1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.1/GCZMA directing the appellant-M/s. Elite Builders to demolish structures in Survey Nos.319/2, 3, 5 and 12 (shown at Building ‘A’, G+4 in Survey Plan), Village: Calangute, Bardez-Goa and to restore the land to its original condition within 15 days.

2. We would like to take facts of this appeal from the impugned order itself, where-in it is recorded that a complaint was made on 23.09.2015 by respondent No.2/Mr. Kashinath Shetye along-with others to respondent No.1/GCZMA with regard to the alleged illegal construction of mega project known by the name ‘Nazri Beach Resort’ in the property bearing Survey Nos.319/2, 3, 5, 7 and 12 of Village: Calangute, Bardez, Goa, carried out by M/s. Elite builders/appellant, having office at Porbavaddo, Calangute, Bardez, Goa in contravention of CRZ Notification, 2011 and without obtaining prior approval from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) Pursuant to the said complaint, respondent No.1/GCZMA issued a Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2015 to the appellant. Thereafter, the matter was placed for consideration in the 164th meeting of the respondent No.1/GCZMA on 29.11.2017. On that date, the Complainant/respondent No.2 and from the side of appellant, an MLA from Calangute Constituency- Shri Michael Lobo appeared, who informed that the proposed project fell outside 500 mtrs. from the High Tide Line (HTL). Then it was decided by the respondent No.1/GCZMA that a site inspection of the proposed project be conducted on 12.12.2017. Accordingly, the same was carried out by the Expert Members of the respondent No.1, where-in it was recorded that the HTL has to be measured through the Office of Directorate of Settlement and Land Records (DSLR). The Office of DSLR vide letter dated 12.04.2018 submitted true copy of the earlier report/plan prepared, pursuant to the letter of respondent No.1 dated 02.03.2010 in respect of site in question, in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.391 of 2009. Thereafter, the matter was placed for consideration before the respondent No.1 on 23.01.2018. But the meeting was rescheduled to 09.02.2018. Even on that date, the said meeting could not be held due to unavailability of the Chairman of the respondent No.1 and thereafter, the matter was placed for further consideration on 27.03.2018. On that date, respondent No.1 decided to issue necessary documents such as site inspection report and other relevant documents to both the parties and thereafter decided to take up the matter in its next meeting on 12.06.2018. But on that date, the meeting could not be held due to non-availability of the Chairman of the respondent No.1/GCZMA and thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on 19.06.2018. Even on that date, the meeting could not be held. Thereafter, the matter was placed for next consideration on 26.06.2018. On that date, the respondent No.2 was present in-person to defend his matter. From the side of appellant, Shri Michael Lobo appeared in-person. The Complainant/respondent No.2 submitted that the permission (the learned counsel for parties stated that these permissions are annexed at page no.55 of the paper book) issued by the earlier Member Secretary was forged. The structures in question were lying in CRZ area and the Authority has to consider the HTL, which was on record. Further, it was submitted that environmental damage has happened due to illegal construction along the beach line. Respondent again reiterated that the said structure was beyond 500 mtrs. of HTL. He further stated that the construction in question was on border line (500 mtrs. line). The tidal effect had changed and HTL has shifted over a period of time and that even width of beach had lessened considerably.

3. It is further submitted in the impugned order of this appeal that in order to establish that the site in question was located beyond 500 meters from HTL, the appellant had relied upon a letter dated 17.05.2006 (annexed at page no.55 of the paper book) and the letters from GSCCE (Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment), Town & Country Planning Department, Government of Goa dated 27.06.1995 (annexed at page nos.53 to 54 of the paper book) to claim that the survey numbers in question were outside 500 mtrs. from HTL. However, it is recorded in this order that there was no record in the office of respondent No.1/GCZMA regarding the above letters. Hence, vide their letter dated 31.12.2009, respondent No.1 requested CID, CB Dona Paula to investigate regarding the forging of all these letters, which are alleged to have been issued by the Member Secretary, GCZMA in the year 2006 as well as the GSCCE letters, relied upon by the respondent. It is further recorded in this order that these forged letters had formed the basis of all the permissions issued by the various authorities for Nazri Resort. Accordingly, a show cause-cumstop work order dated 06.01.2009 was issued by the respondent No.1/GCZMA to the appellant to stop all the construction activity in the survey numbers in question. But the construction had been completed by the appellant.

4. It is further submitted in the impugned order of this appeal that the respondent No.1 has noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa had directed the respondent No.1/GCZMA to carryout mapping of the construction of the appellant in the survey numbers in question. Accordingly, DSLR Survey Plan with HTL and 500 mtrs. line would clearly show the existence of structures in survey numbers in question (Shown as Building A, G+4 in Survey Plan). In view of the above facts and also considering that there were no documents/maps shown nor were produced by the appellant before the Authority to prove the existence of all the structures in question prior to 1991 despite adequate opportunity and personal hearing having been given to the appellant, the respondent No.1/GCZMA concluded that the said structures in question were falling within the CRZ area, which were built without any prior permission from the GCZMA, which deserved to be demolished and accordingly demolition order was passed.

5. The appellant in its memo of appeal has mentioned in addition to the above facts that it is a partnership firm, which is in possession of the survey numbers in question and is running a Hotel Resort there by the name ‘Nazri Resorts’. Sometime in the year 1988-89, the appellant’s predecessors-in-title, Mr. Merwyn D'Souza and Mrs. Amelia D'Souza were desirous of constructing Studio Residential Flats in portions of the said properties of the Survey Numbers in question. As such, pursuant to their application in-warded in the Office of Panjim Planning & Development Authority (PPDA) dated 11.04.1989, the said persons obtained Development Permission under Section 44 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1974 from the said Authority on 16.05.1989. Thereafter, the predecessors-in-title commenced actual construction in portions of the said properties till plinth level. However, due to certain financial constraints, they could not carry out further construction for some time.

6. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that the said persons once again revived their plans to continue with the construction some time in the year 1995. However, there was some doubt as to whether the subject construction would be covered by the CRZ restrictions or not. Accordingly, the said predecessors-in-title of the appellant obtained two letters dated 27.06.1995 from the Chief Town Planner, who was also the Member Secretary of the Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment (GSCCE), clarifying the position that the properties bearing survey numbers in question were situated outside 500 mtrs. from the High Tide Line (HTL) as per the definition of HTL mentioned in the amended Notification dated 16.08.1994. Thereafter, the next predecessor-in-title of the said properties had also obtained a letter dated 17.05.2006 from the then Member Secretary of the respondent No.1/GCZMA clarifying that the properties in question were located beyond 500 mtrs. from the HTL on the landward side and therefore, any development proposed on the said plots would not attract the provisions of CRZ Notification- 1991.

7. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that between the years 2006-2008, the appellant's partners purchased the said properties from its earlier owners based on the understanding that the said properties were not affected by the CRZ Regulations, 1991. Based on that very same understanding, the appellant through their partners also obtained the other required permissions and continued with the development of residential buildings in the said properties sometime in the year 2006. Thereafter, permissions were obtained from the Competent Authority for changing the user of the development from residential to commercial and for operating the same as a Resort in the name of ‘Nazri Resorts’. The details of permissions obtained by the appellant are mentioned in para no.14 from Clause (a) to (h), which are as follows:-

a) Construction License from the Village Panchayat of Calangute dated 13.03.2008;

b) NOCs from Village Panchayat of Calangute for running a Resort in the name of `Nazri Resorts' and for change of user from residential to commercial, dated 26.06.2008 and 09.08.2010, respectively;

c) NOC from the Health Officer dated 25.07.2008;

d) Conversion Sanads dated 03.02.2009, 11.02.2009 and 10.09.2009;

e) Certificate of Establishment under Goa, Daman & Diu Shops and Establishment Act dated 25.06.2009;

f) Certificate of Registration of Hotel from the Department of Tourism;

g) Certificate under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 from FSSAI dated 19.03.2015;

h) NOCs from the Fire Department.”

8. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that on or around 23.09.2015, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 addressed a complaint to the respondent No.1/GCZMA complaining about the fact that the construction of the Resort undertaken by the appellant on the properties bearing survey numbers in question was illegal and in violation of CRZ Notification. The facts after this period have been mentioned by us above, which have been taken from the impugned order itself. However, the additional facts, which are stated in this memo of appeal, are being mentioned here.

9. On 12.12.2017, a site inspection was held, which was conducted by the Expert Members of respondent No.1/GCZMA- Dr. Prabhakar Shirodkar and Eng. Audhoot Bonsule along-with representative of Directorate of Settlement and Land Records (DSLR), Mr. Rajesh Harmalkar and it was revealed by the Expert Members that many constructions were there while going on to the beach across the road for taking measurement of the said properties from the HTL. The said report further revealed that upon reaching the beach, old landmarks could not be located for deciding the HTL. As such, the visiting Members decided to approach the DSLR for information/data regarding the HTL, which was worked out by them in the year 2006. A perusal of the said report further revealed that there was absolutely no data available with the DSLR regarding the demarcation of HTL of the said properties in question, prior to or after 2006. Therefore, the visiting members deemed it appropriate to use the HTL, which was prepared in the year 2006 by the DSLR.

10. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that further hearings in the matter were scheduled on 23.01.2018 and 09.02.2018. However, on both the aforesaid dates, the personal hearing could not be held and the next date was fixed on 27.03.2018, in which the copies of the site inspection report prepared by the Expert Members of respondent No.1 were handed-over to the parties for making submissions on the same and next date of hearing was fixed on 12.06.2018.

11. In para no.27 of this memo of appeal, it is submitted that the appellant orally requested the respondent No.1 to grant him further time, in order to produce on record other previous permissions evidencing the fact that the subject construction was sanctioned much prior to the coming into force the CRZ Regulations, 1991. The partner of the appellant specifically informed the respondent No.1 that the relevant documents/ letters pertaining to the subject construction were old ones and hence he needed to check if they were seized by the Crime Branch in connection with a vexatious criminal case filed against it regarding purported fabrication of the letter dated 17.05.2006 or the same were existing with the earlier owners or with the partners of the appellant. Despite the specific oral request for additional time, the respondent No.1 closed the matter and proceeded to pass the impugned decision on the same day i.e. on 26.06.2018 and communicated the impugned decision vide order dated 09.07.2018.

12. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that the respondent No.1 failed to appreciate that there was an FIR dated 26.07.2010 registered by the Crime Branch against one of the partners of the appellant alleging fabrication of the letter/document dated 17.05.2006 by forging the signature of the then Member Secretary of the respondent No.l. In this respect, the said criminal case is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa, where-in charge sheet has also been filed. But no final decision has been passed in the matter as yet. The charge sheet would indicate that it reiterated only to the letter dated 17.05.2006 and that no complaint or charge whatsoever was made with respect to the letters dated 27.06.1995 issued by the GSCCE to the predecessors-in-title of the appellant. Even the charge regarding fabrication of the letter dated 17.05.2006 was totally false and frivolous. Therefore, there was gross negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in giving a finding (without any basis whatsoever) that the letters dated 27.06.1995 were also forged and that they formed the subject-matter of complaint by the Member Secretary vide his letter dated 31.12.2009. Respondent No.1 also grossly erred in holding that no document/plan was produced by the appellant showing existence of the offending structures prior to 1991 because the partner of the appellant had specifically requested for further time to produce the said documents.

13. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that the partner of appellant located copy of the application dated 11.04.1989 and the Development Permission dated 16.05.1989 only on 17.07.2018, which was in their possession. But the same could not be located earlier despite exhaustive search because it was an old document and that the said documents would have definitely resulted in discharging of the show-cause notice. Further, it is mentioned that respondent No.1 erred in proceeding on a legally and factually incorrect premise by placing reliance on the demarcation of the HTL prepared by the DSLR in the year 2005 and ordering demolition of the purported illegal structures in the said properties on that basis. It is further submitted that the CRZ Regulations came into effect in the year 1991 and the Notification dated 19.02.1991, which provided that the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters influenced by tidal action (in the landward side) up to 500 mtrs. from the HTL and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL shall be regarded as the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). The said Notification further provided that with effect from the date of that Notification, certain restrictions shall be followed on the setting up or expansion of industries, operations or processes in the CRZ. It is, therefore, obvious that all building activities in terms of the CRZ Notification- 1991 stood frozen to the laws and norms existing as on the date of the said Notification. The subject construction was sanctioned by the PPDA on 16.05.1989 while actual construction was commenced up-to plinth stage prior to 19th February 1991. As a natural corollary, the building activity had to be scrutinized by considering the HTL demarcated at the time of coming into force of the CRZ Notification, 1991. In the case in hand, the respondent No.1 wrongly and illegally adjudged the legality of the subject construction on the basis of the HTL drawn by the DSLR in the year 2005, which was completely impermissible in law. It is further reiterated that the distance of the subject construction ought to have been measured in terms of the HTL demarcated upon coming into force the CRZ Notification, 1991 or at the most the HTL demarcated in the first CZMP Plan prepared for the State of Goa in the year 1996.

14. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that the respondent No.1 does not have any data regarding demarcation of the HTL as prevailing in the year 1991 or 1996, which position is even conceded in the site inspection report prepared by the Expert Members of the respondent No.1, where-in it was stated that neither the authority nor the DSLR had the demarcation of HTL prior to 2006. On this suspicious ground, the respondent No.1 proceeded to illegally consider the HTL as demarcated in the year 2005-2006 to pass an order of demolition of the subject construction. It is further mentioned that it is a matter of common knowledge that the HTL demarcated in the year 1991 or soon thereafter was bound to change due to the dynamic nature of the coastal eco-system, whereby huge amount of accretion and erosion takes place, impacting the coastal morphology and landforms, which are an important parameter for demarcation of HTL. As such, the appellant could not be made to suffer because of such natural phenomena and vagaries of nature in respect of their prior initiated construction.

15. It is further submitted in the memo of this appeal that a perusal of the survey plan dated 02.03.2010 prepared by the DSLR (annexed to the impugned Order) evidenced that the 500 mtrs. line from the HTL was demarcated by the DSLR in the year 2005, which was completely illegal exercise as per the Office Order dated 14.03.2014, issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests. The exercise of demarcation of HTL can be conducted by only eight authorized agencies, as stipulated therein and that the DSLR is not one of the authorized agencies mentioned therein. It is further submitted that in terms of the CRZ Notification, demarcation of HTL is a highly skilled/technical exercise, which is to be done during spring tide using precision equipments and standard methods. For this, the DSLR does not have the necessary means to conduct such an exercise.

16. This appeal was first heard by the Predecessor Bench of this Tribunal on 20.07.2018 when it was admitted and notices were directed to be issued to the respondents.

17. Vide affidavit dated 28.09.2022, the appellant has filed Coastal Zone Management Plan, prepared and finalized by the Competent Authorities recently and a copy of the same has been annexed at page no.123 of the paper book.

18. From the side of respondent No.1/GCZMA, reply affidavit dated 20.02.2023 has been filed, where-in it is submitted that appellant has filed certain new documents/additional documents including a purported construction permission dated 11.04.1989 granted to the erstwhile owners of the property in question, which documents were not produced before the answering respondent during the hearings, despite ample opportunity having been provided. The said documents have been brought on record without any permission from this Tribunal, which cannot form part of the present appeal and are liable to be struck off from the record. Further, it is submitted that since the original document was not placed before the answering respondent, its authenticity cannot be confirmed, even as per the alleged permission for construction dated 11.04.1989 granted to the erstwhile owners, permission was only in respect of Survey Nos.319/5 and 12 and there was no permission granted to build on Survey Nos.319/2 or 319/3 or 319/7. Even that permission, which was granted regarding two other Survey Numbers, was non-transferable and was valid only for a period of 3 years. The appellant purchased the disputed property only in the year 2007-08 and admittedly some construction has been done by it thereafter and hence, the permission dated 11.04.1989 is of no significance. Despite the averment made by the appellant that the said property was purchased by them through Sale Deeds dated 15.02.2007 and 11.09.2007, none of the alleged sale deeds have been placed on record by the appellant, which would have clearly proved the extent if any of the constructed structure. Non-production of the same leads to an adverse inference against them to the effect that there was no such constructed property prior to 19.02.1991 on the said two survey numbers. The documents annexed as Exhibit-D colly of year 2008 and subsequent period, which are annexed at page nos.56 to 77 of the paper book, are stated to be different documents, which was not placed on record before the answering respondent at the time of passing of the impugned order. Hence, these documents do not form part of the record and cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the present appeal.

19. We have gone through Exhibit-D colly at page no.56 of the paper book and found that there was a Construction License issued on the Survey Numbers in question in the name of Michael Lobo and Francisco Viegas Nazarious Lobo, where-in construction permissions was granted subject to condition which inter alia included that it would inform to the Panchayat after excavation and before laying of plinth foundation. It is also mentioned that License was granted for the construction of Residential Building block ‘C’, compound wall and swimming pool and the condition which are cited above, would clearly warrant the Commencement Certificate to be obtained before work excavation and laying the plinth foundation, which according to the respondent, has not been taken.

20. It is further submitted in this affidavit by the respondent No.1/GCZMA that the letters dated 17.05.2006, which is being relied upon by the appellant to have been issued by the answering respondent, showing that the property in question falls beyond 500 mtrs. from the HTL and is not in the CRZ zone and the same were fraudulently generated documents, regarding which the answering respondent had preferred a complaint dated 31.12.2009 to the Police Inspector, CID, CB, Dona Paula, Goa. In pursuance thereof, an FIR dated 26.07.2010 was lodged under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where-in charge sheet has also been filed against one of the partners of the appellant. The said case is pending for final hearing before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa.

21. It is further submitted in this affidavit by the respondent No.1/GCZMA that the apparently forged letters of 1995 and 2006 are stating that the properties mentioned therein are beyond 500 mtrs. of HTL. There is no statement therein as to when the survey was carried out nor is a survey map relied upon attached thereto. Therefore, these documents cannot be relied upon on the face of it. Further, it is mentioned that these forged letters of 1995 and 2006 allegedly written to the erstwhile owners, which were stated to form the basis of all the subsequent permissions granted by the various authorities for the illegal project ‘Nazri Resort’ of the appellant, hence they cannot be relied upon.

