BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN...

1 (J) Application No.125 of 2015 (WZ)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

(WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE

APPLICATION No. 125/2015

(M.A.No. 12/2016)

CORAM:

Hon’ble Shri Justice U.D. Salvi,

(Judicial Member)

Hon’ble Mr. Ranjan Chatterjee,

(Expert Member)

B E T W E E N:

1. Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye,

s/o. Jairam Shetye, Major,

Occn : Service, A-102,

Raj Excellency, Patto, Ribandar,

Goa.

2. Mr. Ketan Santikar Govekar,

Major, 3rd floor Wadji Building,

St. Inez Panjim Goa.

3. Shri Sudip Narayan Tamankar,

Occn : Business, R/o. C-5,

Harbans Vihar, Old Goa Kadamba

Bypass Road, Near Saibaba Temple,

Ribandar, Goa.

4. Ms. Sonia d/o. Dnyaneshwar Saterdekar,

Occn : Service, R/o. House No.605,

Butki Wado Succoro Porvorim,

Bardez, Goa.

……Applicants

A N D

1. Jaiprakash A. Sirsaikar,

308, Welcome Rest Chapora Bardez, Goa 403 509.


2. Eliano Pascol Pereira

R/o. H.No.236/2, Vagator,

Anjuna Bardez, Goa 403 509.

3. The Member Secretary,

Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority,

Dempo Towers, Patto plaza,

Patto, Panaji, Goa 403 001.

4. The Deputy Collector (Bardez)

Bardez, Mapusa Goa 403 508.

5. The Chief Town Planner,

EDC Complex

Dempo Towers, Patto plaza,

Patto, Panajim, Goa 403 001.

…..Respondents

Counsel for Applicants

Shweta Borkar, Adv. and

Mr. Kashinath Shetye in person.

Counsel for Respondent No.1 :

Varsha Waghole & Shilpa Pratap, Advs.

Counsel for Respondent No.2

Shri S.S. Sanyal, Adv.

Ms. Shrilekha P. Golekar, Adv.

Counsel for Respondent No.3 to 5 :

Mr. Aurobindo G. Pereira, A.G.A.

Mr. Raghavendra Kalangutkar, Adv.

Mrs. Fawia M. Mesquita, Adv.

Date: 25th January , 2017

JUDGMENT 1. The Applicants are seeking directions to the

Respondent No.3 Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

(GCZMA) and Respondent No.4- Deputy Collector, Bardez


Goa to demolish the remaining illegal structures in the

property bearing S.No.213/23-A of village Anjuna, Bardez,

Goa. According to the Applicants, the Respondent No.2-

Eliano Pereira, illegally constructed structures in the

property bearing S.No.213/23-A of village Anjuna, Bardez

Goa No Development Zone falling within 100 mtrs. of High

Tide Line (HTL) declared as per Coastal Regulation Zone

2011 and the said structures were ordered to be demolished

by the Respondent No.3-GCZMA upon the complaint

initially moved by Respondent No.1-Jaiprakash Sirsaikar

on 20th April 2015 vide Order/direction under Section 5 of

the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 dated 6th August

2015; and Respondent No.1-Jaiprakash Sirsaikar and

Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira had put up a show before

this Tribunal on 13th August 2015 by making a statement

that the directions of the Respondent No.3-GCZMA were

complied with and got the Application No.60/2015 moved

by Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar for action in that

regard disposed of.

2. Actually, the Applicant submits, the demolition of all

the structures had not taken place and partial demolition

occurred later on i.e. on 14th September, 2015. It is in such

circumstances, the Applicants submit through the

Applicant No.1 Kashinath Shetye moved an Application

dated 24th August 2014 before Respondent No.3-GCZMA


complaining of failure to demolish the said structures. The

Respondent No.3 GCZMA thereupon further directed

Respondent No.2 Eliano Pereira to demolish the illegal

cottages / structures located in the said property and

restore the land to its original condition within seven (7)

days vide order dated 25th August, 2015. It was further

directed that failure on the part of Respondent No.2-Eliano

Pereira to demolish the cottages/structures, the Deputy

Collector and Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Bardez, Goa

would be removing the said cottages/structures and

recovering the expenses incurred therefor from Respondent

No.2-Eliano Pereira.

