K. D. Sadhale Vs The State of Goa and Others

A.P. Lavande, J.@mdashHeard Mr. V. Menezes, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3, Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for respondent no. 4, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate holding for Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel for respondent no. 7, Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for respondents no. 18 and 22 and Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for respondent no. 25.

2. Cognizance of letter dated 15th October, 1996 addressed by the members of Nirmal Vishwa, Goa alleging illegal and unauthorized cutting of hillocks, felling of trees and causing extensive devastation and destruction of ecology and greenery, was taken by this Court, pursuant to which the present writ petition came to be registered as public interest litigation. Notices were issued to several parties against whom allegations of illegal and unauthorized developments in and around Ponda at different sites were made. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, respondent no. 7, South Goa Planning and Development Authority as well as on behalf of Chief Town Planner, respondent no. 8, affidavits and reports have been filed. From time to time, this Court passed several orders giving certain directions to the authorities concerned.

3. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel, who has been appointed Amicus Curiae in the matter, has pointed out that the affidavits filed and the reports submitted by the authorities concerned, disclose that an illegal developments have been carried out without seeking permissions from the appropriate authorities in respect of the six sites, the details of which are as under :

4. There is no dispute that sites no. 1 and 2 belong to respondent no. 10, site no. 3 belongs to respondents no. 11 to 15, site No.4 belongs to respondent no. 25, site no. 5 belongs to respondent no. 17 and site no. 6 belongs to respondent no. 18. Sites at serial nos.1, 2 and 6 fall within the planning area of South Goa Planning Development Authority whereas sites at serial nos.3, 4 and 5 fall within the Panchayat area and admittedly they do not fall within the planning areas. This position has not been seriously disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

5. Mr. Menezes, learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that in respect of the above referred six sites, the concerned authorities have filed affidavits and reports suggesting certain measures which are required to be taken by the concerned persons so as to undo the damage done to the respective properties by carrying out illegal developments without seeking prior permissions from the concerned authorities. Mr. Menezes further submitted that it would be, therefore, appropriate to direct the owners of the concerned properties to undertake remedial measures so that no further damage is done to the said properties and to see that no damage is done to the hill profiles.

6. On the basis of the affidavits filed and the reports submitted by respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8, we direct the respondents no. 10, 11 to 15, 17, 18 and 25 as follows :

(i) In respect of site no. 1 bearing Survey No.196/1-A at Ponda, respondent no. 10 shall construct a retaining wall as per the sketch annexed to the report dated 2nd July, 2008 submitted by respondent no. 7 in terms of the sketch marked in blue ink to the above report of respondent no. 7 having dimension of 1.50 meters base width and width on the top 0.60 meters and having height of 1.50 meters as shown in the sketch. Similarly respondent no. 10 shall construct a retaining wall as per the sketch annexed to the said report having 1.50 meters base width with 0.60 meter width on the top and over which height of 1.50 meters.

(ii) In respect of site no. 2 bearing survey No.207/1-A (part), at Ponda respondent no. 10 shall construct a retaining wall having dimension of 1.5 meters base width and 0.60 meter on the top and over which height of 1.50 meters. The above retaining wall having the balance vertical edge of the cutting will establish terrace in two sets for the purpose of planting fibrous root trees and grass so as to avoid soil erosion.

(iii) In respect of site no. 3 bearing Survey No.53/1 at Queula village, respondents no. 11 to 15 are directed to construct a retaining wall along the cut portion. The height of retaining wall to be constructed by respondents no. 11 to 15 shall be determined by Town Planner, Ponda after carrying out the site inspection and considering the position at loco as on the date, within a period of six weeks. The Town Planner shall inform in writing respondents no. 11 to 15 the dimensions and the height fixed by Town Planner of the retaining wall to be constructed in terms of the sketch annexed to the report of respondent no.8.

(iv) In respect of site no. 4 bearing Survey No.135/0 of village Ponda, respondent no. 25 shall construct a retaining wall along the cut portion as specified by the Town Planner who shall inform respondent no. 25 the dimensions of the retaining wall after carrying out inspection and considering the position at loco, within a period of six weeks. The retaining wall shall be constructed in terms of the sketch B annexed to the report submitted by the Town Planner on behalf of respondent no. 8.

(v) In respect of site at serial no. 5 belonging to respondent no. 17 bearing survey no. 248/10 of Priol village, respondent no.17 is directed to construct the retaining wall all around the cut portion as specified by the Town Planner who shall inform respondent no. 17 the dimensions of the retaining wall after carrying out inspection and considering the position at loco, within a period of six weeks.

(vi) In respect of site at serial no. 6 bearing survey No.193/1-A of Ponda village, which is owned by respondent no. 18, respondent no. 18 is directed to erect retaining wall having height of 1.5 meters with width of 1.5 meters and width of 0.60 meter on the top in terms of sketch B.

(vii) The constructions which are to be undertaken by respondents no. 10, 11 to 15, 25, 17 and 18 shall be completed within a period of six months.

(viii) The Member Secretary of respondent no. 7 and Town Planner at Panaji shall ensure that the constructions are undertaken by the respective respondents as directed and file compliance report within a period of 2 months thereafter.

(ix) The concerned authorities, who have to grant licenses/ permissions, are expected to give necessary permissions/ licenses to ensure that the directions issued by this Court are complied with within the stipulated time.

7. Before concluding we would like to place on record a word of appreciation to Advocate Valmiki Menezes, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter and who has taken pains to bring on record the illegal developments carried out by the above referred respondents without seeking prior permissions thereby adversely affecting the ecology of Ponda town and surroundings. Considering that the petition has been pending for almost a period of 15 years, we deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to pay fees to Advocate Menezes for the services rendered by him in the present petition. The same are quantified at Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand only). The State Government shall pay the amount of Rs.10,000/-to Advocate Menezes within a period of three months from today. The State Government shall comply with the directions given by this Court, within a period of three months and file compliance report within one month thereafter. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa for compliance.

8. Writ Petition stands disposed of.