Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Construction prohibited upto 200 metres from High Tide Line, such structures required to be demolished MANU/SC/1284/2016 - (07 Oct 2016) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Anil v. Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">In present case, Tribunal held that structure as existed prior to 19th February, 1991, on plot of land, falling within 100 metres distance (in CRZ III area), was a small structure at corner of the said plot and was used as a garage. Tribunal then relied on decision of the High Court of Bombay in case of Goa Foundation v. The Panchayat of Condolim & The Panchayat of Calangute, in which directions were issued to the State Authorities to take action against such unauthorized structures and constructions put up on land falling within CRZ-III area in Goa, village or town-wise after 19th February, 1991; and further that permission can be granted "only" for repair and renovation of existing "dwelling units" in such areas. Tribunal following that decision observed that, structure other than the original structure as existed on 19th February, 1991, be demolished forthwith after following due process. Review petition before Tribunal was also dismissed. Aggrieved, Appellant has filed present appeal challenging both judgments on original application and review application.

When Appellant purchased subject plot vide registered Sale Deed dated 3rd August, 1992, only a small structure at corner of said plot was in existence and was used as a garage and which was indisputably within 100 metres from the High Tide Line. On this finding, it necessarily follows, that structure as it exists now is quite different-both in shape, size and location being in the middle of the plot. Obviously, it is an unauthorized structure constructed after 19th February, 1991. CRZ policy dated 19th February, 1991 prohibits any construction upto 200 metres from High Tide Line. It is to be treated as 'No Development Zone', except for repairs of existing "authorized structures" not exceeding specific permissible FSI, plinth area and other norms for permissible activities including facilities essential for such activity under the Notification.

Sub-clause (i) plainly mandates that "no construction" of any kind be permitted within 200 metres from the High Tide Line. That area has to be treated as "No Development Zone", except for repairs of "existing authorized structures" (on date of the Notification i.e. 19thFebruary, 1991) and not exceeding the permissible FSI, plinth area and density and for permissible activities.

View taken by Tribunal relying on decision of Bombay High Court, which Tribunal was bound to follow, permitted retention of only dwelling units within CRZ III area and constructed prior to 19th February, 1991. The directions were given by High Court in case of Goa Foundation. So long as these directions are in force, State Authorities or Municipal Authorities were bound by same and they could not have granted permission to any applicant in breach thereof. Permission granted to Appellant by GCZMA would be of no avail, as it is not consistent with directions of High Court.

Structure directed to be demolished by Tribunal, was erected after 19th February, 1991. That being an unauthorized structure within meaning of Sub-clause (i), could not be used for any purpose whatsoever and was required to be demolished. Therefore, Supreme Court affirmed finding recorded by Tribunal and consequential directions given in that behalf as unassailable.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Goa Foundation v. The Panchayat of Condolim & The Panchayat of Calangute W.P. No. 422/1998 & W.P. No. 99/1999</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Direction, Structure, Demolition</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>