MARGAO
The National Green Tribunal has ordered the demolition of a structure at Sernabatim-Colva, which had allegedly come up in violation of Coastal Zone Regulation (CRZ) norms.
While dismissing an appeal filed by a resident of Sernabatim, the NGT has directed that the demolition order shall be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of uploading of this judgement.
The appeal has been filed in the NGT against the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) directing the appellant to demolish the structures in the property at Sernabatim within a period of 30 days from the date of decision taken in 325th Meeting of the Authority held on 30.09.2022 and 04.10.2022.
In this case, the ancestors of the appellant had constructed a house in the property in the year 1948, after obtaining permission from “Camara Municipal De Salcete”, the then administrative body in the erstwhile Portuguese regime, having jurisdiction over the villages of Salcete Taluka.
The structure was repaired by the father of the appellant in the year 1979 after obtaining the permission for repair and renovation from the Village Panchayat of Sernabatim, Vanelim & Colva. The ancestors of appellant and the appellant were always in possession of the said property since 1948 and therefore, the appellant subsequently purchased the property, it was stated before the NGT.
Dismissing the appeal, the NGT observed that the appellant ought to have shown the documents with respect to these structures as to when he took permission for their repair and re-construction, etc but no evidence of this kind has come on record.
“We find that the argument of respondent Colva Civic and Consumer Forum that of the respondent GCZMA are almost similar. Therefore, based on these documentary evidences, we are of the view that even if there was any structure existing at the site in question prior to the year 1991, that certainly did not exist by the year 2009 because there was no such structure found in the Survey Number in question. But subsequent to that, the construction had again emerged on the same number, which was shown in the subsequent map, which is cited by us above, for which no permission was shown by the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the GCZMA,” the NGT observed in the order.