3. The Applicants submit that Respondent No.2-Eliano

Pereira challenged the directions dated 25th August, 2015

passed by Respondent No.3-GCZMA in Writ Petition

No.701/2015 preferred before the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay at Goa (Eliano Pereira V/s. State of Goa & Ors.). It

appears that the Applicant No.1 Kashinath Shetye

intervened in the said Writ Petition and the Hon’ble High

Court eventually rejected the said Writ Petition vide order

dated 10th September 2015, with following material

directions :

8. As far the next grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, considering that such directions are stated to be in terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge such directions before the learned National Green Tribunal. Hence, we find that it would not be appropriate for this


Court to interfere in such directions in the present proceedings considering the stand taken by the respondent no.2 which is otherwise disputed by the petitioner. In case any representation is made as stated by the petitioner, the authorities shall examine the same in accordance with law. 9. Subject to above, the petition stands accordingly rejected. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open.

4. The record reveals that Respondent No.2-Eliano

Pereira thereafter moved an Appeal No.62/2015 alongwith

the delay condonation application M.A. No. 247 of 2015

challenging the order dated 25th August, 2015 passed by

the Respondent No.3-GCZMA before us on 2nd December

2015. The Appeal was found grossly time barred and was

dismissed with following material directions :

“Though, the Appeal/Application made by the

Applicant/Appellant is unsustainable and will have to be

dismissed on merits yet he is at liberty to apply for

permission to get license to erect temporary shacks as per

Tourism Department policy prevailing in the State of Goa, if

it is so permissible in his case and if he apply within given

time. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off. The

Application is accordingly dismissed and disposed off”.

5. Respondent No.1-Jaiprakash Sirsaikar has filed

reply dated 7th December 2015 (pp 58 to 60) in the present

Application. He briefly contends that he was misled by the

compliance report dated 10th August 2015 filed by the

Respondent No.2 Elaino Pareira, therefore, the Respondent

No.3-GCZMA which enclosed pictures of wooden huts being

dismantled and was prompted to make a statement on 13th

August 2015 before the Tribunal that the directions dated


6th August 2015 passed by Respondent No.3 were complied

with. According to him, he believed the project proponent

that the directions of GCZMA were complied with and that

the said cottages / structures were demolished. He added

that after making such statement before the Tribunal on

13th August 2015, he was hospitalized and was advised

bed-rest for some days and thereafter, when he was passing

by the said property, he had noticed that Respondent No.2

Eliano Pareira had not fully complied with the said

directions and he immediately complained to the

Respondent No.3-GCZMA and lateron moved an Application

under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

bearing M.A.No.214/2015. He further revealed in his reply

that he had lodged the complaint before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Mapusa against the project

proponent as per the liberty granted by this Tribunal while

disposing of the said M.A.No.214/2015 (page 83) vide order

dated 29th August 2015.

6. Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira filed exhaustive

reply dated 10th May 2016 alongwith the written notes of

argument dated 9th May 2016 before the Tribunal on 11th

May 2016. The Respondent No.2 questioned the

maintainability of the present Application on the ground

that he cannot be judged twice in view of the liberty granted

to the Applicant in Application No.60/2015 to take steps for


prosecution under Section 26 of the National Green

Tribunal Act, 2010, if the non-compliance was noticed vide

order dated 13th August 2015 passed in Application

No.60/2015. The Respondent No.2 further contended that

no substantial question relating to the environment is

involved in the present case and the Applicants,

masquerading as an environmentalist is making false and

baseless allegations with malafide intentions and this can

be perceived from the fact that he is turning a blind eye to

the gross violations of the CRZ Regulations caused due to

raising of structures at Vagator beach, village Anjuna

adjacent to the properties of the Respondent No.2 namely

“Antares Beach Club and Resort” in Survey No.214/4 and

214/5 and “Shalai Cliff Resort” in Survey No.213/4 and

“Sea Palm Bar & Restaurant” in Survey No.213/9. The

Respondent No.2 as a corollary to these contentions,

questioned locus-standi of the Applicants in moving this

Application. The Respondent No.2 denied hill-cutting and

construction of staircase to climb the terrace portion of the

hill in the property in question. According to him, the

staircases are the traditional access and the Restaurant

and structure of restaurant existed in the property since the

times of his ancestors i.e. prior to 1991, and all other

structures of temporary nature were demolished and

dismantled. The Respondent No.2 further explained that


only stones were used for levelling and the mud-masonry

work raised was plastered by concrete.

