NGT sets aside GCZMA order to demolish structure

Says inspection report was poor

Panaji: Citing poor quality of site inspection report as the major reason, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has set aside an order of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to demolish an allegedly illegal structure in the coastal village of Calangute.

The site inspection report was deemed as insufficient by the NGT to establish the existence of the allegedly illegal structure.

Expressing concerns over the efficacy of the coastal zone regulations, the NGT stressed the need for greater transparency and accountability in the inspection process after finding that the site inspection report submitted by GCZMA did not clearly identify the structure.

The case in question involves a dispute between an appellant, Francis Rodrigues, and the GCZMA, which had ordered the demolition of a structure in survey no. 158/2 and the removal of road in survey nos. 158/4 and 158/6 of Calangute on July 25, 2022, believed to be in violation of coastal zone regulations. The GCZMA had directed the appellant to restore the land to its original condition within 30 days of receiving the order.

The appellant, however, challenged the GCZMA order, arguing that the structure in question had not been clearly identified in the site inspection report. The appellant also maintained that the structure shown in the inspection report was different from the one that was ordered to be demolished.

During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant clarified that they were only concerned with the direction given for demolition of the structure in survey no. 158/2 and had nothing to do with the road.

The NGT had previously ordered the GCZMA to clarify the discrepancy, as the inspection report stated a new house was being constructed while the impugned order directed the demolition of the structures already standing.

The GCZMA submitted a letter dated January 29, 2020, written by the deputy collector and sub-divisional officer of Mapusa sub-division, addressing the member secretary, GCZMA, regarding the construction of the house in survey no. 158/2 and the construction of the road in survey nos. 158/6 and 158/2 of Calangute village.

The letter contained a report received from mamlatdar of Bardez based on talathi’s report, stating that a new road construction of length 80 metres and width 3 metres was found along with a new house construction having an area of approximately 30 square metres. A sketch was also annexed, showing a small construction of a house as well as the road passing through survey no. 158/2 and also through survey nos. 158/4 and 158/6.

The counsel for the appellant drew attention to the sale deed dated November 20, 2019, executed by four persons wherein they sold their portion of land in survey no. 152/2, measuring 438 square metres out of the 2,300 square metres of the village of Calangute. The boundaries of the plot were indicated, matching the three sides given in the sale deed.

It was asserted that the structure shown on the same survey number, built on a 438 square metre area, was a part of the old construction before 1991 and could not have been ordered to be demolished. The counsel also drew attention to the application for permission to repair the house, which showed the area to be 204 square metres and the survey number as 158/2.

The appellant argued that the area that the GCZMA was showing of the said construction was much less, that is, 30 square metres, as shown by the talathi in his report, but it was actually not 30 square metres; rather, it was 204 square metres. Therefore, it appeared that the talathi had submitted the report with respect to some other property and not the property claimed by the appellant to be theirs.

After examining the evidence presented by both the sides, the NGT found that the order to demolish the structure was not appropriate, given the lack of evidence. The NGT emphasised that while the GCZMA had the authority to enforce coastal zone regulations, it was important that such enforcement be based on solid evidence.

“In the present case, the GCZMA did not conduct a site inspection appropriately to show as to where the alleged illegal structure, which has been ordered to be demolished, was existing, as we do not find the same to have been shown in the site inspection report, and yet they have gone ahead and ordered demolition of the same, which we find not appropriate, and in view of this, we find that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside,” says the order passed by the western zone bench of the NGT led by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni.

The NGT did, however, give the GCZMA the opportunity to conduct a fresh investigation to ascertain if any illegal construction had been made by the appellant.

The ruling emphasised that the GCZMA could proceed against the appellant if any illegal construction was found to exist, but not with regard to the road.