Raising serious questions over the silence of planning and enforcement authorities, a petitioner has moved the High Court of Bombay at Goa alleging illegal commercial activity on low-lying paddy fields in Parra, despite demolition orders against several structures.
In a Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition), petitioner Chahit Bansal, represented by Advocate Rohit Bras de Sa, contended that the Town and Country Planning Department (TCP) and other authorities have failed to act against unauthorised constructions and businesses operating in these areas, even though the department is empowered under Section 17-A of the TCP Act.
“Everybody is overlooking the provisions that no structure can be occupied without an occupancy certificate... Where is the rule of law? The TCP is a mute spectator to all this... although TCP can act under section 17-A... it is their (TCP) duty to say these are in paddy fields and low-lying areas, therefore, no structure should be erected... Not a single FIR is registered against land filling of paddy fields,” De Sa argued while placing his submission during the petition’s hearing for admission.
The petitioner further argued that once a structure is declared illegal and faces demolition proceedings, no commercial activity can legally continue.
The advocate reiterated that several establishments -- a flea market, restaurants, wine store, grocery shop, vehicle repair shops, etc -- are functioning without mandatory statutory clearances, including Occupancy Certificates, Fire NOCs, trade licences and other approvals.
The petitioner further submitted that borewells installed by some establishments were sealed by the Water Resources Department, yet the businesses continue to operate. According to the petitioner, orders of the Directorate of Panchayats are being used as a shield for illegal commercial operations.
The Village Panchayat informed the court that trade licences issued to the concerned parties have not been renewed, and that show-cause notices have been issued seeking their replies on why their commercial activities should not be closed.
The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, stated that appropriate action would be taken after hearing all concerned parties, and posted the matter for further hearing on March 17. The court also directed that replies by respondents be filed by March 4.
