Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. It is further submitted by the answering respondent that all the allegations related to cutting of sand dunes, land filling and felling of natural vegetation are denied. It is stated by the answering respondent that the structure in question has been neither sold nor transferred to any third party. The lease-deed executed in favour of respondent No.2, in no manner, violates the terms of the permission granted by respondent No.1. The report titled "Carrying Capacity of Beaches of for Providing Shacks and Other Temporary Seasonal Structures in Private Areas" is misconceived. The said report has not been produced by the applicant. It is evident that the study undertaken by NCSCM and the conclusion arrived at did not apply to the pre-existing structures. The veracity in the documents and the photographs annexed with the application has been denied. The report dated 23.12.2022, relied upon by the applicant, does not depict the correct position of loco. Accordingly, the contents of the said report and the conclusions drawn therein are also disputed. As per the terms of CRZ Notification, 2011, there is no restriction of whatsoever nature on the user of the structure, post repairs or reconstruction. The subject property falls in CRZ-III and the restriction on user is contemplated on CRZ-II areas. The permissions issued by GCZMA have to be construed in that context. The condition No. (i) of the said permission mandates that the provisions of CRZ Regulation 2011 shall be complied with. The condition No.(iv) is not applicable to the subject construction as the same is applicable only in the event of regularization of the structure sought in terms of Regulation 6 sub-clause (d), which is applicable only in respect of dwelling units of traditional coastal communities, which do not have approval from the concerned authorities and therefore, are not applicable in case of existing authorized structures, which are approved for repairs or reconstruction. The reconstruction contemplated with regard to transfer and user is only in respect of such structures falling within the purview of para 6(d) and the said condition No.(iv) is applicable to such structures. The subject structures were always used for commercial purpose prior to 1991. Therefore, there is no change of user on the part of the answering respondent. It is also denied that the construction falls within NDZ, hence deserves to be demolished. It is prayed by the answering respondent that in view of above facts, this Original Application deserves to be dismissed.

Decision : - The Authority observed that applicant Mr. Selso Fernandes in year 2017 applied before this Authority repair and renovation of his two existing authorized structures in survey No.100/10 of village Agonda, Canacona, Goa. The Authority after inspection and verifying all documents with regard to legality of structures of applicant, Authority decided to grant permission to applicant for repair and renovation of his two structures situated in property survey No.100/10 of village Agonda. Whereas wit that context Authority issued two NOCs dated 04/04/2017 to the applicant Mr. Selso Fernandes for repair and renovation of his two authorized existing structures in property surveyed under survey No.100/10 of village Agonda, however at time of issue of said NOCs to the applicant Authority mentioned some conditions and condition at clause 4 is mentioned as "structure should not be used for commercial purpose and not to be sold and transferred to the Non-traditional community" hence present representation filed by applicant for deletion of said clause 4 (condition) mentioned on his two NOC issued by this Authority for repair and renovation of his two authorized structures. Authority deliberation and discussion on representation of Mr. Selso Fernandes arrived under following conclusion. 
                         (i)       *****
                         (ii)      Reconstruction, repair works of the structures of local
                                   communities    including    fishermen     community          shall      be
                                   permissible in CRZ."
35. Having drawn our attention to the above provisions, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that Para 6 sub-clause (d) would be clearly applicable in the present case, which provides that the dwelling units of the traditional coastal communities, especially fisherfolk, tribals as are permissible under the provisions of the CRZ notification, 1991, but which have not obtained formal approval from concerned authorities under the aforesaid notification, shall be considered by the respective Union territory CZMAs and the dwelling units shall be regularized on the conditions that these are not used for any commercial activity and are not sold or transferred to non-traditional coastal community. But instead of invoking this provision, respondent No.1 - GCZMA has given benefit to respondent Nos.2 to 3 of the provision of Para 8 III A(ii), which provides that no construction shall be permitted within NDZ except for repairs or reconstruction of existing authorized structure not exceeding existing Floor Space Index, existing plinth area and existing density and for permissible activities under the notification, especially facilities essential for activities; construction/reconstruction of dwelling units of traditional coastal communities including fisherfolk may be permitted between 100 and 200 metres from the HTL along the seafront in accordance with a comprehensive plan prepared by the State Government or the Union territory. It is argued that this provision too has been wrongly interpreted by respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well because the construction/reconstruction, which is permitted under this provision also related to the dwelling units of traditional coastal communities. It is also argued that the pretext is being taken by respondent No.1 that there is no bar for commercial activity in this provision, hence permission granted initially which was later on modified by removing condition no. (iv), cannot be treated to be illegal. This act on part of respondent No.1 is stated to be illegal, biased and against the spirit of CRZ Notification, 2011. No-where would it be reflected by the provision of this Notification that dwelling units of coastal community could be allowed to be used as a Resort/Hotel or for some commercial purpose. This Notification intended to provide protection to weaker section of the local traditional coastal communities to safeguard their interest, but it appears that respondent No.1 has gone to help the big resort owners to take advantage of the loopholes in the provisions.

66. We are of the view that in the case in hand, provision of Para 8 III A(ii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011 would be applicable which allows permissions to be granted in No Development Zone for only repairs or reconstruction of existing authorized structure not exceeding existing Floor Space Index, but this part of the said provision does not apply in the present case because it speaks of `existing authorized structure' while in this case, permission does not appear to be in case of authorized structure and not specifically of any dwelling unit of traditional coastal communities, while later part of it speaks that the permission for construction/reconstruction for dwelling unit of traditional coastal communities. If we take assistance of CRZ of Goa, which is provided in Para 8 V, sub-clause (3) (ii), it says that the reconstruction, repair works of the structures of local communities including fishermen community shall be permissible in CRZ. Clear word "structures" has been used and not dwelling unit only. Therefore, even if we go by the provision, intent of this Notification was to give facility to only local community, such as fishermen, who had structures within CRZ area and if they need to repair/reconstruct the same, permission could have been granted by respondent No.1. In the case in hand, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are said to be the persons belonging to community of traditional toddy tapper, who fall in the local community. Therefore, whatever structure they had, which required repairs/reconstruction, could be permitted by GCZMA to be reconstructed but the same should have been permitted only on the plinth of the said existing structure and not beyond that. It can also be firmly interpreted that these provisions would indicate that respondent No.1 ought to have been vigilant while granting permission as to whether the said persons were obtaining permission for their residential purposes or the same was being obtained for a property leased out to other parties for the purpose of commercial use. In the case in hand, it is quite apparent that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who belong to traditional toddy tapper community, by way of lease, had transferred the said land to respondent No2, who is running full-fledged Resort on the said land and it is also alleged that the said transfer through lease-deed was effected even prior to grant of impugned permission by respondent No.1.