Panjim is a beautiful place, don’t destroy it by unauthorized structures, observed the Supreme Court while dismissing an appeal against an order of the Bombay High Court that had directed Goa Tourism to take action against the illegal construction raised by a property owner every time during tourist season.
Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for petitioner property-owner Keshav Palyekar, submitted that he is the owner of the property since 1936. To which, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar pointed out that being owner does not give licence to construct structures without the permission of local authorities.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that with one parcel of land he has been granted an opportunity therefore he requested parity in treatment as far as the other parcel is concerned. Further, he contended that no structures have been constructed after the 2020 demolition.
Justice Khanwilkar observed,
“This is a very ingenious way of persuading the court. Whatever has been demolished in 2020, you will not put it up there but you will put it somewhere else without permission. Panjim is a beautiful place, don’t destroy it by these unauthorized structures.”
The bench, which also comprised Justice C.T. Ravikumar, dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
The present appeal before the Apex Court was filed by Palyekar who owns property in Anjuna Village, Bardez-Goa, against an order of the Bombay High Court which had directed Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC), with the assistance of the demolition squad and the police authorities to demolish the constructions put up by him in the property surveyed under no.339/4 to 339/7 of Anjuna Village, Bardez Goa. The Court had further directed GTDC to file a compliance report in this matter with photographic evidence. The managing director of GTDC will be personally responsible for compliance and the demolition squad and police authorities must render assistance promptly.
However, the Court granted one chance of hearing to Keshav Palyekar on the report filed by GCZMA which prima facie, suggests that he has put up new constructions in the property surveyed under no.339/1, 339/2, 339/3, and 340. Even though prima facie, portions of the property surveyed under no.339/1, 339/2, and 339/3 may have been excluded from acquisition, the extent of such exclusion was only 560 sq. mts. of the actual landed area and 212 sq. mts. of built-up area. The GCZMA report, prima facie, indicates that new constructions have been put up in these properties as well and beyond and further such constructions are also used for commercial purposes. The GCZMA submitted that it will issue a show-cause notice to him within one week from 16.02.2022 and further this show-cause notice will be disposed of by GCZMA after granting an opportunity of hearing to him within six weeks from the date of this issue.
Also Read: Police Complaints Authority disposes of 93 percent complaints received in 2020-21
The Bombay High Court had noted,
“The GCZMA should therefore grant the opportunity of hearing to respondent no.10, the petitioner herein, and the GTDC. The decision that the GCZMA takes must be placed before this Court under the cover of an affidavit to be filed by the Member Secretary of GCZMA.”
-The matter before the High Court is listed for April 18, 2022.
The High Court observed,
“The record now bears out that Respondent No.10, either without any regard to the law or the concerns for environmental degradation repeatedly puts up illegal constructions for commercial exploitation on the same spot in September or October which is the beginning of the tourist season. Such constructions are brazenly put up on GTDC property. GTDC is a government corporation and this property was acquired by the government for them. In that sense, this is public property that cannot be commercially exploited in this manner by Respondent No.10. Such exploitation apart, the property is affected by the CRZ notification and is in an eco-sensitive and vulnerable area. Respondent No. 10 has no permission from any of the authorities to repeatedly put up such illegal constructions.”
“The modus operandi is to put up such illegal constructions at the commencement of the tourist season and then rely on either routine tardiness or the deliberate inaction by the authorities to commercially exploit the constructions and the area around. The petitioner has placed on record the extent of commercial exploitation. Such parties then insist upon compliance with natural justice i.e notice followed by hearing, all so that the commercial exploitation can continue during the season i. e. up to March -April. Then such parties are not bothered if the authorities demolish such brazenly illegal constructions at the taxpayers’ account perhaps supremely confident of repeating this process in the following September- October when the tourist season begins”
– it added.
Also Read: Supreme Court refuses pre-arrest bail to youth accused in Ballabhgarh shootout
The Bombay High Court had passed the directions on a PIL filed by . Francisco Drago for the demolition of illegal structures put up by Palyekar in properties bearing Survey No.339/3 to 339/7 and 340/1 of Anjuna Village, Bardez-Goa and for restoration of traditional access to the beach blocked by respondent no.10. There was also a prayer for recovery of adequate damages from him for the environmental degradation caused by him.
The GTDC (respondent no.9), in its affidavit filed in this matter, has stated that the properties bearing Survey Nos.339/1, 339/2, 339/3, 339/4, 339/5, 339/6 and 339/7, amongst other survey numbers, were acquired by the Government of Goa in 1979 and, thereafter, transferred in 1982 to GTDC.
The affidavit then points out that the father of respondent no.10 challenged such acquisition proceedings before this Court by instituting Writ Petition No.33/B/1979, wherein minutes were filed excluding from the acquisition, the following properties:-
A) 339/1(part) – admeasuring 140 sq.mts. and having a structure having a built-up area of 49 sq. mts.;
B) 339/2(part) – admeasuring 133 sq.mts. and having a structure with a built-up area of 163 sq. mts.;
C) 339/3 – admeasuring 75 sq. mts.
Also Read: Supreme Court stays HC order summoning IPS officer in Asaram rape case
The High Court noted that from the entire acquired area only an area cumulatively admeasuring 560 sq. mts. with built-up structures cumulatively admeasuring 212 sq. mts. were excluded from the acquisition. The balance acquisition was not interfered with. In particular, the acquisition of properties surveyed under no.339/4 to 339/7 was not interfered with, but rather the same was sustained. Sometime in the year 2007, the GTDC issued a show-cause notice to respondent no.10 for putting up some illegal structures in property surveyed under no.339/1 and 339/2 beyond the property excluded from the acquisition.
The High Court also noted that the properties which form the subject matter of this petition are situated right on the Anjuna beach and are affected by the provisions of Coastal Zone Regulations (CRZ) notifications. Therefore, issues of ownership apart, there is no question of Keshav Palyekar putting up constructions in this area without obtaining approvals, inter alia, from the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) assuming that such area does not fall within the no-development zone and the GCZMA indeed has authority to permit such constructions.
Also Read: Delhi High Court directs the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner institute
It was alleged before the High Court that the Respondent/ Palyekar had for the 3rd time made illegal constructions and even went to the extent of enclosing the properties by fencing. Such illegal constrictions of the respondent had been demolished twice by Goa Tourism Department Corporation (GTDC) once in 2018 and for the second time in 2020. All this is being utilized by him for commercial purposes, which he had undertaken in a highly eco-sensitive zone without bothering to obtain any permission from the GCZMA or other authorities. He put up illegal construction on the public property which belongs to GTDC in the beginning of the tourist season, last year. The high court observed that the modus operendi of the respondent is to put up such illegal constructions at the commencement of the tourist season and then rely on either routine tardiness or the deliberate inaction by the authorities to commercially exploit the constructions and the area around. The respondent did try to contend that the structures which are now ordered to be demolished were old structures permitted by the Panchayat. However, the court observed that the letters bear no correlation to the illegal constructions now put up by respondent. Therefore, rendering the construction prima facie illegal.