Panaji: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently upheld a 2016 demolition order issued by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) against Curlies, a popular beach shack in Anjuna.
Details of the Tribunal’s Decision
In the case [Linet Nunes v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and Ors], Judicial member Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and expert member Dr. Vijay Kulkarni dismissed the argument that GCZMA was responsible for explaining the unauthorized expansion of the structure.
“We are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant because the burden lies upon the appellant to prove the fact as to how the original area of 242 sq.mtrs plinth was extended in such a big hotel without any permission from the Authority, which burden could not be discharged by the appellant,” the order dated May 31 stated.
Background of the Case
The Tribunal was hearing an appeal by the owner of Curlies against the demolition order for violating Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. Curlies was allegedly constructed in a no-development zone (NDZ). The NGT had upheld the demolition order in September 2022, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision in January 2023, ordering a fresh hearing.
Arguments and Evidence
The owner of Curlies argued that she was not provided a copy of the inspection report nor a hearing after the GCZMA’s inspection. She also claimed that the establishment was constructed before the CRZ notification of 1991. GCZMA countered this, citing Google Earth images from 2003 and the absence of any permissions from relevant authorities.
Tribunal’s Observations
The NGT agreed with the GCZMA’s findings, stating that the structure could not have existed prior to 1991 without appropriate permissions. The tribunal noted that the owner failed to produce any valid licenses or permissions for the hotel’s operation.
“It cannot be believed that any such huge construction at the site in question could take place without permission for the same having been obtained from GCZMA or any other relevant Authority, nor has the applicant produced any license for running the hotel business. Therefore, this itself is a good enough ground to order demolition of the property in question,” the NGT stated.
Conclusion
The NGT concluded that Curlies could not explain the unauthorized expansion of the structure and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the demolition order. The tribunal also found the panchayat resolutions unreliable due to a conflict of interest, as a family member of the owner was part of the panel.
Curlies was represented by Advocates Shivan Desai, Shivshankar Swaminathan, and Gajanan Koregaonkar. The GCZMA was represented by Advocates Dhruv Tank and Abhay A. Anturkar. Kashinath Shetye and Aagney Sail represented the complainants against Curlies.
