PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has ordered a halt to the alleged illegal hill cutting and land clearing that is taking place on the Arpora hill in Bardez after Goa Foundation approached the court that even the panchayat had no clue over who was carrying out the ‘development.’
“The complaint is that there is hill cutting and construction/development work going on in Survey Nos.156, 157 and 161 of Arpora, Bardez taluka. The petitioner apprehends that this activity is without any permission because there is no clarity, who is undertaking this activity,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and R N Laddha said.
“According to us, looking at the photographs as also the response from the Panchayat, it will be appropriate if the flying squad not only goes to the site but immediately stops the activity that is taking place in the aforesaid survey numbers,” the court said.
The petitioner had made a complaint on March 31, 2022, to the Village Panchayat of Arpora-Nagoa about the same, and had attached photographs of the heavy machinery and ongoing work at the site. However, to the petitioner’s surprise and anguish, instead of investigating the complaint and taking necessary action, the Panchayat informed the petitioner that it cannot take any further action until the petitioner identifies, by name, the persons carrying on the work in question.
“In a matter of this nature, generally, the parties should resort to such activities and set up a plea of fait accompli. Restoration of the hills that are cut becomes extremely difficult. If permissions have indeed been obtained then normally there is a board at the site indicating not only the name of the party that is carrying out such activity but also the details of such permission. For all these reasons, we think that the concerned authorities should immediately rush to the site and stop this activity,” the court said.
“The concerned authorities should also find out who is undertaking this activity and whether the same is backed by any permissions. These details will have to be provided to both the petitioner as well as to the court so that such parties can be impleaded in this petition,” the court ruled.
