Vinod Kapoor vs State Of Goa & Ors

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no. 8 was served with a show-cause notice dated 26.11.1996 by the North Goa Planning and Development Authority (for short ‘the Authority’). In the show-cause notice, it was alleged that the respondent no. 8 had constructed a residential bungalow on a land in Survey No.250/12 without the prior permission of the Authority as required under Section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’). It was also alleged in the show-cause notice that there was no proper access road to the property as required under the Act and that the construction was within a distance of 100 Mtrs. from Zuari river and was in breach of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. By the show-cause notice, the respondent no.8 was asked to show-cause why action should not be initiated under Section 52 of the Act for demolition of the construction. By a communication dated 10.12.1996, the Town Planner of the Authority also informed the Chief Officer, Panaji Municipal Council, that the respondent no. 8 had obtained permission from the Municipal Council to make the construction on the land in Survey No. 250/12, Village Taleigao, by misrepresenting the facts and, therefore, the permission may be revoked. Thereafter, a notice dated 18.11.1997 was issued by the Municipal Council to the respondent no. 8 directing him to stop the construction work immediately and to show-cause why the licence granted to him for the construction of the building on the land in Survey. No. 250/12 of Taleigao Village should not be revoked.

3. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court at Goa alleging that the structure made by the respondent no. 8 on the land in Survey No.250/12 in Village Taleigao contravenes the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.02.1991 inasmuch as it was within 100 Mtrs. from the river Zuari in Costal Regulation Zone (CRZ) III area. The High Court called for a report from the Director of National Institute of Oceanography after inspection of the property of the respondent no.8 and a Senior Technical Officer of the National Institute of Oceanography submitted a report dated 24.01.2000 saying that the structure in question was not within 100 Mtrs. of the High Tide Line (HTL). After perusing the report, the High Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 29.01.2000

4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the Bombay High Court at Goa dismissing the writ petition. When the Special Leave Petition was taken up for hearing by a three-Judge Bench on 22.11.2000, a submission was made on behalf of the appellant before the Court that the appellant had filed a Review Petition before the High Court and that the learned counsel for the appellant had instructions to withdraw the Special Leave Petition and the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn. Thereafter, the High Court took up the hearing of the Review Petition and rejected the Review Petition by order dated 06.12.2000.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent no.8 and the appellant and we find that the earlier Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.11.2000, which is quoted hereinbelow:

12. In the result, we hold that the Civil Appeals are not maintainable and we accordingly dismiss the same. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the appellant or on whether the Authority or the Municipal Council could under law issue the notices to the respondent no. 8 or take any action in respect of the construction made by him on the land in Survey No.250/12 in Village Taleigao.