7. In the written notes of arguments besides referring

to the contentions raised in the reply, the Respondent No.2

commented on the Court Commissioner’s report and

elaborated that there were no concrete or pacca structures

and the masonry work has been plastered to give it a look

as if it is a concrete structure.

8. Respondent No.3-Goa Coastal Zone Management

Authority (GCZMA) joined the issue with reply dated 15th

March 2016. Respondent No.3 GCZMA reveals in its reply

that upon receipt of the complaint dated 20th April 2015 of

Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar in respect of the

illegal construction of cottages by hill cutting in the

property bearing S.No. 213/23-A at Vagator, Anjuna,

Bardez, Goa, it issued show cause notice-cum-stop work

order No. GCZMA/N/ILLE-COMPL/15-16/22/223 dated 5th

May 2015 to the Respondent No.2 with a direction to stop

the work with immediate effect and the Respondent No.2-

Eliano Pereira, gave replies dated 12th May 2015, 3rd July

2015 and 27th July 2015 enclosing certain documents to

the said notice and contended that as a lawful owner of the

said property, he has been operating temporary shacks in

the said property for last several years after obtaining

necessary permission from the Department of Tourism and


the Village Panchyat, Anjuna-Caisua. The Respondent No.3

GCZMA further reveals that upon perusal of the reply filed

by Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira and the documents

annexed thereto, it was found that no prior approval was

obtained from Respondent No.3 GCZMA as required under

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 for raising the

said construction/cottages and considering the judgment

dated 17th December 2014 passed in Application

No.3/2014, (Mr. Aleixo Pereira Vrs. State of Goa and Others)

by this Tribunal, setting aside certain permissions it was

noticed that all the structures/cottages constructed by hill

cutting were in violation of CRZ Notification, 1991/2011

and as such the Respondent No.3-GCZMA ordered to

demolish the cottages/structures standing on the said

property upon invoking the provisions of Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 vide order dated 6th August 2015.

The Respondent No.3-GCZMA further reveals that in view of

the complaint made by Applicant No.1 Kashinath Shetye

vide letter dated 24th August, 2015 to the Respondent No.2,

particularly upon noticing that directions dated 6th August,

2015 issued were not complied with in totality and the

structures still existed in violation of CRZ-Notification 2011.

The Respondent No.3-GCZMA stated that in pursuance to

the order dated 10th September 2015 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court Bombay in Writ Petition No.701/2015, the


Respondent No.2-Eleino Pereira moved an Application dated

27th July 2015 before the authority to put up a temporary

structure in his private property and the said Application

was considered by the authority in 120th Meeting held on

11th September 2015 and after discussion and due

deliberation, it noted that Mr. Eliano Pereira had already

constructed the temporary huts without prior approval of

GCZMA and violated the CRZ Notification, 2011 and there

being no provision in CRZ Notification 2011 to grant ex-

post-facto approval it decided to reject the

Application/proposal for erection of temporary huts moved

by Respondent No.2-Eleino Pereira.

9. Respondent No.3-GCZMA in its reply, however,

confirmed the fact that the demolition was carried out

partly on 14th September 2015 and six structures were

demolished and some remained un-demolished vide letter

dated 15th September 2015 received from Respondent No.4

Deputy Collector, S.D.M. Bardez, Goa. Interestingly, the GCZMA

in its reply reveals that after the correspondence between

the Authorities and Respondent No.4-Deputy Collector and

S.D.M. Bardez, Goa for arranging demolition of the

structures standing on the property in question, the demolition

was carried out on 8th December, 2015 vide letter dated 10-12-

2015 received from Respondent No.4-Deputy Collector and

S.D.M. The Respondent No.3-GCZMA denied that it made


any false statement before Tribunal regarding any fact

concerning the present case.

10. Rival pleadings before us thus beg a short question

as to :

“Whether all the cottages/structures on the

property S.No.213/23-A at Vagator, Anjuna, Bardez

Goa which were ordered to be demolished as per the

order dated 6th August 2015 annexed by Respondent

No.2 to the present Application were actually and

completely demolished or not ?

