Holding

The Supreme Court held that the pucca building was unauthorised, fell within 200 metres of the High Tide Line, violated the CRZ Notification, and therefore the demolition order stands.

Summary

The appellant, Pied Ade Filomena Gonsalves, replaced a thatched-roof beach structure with a pucca building on her property in Colva, Goa, between 13-17 July 1994. Two writ petitions were filed: a neighbor’s petition (CWP 76/1995) seeking demolition of the new building, and the appellant’s petition (CWP 237/1999) seeking protection on the ground that the building was more than 200 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL). The Bombay High Court held the construction unauthorised, found it within 200 metres of the HTL, and ordered its demolition, dismissing the appellant’s petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the 1994 amendment to the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification applied to a structure completed before that amendment and whether the High Court’s direction on HTL determination could benefit the appellant. The Court concluded that the construction was unauthorised, fell within the prohibited CRZ zone, and could not be regularised, affirming the High Court’s demolition order. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the construction violates the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification by being within 200 metres of the High Tide Line.
Whether the 1994 amendment to the CRZ Notification applies to a building completed before the amendment came into force.
Whether the appellant is entitled to regularise an unauthorised construction in the coastal regulation zone.
Whether the High Court’s demolition order can be set aside on the basis of a later determination of the High Tide Line.

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 3(1), s. 3(2)(v)

Subjects

Environment Protection ActCoastal Regulation ZoneHigh Tide Lineunauthorised constructiondemolition ordercoastal zone regulationenvironmental lawwrit petition

Judgment

PIED ADE FILOMENA GONSALVES A
v.
STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

MARCH 11, 2004

B

--
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Environment Protection Act, I 986:

.._ Ss. 3(1) and 3(2)(v)-Unauthorised construction in Coastal Region Zone
in Goa-A structure of thatched roof converted into a pucca building without
obtaining permission of competent authority-Writ petitions filed in High
C

Court-Construction directed to be demolished-Held, the construction is
without permission-Goa State Coastal Committee for Environment found the
construction falling within .200 metres of High Tide Line and to have been
carried on existing sand dunes-The Committee held the construction as D
violative of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.2. 199 I-The
Notification protects environment and ecology in coastal area-Construction
raised in violation of the regulation cannot be condoned-No fault can be
found with the view taken by High Court.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 960-961 of E

-
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2000 of the Bombay High
Court at Goa in W.P. Nos. 76/95 and 237 of 1999.

Ashok Grover, Ms. Anupama Grover, V.K. Singh and T.N. Singh for F
the Appellant.

T.L.V. Iyer and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
The appellant is in possession of a piece of property included in survey
No. 54/4 located within the jurisdiction of village panchayat of Colva, Salcete,
Goa. It is the appellant's own case, vide para 4 of the writ petition, that earlier
there existed a structure of thatched roof supported by laterite stone pillars,
which structure was used by sun bathers and visitors. However, in place of
1135 II
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A old construction, appellant commenced putting up fresh construction which
resulted into a pucca building coming up in existence in place of the old
structure.

The new building is now a structure of laterite stones and cement with
a concrete roof. This construction was commenced on 13.7.1994 and completed
B on 17.8.1994. Two writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of
Bombay at Goa. CWP No. 76of1995 was filed by the appellant's neighbour
seeking demolition of the construction put up by the appellant. CWP No. 237
of 1999 was filed by the appellant seeking protection of the construction
---
raised by her. The petitioner in CWP No. 76 of 1995 alleged the appellant's
C construction to be unauthorised and also violative of High Tide Line in
Coastal Region Zon~ within which no construction is permissible. The Case
of the appellant in writ petition No. 237of1999 was that the construction put
up by her was beyond 200 meters from High Tide Line, and therefore,
permissible and that although the appellant's construction was not supported
by previous permission by the authorities, the same could be regularised. The
D High Court allowed the writ petition No. 76 of 1995 while dismissing the
appellant's writ petition No. 23 7 of 1999. The High Court directed the
construction put up by the appellant to be demolished.

Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment disposing of the two writ
petitions, the appellant has filed these appeals by special leave. The learned
E senior counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same two contentions which
were advanced before the High Court. Forceful reliance has been placed on
the judgment of the High Court of Bombay delivered by a Division Bench
on 25.9.1996 in writ Petition No. 102 of 1996 titled The Goa Foundation
and Anr. v. State of Goa and Ors., Wherein the High Court has issued
F directions in the matter of determining the High Tide Line on the basis of
Hydrographic charts prepared by the Naval Hydrographic Office. The learned
senior counsel for the appellant submitted that such a direction issued by the
Division Bench of the High Court in another writ petition has been accepted
by the respondents and therefore, unless and until the High Tide Line has
been determined in compliance with the direction issued by the High Court
G on 25.9.1996, the construction raised by the appellant should not be
demolished.

We do not think that any fault con be found with the judgment of the
High Court and the appellant can be allowed any relief in exercise of the
jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
H Admittedly, the construction which the appellant has raised is without

•
-
P.F. GONSAL YES v. ST ATE 1137
pennission. Assuming it for a moment that the construction, on demarcation A
and measurement afresh and on HTL being determined, is found to be beyond
-t 200 metres of HTL, it is writ large that the app<!llant has indulged into
misadventure of raising a construction without securing permission from the
competent authorities. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondent, has
rightly pointed out that the direction of the High Court in the matter of

-- demarcation and determination of HTL is based on the amendment dated
18.8.1994 introduced in the notification dated 19 .2.199 l entitled the Coastal
Regulation Zone notification issued in exercise of the power conferred by
B

section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986,
while the appellant's construction was completed before the date of the
--- amendment and, therefore, the appellant cannot take benefit of the order c
dated 25.9.96 passed in writ petition No. 102 of 1996.

It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the
appellant had moved two applications, one of which is dated 11.7.1995, for
the purpose of regularisation of the construction in question. Goa State Coastal
Committee for Environment-the then competent body constituted a sub- D
committee which inspected the site and found that the entire construction
raised by the appellant fell within 200 metres of the HTL and the construction
had been carried out on existing sand dunes. The Goa State Coastal Committee
for Environment, in its meeting dated 20.10.1995, took a decision inter a/ia
holding that the entire construction put up by the appellant was in violation
E

- of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification.

The Coastal Regulation Zone notifications have been issued in the
interest of protecting environment and ecology in the coastal area. Construction
raised in violation of such regulations cannot be lightly condoned. We do not
think that the appellant is entitled to any relief. No fault can be found with

- the view taken by the High Court in its impugned judgment.

The appeals are held devoid of any merit and are dismissed accordingly.
F

Appeals dismissed

G