PILERNE CITIZENS FORUM Vs. THE STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri P. Faldessai, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no.1,3,4 & 5, Ms. D. Shirgam, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Shri V.A. Lawande, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.6 & 7.

(2.) The above petition takes exception to the conversion sanad granted by the respondent no.4 whereby the property surveyed under no.206/2 situated at Pilerne Village was permitted to be used for non - agricultural purposes pursuant to a sanad granted on 18/04/2002.

(3.) Shri Ryan Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the property surveyed under no.206/2 is not situated in the settlement zone and, as such, according to him the disputed sanad granted by the respondent no.4 stands vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the order granting such sanad to point out that such exercise was done based on the information sent by the planning Authority to the effect that the subject property was in the settlement zone in the ODP plan. The learned Counsel further points out that at the relevant time the subject property was not in the ODP and as such the reliance of the respondent no.4 on this aspect itself would vitiate the sanad granted in respect of the subject property. The learned Counsel further submits that adjoining to such property there is a Savlem Lake and it is the concern of the petitioners to ensure the protection of such lake. The learned Counsel further submits that development being carried out by the respondent no.7 is adjoining such lake and, as such, according to him the sanad granted by the respondent no.4 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel further submits that at the relevant time the Regional Plan, 2001 was in operation and, as such, according to the learned Counsel as there is no indication of the survey numbers in the Regional Plan of 2001 the exercise had to be carried out to ascertain whether the property surveyed under no.206/2 falls in the settlement zone in terms of the Regional Plan of 2001. The learned Counsel further points out that though it was pointed out that there was an earlier conversion sanad granted in the year 1983, the relevant records to ascertain whether such sanad was granted based on the consent from the Planning Department were not available at the relevant time. The learned Counsel further points out that this Court by an order dated 19/07/2010 had directed the Committee of Chief Town Planner and the Deputy Town Planner to ascertain whether the subject property surveyed under no.206/2 falls in the settlement zone in such Regional Plan. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the report was thereafter submitted by the Chief Town Planner inter alia holding that the subject land was located in the settlement zone in the Regional Plan of 2001. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the affidavit as well as the report to point out that such exercise was carried out by the Chief Town Planner without visiting the site and, as such, according to him this itself would vitiate the report submitted by such Authority. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us minutely through the report as well as the sanad attached to such report to point out that though an exercise has been carried out to allegedly locate the subject land, but however, such exercise is not in accordance with law as according to him the Chief Town Planner has not visited the property and considered the relevant material to come to such conclusion. The learned Counsel further points out that even the Chief Town Planner in the report has pointed out that the lake which is located adjoining to the subject property is a paddy fields though according to him the lake is still found at loco. The learned Counsel further points out that immediately after the petitioners learnt about the development activity being carried out by the respondent no.7 the above petition came to be filed to challenge the conversion sanad granted by the respondent no.4 and stop any further development in the subject property. The learned Counsel further submits that the above petition has been filed in public interest to protect the lake as well as to ensure that the green area is not allowed to be converted for residential purposes. The learned Counsel, as such, points out that the petitioners are entitled for the relief in the above petition.