11. Genesis of the present controversy arises from the

complaint made by the Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash

Sirsaikar vide letter dated 20th April 2015 annexed to the

Application No.60/2015 moved by Respondent No.1-

Jaiprakash Sirsaikar at Exh.B. Respondent No.1-

Jaiprakash Sirsaikar made complaint to the Member

Secretary, GCZMA regarding work of construction of

structures/cottages carried out in S.No.213-23-A, area

falling in No Development Zone i.e. less than 100 mtrs. in

High Tide Line at Vagatar, Anjuna, Bardez by hill cutting

without any approval from Competent Authority-GCZMA.

This prompted the Respondent No.3-GCZMA to issue a

show cause notice dated 5th May 2015 Exh.C annexed to

the Application No.60/2015 to the Respondent No.2 Eleino

Pereira wherein GCZMA described the details of violations

as follows :


S.No. Name of the

Party/alleged violator

Survey No.7

Village

Type of

Construction

Distance

from HTL

1 Mrs. Eliano Pereira

213/23-A Vagator,

Anjuna Village, Bardez, Goa

Illegal construction

of cottages by hill cutting

No Developm

ent Zone.

12. Copy of the complaint dated 20th April 2015 was

enclosed with show cause notice dated 5th May 2015. It is

not in dispute that the show cause notice was replied and

order dated 6th August 2015 to demolish the illegal

construction of cottages located in the said property under

Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read

with Rule 4 of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 as per

annexure R-2 came to be issued by Respondent No.3-

GCZMA. Infact, the Respondent No.2 Eliano Pereira herein

appeared before us in Application no.60/2015 moved by the

Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar for directions to

Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira, GCZMA and Revenue

Authorities to demolish the illegal construction carried out

by Respondent No.7 therein i.e. Respondent No.2-Eliano

Pereira herein in the said property and made a statement

that the directions for demolition issued by the Respondent

No.3-GCZMA to remove the structures from S.No.213-23-A

were complied with by him vide order dated 13th August

2015 passed in Application No.60/2015.


13. Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira gave series of

replies dated 12th May 2015, 3rd July 2015 and 27th July

2015 to the show cause notice dated 5th May 2015 which

have been annexed at Ex.2 collectively to reply of

Respondent No.3 dated 15th March, 2016. Significantly,

perusal of these replies reveal reference to only erection of

temporary wooden terrace, cottages, huts and not to any

structure/restaurant constructed prior to 1991. Reply

dated 27rd July 2015 Ex.2 collectively as well as

communication dated 10th August 2015 to GCZMA

categorically makes assertions as under :

“I am inherited lawful owner in possession of the property bearing S.No. 213/23A of village Anjuna, Bardez-Goa, property being garden of nature (A2) with fruit bearing tress such as coconut, cashew etc. and planted at various terraced levels in my sloppy land terrain. Since rocky land and not conducive for plantation the plants started to slowly diminish. So in the year 2004/2005, I decided to begin with temporary seasonal huts for tourist purpose. And, while doing such tourist related business I have been granted, all necessary permission from Tourism department & Local Panchyat body respectively”.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Respondent No.2 Eliano Pereira submitted that the original

complaint dated 20th April 2015 made to GCZMA was in

respect of construction of cottages in the said property and

as a corollary thereto the show cause notice dated 5th May

2015 describing the construction as cottages was issued.

He added that the demolition which was ordered by the

Respondent No.3-GCZMA vide order dated 6th August 2015

was in respect of the cottages in the said property and not

the restaurant which is shown to be existing at the spot as


per the Commissioner’s Report. Pertinently, the revenue

record produced by Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira form-I

and XIV in respect of the survey No.213 Sub-division 23/A

of village Anjuna at Annexure ‘C’ to the reply affidavit dated

10th May 2016 shows the property as agricultural property

having garden (Bagayat). Even the plan of the said property

drawn by DSLR, Government of Goa does not show

existence of any structure, much less the Restaurant.

Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira has not produced any

material to suggest that any restaurant existed in the said

property prior to 1991.

