AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Vazifdar, J.—Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that having obtained permission from all other parties, respondent No. 2, Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority has not even considered the petitioners'' application for development, which was filed in April, 2009.
It appears that, the application has not been processed in view of an interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 24th October, 2007 in W.P. No. 519/2007. Mr. Nadkarni submits that the petitioners'' case is entirely different from the facts in that case in as much as the property on which construction is proposed by the petitioners firstly falls within the Municipal limits and has always been classified as CRZ-II. He states that the property fell within the Municipal limits from inception since the pre-liberation time. He further states that the property is on the plateau top, Dona Paula. In other words, according to him, the property is neither classified as CRZ-III nor falls within the Village Panchayat area. Thus, according to him, the interim order would not operate against the petitioners. To that effect, he relied upon the observations in the interim order.
Learned Advocate General stated that it is doubtful whether the property is on the plateau top. He further submitted that even the property falling within Municipal limits can be classified under CRZ-III. He referred to the CRZ notification dated 27th September, 1996. Clause (III)(f) whereof may be applicable to the petitioners'' property in as much as it falls within the area stated therein namely the area from Raj Niwas to the Dona Paula Jetty which is classified as CRZ-III. He fairly admitted that these are facts, which require to be considered.
We do not propose making any observations regarding the merits of Mr. Nadkarni''s contentions. Whether the property falls in CRZ-III category or not and whether it falls within the Municipal area is for the concerned authorities to decide. The said interim order passed by this Court does not preclude the authorities from considering the application of a third party. Undoubtedly, the order must be considered as to whether it is applicable at all or not.
In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order:
(i) Respondent No. 2 shall after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard decide the application submitted in April, 2009.
(ii) All the rights and contentions are kept open.
(iii) Respondent No. 2 is requested to decide the application as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st May, 2010.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.