PANAJI
Even as the State government insists that it is committed to ensuring that the alleged illegal bungalow will be demolished, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) has in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court defended its decision to grant an NOC for the construction within the regulated zone of the Old Goa Heritage Site and has instead sought that the petition filed by the Save Old Goa Action Committee “be dismissed with exemplary costs.”
The affidavit filed by Member Secretary of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority Sneha Gitte refers to the NOC granted by the GCZMA back in December 2015 based on an application filed by Jose Maria de Gouveia Pinto and Maria Lizette de Abreu e Gouveia Pinto who had sought permission from the GCZMA for the “reconstruction” of a house of 397 sq metres built up area which they claimed existed on the plot and which they sought to be reconstructed.
Jose and Maria submitted an application dated 7.9.2015 seeking a NOC for the proposed reconstruction of [an] existing house bearing H No. 57 located in Survey No. 4/1 Ella Village, Tiswadi. “The answering respondent (GCZMA) considered the aforesaid proposal in its 123rd meeting held on 21.12.2015. After taking into consideration the relevant factors and the relevant provisions of the CRZ notification 2011 the respondent granted approval for the proposed reconstruction vide its order dated 28.12.2015. Pertinently, the NOC dated 28.12.2015 is limited to the issues relating to CRZ alone,” the GCZMA has said in its affidavit.
However, the Archaeological Survey of India, which has revoked its NOC and had issued a demolition order of the structure, had clearly referred to misrepresentation of facts and fraud in the process of applying for permissions pointing out there was no “existing house” of the scale the new owners claimed they were reconstructing.
While there did exist a small ‘shed’ known as loja in Portuguese that was used to store coconuts at the site, the proponents claimed that the structure that existed at the site, that they were seeking to rebuild, was much larger and annexed a photograph of a palatial ancient-looking house claiming it was an old photograph of the existing structure proposed for repairs to prove their claims.
That house, however, was found to be still standing and located some 50-km away at a village at Parcem, in Pernem.
Archaeological superintendent of Goa circle K Amarnath Ramkrishna confirmed as much in a letter he shot off to Arvin Manjul Director (Monuments - II) who had initially granted permission for the repairs.
“The applicant claims that the house in the photograph existed in survey No. 4/1 village Ella (Old Goa) before it was destroyed in a storm in the year 1992. However, … to verify the fact of the matter, this office… visited Parcem village in Pernem taluka... During the inspection it is found that the photograph submitted by the applicant is false and the claim of existence of the house in Survey No. 4.1 of village Ella, before the year 1992 is false,” K Amarnath Ramkrishna, Superintending Archaeologist of the ASI Goa Circle had said in his report to his superiors in Delhi.
The GCZMA, however in its affidavit accused the Save Old Goa Action Committee of “baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against the GCZMA about connivance” with the promoters of the project.
“GCZMA submits that the petitioner’s baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against the GCZMA about connivance with the respondents is categorically denied,” Gitte said in her affidavit.
The stance of the GCZMA is also against the stance of local BJP MLA who claimed that the structure in Old Goa was due for demolition within six months.
The Supreme Court of India on September 4, issued notice in the petition filed by the Save Old Goa Action Committee challenging the order of the Bombay High Court at Goa that quashed the demolition order issued by the ASI to the allegedly illegal structure that has been built within the protected zone of the Old Goa Heritage site.
"We find that the High Court has found that principles of natural justice had been violated. In the circumstances, prima facie, we find that the matter ought to have been relegated to the Additional Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi for re-considering the matter, after giving reasonable opportunity to all sides of being heard and by following the principles of natural justice. Instead the High Court has simply quashed notice(s) and concluded the proceedings," the bench of Justices B V Nagarathna Ujjal Bhuyan said directing to "issue notice to the respondent(s)."
