GOA FOUNDATION Vs. DIKSHA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the permission granted to the respondent No. 1 for construction of a Beach Resort in the property bearing Survey No. 28/1, 29, 33/1 and 33/2 of Nagorcem beach by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the environment clearance and the construction licence for the construction of the said Beach Resort has been granted in CRZ-I area in violation of CRZ Notification dated 19-1-1991 and inspite of the fact that the area is comprised of sand dunes and requires protection.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 applied to Town and Country Planning Department of Government of Goa for permission of construction of the Beach Resort on 8-1-1996 along with a contour and site plan of the area. After inspection held on 23-2-1996 by the Special Committee of Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment, the project was approved by the respondent No. 3 by resolution dated 15-3-1996 and thereupon the file regarding the project was submitted on 23-3-1996 to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the respondent No. 2, who granted the environmental clearance certificate on 9-10-1997.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the area in which the permission has been granted to the respondent No. 1 to construct a Beach Resort was originally classified as orchard in statutory regional plan of Goa. It was at the instance of the respondent No. 1 that the area in question was changed from orchard to settlement. Nevertheless, the physical status of the area remained untouched until recently when the respondent No. 1 started bulldozing the sand dunes after the grant of permission by the respondent No. 2 for the construction of the hotel. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 approved the proposal for construction of the hotel by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the area is CRZ-III. Moreover, it is the contention of the petitioner that even in CRZ-III areas, sand dunes are classified as CRZ-I. According to the petitioner, there are extensive sand dunes in the area and the entire construction is proposed in the sand dunes area. As per CRZ Notification dated 19-2-1991, even the dressing of the sand dunes or flattening of sand dunes is strictly forbidden. It is their further case that though the area in question was changed from orchard to settlement in 1990, the change in land use from orchard to settlement had been merely in the nature of proposed change and de facto, the area continued to be one full of sand dunes. There is, in fact, no settlement at all in the said area of the proposed hotel construction. It is only after the grant of licence and recently that the respondent No. 1 has levelled and bulldozed some of the sand dunes, particularly in the area between the Temple and the north-eastern portion of the property and has constructed a road. The report prepared by the N. I. O. clearly discloses that flattening of the sand dunes has been done by use of bulldozer in the month of October last. In short, the petitioner complains of grant of permission by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the construction of the hotel by the respondent No. 1 in the said area contrary to the provisions of law.