HC directs Poinguinim p'yat to act against illegal construction in NDZ

PANAJI

The High Court of Bombay at Goa has directed the Village Panchayat of Poinguinim and the Deputy Collector of Canacona to take prompt action on complaints of alleged illegal construction in a designated No Development Zone (NDZ) in the village. The VP has been given a deadline of four weeks. 

The direction came while disposing of a writ petition filed by Jaimala Naresh Pai, a resident of Canacona, who alleged that certain individuals had undertaken unauthorized construction on paddy fields within a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area, without obtaining requisite permissions from the competent authorities. 

The petitioner stated that despite repeated complaints, no action had been taken by the local authorities, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.

“The proposed construction is taken without obtaining the requisite permissions and in brazen violations of the Building Rules and Regulations. The petitioner filed various complaints, but no cognizance thereof was taken and therefore the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with an innocuous relief of directing the Authorities -- Village Panchayat of Poinguinim as well as Deputy Collector of Canacona, to take cognizance of this complaint and initiate action to stop the illegal construction over an area which is classified as No Development Zone,” the petition stated.

The Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Deputy Collector, assured the Court that appropriate follow-up action will be taken based on the replies received from the alleged violator to the show cause notice. The High Court recorded this assurance, stating, “We expect the Deputy Collector of Canacona to abide by his statement by taking the show cause notice... to its logical conclusion.”

However, the Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita Mehta also expressed dissatisfaction with the inaction of the Poinguinim Village Panchayat, observing that the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the Panchayat on February 28, 2025, regarding the same illegal construction, but no cognizance was taken.

While refraining from issuing a formal notice to the Panchayat at this stage, the Court directed it to take immediate action on the complaint. The Bench warned that failure to initiate steps within four weeks from the date of the order would compel the Court to adopt “stringent measures” against the Panchayat.

The petitioner has been granted the liberty to approach the Court again if there is continued inaction.