PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has ordered the removal of a bar and restaurant built right on the Vagator beach and dismissed a petition filed by the restaurant operator arguing that the structure was on his private land and not on the government-owned beach.
The High Court was hearing two petitions -- one filed by Nilesh Phadte, a traditional fisherman from Chapora and the other by Antonio D’Souza through his power of attorney Robert Coutinho.
Phadte filed a petition seeking directions to the Tourism Department to act against the encroachment on its land and its commercial use as a beachfront restaurant.
When the matter came up for hearing, Coutinho argued before court that the constructions he put up “are entirely within their property surveyed under No. 213/5 of village Anjuna, and no part of the structure encroaches on the public beach or the property of the Director of Tourism (Government of Goa).
In his arguments before the High Court Coutinho alleged that no survey was conducted by the officials from DSLR, but only an inspection was held. He further made a statement that “in case any portion of the structure is found to be beyond the property surveyed under no. 213/5, [he] would remove the encroachment immediately.”
“Without a proper survey, the Director of Surveyor was not entitled to conclude that there was any encroachment by the petitioner,” he argued.
The Advocate General, however, argued that after the survey notice was issued to him after it was found that he had encroached on the public beach to the extent of almost 476 square metres and further, this encroached area is used for commercial purposes of a Bar and Restaurant on the beach.
“Officials from the DSLR conducted the inspection and survey on 08.12.2023. Neither the Petitioner nor his attorney chose to remain present on the site at the time of survey and inspection; the survey clearly reveals encroachment to the extent of 476 square metres on the public beach,” the Advocate General said also producing photographs to show that the encroachment is right on the public beach, and the encroached portion almost touches the sea and the rocks on the beach.
“This is a clear case of encroachment on a public beach to the extent of almost 476 square metres. The petitioner, consistent with his undertaking, must remove the encroachment and demolish the construction on the encroached portion. He submitted that the entire purpose for instituting this Petition is to delay the removal of encroachment and, in the meantime, to use this property for commercial purposes during the peak season,” the Advocate General said.
“From the photographs, it is evident that the Petitioner has, with impunity, encroached upon the public beach. The construction is right on the public beach and very close to the seashore and the rocks on the beach. The survey reports establish encroachment by the petitioner to the extent of 476 square metres on the public beach, i.e. property belonging to the Director of Tourism (Government of Goa). The photographs corroborate this position. The defence that no survey was carried out and, therefore, there was some breach of the directions issued by us in our Order dated 06.12.2023 deserves no acceptance,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and Valmiki Sa Menezes, said.
“The concerned authorities must take immediate steps to remove the encroachment from the public beach in terms of the impugned notice, and the Petitioner must stop using this encroached portion for any commercial purposes pending the removal of encroachment. The Authorities must ensure this so that no premium is drawn based on frivolous defences or inaction,” the High Court said.
