National Green Tribunal
Sagardeep Sirsaikar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on 7 August, 2024
Item No.8 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
I.A. No.195/2024(WZ)
In
Original Application No.05/2023(WZ)
Sagardeep Sirsaikar
.....Applicant
Versus
GCZMA & Ors.
....Respondents
Date of hearing: 07.08.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Aagney Sail Advocate
Respondents : Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA
Mr. Parag Rao, Advocate along-with
Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R- 2 to 5
Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-7/NCZMA
ORDER
1. From the side of respondent No.1-GCZMA, learned counsel Ms. Supriya Dangare has appeared. Today, she has filed an affidavit dated 06.08.2024, in which order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the GCZMA is annexed, wherein we find that upon consideration of the complaint of one Mr. Ramesh Mazumdar (not party in the present case), it is directed that the respondent No.2- Mr. Robert F. Coutinho and the respondent No.5- Being Life Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. shall remove the concrete gutter running along on left of the entire path, remove the retaining walls on both sides of the path, remove the permanent steps leading down to upper deck which continue to the lower deck, remove the tiles and concrete of the lower deck and remove the debris and remnants of RCC footing which still exist on the site. It is also recorded that over and above, if there are Page 1 of 5 any further constructions, which are beyond the approvals then those constructions should also be removed by these respondents in the property bearing Survey No.213/5 of Village Anjuna of Bardez Taluka, within one month from the receipt of the said order.
2. From the description of the structures, which have been ordered to be demolished, we are unable to appreciate as to what structures are ordered to be demolished. Therefore, we direct the respondent No.1- GCZMA to submit Sketch Map or Site Plan showing all these structures, which have been ordered to be demolished.
3. It is very strange that without determining as to which other structure is beyond approval, blindly it has been ordered to be demolished by the respondent No.1. If other constructions are found to be there beyond approval, those constructions should also be removed. Such kind of order appears to be vague order. In this regard, we want a clarification from the GCZMA as to which further structures they are referring to.
4. The learned counsel Mr. Aagney Sail representing applicant submits before us that he has received a copy of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 today morning. Therefore, he needs to file objection against the same, to which the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 is opposing the same saying that this is an order, which is appealable and if any grievance is there to the applicant, he may file an appeal. In the interest of justice, we grant an opportunity of two weeks to the applicant to file rejoinder to the affidavit dated 06.08.2024 submitted by the respondent No.1.
5. The learned counsel for applicant has prima facie pointed out that above-mentioned order has been passed by the GCZMA with respect to Page 2 of 5 the illegal constructions in Survey No.213/5 only and not with respect to the encroachments made in Survey Nos.213/6 and 206/1 despite the fact that regarding these Survey Numbers, details have already been given in the pleadings. We find that para-wise reply seems to be there in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1- GCZMA denying that there were any illegal constructions in the Survey Nos.213/6 and 206/1, Anjuna Village, Bardez Taluka.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the owners of Survey Nos.213/6 and 206/1, Anjuna Village have not been impleaded in the present Original Application. Therefore, in case any order is passed with regard to the above-mentioned Survey Numbers, the grievance may arise to the owners of those Survey Numbers. In this regard, the learned counsel for applicant states that he has impleaded the owner of Survey No.213/6 by the main owner being shown as respondent No.4- Mr. Nelson Britto and for this, he has drawn our attention to page no.53 of the paper book, which is Form No.I & XIV of the said Survey Number, showing the name of Mr. Nelson Britto- respondent No.4 as the owner along-with his family members. Therefore, it appears prima facie that the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1- GCZMA is wrong.
7. With respect to Survey No.206/1, Anjuna Village, it is clarified by the learned counsel for applicant that the owner of the same is Comunidade of Anjuna Village. But we find that the same has not been impleaded as one of the respondents in the present Original Application. Therefore, we direct him to implead the same as one of the respondents in the present Original Application and file an amended memo of parties within three days and thereafter, Registry is directed to issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent, returnable within four weeks. Newly Page 3 of 5 impleaded respondent is directed to file their reply affidavit within four weeks.
8. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for applicant has also pointed out that there are two reliefs, which have not been considered by the respondent No.1- GCZMA and the respondent No.7- NCZMA. Regarding this, he has drawn our attention to our earlier order dated 19.03.2024, wherein we had passed an order in para nos.2 & 3 that Prayer- 'D' pertaining to "Direct the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority in compliance of its decision taken for Item No.2.4 in its 306th Meeting held on 26.05.2022 to publish all the Completion Certificates issued for erection of temporary shacks/huts etc. including pictures of such structures on their official website https://czma.goa.gov.in/ inviting objections/suggestions from the concerned citizens". This part has not been complied with till now by the GCZMA nor has any reply been received from their side. Therefore, we direct the GCZMA to submit specific reply in this regard within two weeks.
9. With regard to the NCZMA, in the same order dated 19.03.2024, in para no.13, we had passed direction that the respondent No.7- NCZMA shall file a detailed affidavit in regard to mode of arriving on environmental compensation in violation cases in CRZ area. In this regard, learned counsel Mr. Pushkal Mishra representing respondent No.7- NCZMA tried to say that the matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in Public Interest Litigation (L) No.8540 of 2021 (Vanashakti & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.), a copy of which is annexed at page nos.485 to 487 of the paper book. But we find that the same deals with Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 on the "subject:
Procedure for dealing with violations arising due to not obtaining a prior CRZ clearance for permissible activities-reg.", which is annexed at page Page 4 of 5 nos.456 to 458 of the paper book. We do not find this OM to cover such cases, which are falling under 'not permissible activity'. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.7 does not appear to be true that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, he prays for three weeks' time to be allowed to submit a detailed reply in this regard. We allow the said time.
10. The learned counsel Mr. Parag Rao representing respondent Nos.2 to 5 seeks two weeks' time to file additional affidavit to bring on record the current facts. We allow the said time with a direction that a copy of the same shall be served upon all other parties, who may file rejoinder affidavit against the same, if any, within two week thereafter.
Put up this matter for further consideration on 05.11.2024
11. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM August 07, 2024 I.A. No.195/2024(WZ) In Original Application No.05/2023(WZ) P.Kr Page 5 of 5