ANTONIO FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The above public interest litigation inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents no.2,4,5 & 7 to take immediate action for demolition of the illegal structures constructed in the riverine land and further to quash and set aside the permission dated 19/08/2010 granted to the respondent no.8 by the respondent no.4 and also to quash and set aside the permission dated 8/09/2010 granted to the respondent no.8 by the respondent no.7 as well as the construction license dated 30/09/2010 granted by the respondent no.5 to the respondents no.8 & 9 and consequently issue direction to demolish the subject dry dock and to restore the riverine area.

(3.) Briefly, it is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent no.2 granted approval to the respondents no.8 & 9 to start a barge repairing workshop on 30/05/2008 and thereafter on 28/08/2008 the respondent no.4 also granted approval for such activity which clearly stated that the riverine land would be water fronted for barge repairs only, which would be done in plot bearing survey no.30/8. It was also stated that the said permission also contained a condition that no construction of any nature would be carried out in the said portion of the encroached Government riverine land. Thereafter on 9/09/2008, the respondent no.8 applied to the respondent no.2 for permission to construct a dry dock in the said property surveyed under no.30/8. It is contended by the petitioners that the plan produced by the said respondent shows that the construction would go much beyond the property surveyed under no.30/8 into the river Zuari. It is further contended that the said plan was different from the plan where the dry dock was to be located. An approval was granted on 27/01/2010 by the respondent no.2 for the construction of the dry dock in the property under survey no.30/8 although the plan showed that the construction would come up much beyond the low tide line in the river. It is contended by the petitioners that such permission is bad in law issued by the respondent no.2 as it had no powers to permit construction beyond the low tide line into the river and that such permission could not be granted without demarcating the low tide line. It is also pointed out that appropriate Authority to grant such permission was the respondent no. It is further pointed out that the said permission contained condition that prior to the commencement of the work, the respondent no.8 should obtain an NOC from the respondent no.4 and other Authorities. The respondent no.4 granted approval on 19/08/2010 for the construction of the said dry dock in survey no.30/8. It is contended that the said permission is illegal as the respondent no.4 has no powers to grant permission for construction in the Government riverine land. Thereafter, on 8/09/2010, the respondent no.7 granted approval for the said construction and a construction license was issued on 30/09/2010 by the respondent no.5 to the respondents no.8 & 9 for the construction of the said riverine land. It is contended by the petitioners that the said approval dated 8/09/2010 and the license dated 30/09/2010 are bad as the same refer to the construction coming up in the property surveyed under no.30/8 but however the plan shows that the same would be constructed in the river Zuari. Subsequently by letter dated 8/10/2010, the respondent no.2 informed the respondent no.8 that the permission granted by the respondent no.2 was kept in abeyance and no work was permitted to be carried out based on such license. Thereafter, on 22/02/2011 the respondent no.2 passed an order observing that the respondent no.8 had produced various permissions and that the activity is permissible under the CRZ Notification. It was also observed that the member of the respondent no.2 would visit the site and conduct a spot inspection. Subsequently on 11/04/2011 a letter was issued to the respondent no.8 withdrawing the letter dated 8/10/2010. Such letter was issued based on the Inspection Report prepared on 17/03/2011 which indicated that no encroachment was observed when admittedly no construction could be carried out during that period. Though occupancy certificate was not granted, a vessel was permitted to enter in such dry dock. The petitioners addressed a complaint on 17/08/2012 to the respondent no.2 to take immediate action. No reply came forward to such complaint. It is further contended that the Authorities on 17/09/2012 remained present at the site though the petitioners were denied entry into the dry dock. The complaint was lodged by the petitioners with the Directorate of Panchayat about such incident and thereafter the petitioners obtained the report of the site inspection. It is further contended that the respondents no.4 & 5 have observed that the complainants refused to enter the subject premises. It is also pointed out that the Inspection Report relied is erroneous and cannot be relied upon and consequently the petitioners addressed a letter dated 17/12/2012 to the respondent no.4 with a copy to the respondent no.1 calling upon the respondent no.4 to initiate immediate action for the removal of the encroachment in the river. As no action was being taken and being aggrieved by the inaction thereof, the petitioners filed the above petition for the reliefs stated herein above. The challenge of the petitioners is essentially that based on the said licenses no construction should be done in the river of Zuari.