CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 960-961 of 2002 PETITIONER: PIEDADE FILOMENA GONSALVES RESPONDENT: STATE OF GOA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2004(2) SCR 1135
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant is in possession of a piece of property included in survey
No. 54/4 located within the jurisdiction of village panchayat of Colva,
Salcete, Goa. It is the appellant’s own case, vide para 4 of the writ
petition, that earlier there existed a structure of thatched roof supported
by laterite stone pillars, which structure was used by sun bathers and
visitors. However, in place of old construction, appellant commenced
putting up fresh construction which resulted into a pucca building coming
up in existence in place of the old structure.
The new building is now a structure of laterite stones and cement with a
concrete roof. This construction was commenced on 13.7.1994 and completed
on 17.8.1994. Two writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of
Bombay at Goa. CWP No. 76 of 1995 was filed by the appellant’s neighbour
seeking demolition of the construction put up by the appellant. CWP No. 237
of 1999 was filed by the appellant seeking protection of the construction
raised by her. The petitioner in CWP No. 76 of 1995 alleged the appellant’s
construction to be unauthorised and also violative of High Tide Line in
Coastal Region Zone within which no construction is permissible. The Case
of the appellant in writ petition No. 237 of 1999 was that the construction
put up by her was beyond 200 meters from High Tide Line, and therefore,
permissible and that although the appellant’s construction was not
supported by previous permission by the authorities, the same could be
regularised. The High Court allowed the writ petition No. 76 of 1995 while
dismissing the appellant’s writ petition No. 237 of 1999. The High Court
directed the construction put up by the appellant to be demolished.
Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment disposing of the two writ
petitions, the appellant has filed these appeals by special leave. The
learned senior counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same two
contentions which were advanced before the High Court. Forceful reliance
has been placed on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay delivered by a
Division Bench on 25.9.1996 in writ Petition No. 102 of 1996 titled The Goa
Foundation and Anr. v. State of Goa and Ors., Wherein the High Court has
issued directions in the matter of determining the High Tide Line on the
basis of Hydrographic charts prepared by the Naval Hydrographic Office. The
learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that such a direction
issued by the Division Bench of the High Court in another writ petition has
been accepted by the respondents and therefore, unless and until the High
Tide Line has been determined in compliance with the direction issued by
the High Court on 25.9.1996, the construction raised by the appellant
should not be demolished.
We do not think that any fault con be found with the judgment of the High
Court and the appellant can be allowed any relief in exercise of the
jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Admittedly, the construction which the appellant has raised is without
permission. Assuming it for a moment that the construction, on demarcation
and measurement afresh and on HTL being determined, is found to be beyond
200 metres of HTL, it is writ large that the appellant has indulged into
misadventure of raising a construction without securing permission from the
competent authorities. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondent,
has rightly pointed out that the direction of the High Court in the matter
of demarcation and determination of HTL is based on the amendment dated
18.8.1994 introduced in the notification dated 19.2.1991 entitled the
Coastal Regulation Zone notification issued in exercise of the power
conferred by section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection
Act, 1986, while the appellant’s construction was completed before the date
of the amendment and, therefore, the appellant cannot take benefit of the
order dated 25.9.96 passed in writ petition No. 102 of 1996.
It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the
appellant had moved two applications, one of which is dated 11.7.1995, for
the purpose of regularisation of the construction in question. Goa State
Coastal Committee for Environment-the then competent body constituted a
sub-committee which inspected the site and found that the entire
construction raised by the appellant fell within 200 metres of the HTL and
the construction had been carried out on existing sand dunes. The Goa State
Coastal Committee for Environment, in its meeting dated 20.10.1995, took a
decision inter alia holding that the entire construction put up by the
appellant was in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification.
The Coastal Regulation Zone notifications have been issued in the interest
of protecting environment and ecology in the coastal area. Construction
raised in violation of such regulations cannot be lightly condoned. We do
not think that the appellant is entitled to any relief. No fault can be
found with the view taken by the High Court in its impugned judgment.
The appeals are held devoid of any merit and are dismissed accordingly.