1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.1/GCZMA directing the appellant-M/s Colmar Beach Resort to demolish all the structures, which are marked by the GCZMA as A to G structures in Survey No.40/4 (part) of Village: Colva, Salcete, Goa and to restore the land to its original position.

2. It would be appropriate for us to take the necessary facts from the impugned order itself and thereafter, we would like to take facts from the pleadings of this appeal.

3. It is reflected from the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 that the present matter is inter-alia suo moto cognizance of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji about the illegalities/constructions in CRZ area, which passed an Order dated 26.09.2007 in the matter of Suo Moto Writ Petition No.02/2006, directing all Panchayats/Municipalities to submit action taken report with regard to the constructions within NDZ/CRZ area as per terms mentioned in the order. It was further directed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 12.01.2015 that the Village Panchayat of Colva shall furnish all materials on record, to suggest that the structures were not illegal, before the GCZMA and the GCZMA shall examine such material after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

4. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the said Village Panchayat of Sernabatim, Vanelim, Colva and Gandaulim produced its action taken report along-with all material record of relevant copies of the parties etc. to the office of GCZMA vide letter dated 19.01.2015. The action taken report was filed by the Village Panchayat of Sernabatim, Vanelim, Colva before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa with two additional affidavits annexing all the documents of the structures pointed out by the Intervenor- Colva Civic and Consumer Forum (respondent No.2 herein) in its intervention application dated 13.07.2012 bearing MCA no.635/2012. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the GCZMA in its Meeting held on 04.04.2015, where-in it was decided to refer the matter to the Inquiry Committee of GCZMA to examine all the documents on record and hear the parties and submit a detailed report to the GCZMA within 30 days.

5. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that in compliance to the same, the Inquiry Committee had submitted its report on 07.10.2015. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa on 21.06.2016, which disposed of the matter interalia with a direction that “Besides the above directions, the Anjuna as well as the Colva Panchayats namely respondent nos.9 and 19 and the GCZMA are directed to take necessary action with regard to the structures identified in the report of GCZMA and proceed to take necessary action in accordance with law within three months from today and file a compliance report with that regard”.

6. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the matter was thereafter placed in the meeting of the GCZMA for hearing on 31.07.2018, where-in the complainant/respondent No.2- Mrs. Judith Almeida remained present in-person and submitted that the Village Panchayat had issued demolition order to the said structures and for the same, there was no permission taken from the GCZMA. Further, the complainant also requested the GCZMA to conduct DSLR survey and mapping of the site. The appellant also remained present through its representative. Both the parties had sought additional time to file submissions before the GCZMA, which was allowed and thereafter, the matter was placed in the next meeting of GCZMA held on 14.08.2018. In that meeting, the GCZMA derived certain points for determination:- (i) Whether all the structures in Sy No.40/4 of Colva Village were legal; (ii) parties responsible are required to produce the approved plan for the structures; (iii) Conversion Sanad was to be produced; (iv) Whether the appellant had necessary approvals from Competent Authority; (v) Whether any unauthorized reconstruction/new construction extensions/alteration of the structures had been carried out by the appellant; and (vi) what were the names of all the Owners and Co-owners of the appellant.

7. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the matter was thereafter considered in the meeting of GCZMA held on 29.05.2019 and the authority after taking note of the approved plan submitted by the appellant and after detailed deliberation resolved to conduct site inspection/ mapping of the structures through Directorate of Survey & Land Records (DSLR) along-with an Expert Member of GCZMA. Pursuant to the said directions, the Office of DSLR conducted the mapping of structures in Colva Village.

8. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that in the meeting of GCZMA held on 25.08.2022, no decision was taken except directing the parties to file a detailed reply affidavit along-with supporting documents. Thereafter also on several dates, nothing appears to have been done.

9. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that in pursuance of the direction of Hon’ble High Court dated 12.01.2015 passed in the matter of Suo Moto Writ Petition No.02/2006, the authority had to see/identify what structures fell within 0-200 mtrs. of NDZ from High Tide Line and the Authority had to verify whether those structures were constructed within NDZ prior to the year 1991 before the CRZ Notification came into force or after that and whether those structures were constructed with valid permission and approval from competent Authorities.

10. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the issue involved in the present matter was very limited and specific “whether Respondent constructed any illegal structures within NDZ”. In order to ascertain the controversy, the Authority observed Mapping done by DSLR and all the documents on record relied on by the appellant, and thereafter, noted that as per the DSLR mapping, the structures of the appellant completely fell within NDZ i.e. 0-200 mtrs. from High Tide Line as per CZMP 2011. The DSLR had shown several structures other than existing structures, recorded at the time of survey conducted by DSLR in the year 1970-1974, and thereafter the GCZMA noted that the appellant owned the property by Sale Deeds dated 11.03.1980 and 04.05.1987. The appellant repaired and altered the existing buildings after getting approval from GSCCE in year 1997.

11. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the Authority noted that in the present matter, mapping done by DSLR had shown additional structures other than which the appellant had legal approval. The Authority compared both approved plans of the appellant and the DSLR mapping plan with respect to the disputed structures and noted that there were additional structures other than approved structures. The appellant could not give any clarification with regard to the additional structures reflected/marked on the map by DSLR at time of site inspection. It is also noted that the appellant did not produce any document to establish whether those additional structures, demarcated by DSLR in its mapping, were legal/authorized structures and even appellant failed to prove that the said additional structures had been constructed prior to the year 1991. In view of that, the authority concluded that the additional structures, which are shown in the DSLR map, deserved to be demolished and that the approved structures, as per the approved plan of appellant, would be allowed to be retained.

12. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the GCZMA through its technical team verified all the structures which were shown on approved plan of appellant & DSLR mapping, and compared both plans i.e. approved plan of the appellant and the mapping plan of DSLR and marked structures as alphabet A to G, which were not found as per approved plan of the appellant and on the basis of that, the Authority came to conclusion that the additional structures, which were Marked "A" to "G", deserved to be demolished and accordingly, passed a demolition order, which has been impugned herein before us in the form of present appeal.

13. It is averred in the memo of appeal by the appellant that it had acquired the property in question i.e. Survey No.40/4 of Village Colva through Sale Deed dated 04.05.1987 and since thereafter, the appellant has been running a Resort by the name ‘Colmar Beach Resort’. In the year 1997, the appellant obtained an approval from the GSCCE (Goa State Coastal Committee for Environment) to carry out repair and alteration of the existing structure in the said property. The GCZMA has not given any clarifications with respect to the additional structures reflected/marked on the DSLR map at the time of Site Inspection and also did not say that all the structures were illegal. The only allegation, which has been stated by them, is that on the mapping plan prepared by the DSLR being compared with the approved plan, certain structures were stated to be additional structures. Based on that, an impugned order has been passed ordering demolition of structures A to G.

14. It is further mentioned in this memo of appeal by the appellant that it was not allowed to participate at the time of mapping and comparison with the approved Plan nor was appellant allowed to participate subsequent to the mapping and comparison. The copies of the said plan and of the superimposed plan, if any, were not provided to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant had no opportunity to file its say on the plans. The entire exercise is completed in violation of the principle of natural justice.

15. It is further mentioned in this memo of appeal by the appellant that the documents, which were produced by it, establish that Colmar Beach Resort is an old hotel existing since 1980, while the CRZ Law came into force on 19.02.1991 and hence, the same would not be attracted to the said property.

16. The oral arguments, which were made by the learned counsel for appellant and other respondents before us, we have already recorded in our earlier order dated 12.01.2024, which shall form part of this Judgment.

17. In order to prove that the impugned order is erroneous, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for appellant to the document annexed at page no.95 of the paper book, its typed version is also annexed at page nos.96A to 96C of the paper book, which is a construction license, issued by the Office of Village Panchayat, Sernabatim, Venelim & Colva in its Meeting held on 26.10.1980, mentioning therein about the proposed modification to the kitchen block of M/s. Colmar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (appellant). This document cannot be interpreted by us to mean that the structures A to G, which have been ordered to be demolished, were existing prior to the year 1991 because this licence is only with respect to kitchen belonging to the hotel of appellant.