22. It is further submitted in this affidavit by the respondent No.1/GCZMA that from the site inspection report annexed at page nos.97- 98 of the paper book, it is evident that since a physical survey could not be carried out on that day, it was suggested that the available HTL line of 2005-2006, identified by National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) as per the Hon’ble High Court Order in 2010, can be considered for measuring the distance from HTL to the buildings constructed by the appellant. It is also submitted that the work of measurement of the distance from the HTL of the alleged illegal structure was suggested to be done through the Office of Directorate of Settlement and Land Records (DSLR), which is the Body authorized for the purpose. It is further submitted that in a similar case, the Hon'ble High Court had accepted the survey and mapping of HTL by MO and of structures by DLSR. A copy of which is also annexed as Annexure- R1/1.

23. It is further submitted in this affidavit by the respondent No.1/GCZMA that in the meeting of the answering respondent held on 27.03.2018, both the parties were heard and issued necessary documents such as the site inspection report and other relevant documents to both the parties. The answering respondent sent the Site Inspection Report to the appellant vide letter dated 04.04.2018 and thereafter in the meeting held on 26.06.2018, the answering respondent heard the submissions made by the parties and observed that the appellant had strongly relied upon the fabricated letter dated 17.05.2006 purported to have been issued by the GCZMA in respect of which criminal case is pending. Since a survey had already been carried out in the year 2009 and mapping done by DSLR based upon the HTL marked by the NIO in the year 2005-06, in terms of the Hon’ble High Court Order and the structures mapped by DLSR thereupon, the same was rightly relied upon by the answering respondent. DSLR was only to do the mapping of the structures on the existing HTL line mapped by the NIO in the year 2005-06.

24. It is further submitted in this affidavit by the respondent No.1/GCZMA that based upon the arguments made by the parties and documents produced in its meeting dated 09.07.2018, the impugned order was passed. It is well considered and based on evidence. It is further mentioned that in the year 1996, there was no demarcation of the HTL under the CZMP Plan- 1996. The said Plan was implemented to distribute the villages, which fell in the CRZ area into three zones, i.e., CRZ-I, II or III. The Survey Map of 1991 was superseded by the survey map of 2005-06 drawn by the NIO. In order to ascertain the illegal constructions carried out by the appellant, the answering respondent got the structures of the appellant plotted on the plan through DSLR, a copy of the DSLR letter dated 12.04.2018 is annexed as Annexure- R-1/2 and a copy of the GCZMA letter dated 02.03.2010 is also annexed as Annexure- R-1/3. Hence, the answering respondent relied upon the same to pass the impugned order of demolition.

25. Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 08.03.2023 on behalf of appellant has been filed against the affidavit of respondent No.1/GCZMA dated 20.02.2023, where-in it is submitted that the copy of Development Permission dated 16.05.1989 could not be produced before the respondent No.1/GCZMA only because the GCZMA did not afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, despite there being a specific oral request made by it. There was only one effective hearing held on 26.06.2018, on which date the matter was heard finally despite an oral request made by the appellant to be permitted to produce on record the said documents. It is also mentioned that although the Development Permission dated 16.05.1989 was pertaining to properties bearing Survey Nos.319/5, 86 & 319/12, which are situated on the sea-ward side compared to the properties bearing Survey Nos.319/3, 86 & 319/7, which are situated on the land-ward side and therefore, the said properties bearing Survey Nos.319/3 & 319/7 were not affected by CRZ Regulations even according to the Survey Plan dated 02.03.2010 (prepared by the DSLR), which was the basis for passing of the impugned order.

26. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-rejoinder by the appellant that the appellant does not admit the demarcation of HTL and 500 mtrs. line as per the Survey Plan dated 02.03.2010. With respect to nontransferability of the Development Permission dated 16.05.1989, the same is stated to be misconceived and unfounded. It is not the case of the appellant that it had itself done construction in the properties in question on the strength of the said Development Permission. The case of the appellant, as set-out in paragraph nos.8 & 9 of the appeal, is that the permission holders namely Merwyn D'Souza and Amelia D'Souza themselves had commenced constructions in properties in question during the year 1989 and had completed such constructions up-to plinth level, prior to coming into force of the CRZ Regulations, 1991. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the impugned construction was an ongoing construction, commenced prior to the enactment of CRZ Regulations, and therefore, the same was unaffected by the said regulations.

27. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-rejoinder by the appellant that the matters relating to legality or illegality of constructions have to be decided on the basis of statutory permissions and not on the basis of what private parties have provided in their Sale Deeds. No adverse interference can be drawn for non-filing of the sale deeds. It is further mentioned that the appellant's predecessors had raised construction up to plinth level, prior to the enactment of CRZ Regulations- 1991 and thereafter, for a short period, they had abandoned the construction and ultimately completed the same in the year 2008. All such permissions were issued by the Competent Authorities upon an independent appraisal/scrutiny of the project and not on the basis of letters dated 27.06.1995 or 17.05.2006. Even after keeping aside the said alleged letters, appellant has sufficient material on record to establish the legality of the impugned structures. There is absolutely no criminal proceeding pending in respect of the letter dated 27.06.1995 and that it was only an apprehension expressed by the then Member Secretary of the GCZMA. Even those letters might have been fraudulently generated but no FIR has been lodged in that regard. After investigation, no substance has been found with respect to letter dated 27.06.1995 being forged and fabricated as per the charge-sheet submitted.

28. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-rejoinder by the appellant that even the HTL has not been demarcated by the NIO, rather the NIO had only provided the points of HTL to DSLR and even the actual demarcation of HTL (using the points provided by NIO) has been done by the DSLR itself. If the case of respondent No.1 is otherwise, it ought to produce on record in these proceedings, the relevant extract of NIO Plan/Map demarcating the HTL 200 mtrs. line and the 500 mtrs. line; failing which adverse inference ought to be drawn against the respondent No.1 and it should be held that the HTL has been drawn by the DSLR, which was not the competent authority to do so.

29. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-rejoinder by the appellant that assuming that the identification/demarcation of HTL was done by NIO, as alleged, it could only be on 1:4000 scale map (which is the authorized scale as per the guidelines). However, in the present case, that data has been super-imposed on a Survey Plan of the suit properties in question, which was on a scale of 1:1000. If such legally impermissible exercise is conducted by the DSLR, the identification of HTL or the CRZ limits, worked-out on the basis of the same, can never be accurate or reliable. Even a slight variation or error in plotting of the HTL or the 500 mtrs. line could cause severe prejudice affecting rights of the appellant. The contention of the respondent No.1 is that so far as the Hon'ble High Court accepting the survey/mapping of HTL done by DSLR using NIO data is concerned, the same is emphatically denied by the appellant. The same was never in question before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court was only concerned with identification/demarcation of the HTL by the NIO and not regarding its use/mis-use by the DSLR. The issues raised by the appellant in the present appeal were never raised, considered or decided by the Hon'ble High Court. Even the provisions of CRZ Regulations- 2011 were not applicable at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 16.07.2007, which are presently applicable and were also applicable at the time of passing the impugned order.

30. Additional affidavit dated 19.07.2023 has been filed by the appellant, where-in it is submitted that the entire exercise of HTL demarcation was prepared by the MO and the Directorate of Settlement & Land Records (DSLR), which had no role whatsoever in the process of deciding/marking of the HTL. Further, it is mentioned that even any adhoc exercise of demarcation of HTL/NDZ etc. has to be done by following the Procedure/Guidelines prescribed for preparation of the CZMP, the role of DSLR even for the purpose of plotting the HTL (purportedly identified by MO) on the map or for plotting of the structures on such map etc., is totally ruled-out as per law. It is revealed that the DSLR was actively involved even in the process of conducting actual ground survey and transferring of the HTL (purportedly identified by the NIO) on the cadastral maps.

31. It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by the appellant that the Minutes of Meetings further highlighted the haphazard manner in which the entire exercise was carried out since the HTL lines worked out by NIO could not be transferred on the village cadastral maps due to incompatibility of the survey methods followed for demarcation of the HTL and preparation of the cadastral maps. Even the HTL identification poles erected by the DSLR at loco were being removed or dislocated by villagers to suit their individual needs.

32. Short Sur-Rejoinder affidavit dated 19.07.2023 has been filed by the respondent No.1/GCZMA, where-in it is mentioned that the averment of the appellant that GCZMA could not have delegated the work of mapping to Directorate of Settlement and Land Records (DSLR), in this regard, it is submitted that DSLR is a Government Department having expertise in the field and is responsible for maintaining land records and drawing property boundaries and conducting surveys in respect of lands. DSLR is a technical department, which carries out site inspection, plotting of the illegal structures, etc. It is further submitted that DSLR has been conducting these kind of works of plotting structures and conducting survey for many years on a specific request from the answering respondent-GCZMA from time to time.

33. It is further submitted in this short Sur-Rejoinder affidavit by the respondent No.1 that the identification of HTL was done by the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), based on which the DSLR identified illegal structures constructed by the appellant as shown in the map attached with the Impugned Demolition Order and as per the Orders of Hon'ble High Court. This map is wholly in accordance with the law and the demolition order passed on that basis ought to have been upheld.

34. It is further submitted in this short Sur-Rejoinder affidavit by the respondent No.1 that National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) would only delineate HTL and various Coastal Zones. But this does not give it power to the National Institute of Oceanography to mark or plot the structures existing in Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area to show, if any of them fall outside the HTL, this would be beyond the usual scope of their work. It is further submitted that it is the prerogative of answering respondentGCZMA to get the survey conducted and plot structures with reference to the HTL drawn by agencies like the NIO and this was done by them with the help of DSLR, as and when, required.

35. On the basis of above pleadings, we deem it appropriate to frame following issues for determination of this appeal:-

(i). Whether, if a construction is carried out after issuance of CRZ Notification, 1991 with building plan approved prior to coming into force of the said Notification, should it be held to be not a violation of the CRZ Notification, 1991, as argued by the learned counsel for appellant

(ii). Whether determination of the fact that the constructions raised by the appellant are illegal, should be decided on the basis of a Map, which has been annexed by the respondent No.1 with the impugned order, prepared by the DSLR, where- in by green colour, the HTL has been drawn and the disputed property has been shown to be covered within 500 mtrs. of the HTL or on the basis of the CZMP prepared in compliance with the CRZ Notification, 2011, which is filed by the appellant after having obtained a copy of the same from the GCZMA under RTI, which is annexed at page no.123 of the paper book

(iii). Whether the respondent No.1/GCZMA had given adequate opportunity to the appellant to produce the documentary evidence on record and to put up their defence

(iv). Whether the prayer that, on the basis of the building plan approval dated 16.05.1989, which is now being relied upon by the appellant in support of its defence, the matter should be remanded to the respondent No.1 with a direction to consider this document to arrive on a correct conclusion with respect to the disputed construction in question, should be granted

(v). What relief, if any, appellant is entitled to

36. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

37. Before considering whether any relief may be granted to the appellant, we would like to discuss here the procedures, which are required to be adopted for determination of the CZMP (Coastal Zone Management Plan), which will contain the HTL and LTL both and the preparation of CRZ Map, which would also contain the HTL and LTL lines. We want to discuss this issue first because of the reason that according to the learned counsel for appellant, the procedure for preparation of these two are one and the same as both will require approval from the MoEF&CC, while in our estimation, the correct position appears to be that for preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plan, only approval from the MoEF&CC is required and not for the preparation of CRZ map.