15. Oxford dictionary of English, 3rd edition gives the

meaning of word “cottage” and “house” as follows :

‘Cottage : a small house, typically one in the country :

a simple house forming part of a farm, used by a

worker.

‘House’ : A building for human habitation, especially

one that consists of a ground floor and one or more

upper storeys: A building in which people meet for a

particular activity:, A firm or institution: A restaurant or

inn:

Essentially, therefore, a cottage is a species of house, the

dimensions of which are small and it can be a simple house

forming part of a farm. Broadly, such house also can be

used as a restaurant or inn.


16. Significantly, what was ordered to be demolished

vide direction/order dated 6th August 2015 were all cottages

on the said property with no distinction being made as to its

user. Nothing existed even going by his own (i.e.

Respondent No.2 Eleino Pereira) showing prior to 2004-05

on the said property and the entire property was a garden

(Bagayat).

17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of GCZMA

submitted that it relied upon the report of Dy. Collector

dated 8th December 2015, accompanying the letter dated

10th December 2015 and would be bound by the

Commissioner’s Report as regards the factum of the

execution of the orders of demolition passed by GCZMA.

18. We had appointed Registrar to act as a Court

Commissioner to carry out local investigation upon visit to

the site in question vide order dated 18th December 2015.

The Court Commissioner filed a Report dated 18th February

2016 upon carrying out the local investigation before us.

The report dated 18th February 2016 reveals that local

investigation was carried out in presence of Applicant No.1

Kashinath Shetye, Respondent No.1 Jaiprakash Sirsaikar,

Mr. Kundlik Khurjuvekar, Deputy Collector, Mapusa and

other six local officers on 6th February 2016. The Court

Commissioner described the disputed site as follows :


Part-I

1. The disputed site/property bearing “Survey

no.213/23-A of village Anjuna, Bardez Taluka, Mapusa,

Goa is having two wooden restaurant sheds with

concrete basement upto plinth level which can be seen

in Photographs 1 & 3 to 8. It is having Southern and

Northern concrete compound walls which can be seen in

Photographs 9 to 15. It is divided in two parts i.e.

upper (eastern) part and lower (western) part by making

South-North hill cutting which can be seen in

Photographs 2, 9 and 12 to 14. There are two stare

cases in disputed site out of which one is from Northern

side of the disputed site and another is at the middle

which can be seen in Photographs 9 to 11. The

disputed site is situated on the coastal part of Arabian

sea and it is also situated within 500 metres from the

High Tide Line as well as Arabian sea which can be

seen in Photograph 10.

Besides describing what was demolished, the Court

Commissioner described the structures and wooden sheds

which were not demolished as follows :

Part-II

1. Two wooden sheds of restaurants having concrete

base upto plinth level are not demolished. The furniture

of restaurant like chairs, tables and other articles like

refrigerator, fans etc. are lying there which can be seen

in Photographs 1, 3 to 8 & 16.

2. South-North hill cutting which has divided the

disputed site into two parts i.e. upper part and lower

part are still as it is. The stair cases to approach the

lower part of the disputed site are not demolished. The


said hill cutting, two stair cases and the Southern &

Northern compound walls are not demolished which can

be seen in Photographs 2 & 9 to 15. The South-North

hill cutting is not restored to its original position which

can also be seen in those photographs.

3. The Northern compound wall and adjacent stare

case to it in disputed site are not demolished which can

be seen in Photograph 11.

4. The cottages are demolished/removed but the

concrete/paka structure upto the plinth level and the

flooring of cottages as well as restaurant basement are

not demolished/removed which can be seen in

Photographs 5, 7 to 13 & 19.

5. Paka/concrete structure of the Eastern, Western

and other compound walls upto the plinth level is not

demolished which can be seen in Photographs 2 & 17

to 19.

19. In the reply dated 10th May 2016 to the

Commissioner’s report, the Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira

has made an attempt to qualify the observations made by

Court Commissioner with a statement that the structures

which have been described as concrete base/structures is

infact a masonry structure plastered by concrete and not a

permanent structure and such structure existed prior to

1991 and no hill cutting was carried out after 1990. The

Respondent No.2 also contended that the Court

Commissioner has not taken into consideration the scope of

demolition order dated 25th August 2015 and has made

observations on the premise that everything at the disputed


site was supposed to be demolished. Pertinently,

demolition order dated 25th August 2015 passed by

Respondent No.3 GCZMA directs demolition of illegal

construction of cottages/structures located in the said

property and restore the land to its original condition

without any exception. Perusal of the photographs

produced by the Court Commissioner with the said Report

betrays real character of the existing structures at the site

which appear to be newly made cottages/ structures of

permanent nature.