18. Thereafter, the learned counsel for appellant has drawn our attention to page no.97 of the paper book, which is a Sanad dated 12.10.1979, issued by the Addl. Collector of Goa, where-in the name of previous owner- Shri Ramalho Mascaronhas Lambert Mascaronhas, Colva is recorded, for the purpose of construction of residential building and it is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the said Sanad being of the year 1979 proved that the structures, which have been ordered to be demolished, existed prior to the year 1979. This argument also does not hold good because the Sale Deed dated 11.03.1980, which was executed by the earlier owner in favour of M/s. Colmar Hotel Pvt. Ltd./appellant, did not show any structures to be there in the Sale Deed. Had there been any such structures, they certainly would have been found mentioned in the said Sale Deed. Therefore, it cannot be held on the basis of that sale deed that Structures A to G existed prior to the year 1991.

19. Much stress is laid by the learned counsel for appellant on a report of Enquiry Committee dated 08.10.2015 conducted by the GCZMA, annexed at page nos.163 to 166 of the paper book, where-in, in para no.10, our attention is drawn to the observation that the structures of Hotel Colmar, situated in Sy.No.40/4 of Village Colva, were existing prior to the date of CRZ Notification i.e. 19-02-1991 and it was highlighted by the learned counsel for appellant that this conclusively proves that all structures belonged to the period prior to the year 1991.

20. The said argument was vehemently controverted by Mrs. Judith Almeida representing respondent No.2/Colva Civil and Consumer Forum/Complainant saying that actually, there were only 2 structures, which existed on the said Survey Number and for this, our attention is drawn by her to page no.157 of the paper book, which is a layout of rough sketch of the structures of Hotel Colmar Beach Resort, which is a part and parcel of a letter of Secretary of Village Panchayat, Sernabatim, Venelim, Colva & Gandaulim, Salcete, Goa dated 23.11.2005, addressed to the appellant, where-by the appellant was directed to produce all relevant documents of the construction including additional rooms and compound wall of the Hotel Project to prove the legalities of all the structures of its Hotel project etc. We find force in the argument made by the complainant/respondent No.2 because in that rough sketch map, only two existing structures were shown, which were not found to be illegal, while rest were marked to be illegal.

21. No other arguments was placed before us by the learned counsel for appellant, in order to substantiate its ground that the impugned order is erroneously passed ordering demolition of the structures A to G. The learned counsel for appellant kept harping that the approval was given on 18.02.1997 by the GSCCE (Goa State Coastal Committee for Environment), which is a clear proof that all structures A to G were approved and yet they have been declared to be illegal by the GCZMA, based on a map prepared by the DSLR, which is annexed at page no.102 of the paper book, as after superimposing the approved map of 18.02.1997 on the DSLR map, the GCZMA has found the structures A to G to be illegal except structure H and accordingly, impugned order has been passed ordering demolition of structures A to G. According to the appellant, such type of approach of the GCZMA is erroneous because the superimposition of map, which he has annexed at page no.102 of the paper book, was prepared by the GCZMA and a copy of the same was not served upon the appellant and no opportunity was given to it to rebut the same. Hence in this case, principle of natural justice is violated by the GCZMA. To this argument, our view is that the argument that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the appellant by the GCZMA does not hold good as this Tribunal has provided full opportunity of hearing to the appellant in this appeal which is continuation of the matter heard by lower authority. Therefore at this stage, it cannot be said that the appellant stands deprived of opportunity of hearing.

22. We find that the argument, which has been made from the side of respondent No.2/Colva Civil and Consumer Forum/Complainant, which has also been recorded in our previous order dated 12.01.2024, is very strong, which indicates that the appellant went on increasing the construction of rooms in its Hotel from time to time as they went on increasing from 25 rooms on 20.08.1986 up to 156 rooms, as mentioned in page nos.151-152 of the paper book, which is an Inspection Report of Medium Class Accommodation (‘B’ Category), which is said to have been prepared by the Tourism Department. But no permission of the additional rooms, being constructed at such a huge level, has been produced by the appellant before us. We also find that it is rightly recorded by the GCZMA in its impugned order that no documentary evidence could be produced by the appellant to substantiate its claim that the structures, which have been ordered to be demolished, belonged to the period prior to the year 1991.

23. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.1/GCZMA and accordingly, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

24. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to cost.