PANAJI
In a major relief for the villagers of Pomburpa who have been protesting against a villa project that involved hill cutting destruction of forests, the project proponent Tarun Tahilani told the High Court that he will stay the construction until the next date of hearing on February 20.
The statement before the High Court came as the Court was hearing the matter on interim relief and was considering passing a stop work order.
Speaking to the media Advocate for the petitioners and local Congress legislator Carlos Ferreira said he impressed upon the court that the permissions granted for the project were “fraud” and not in accordance with the regional plan 2021 which was in force.
“I pointed out to the court that the Regional Plan 2021 was notified on 12th October 2011 and this application for development came on 20th October 2011. On 10th November after they notified the plan they approved this plan on the basis of the 2011 Regional Plan which was no longer in force. The development being done was contrary to the Regional Plan of 2021,” Adv Ferreira said.
“They were trying to make an argument that earlier commitments were being honoured and that is why what was given earlier and therefore it should be honoured. The HC asked to respond to this argument that the plan had been approved in November 2011 on the basis of the earlier regional plan,” Adv Ferreira said.
The project is located in the village of Salvador do Mundo, but that part of the village falls under the jurisdiction of the village panchayat of Pomburpa Ecoxim.
Villagers have been up in arms against the project and the local village panchayat had earlier issued a stop work order to the project, which was later revoked by the village panchayat leading to further protests against the project.
The notice by the village panchayat stated that the approved plan shows a built up area of 2490 square metres on the plot, but the plot itself has a zoning of only 1070 sq metres as “settlement”.
“If the settlement zone is 1070 sq mts and coverage are permissible is 40% (as shown by the project proponent in the approved plan, then 40% of 1070 sq mts works out to 428 sq mts. The permission granted is prima facie for an area far in excess of the 428 sq mts,” the notice had alleged.
