PIEDADE FILOMENA GONSALVES versus STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 11-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
.. _ 
-
PIED ADE FILOMENA GONSALVES 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF GOA AND ORS. 
MARCH 11, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Environment Protection Act, I 986: 
Ss. 3(1) and 3(2)(v)-Unauthorised construction in Coastal Region Zone C 
in Goa-A structure of thatched roof converted into a pucca building without 
obtaining permission of competent authority-Writ petitions filed in High 
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 : 
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 
G 
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 
• 
-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.