FELIX MENINO JESUS SERRAO Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 76/95 seeks direc tions to respondent No. 3 to act in pursuance of notices dated 24th February, 1994 and 16th February, 1995 to demolish the compound wall and the building illegally constructed by the respondent No. 4 In Writ Petition No. 237/99 the petitioner (who is respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 76/95) seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated 2-2-99 passed by respondent No. 3 therein and for directions to respondent No. 2 to consider the regularisation of the petitioners structures in Survery No. 54/4 and 51/2. The controversy in the two petitions centres around the same property and, as such, the petitions were taken up together. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in W. P. No. 237/99 had requested on 27-9-99 to take up this petition alongwith W. P. No. 76/95 and, as such, arguments on merits in respect of both the petitions were heard.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 76/95 the petitioner contends that the property of respondent No. 4 under Survey 54/4 is situated within less than 200 metres from the High Tide Line and that respondent No. 4 has made construction of compound wall, dug a well and constructed a building in the said property without obtaining any permission or licence and that respondents No. 2 and 3 have already rejected the plans for construction of compound wall and the well. It is further the case of the petitioner that inspite of the fact that respondent No. 3 has issued notices for demolition of compound wall and the building, the respondent No. 3 is not taking any action to demolish the same. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 had escavated sand dunes for the purpose of the said construction.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 filed affidavit dated 23rd June, 1995 in which it was contended that the property in question had already a construction consisting of laterite pillars covered by palm leaves and thatched roof used partly to store coconuts and partly for residence during summer for sea bathers. It was further urged by respondent No. 4 that in front of petitioners plot that is between the petitioners plot and the sea beach, there are residential houses and also a hotel. Respondent No. 4 admitted in this reply that the property in question which is purchased by her consists mainly of sand dunes. According to respondent No. 4 she wanted to convert the existing hut into residential rooms and she was told that since the structure was existing, it was not necessary to apply for conversion and not to take any permission or licence for the said purpose. Subsequently by application dated 19th November, 1994, the respondent No. 4 applied for regularisation of the constructions and for necessary licence. But no order on the same has been passed by the authorities. According to respondent No. 4 the construction done by her is required to be regularised. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 filed additional affidavit on the ground that certain subsequent developments had taken place and certain additional facts were required to be placed on record. Accordingly, in this affidavit, it was stated that the respondent No. 4 had not excavated any sand dunes in the suit property. It was specifically stated in this reply that the construction put up by respondent No. 4 is beyond 200 metres of H. T. L. and that the order dated 20-10-95 by the Goa State Coastal Committee of Environment had never been communicated and it is only on 2-2-99 that the said order was communicated which is sought to be challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 237/99. In this affidavit, it was also stated that the construction in Survey No. 54/4 was started on 13-7-94 and completed on 17-8-94.