2016 (10) TMI 1291 - SC - Indian Laws

Degradation of environment on account of unauthorized construction on plot of land falling within CRZ - repair or renovation of dwelling units - whether contrary to the CRZ Policy document? - whether the structure as it existed when the Respondents moved the Tribunal complaining about violation within the CRZ area was the same structure as on 19th February, 1991 when the CRZ Policy came into being? HELD THAT - Any permission given contrary to those directions must be viewed as nullity and non-est, having been given in complete disregard of the directions of the High Court. Thus, the permission granted to the Appellant by GCZMA would be of no avail, as it is not consistent with the directions of the High Court. The fact remains that the structure directed to be demolished by the Tribunal, was obviously erected after 19th February, 1991. That being an unauthorized structure within the meaning of Sub-clause (i) quoted above, could not be used for any purpose whatsoever and was required to be demolished. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the consequential directions given in that behalf are unassailable. It is not necessary for us to dilate on the argument as to whether the CRZ Policy prohibits change of user of the structure which was in existence on 19th February, 1991, so as to be used as a Restaurant and Bar - no substantial question of law much less of great public importance arises for our consideration. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Maintainability of the application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
4. Bar of limitation.
5. Existence and status of the structure before the CRZ Policy came into force.
6. Unauthorized construction within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ).
7. Validity of permissions granted by authorities.
8. Directions for demolition and environmental compensation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, allowing it to be heard on merits.

2. Maintainability of the Application Before the NGT:
The appellant contended that the application was not maintainable as the remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, could be preferred. However, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the application, implying that it found the application maintainable.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The appellant argued that the respondents failed to comply with Rule 13 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011. This objection was raised as a preliminary point but was not seriously pursued by the appellant in the higher appeal.

4. Bar of Limitation:
The appellant claimed that the application was barred by limitation since the cause of action arose in 2011, but the application was filed later. The Tribunal, however, entertained the application, suggesting it did not find the limitation bar applicable.

5. Existence and Status of the Structure Before the CRZ Policy:
The Tribunal found that the structure in question was not in existence in its current form before 19th February 1991, when the CRZ Policy came into force. The Tribunal based its findings on various documents, including the sale deed, house property revenue records, and inspection reports. The structure was originally a small garage, and the current structure was built later, making it unauthorized.

6. Unauthorized Construction within the CRZ:
The Tribunal held that the existing structure was unauthorized as it was constructed after the CRZ Policy's effective date, which prohibits any construction within 200 meters of the High Tide Line, designated as a 'No Development Zone' (NDZ). The Tribunal directed the demolition of the unauthorized structure.

7. Validity of Permissions Granted by Authorities:
The appellant argued that they had obtained necessary permissions for re-roofing and re-flooring. However, the Tribunal found that these permissions were inconsistent with the CRZ Policy and the directions of the High Court of Bombay in the Goa Foundation case, which only allowed repairs of existing authorized structures. Therefore, the permissions granted were deemed null and void.

8. Directions for Demolition and Environmental Compensation:
The Tribunal directed the demolition of all unauthorized structures, including the Restaurant and Bar, within six weeks. The appellant was also ordered to pay ?20 lakhs as environmental compensation and ?5000 as litigation costs. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) was directed to hold an inquiry regarding illegal structures and take appropriate action.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings and directions, dismissing the appeal. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's factual findings and legal interpretations, emphasizing that the structure was unauthorized and must be demolished. The permissions granted by local authorities were invalidated as they were contrary to the CRZ Policy and the High Court's directions. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →