Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd. vs People's Movement for Civic Action

which was filed in Writ Petition No. 403 of 2007 by 2 which the parties have been directed to maintain

status quo in respect of construction within 50 to 100

meters of High Tide Line on survey Nos. 12/1 and

99/2 situated near river Zuari at Goa till the matter is

finally heard by the Court.

4. The record would indicate that after purchase of the

lands in question the appellants applied to the

Panchayat for sanction of plans for construction of

hotel. The permission was granted by the village

Panchayat on November 26, 1993. The Ministry of

Environment and Forests had issued a notification

called Coastal Regulation Zone for regulating the

development of areas within 500 meters of the coast.

The said notification was amended on August 16,

1994 reducing the "No Development Zone" to 50

meters from 100 meters. The appellant No. 1 had

submitted amended plans seeking permission to put

up construction leaving 50 meters "No Development

Zone". The Village Panchayat had granted the 3 permission sought for. In Indian Council for Enviro-

Legal Action vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281, this

Court held that the amendment reducing the No

Development Zone from 100 meters to 50 meters was

illegal. The case of the appellants is that in view of

financial constraints and depressed market

conditions, the construction was not actively

progressed but building plans were revalidated by the

Panchayat from time to time and the respondent No. 4

has granted extension for a period of three years from

September 17, 2005. It may be mentioned that the

Ministry of Environment and Forests had clarified on

January 24, 2007 that the construction activities in

the zone between 50 to 100 meters would attract the

provisions of CRZ Notification from the date of

judgment of the Supreme Court. Though the

appellants had commenced construction prior to the

date of pronouncement of judgment by the Supreme

Court, the Additional Collector had not vacated the

stop work order passed on December 22, 2006. The 4 respondent No. 1 has filed Public Interest Litigation for

quashing the revalidating and grant of extension for a

period of 3 years to enable the appellants to put up

the construction of the plans granted to the

appellants. Similarly, the appellants have filed

petition challenging the validity of order by which they

were directed to stop construction work. The Bombay

High Court at Goa had recorded the statement of

Additional Solicitor General, appearing for MOEF,

Union of India in the petition filed by the appellants to

the effect that the project of the appellant No. 1 was

treated by MOEF as an ongoing project. In view of the

said statement, the learned Advocate General,

appearing for the State, had withdrawn the impugned

orders by which the appellants were directed to stop

the construction work.

5. It may be mentioned here that in the Public Interest

Litigation MOEF has filed reply confirming its stand

taken in the petition filed by the appellants and, 5 therefore, the High Court rejected the application

made in PIL for interim relief on September 12, 2007.

The High Court declined to grant interim relief noting

that the Central Government had itself referred the

matter to National Coastal Zone Management

Authority. The Court, while declining to grant interim

relief, directed the said Authority to consider the

matter after giving personal hearing to all parties. The

record shows that the said Authority gave hearing to

all the parties and has treated the project of the

appellants as an ongoing project. By the impugned

order the High Court has directed the parties to

maintain status quo regarding construction because

according to the High Court it was admitted by one of

the directors of the appellants that from 1997 to 2005

there was no construction activity and the Apex Court

has struck down amendment restricting the NDZ to 50

meters only.

6

6. As noted earlier, the project of the appellants is

treated to be an ongoing project. The decision dated

October 30, 2007 rendered by the National Coastal

Zone Management Authority is in favour of the

appellants, which is now challenged by the

respondents in PIL by amending the petition. Without

considering the validity of the same the impugned

interim direction should not have been granted, more

particularly, when interim relief was earlier refused to

the respondent. Grant of stay of construction activity

would result into considerable loss to the appellants

who have invested huge amount in the project. On

the facts and in the circumstances of the case this

Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be

served if the appellants are permitted to complete

incomplete construction at their own risk and cost.

7. For the foregoing reasons the appeal partly succeeds.

The impugned order is set aside. During the

pendency of the petition before the High Court, the 7 appellants are permitted to complete the incomplete

construction work done by them at their own risk and

cost. The High Court is requested to dispose of the

matter on merits without being inhibited by this order

granting interim relief to the appellants as early as

possible and without any avoidable delay.

8. No costs.

..................................CJI. (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.....................................J. (J.M. PANCHAL) New Delhi;

August 28, 2008.