38. First, we will take up as to what is the procedure to prepare the Coastal Zone Management Plan. In this regard, we will rely on the CRZ Notification- 1991, which came into force on 19.02.1991 and thereafter was amended on several times. In this Notification, it is recorded that the HTL means the line on the land up to which the highest water line reaches during spring tide, which shall be demarcated uniformly in all parts of the country by Demarcating Authority, so authorized by the Central Government, in accordance with the general guidelines in this regard. The Ministry of Environment and Forest vide Office Order dated 14.03.2014 authorized following eight institutes/agencies for demarcation of HTL-LTL along the CRZ using general guidelines:-

(i). Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad

(ii). Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram

(iii). Institute for Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai

(iv). Institute Wetland Management and Ecological Designs, Calcutta

(v). Naval Hydrographer’s Office, Dehradun

(vi). National Institute of Oceanography, Panjim, Goa

(vii). National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Chennai

(viii). National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), Chennai.”

39. But later on, this was amended by the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 by the MoEF&CC by which the name of authority at serial no.(v) i.e. Naval Hydrographer’s Office, Dehradun was deleted from one of the authorized agencies and hence only seven agencies were left, which could have done the work of demarcation of HTL and LTL.

40. We find that the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa was approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 27.09.1996, which got approval under Section 3 (3) (i) of CRZ Notification- 1991, which contains that State Government of Goa shall delineate on the maps LTL, HTL, 200 mtrs., 500 mtrs. lines and other relevant lines in respect of creeks, backwaters and rivers affected by tidal action so that the distance can be measured, whenever required.

41. We find that in the affidavit submitted by the respondent No.1/GCZMA dated 20.02.2023, in which in para no.24, it is stated that till the time the CZMP 1996 for Goa was prepared, there was no HTL demarcated and therefore, this plan in CZMP was implemented to distribute the villages, which fell in the CRZ area into three zones, i.e., CRZ-I, II or III and accordingly, Bardez Taluka, Calangute area was classified as CRZ-III except sand dunes, which is classified as CRZ-I. By this, the project in question would fall in CRZ area, which would require prior permission from the State Coastal Zone Management Authority. In the case in hand, it has neither been sought nor has it been granted.

42. Now, we would like to take up the procedure for preparation of the CRZ map. From the documentary evidence on record, we find that for preparation of the CRZ map also, the same seven agencies/authorities, which have been cited above, are authorized to prepare the CRZ map indicating HTL and LTL on a map 1:4000 scale. The fact that the CRZ map on the said scale should be prepared by one of the authorized agencies, which can be concluded from para no.4.2 (e) of the CRZ Notification- 2011, which speaks so.

43. Nowhere do we find such kind of CRZ map prepared by one of the authorized agencies, which would also require approval from MoEF, prior to the same being relied upon to determine as to up to which extent, the HTL and LTL exist in a particular CRZ area. We are of the view that the CZMP delineates HTL and LTL lines only in respective CRZ areas. This CZMP is prepared district-wise for the entire State while CRZ maps are prepared at local level, which are known as cadastral map on the scale 1:4000, which do not require any approval from the MoEF.

44. It would also be pertinent to mention here that as per the CRZ Notification- 1991, the area within 500 mtrs. of the highest tide line is called as CRZ area, which needs to be located based on field visit for assessing the line, up to which the sea water must have reached in the past. Besides that the vegetation, soil cover and other relevant factors are also taken into consideration in its determination, as such it requires expertise because of which the MoEF has authorized specific agencies having expertise to determine the HTL. For drawing HTL using Global Positioning System (GPS)/Latitude and Longitude of various points are located at 25/50 meter intervals. This data is then transferred to toposheets (for CZMP) of 1:25000 scale or cadastral maps (for CRZ clearance) of 1:4000 scale. Hence, such work can also be joint effort on the part of NIO and DSLR, but the NIO will be responsible for providing latitude and longitude of various points defining HTL, whereas DSLR will be responsible for plotting HTL line on revenue map by converting latitude and longitude into Cartesian co-ordinates. Adopting this procedure, the map appears to have been prepared by DSLR with the help of NIO, which is annexed with the impugned order dated 09.07.2018 of respondent No.1/GCZMA showing with yellow colour Building “A”, which is found to lie within 500 mtrs. of HTL under CRZ area. In this map, by green colour, a straight line of 500 mtrs. has been drawn and to the west of it is shown the property in question.

45. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for appellant that this map relied upon the respondent No.1/GCZMA cannot be considered to be correct because it is not as per the CZMP 1996, apparently seems erroneous because regarding the CZMP 1996, we have already discussed above in which we have made it clear that till then, HTL had not been drawn because of which the entire Calangute Village was found to lie in CRZ area and if that be taken to be the line of argument, both the structures, which are shown by yellow colour in the above-mentioned map, would fall in the CRZ area as they lie in Calangute Village.

46. At this very stage, we would also like to take the point raised by the learned counsel for appellant that subsequently, CZMP has been prepared under CRZ Notification 2011, a copy of which has been annexed by the appellant with the additional affidavit dated 28.09.202 where-with extract of the CZMP map is also annexed at page no.123 of the paper book, showing therein that Survey No.319, which is in question, which has been marked by the elliptical marking to fall outside 500 mtrs. of the HTL. Therefore, the said survey number would not require any permission from the respondent No.1/GCZMA for raising any construction. In this regard, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also vehemently argued that this preparation of CRZ map is of subsequent date, which excludes the survey number in question from the CRZ area, should benefit the appellant because it should be treated to be a later development and for this the said learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment in the matter of Ram Kumar Barnwal vs. Ram Lakhan (Dead) [(2007) 5 SCC 660] [LQ/SC/2007/679] . The facts of this case are that respondent no.1 had repeatedly committed default in payment of rent to the mother of the appellant, which led to filing of a suit (Suit no. 23 of 1970) for ejectment of respondent no.1 on the ground of default. Though suit was decreed up-to second appeal stage, in appeal the order of ejectment was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 30.11.1976, as respondent no.1 had started depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act. In 1980, appellant moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which was resisted by the respondent. The Prescribed Authority on the report of Commissioner held that the eviction petition was not maintainable, which order was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court challenging correctness of the Judgment and order dated 22.04.1983. It was brought to the notice of Hon’ble High Court by the appellant that he had been evicted from the tenanted premises, where-in he was carrying on business and therefore, he was left with no accommodation to earn his livelihood. The Hon’ble High Court held that even if it is found that the findings of the courts below were erroneous in law, the matter has been remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release application was filed quarter of a century ago and bona fide need, and comparative hardship change by the passage of time. The writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to file fresh release application. In this matter, questions arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the relevance of the subsequent events during pendency of the proceedings.

47. A large number of case laws have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above-mentioned case such as Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders [(1975) 1 SCC 770] [LQ/SC/1975/124] , which was specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, where-in extract of the said Judgment has been reproduced in this Judgment, in which it is recorded that “it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events”. Citing this, it is argued that subsequent development, which have taken place, must be taken into consideration and in the case in hand, since under CRZ Notification 2011, a new CZMP map has been prepared in the year 2022, showing the property in question excluded from CRZ, which benefit must go to the appellant. But we do not agree with the said argument of learned counsel for appellant because in this very Judgment, there are several other Judgments also cited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [(2002) 2 SCC 256] [LQ/SC/2002/76] , which says that the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied:- (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. The above riders subject to which the subsequent event may be taken into consideration do not apply in the present case because it has to be seen whether according to it complete justice is being done to the parties. In the case in hand, it is clear that the matter relates to environmental violation because of the construction having been made without permission from the GCZMA for raising construction in CRZ area, therefore, the relevant point of time, when the work of construction has been done, there was no law and rule position saying that such construction could have been done. Therefore, giving benefit of subsequent CZMP allegedly excluding the property in question from the CRZ area, benefit of that should be given to the appellant, in our opinion, does not appear to be correct for complete justice in the matter. Justice would mean in the present matter that if any illegal act has been done, the same has to be corrected and not that the violation should be perpetuated in the teeth of environmental violations. We also apprehend that the subsequent CZMP map, which is being relied upon by the appellant, is on the scale of 1:25000, which is not making the boundaries of the Survey Number in question very clear as the same is not on the cadastral map of 1:4000. Cadastral map on the scale 1:4000 would make the boundary of the said Survey Number clear and would make it in a better way clear whether the same fell within CRZ area or outside it.

48. The learned counsel for appellant has also relied upon the Judgment in the case of M. Nizamudeen vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited & Ors. [(2010) 4 SCC 240] [LQ/SC/2010/256] in following paras:-

“27. Paragraph 3(3)(i) of 1991 Notification requires the Coastal States and UT Administrations to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plans for identification and classification of the CRZ areas within their respective territories in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexures I and II of the Notification. It further mandates Coastal States and UT Administrations to obtain approval of such plans from the Central Government. As a matter of fact, the said provision provided a period of one year for preparation of such plans from the date of the Notification, but the Coastal States and UT Administrations remained dormant for many years in this regard.

28. However, consequent upon directions of this Court, the State of Tamil Nadu submitted its Coastal Zone Management Plan to the MOEF on August 23, 1996 which was approved on September 27, 1996 (1996 Plan) containing 31 sheets corresponding to maps for different stretches of the coastline of the State of Tamil Nadu with certain conditions/modifications/classifications. Sheet no.10 pertains to the coastal stretch of Cuddalore District. The MOEF, based on sheet no. 10 (1996 Plan) have stated in their affidavit that the land portion of the banks of Uppanar river adjacent to the plant in Thiyagavalli village where the pipeline crosses Uppanar river does not come under the CRZ area. This position is reiterated by the TNSCZMA in their affidavit filed before this Court:

“..................as per the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan, the banks of Uppanar River adjacent to the Plant in Thiyagavalli Village where the pipeline crosses River Uppanar does not come under CRZ area.................. .......”

29. We were also shown a copy of sheet no.10 from which it did not transpire that Uppanar river and its banks where the pipelines pass have tidal influence and come under the CRZ area. That 1996 Plan does not reflect the area on both sides of the Uppanar river through which the pipelines pass as CRZ area is not in dispute. The contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner/appellant is that 1996 Plan has become redundant and obsolete in view of change in the CRZ regime due to amendments in 1991 Notification, first on December 29, 1998 and then on May 21, 2002.

30. By 1998 amendment, it has been provided in 1991 Notification that HTL shall be demarcated uniformly in all parts of the country by the demarcating authority or authorities so authorized by the central government in accordance with the general guidelines issued in this regard. By further amendment on May 21, 2002, sub-paragraph (ii) was inserted in the first para of 1991 Notification providing therein that the distance from the HTL shall apply to both sides in the case of rivers, creeks and backwaters. The said amendment provides that the distance up to which development along rivers, creeks and backwaters is to be regulated shall be governed by the distance up to which the tidal effects are experienced which shall be determined based on salinity concentration of 5 ppt. It further provides that salinity measurements shall be made during the driest period of the year and distance up to which tidal effects are experienced shall be clearly identified and demarcated in the Coastal Zone Management Plans.

31. It is perfectly true that at the time of preparation and approval of 1996 Plan, the amendments of December 29, 1998 and May 21, 2002 in 1991 Notification had not seen the light of the day and the declaration made in first para that the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 meters from the HTL and the land between the LTL and the HTL are CRZ was kept in view but in the absence of any modification carried out thereafter, 1996 Plan remains operative. The authorities authorized to demarcate HTL, we are afraid, cannot override the plan prepared and approved under paragraph 3(3)(i) as the said paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the Coastal State (or for that matter State Coastal Zone Management Authority) and duly approved by the MOEF is the relevant plan for identification and classification of CRZ areas. The plan prepared by NIO, thus, cannot be said to have superseded 1996 Plan for the Cuddalore coastal stretch.”

49. Having relied upon the above paragraphs of this Judgment, it is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that in this case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the authorities authorized to demarcate HTL, cannot over-ride the plan prepared and approved under paragraph 3(3)(i) as the said paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the Coastal State and duly approved by the MoEF is the relevant plan for identification and classification of CRZ areas. Therefore, if we apply this position of law in the present case, the CZMP approved for Goa in 1996, should prevail over HTL drawn by DSLR with the assistance of NIO, therefore, the map which has been annexed with the impugned order showing the property in question by yellow colour to be lying in CRZ area, should not be taken into consideration as the correct position and this Tribunal must go by the CZMP 1996.

50. If we take this argument to be correct made by the learned counsel for appellant, we are afraid that the appellant would not get any benefit because the 1996 CZMP would place the entire Calangute Village in CRZ area because by that time, no HTL had been drawn, regarding which we have already mentioned above. Therefore, on this count also, the appellant does not appear to get any benefit.

51. Another argument, which has been made by the learned counsel for appellant, is that the approval was taken by the predecessors-in-title of the appellant for raising construction on the Survey Number in question on 16.05.1989, which document could not be placed by them earlier before the respondent No.1/GCZMA before passing the impugned order and the said document is being placed before us directly for the first time. He has also argued that this Tribunal should remand the matter to the respondent No.1/GCZMA to decide the matter afresh with a direction that this document may also be taken into consideration, which is being resisted vehemently by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/GCZMA on the ground that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant to produce all the relevant documents and evidence on record but they never placed these documents before them earlier. We also find from one of the replies submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that this document has been stated to be in their possession but they could not locate because of it being old document, which does not appear to be valid explanation for not placing this document before the GCZMA at the time of consideration and before passing the impugned Order. If this document was in their possession as has been admitted by them, they could very well have placed it and it appears that under the garb of non-consideration of the document by the GCZMA, they are trying to prolong the matter, which would not be appropriate in our estimation. But for the sake of satisfaction of the appellant, we have scrutinized this document at our end and found that the permission was granted by the Panjim Planning and Development Authority for raising construction of residential flats, which contained stilt + 3 floors and that this permission was to exist only for three years, which was made non-transferable by the granting authority specifically. We may also note here that no such documentary evidence has been laid from the side of appellant before us, which would prove prima facie that the construction was made prior to 1991 because according to him whatever evidence has been laid before us by him, it is tried to be impressed upon us that his predecessors-in-title had constructed up to plinth level and thereafter they stopped construction work for certain period and later on, the same was completed in the year 2008. How the construction was made even after three years by the predecessors-in-title of the appellant is also not clear because the permission could have been got renewed after lapse of three years, which also does not appear to be the case in hand. The appellant has alleged to have purchased its property from the predecessors-in-title but the sale deed of the same has not been brought on record to establish that there was any construction existing on the site prior to the purchase. That would have given some assistance to the respondent No.1/GCZMA or to us to know about the existing structure. But it appears that the sale deed transferring the right from predecessors-in-title to the appellant has deliberately not been produced before us.

52. One more important argument has also been raised by the learned counsel for appellant that if any permission is granted for construction in the CRZ area prior to 1991 and if the said construction has been started, the same cannot be restrained from being raised subsequently even after the year 1991 because once the permission was granted for raising the construction, the same should be treated to be valid permission and should be interpreted to have authorized the person, who was granted permission to raise construction even after 1991. In this regard, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr. vs. Vardhman & Hiranandani Developers [2020 (1) Bom.C.R. 134]. The facts of this case are that plaintiffs filed Suit No.2450 of 2003 before the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai for a permanent order of injunction to be issued against the defendants Corporation that they should not take any action under notice dated 07.02.1998, which was issued to the Plaintiffs under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for demolition of the Building No.4, situated on a plot bearing no.261 of Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivli, Mumbai. During pendency of the said Suit, plaintiffs carried out amendment and also claimed declaration to the effect that the said property, which is constructed by them, is not affected by Coastal Zone Regulation. The Trial Court held that the construction carried out by the plaintiffs as per sanction lay out/building plan and declared that the same was not unauthorized construction. But at the same time, the Trial Court also held that the same was situated within Coastal Regulation Zone, therefore, they were not entitled for completion and occupation certificate. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the present First Appeal No.849 of 2019 challenging the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of issue of Coastal Regulation Zone and refusing to direct the Corporation to issue completion certificate and occupation certificate for the suit property. We note that in this Judgment, it is recorded in para no.52 that the plaintiff's project had commenced in the year 1988 with the State Government granting approval for development of lands for weaker section Housing, under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had obtained all the necessary permissions from the defendants for development of the suit land. The construction of the suit building no.4 was over in the year 1998-99, much prior to Coastal Zone Management Plan being published on 19.01.2000. Hence, it was held that the defendants Corporation committed grave error by rejecting the regularization application filed by the plaintiffs on 17.05.2000 on the ground that the development of the Suit property is affected by CRZ. This itself shows that the Corporation defendants retrospectively made the Coastal Zone Management Plan applicable to the development of the suit property. It is evident that prior to publication of Coastal Zone Management Plan, the construction of the suit building was over and was awaiting occupation certificate from the Corporation. This shows that the ongoing projects were not affected by the publication of Coastal Zone Management Plan.

53. In the case in hand, the learned counsel for appellant has tried to take benefit of this ruling, which we are afraid that this is not going to help them because in the case in hand, the CZMP was prepared in the year 1996 and the construction had been completed by the appellant after purchasing the said land in the year 2007 and was completed in the year 2008. Besides that the initial permission was for raising the residential construction but they have constructed a big resort having 104 rooms. It has also been tried to be convinced by the learned counsel for appellant that they had not built a resort, rather they had built a residential accommodation but change of user was subsequently obtained by them, which was allowed to them. It may also be made clear that the permission dated 16.05.1989, which has been placed before us, approves for the construction of stilt +3 floors while the impugned order contains an order of demolition to have been passed with respect to Ground +4 structures of Building ‘A’, a map of which is also annexed with the impugned order, which is prepared on the scale 1:1000 and therefore by that scale, the entire area, which was found to lie in CRZ, should also be calculated. It appears to have been passed with respect to specific property, against which we do not find any infirmity.

54. As regards the appellant not having been granted an opportunity of hearing, we may make it clear here that the order, which has been passed by the respondent No.1/GCZMA, of which this Tribunal is Appellate Authority, would indicate that whatever was not taken on record by the Lower Authority, has been considered by this Forum, therefore, the plea that an opportunity of hearing is not given to the appellant, would not stand good and therefore, we are of the view that this appeal does not have any force and it deserves to be rejected and accordingly rejected.

55. On the basis of above analysis, issues framed in para no.35 above are answered as below:-

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