MAPUSA
A luxury villa project in Candolim -- on property now owned by Bollywood actor Salman Khan -- has come under the scanner of the Bombay High Court at Goa after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioned how a series of statutory approvals were granted despite official records, cited in the petition, allegedly indicating that the entire property falls within a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) No Development Zone (NDZ), where new construction is generally prohibited.
Documents accessed by The Goan show that Classic Citi Investments Pvt Ltd which developed the property transferred it to Salman Khan through a registered Indenture of Conveyance executed on September 21, 2022, with the company recorded as the vendor and the actor as the purchaser.
The property transaction assumes significance because the approvals challenged in the PIL – including the GCZMA clearance, development permission, construction licence and the occupancy certificate – relate to the same property in Survey No 82/1-F at Candolim.
The PIL, filed by the Calangute Constituency Forum, however, principally challenges the legality of the approvals granted by various authorities.
There is no allegation in the petition that Salman Khan played any role in obtaining those approvals or committed any wrongdoing.
Conflicting CRZ records
The PIL argues that government records themselves present two conflicting versions of the property's CRZ status.
According to documents relied upon in the petition, a Directorate of Survey and Land Records report dated November 17, 2006 demarcated the 100-metre No Development Zone from the High Tide Line in a manner that covered the entire property.
However, the petition points out that plans approved by the GCZMA in August 2019 depict the NDZ line passing through only a portion of the plot, effectively leaving a substantial area available for development.
The petitioner contends that this apparent change in demarcation became the foundation for subsequent approvals and questions how the later CRZ line came to be accepted despite the existence of earlier government records.
Repairs or new construction?
Another major issue raised in the PIL concerns the nature of the development itself.
The petition states that the GCZMA granted approval in 2019 for what was described as "repairs and renovation of existing structures" within the CRZ area.
However, it alleges that the approved drawings themselves depict changes to the existing plinth and building footprint, which, according to the petitioner, amount to new construction rather than repairs.
The PIL further refers to minutes of a GCZMA meeting which allegedly recorded that repairs should not extend beyond the existing plinth area. According to the petitioner, the sanctioned plans are inconsistent with that condition.
The forum argues that this issue goes to the heart of the approvals because CRZ regulations permit only limited repairs or reconstruction of authorised structures within the NDZ and generally prohibit new construction.
Earlier records under spotlight
The petition also relies heavily on historical government records.
It refers to a DSLR report of November 2006 which allegedly recorded ongoing illegal construction of three structures on the property and a subsequent GCZMA order of May 2007 directing the then project owner to stop construction except for specified protective works.
According to the petitioner, those same structures were later described during a 2019 site inspection as "abandoned existing structures", paving the way for approvals for repairs and renovation.
The petition argues that this raises questions about whether structures earlier recorded as unauthorised could subsequently be treated as lawful existing buildings for obtaining CRZ permissions.
Occupancy certificate challenged
The PIL additionally questions the occupancy certificate issued by the Candolim panchayat on April 30, 2025.
According to the petition, structures allegedly exist on the site beyond those shown in the sanctioned plans. It further contends that the occupancy certificate does not indicate that a site inspection was carried out before it was issued and alleges that it was granted without verifying whether the completed project conformed to the approved plans.
The petition also questions the GCZMA's decision in June 2023 to discharge proceedings initiated through a show-cause notice after noting that the project possessed valid permissions. The forum argues that the authority ought to have first examined whether those permissions themselves were legally sustainable.
CCF: Case about accountability
Calangute Constituency Forum president Agnelo Barretto said the organisation approached the High Court only after obtaining official records through the Right to Information Act.
"This petition is based primarily on government documents. Our case is that the records themselves raise serious questions about how these approvals were granted. We have placed those documents before the High Court for judicial scrutiny," Barretto said.
He maintained that the PIL seeks accountability in the regulatory process rather than opposing development.
"If a property falling within a No Development Zone can secure approvals because new construction is described as repairs, or because there are conflicting versions of the CRZ line, then it raises issues far beyond a single project. It becomes a question of regulatory accountability and enforcement of environmental laws," he said.
The PIL seeks cancellation of the GCZMA approval, development permission, construction licence and occupancy certificate, besides demolition of any construction found unauthorised, restoration of the site, environmental compensation and an investigation into how the approvals were granted.
