GOA FOUNDATION Vs. PANCHAYAT OF CANDOLIM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Heard. In both these petitions, the petitioners seek to restrain the respondents authorities from granting permission for new residential units or development in the CRZ-U1 zone contrary to the provisions comprised under clause 6(2) CRZ-III(iii) of Annexure-I (hereinafter called as "the said clause") of the CRZ notification dated 19th Feb., 1991 as amended till this date, hereinafter called as "the said CRZ notification" and further to remove all constructions in the said CRZ 111 zone in the village of Candolim and Calangute which have been constructed in violation of the said clause, as also to conduct an inquiry to fix responsibility for the large-scale violations of the said clause of the CRZ Notification and to take necessary action against and to ensure punishment to those who are responsible for such violations.

(3.) Under the said CRZ Notification, an area between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line, hereinafter called as "the said zone" is earmarked as No Development Zone. It is the case of the petitioners that the construction activities within the said zone are restricted for residential purposes subject to the conditions incorporated in the said clause, and accordingly it prohibits construction in excess of dwelling units twice the number of dwelling units as existed in the said zone on 19th Feb., 1991. As of 19th February. 1991 the total number of dwelling units in the said zone in the village of Candolim were 608 whereas in the village of Calangute, they were 946. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents authorities in violation of the said clause of the said CRZ Notification have granted approval to the dwelling units in excess of twice the number of the said dwelling units and a large portion of the land in the said Zone in the said two villages is virtually sought to be converted into a concrete jungle which paradoxically the CRZ Notification had designed to prevent. The general principles on which the said CRZ Notification is based include control and restrictions over unwarranted development in the coastal areas essentially for ecological reasons without disturbing traditional rights and customary uses of dwellers and those enjoyed by the people of the coastal villages and that is why the said clause protects right to construct dwelling units and to organise daily life activities for the traditional inhabitants of the coastal villages as per their customary needs. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents authorities ignoring the object behind the said clause of the said CRZ Notification had been indiscriminately granting permission for new construction in the said zone which not only needs to be stopped but action is required to be taken to restore the situation as was on 19th Feb., 1991 and to punish the guilty and those who are responsible for violation of the said CRZ Notification.