection of the property in question so as to ascertain the compliance of the order dated 07/04/2017 and pass necessary order in the matter."
10. It is apparent from the record that when that recall application was filed by the Respondent No.1, the present Original Application had already been filed. In the present Original Application in pursuance to the order of this Tribunal dated 22.08.2022 read with order dated 24.09.2022, the Joint Committee has submitted its report, in which following conclusions were drawn and recommendations were made :
1. The width of sluice gate is found to be only 050 m during site inspection whereas as per Google Earth image of 2003 the width of the bund near the sluice gate shows 2.50m, it should be restored back to its original size.
2. The opening of the sluice gate must be restored from 12 m wide to its original size.
3. The dimension of the Lagoon as per old DSLR plan shows 96.00 m x 67.00m, the mud filling done of water body from the southern side of the Lagoon has to be reclaimed to maintain 96.00m length of the lagoon, since filling carried out comes within the mangrove buffer zone as per CZMP 2011.
4. The depth of construction of sluice gate opening should be maintained below the lowest tide level.Page 5 of 8
5. The committee during the site inspection has not observed any other structures as alleged by the applicant in his original application in the plot other than those aforesaid structures in the plot under above mentioned survey numbers.
6. The site inspection conducted to ascertain the factual condition of the plot is just a mere physical observation by the inspection team with the help of old survey records and available documents, committee during the site inspection has not observed any other structures as alleged by the applicant in his original application in the plot other than those aforesaid structures in the plot under above mentioned survey numbers."
11. Having drawn our attention to the above facts, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3/GCZMA says that till now, these directions/recommendations have not been complied with by the Respondent No.1/Project Proponent.
12. From the side of Respondent No.1/Project Proponent, reply to the inspection report dated 27.10.2022 has been filed on 13.12.2022, where-
in in respect to the recommendation No.1 cited above made by the GCZMA that the width of sluice gate which was found to be 0.50 m should be restored back to the original size, as earlier, it was found to be 2.5 m as per Google Image of 2003. It is stated by the Respondent No. 1 that the water body in Survey No. 318/2 cannot be referred to as lagoon. Prior to the purchase of the said properties, the earlier owner used the said water body as a fish pond/ prawn farm and that the Answering Respondent has not made any changes to the said water body.
13. With respect to the Recommendation No.2 cited above, saying that opening of the sluice gate must be restored from 12 m wide to its original size, regarding it, the Respondent No. 1 answered by saying that it was not admitted to it that the water body in Survey No. 319/2 did not match the area shown in I & XIV. But we find that there is no documentary Page 6 of 8 proof annexed thereof. Therefore, we do not admit any fault in the recommendations made by the Joint Committee in this regard.
14. With respect to the Recommendation No. 3, saying that the dimension of the Lagoon as per old DSLR plan was found 96.00m x 67.00m, the mud filling done of the water body from the Southern side of the Lagoon was required to be reclaimed to maintain 96.00m length of the Lagoon, since the filling carried out, comes within the mangrove buffer zone as per CZMP-2011, regarding it, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that the same is not admitted. There was no access or right to the villagers to pass over the property at Survey No. 320/2. The Answering Respondent has reserved a pathway along the western boundary of the properties bearing survey numbers in question as an access for the villagers for their Ganesh idol immersion.
15. It is further submitted that Google Earth images do not show the width of the bund of 2.5m. In this regard, it is oral denial on behalf of the Respondent and not supported with any documentary evidence. The learned Counsel has also vehemently stated that CZMP-2011 has not been finalized, which apparently, is incorrect because the same has been finalized on 06.09.2022. Therefore, the said recommendation also stands logical in our estimation in the present case.
16. With respect to Recommendation No. 4 cited above, saying that the depth of construction of sluice gate opening should be maintained below the lowest tide level, regarding it, nothing has been stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
17. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that there is no prayer made by the learned Counsel for Applicant in its application Page 7 of 8 regarding which the directions have been passed by the Respondent No. 3/GCZMA.
18. We find that the no commercial activity was found to have been carried out by the Joint Committee Report at the time of inspection, therefore, we, in the light of the above responses filed by the parties, are of the opinion that, this application deserves to be disposed of with the direction to the Respondent No. 1 to carry out the Recommendations 1 to 4 stated above in para no. 10, within a period of one month from today, failing which the Respondent No. 3/GCZMA shall be at liberty to proceed against it by taking coercive steps for compliance of those directions.
19. I.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of.
20. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM December 15, 2022 Original Application No. 03/2018(WZ) P.Kr Page 8 of 8