NT NETWORK
Panaji
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has dismissed the application of Anjuna resident seeking withdrawal of demolition order of their two storied structure located in CRZ area issued by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority.
The court said structure directed to be demolished by the authority was found to be unauthorized structure and required to be demolished without further debating whether CRZ policy was actually executed or not.
Terming the findings of GCZMA as ‘unassailable’ relating to the demolition order issued on unauthorized structure of Joseph D’Souza and Fabiola D’Souza the court said there is no irregularity and illegality in the order under challenge.
The GCZMA has issued an order in March 2016 directing demolition of the ground plus two storied structure in Anjuna falling in CRZ area belonging to the appellants and ordering the disconnection of power and water supply to the said structure.
However the order was challenged in the NGT on the ground that it is without justification in as much as the property does not fall within CRZ area and GCZMA has no jurisdiction to pass any order.
“We see that the order passed by the GCZMA is in accordance with the law and show cause notice was issued in accordance with the provisions and after giving an opportunity of hearing the said order was passed. The state has demarcated the High Tide Line and the CRZ notification 2011 is executed. Accordingly, we don’t find any merit in the case”, the two member bench said in the order.
The western zone bench comprising of Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and Satyawan Singh Garbyal stated that it is unnecessary to dilate on the argument as to whether CRZ policy was actually executed but since it was found that the construction was found unauthorised and illegal thus, the order is passed accordingly.
The appellant had said that structure in the said property was much before the CRZ Notification 1991 came into force, and that at the time when the said property was purchased, the erstwhile owners of the said property had given inspection of various documents to the appellants to demonstrate that the structure was an old structure.
The appellants further stated that due to financial distress, the erstwhile owners sold the said property in May 2013 along with the said structure at a relatively cheaper price to the appellant.
The appellants argued that since the said structure was incomplete/dilapidated as the same was not fully plastered, in February and March, 2014, they undertook the plastering work and gave a new look to the structure by getting the same painted and furnishing and was done with the long term intention of operating a guest house.
However in the same year the appellant was served with a show cause notice based on the complaint that the structure was within CRZ area however in the notice there was no mention of the distance from the HTL although there was a specific column in the first Notice marked ‘distance from HTL’.
In reply to the show cause notice the appellant reiterated that the said structure existed since prior to 1991 and produced various documents to support the claims but could not provide the old records and had to rely solely and entirely on the information given by the erstwhile owners.
During course of hearing the counsel for the respondent GCZMA argued that the demarcation of HTL and LTL line has been done according to the rules by the competent authority and expert member (RSI Hyderabad) and that have been put on the website on DSTE and it open in public domain.
It said that RSI Hyderabad had submitted a report with regard to location of sy no. 160/1 village Anjuna with reference to demarcation of HTL, LTL and mechanism resorted for deciding the location of survey no. 160/1 village Anjuna.
The court refused to accept the argument of the appellant that the GCZMA have not recorded their submission and also that the competent authority has not demarcated HTL and LTL.
It said that that there is compliance of natural justice and appellant was given an opportunity of hearing, since it is found within the category of violation of CRZ notification thus necessary action have been taken by the authorities concerned.