20. Facts observed by the Court Commissioner,

therefore, cannot be brushed aside to say that demolition of

all the cottages which even included all structures standing

on the said property was complete. The report of the

Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa, Goa dated 10th

December 2015 and the accompanying panchnama dated

8th December 2015 Exhibit-VIII to the affidavit dated 15th

March, 2016 of the Respondent No.3 is cryptic and makes a

bland statement that cottages/structures have been

removed by the project proponent Eliano Pereira as per the

order of GCZMA dated 25th August 2015 without making

specific reference to the said structures seen existing in

Court Commissioner’s Report. We cannot place any

credence on the report of the Deputy Collector which

palpably appears to be false as follows :


“It was noticed that the cottages/structures have

been removed by opponent i.e. Mr. Eliano Pereira. Your

office representative Mr. Fletcher Fernandes, Technical

Officer of GCZMA has confirmed that nothing more is

required to be removed and satisfied that the aforesaid

order is complied in toto. The photocopy of the

Panchnama is enclosed herewith”.

21. The Respondent No.2 Elaino Pereira has questioned

the maintainability of the present Application on the ground

that Applicant No.2 is at liberty to take steps for

prosecution under Section 26 of the National Green

Tribunal Act, 2010 and therefore, the Respondent No.2

cannot be judged twice. The Applicant is essentially

seeking demolition of the structures on the said property

which were required to be demolished and land restored as

per the order passed by GCZMA. It is certainly not the case

of judging the Respondent No.2 twice. The Respondent

No.2-Eliano Pereira, further challenged the locus of the

Applicants on the ground that he is habitual litigant who

files false cases. In the instant case, the Respondent No.2-

Eliano Pereira, was expected to remove all

structures/cottages constructed without permission of

GCZMA on the said property and restore the Bagayat land.

The inquiry in the present case has revealed that all the

structures on the said property which were constructed

without permission of GCZMA have not been demolished


and the land has not been restored. Firstly, therefore, it

cannot be said that the present case is a false case. The

Respondent No.2 is under obligation to remove all such

structures on the said property and any individual or

representative body has a right to ask for discharge of such

obligations in the environmental interest. The Applicant,

therefore, cannot be said to be without any locus in the

present case

22. Respondent No.2-Eliano Pereira, further contended

that the present case does not pertain to any substantial

question relating to environment as envisaged under

Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Such

a plea cannot be raised by the Respondent No.2 as he

remains under obligation to remove all structures

constructed without permission of GCZMA on the said

property. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we pass the

following directions.

1) Respondent No.3-GCZMA and Respondent No.4-

Deputy Collector, S.D.M. Bardez, Goa shall

demolish and remove all structures including the

foundations/plinth standing on survey No.213/23-

A of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa and restore the

said land as Garden (Bagayat) land.

2) Respondent No.2 Eleino Pereira shall bear the

expenses of such removal of structures/plinth etc.


on the said property and restoration of the land

bearing Survey No.213/23-A of village Anjuna,

Bardez, Goa as aforesaid.

3) Issue show cause to Respondent No.2 Eliano

Pareira, Respondent No.3-Mr.Pundlik K.

Khorjuvekar, Dy. Collector and SDM Mapusa,

Respondent No.4 Madhu G. Narvekar, Mamlatdar of

Bardez Taluq, Mapusa Goa and Mr. Fletcher

Fernandes, Technical Officer, GCZMA, Panaji, as to

why prosecution under Section 193 and 219 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 should not be initiated

against them..

4) Notice made returnable on 23rd February, 2017.

Application No.125/2015 stands disposed of

accordingly. M.A.No. 12/2016 no longer survives and

stands disposed of.

….…………….………………., JM (Justice U.D. Salvi)

…...….…….……………………., EM (Mr. Ranjan Chatterjee) Date : 25th January 2017 ajp

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN...

Documents

Transcript of BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN...