IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 541 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 422 OF 1998 THE GOA FOUNDATION ... Applicant Versus PANCHAYAT OF CANDOLIM & ORS. ... Respondent Ms. Norma Alvares, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr.A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. Mr.A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for the Respondent No.1A. Mr. J. Vaz, Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5. Mr. P. Shahapurkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.7 to 11. Ms. Anita Thorat, Advocate for the Respondent No.13. Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Advocate for the Respondent No.16. Mr. Pavitran A.V., Advocate for the Respondent No.19. Mr. M.P. Almeida, Advocate for the Respondent No.23. Mr. K. Mukherjee, Advocate for Respondent No.25. Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate holding for Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Respondent No.26. Mr. S. Naik, Advocate holding for Mr. Amit Palekar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.14,18,20 to 27. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 8th July, 2010 P.C.:- We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the various parties. In this Misc. Civil Application, we are concerned with the implementation of the directions contained in judgment and order dated 13th October, 2006 of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.422/1998 and 99/1999. As far as this application is concerned, we are really concerned with the directions incorporated in clauses (A) to (D) in the operative part of the judgment and order dated 13th October, 2006. There is already an order passed by this Court in the present application directing that compliance will have to be made by the concerned Village Panchayats of the directions contained in clauses (A) to (C). 2. The grievance of the Applicant is that the concerned Panchayats have not complied with the directions and whenever an attempt have been made to comply with the directions, the same is not consistent with the letter and spirit with the directions issued by this Court. 3. Direction (A) requires survey and inquiry as regards the number of dwelling units and all other structures and constructions which were in existence in CRZ-III zone as on 19th February, 1991. Therefore, the concerned Panchayats will have to conduct survey and inquiry and ascertain the number of dwelling units. The Village Panchayats will have to ascertain the number of dwelling units in each building or house. A house or building consisting of more than one dwelling unit cannot be equated with one dwelling unit and what is required is counting of every dwelling unit in each house or building as on 19th February, 1991. 4. As far as direction in terms of clause (B) is concerned, the Panchayats will have to ascertain the number of dwelling units constructed from 20th February, 1991 till 17th December, 1998. Here again the Panchayats will have to consider the number of dwelling units in each building/house. 5. In terms of clause (C) of the directions, the Panchayats will have to ascertain all other structures and constructions made, except dwelling units, in CRZ-III zone. The Panchayats will have to ascertain the details of the structures and constructions of all types made in CRZ-III zone after 19th February, 1991 in the locality comprising of dwelling units. 6. We find that an exercise of complying with directions in terms of (A) to (C) above, will take some time and, therefore, we grant time of six months from today to all the Coastal Village Panchayats to make compliance. We direct that the compliance reports shall be filed by the Panchayats in this Court on or before 15th March, 2011. 7. The learned Advocate General states that the first part of prayer (b) of this application has been complied with by the Government and what remains to be done is framing of appropriate policy/regulation for utilization thereof. The learned Advocate General prays for time of six months to comply with the same. We accordingly grant time of six months from today. The learned Advocate General states that the State Government has already approached the N.I.C. for designing the web-site. The learned Advocate General seeks time of six months to comply with the requirement of clause (K) of the judgment and order dated 13th October,2006. We accordingly grant time of six months to the State Government. We direct the State Government to file a compliance report in this Court as regards the prayers (b) and (c) of this application on or before 15th March, 2011. 8. Unless the compliance is made with the directions (A), (B) and (C) of judgment and order dated 13th October, 2006, we cannot issue any directions in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) of this application. 9. A copy of this order shall be served by the Applicant to the Canacona Municipal Council. We expect the Municipal Council will take appropriate steps in terms of this order. 10. We dispose of the Misc. Civil Application with the aforesaid directions. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*