:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 606 OF 2011 Mr. Armando Cardozo, major of age, resident of H.No.107/A, Ambea Xir, Sernabatim, Salcete Goa. … Petitioner V e r s u s 1. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, through its Member Secretary, Saligao, Bardez Goa. 2. The Deputy Collector & SDO, Margao, Salcete Goa. 3. The State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Alto Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 4. Shri Suvarn Rajaram Bandekar, major of age, industrialist, r/o Raj Tara, F.1. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. … Respondents AND Hermitage Builders Pvt. Ltd., 405, Vagle Vision, 18th June Road, Panaji Goa. … Intervener Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek A. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent 1, 2, & 3. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Braganza, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. S. Samant, Advocate for the intervener. :2: CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE : 8 th DECEMBER, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 24.08.2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove a new road constructed by the petitioner in the property surveyed under Nos.16/4 and 16/4A of Sernabatim Village. 4. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has impugned the said order and pointed out that as per the duly promulgated survey records a road is shown passing through the property surveyed under Nos.16/4 and 16/4A and according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner has not constructed any road and no road exists at the site besides the said existing road as depicted in the survey records. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that there was a note :3: made by the engineer who was the member of the respondent no.1 to the effect that prior to passing of any order for removal, a demarcation plan of the existing road has to be carried out to avoid any ambiguity. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has not constructed any new road and as such, the question of removal of road does not arise at all. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order as well as the report of GCZMA and pointed out that the report itself confirms the existence of road at the site as shown in the survey records. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner is only confining his claim to the existing road as shown in the survey records and as such the question of creating any new road through the property of respondent no.4 does not arise at all. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has supported the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the site inspection report at page 40 and pointed out that at para no.11, there is a specific reference made by the member of GCZMA that a new road is :4: constructed located to the eastern side without permission of the respondent no.1 and at para no.12 there is a mention by the said member that there is a traditional access towards the west of the new road and that such traditional access is a motorable road of about 4 metres wide through the property surveyed under Nos.16/4 and 16/4A as shown in the survey plan. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the order passed by the respondent no.1 is directing the petitioner to remove the road beyond the said existing road as reflected at para no.12 of the site inspection report. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the fact that a new road has been constructed in breach of the CRZ notification, the respondent no.1 was justified to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to remove such new road. 6. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 has pointed out that the road which has been ordered to be removed is not the road as shown in the survey plan from the property surveyed under Nos.16/4 and 16/4A of Sernabatim village. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the road which is ordered to be removed is a new road constructed by the petitioner without due sanction from respondent no.1 in :5: breach of CRZ notification. The learned Counsel has submitted that there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. 7. Shri S. Samant, learned Counsel appearing for the intervener has supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no case for interference by this Court in the impugned order. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of records, it cannot be disputed that any new road constructed by the petitioner, if any, in breach of the provisions of CRZ notification can be ordered to be removed by respondent no.1. The impugned order passed by respondent no.1 is directing the petitioner to remove a road which according to respondent no.1 is a new road constructed at the site. But however taking note of the contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has no claim to any road beyond the road as depicted in survey records, I find it appropriate that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is to come in operation/effect only after the road as depicted in survey records and referred to at para no.12 of the inspection report dated 18.03.2011 as identified :6: and demarcated at site by the competent authority. Subject to the said demarcation, I find no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by respondent no.1. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : O R D E R (i) The impugned order passed by respondent no.1 dated 24.08.2011 shall come in operation/effect only after an appropriate identification/demarcation of the road as depicted in promulgated survey records in respect of the property surveyed under nos.16/4 and 16/4A of Sernabatim village is carried out by respondent no.1. The said demarcation/identification shall be carried out within two months from today. (ii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (iii) The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J at*