CRZ scanner on foreigners
Preetu Nair | TNN
Panaji: On the one hand the Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, is investigating illegal purchases of land by foreigners in the state. On the other, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) is examining whether structures constructed by foreigners are in violation of CRZ rules and the Environment Protection Act.
GCZMA has discovered constructions by foreigners, especially Russians, that have been built in violation of CRZ rules. Though the precise number is not known, government sources said, “There are quite a number of constructions by foreigners in violation of CRZ. A majority of the violations are by Russians. In Morjim alone, there are more than ten constructions that have violated CRZ norms.”
Some of the major properties under the GCZMA scanner are: Artlidori Resort Pvt Ltd, Casa Blanca and La Valencia hotel, all in Morjim. GCZMA is also reviewing a property purchased by a Russian company—True Axis Resort Pvt Ltd—which purchased about 22,631 sq m of land falling under CRZ area. Incidentally, True Axis is also under investigation by Enforcement authorities as it had purchased about 20,000 sq m of agriculture/forest land in Morjim despite a ban on foreigners purchasing agricultural/forest land in India.
GCZMA member secretary Michael D’Souza said, “We are awaiting a report from the office of the North Goa Collector and only then will we initiate appropriate action against foreigners who have constructed in violation of CRZ and EPA.”
‘Nobody can build in violation of CRZ’
Panaji: Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) is investigating cases of CRZ violations by foreigners in the state.
Environmental lawyer Norma Alvares said, “Nobody can build in violation of CRZ. The question of foreigners building residential houses in CRZ doesn’t arise at all. If they are building resorts, they require permission from the ministry of environment and forests. This is given after the village panchayat forwards the application to GCZMA, which can recommend the approval of permission.” GCZMA officials say that no such permission have been sought from them.
According to GCZMA authorities, the major violators are foreigners who have constructed in partnership with Indians. Explaining the modus operandi, Rajan Ghate, who spearheaded the movement protesting the sale of land to foreigners said, “A foreigner holding a commercial visa teams up with a Goan and they float a partnership firm. The firm invests in properties in Goa, starts a business, buys land and develops it. After a few months, the Goan partner resigns, leaving the properties in the hands of the foreign national.”
However, Vikram Varma, advocate for the Consul General of Russian Federation in Mumbai, said, “We have not received any notice from GCZMA as yet about CRZ violations. On receipt of any such information, we will scrutinise the cases individually.”
June 28, 2008, The Times of India, Goa edition
Showing posts with label CRZ violation Goa;India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CRZ violation Goa;India. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Thursday, December 13, 2007
After Vanila Lounge Bar and Club Cabana now it is the time of Club Cabana
PANJIM: After Vanila Lounge Bar and Club Cabana, now another night club in Anjuna finds itself in the midst of midst of a controversy, allegedly for not paying the lease amount to the government, thereby causing loss to public exchequer, besides indulging in CRZ violation.
However, the Division bench of Justice DB Bhosale and Justice NA Britto observing that the Court can't take every public duty, directed the concerned departments Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) and Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC) to look into the matter. The Court then dismissed the petition.
An ordinary citizen, Rutul Sharma, had filed a petition in the High Court to challenge the inaction on the part of GCZMA in respect of the illegal construction carried out by Nandagopal Kudchadkar at Anjuna. It is alleged by the petitioner that Kudchadkar is carrying out an illegal commercial activity of running a discotheque/ night cub named and styled as "Club Paradiso" under the garb of running a restaurant.
According to Sharma, in May 2007, he noticed certain blatant illegal structure being erected in close proximity to the beach in the CRZ III area. On inquiry, he learnt that the property belongs to GTDC and Kudchadkar, who is running a nightclub and restaurant known as "Club Paradiso" at the property, has obtained the said property on lease.
Therefore on June 16,2007, the petitioner approaches the GCZMA highlighting the illegal structures erected by Kudchadkar and calls upon the authority to take immediate action, but in vain. Meanwhile, Sharma under the Right to Information Act learns from GTDC that they had leased the said property to Kudchadkar on October 30, 2001, on a annual lease rent of Rs 5,07,000, yet till date no lease deal has been executed by GTDC in favour of Kudchadkar.
It is further learnt that the accounts and arrears due till July 6, 2007 is Rs 15,32,250 and no action has been initiated by GTDC for recovery of dues.
The High Court has asked GCZMA to decide the matter, whether the structures are legal or illegal within a period of 8 weeks from today. The Court has also stated that it is open for GCZMA to take appropriate action against the alleged construction if found to be illegal and in violation of CRZ regulation.
Further, the Court observed that it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to GTDC, within a week's time. The Court directed that if the petitioner makes a representation, then the same should be decided within a period of 12 weeks, after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and Kudchadkar.
Advocate Shivan Dessai appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while the public prosecutor Winnie Coutinho represented the state government and GCZMA. The counsel for Anjuna village panchayat was advocate Nitin Sardessai and the counsel for GTDC was senior counsel Saresh Lotlikar.
However, the Division bench of Justice DB Bhosale and Justice NA Britto observing that the Court can't take every public duty, directed the concerned departments Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) and Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC) to look into the matter. The Court then dismissed the petition.
An ordinary citizen, Rutul Sharma, had filed a petition in the High Court to challenge the inaction on the part of GCZMA in respect of the illegal construction carried out by Nandagopal Kudchadkar at Anjuna. It is alleged by the petitioner that Kudchadkar is carrying out an illegal commercial activity of running a discotheque/ night cub named and styled as "Club Paradiso" under the garb of running a restaurant.
According to Sharma, in May 2007, he noticed certain blatant illegal structure being erected in close proximity to the beach in the CRZ III area. On inquiry, he learnt that the property belongs to GTDC and Kudchadkar, who is running a nightclub and restaurant known as "Club Paradiso" at the property, has obtained the said property on lease.
Therefore on June 16,2007, the petitioner approaches the GCZMA highlighting the illegal structures erected by Kudchadkar and calls upon the authority to take immediate action, but in vain. Meanwhile, Sharma under the Right to Information Act learns from GTDC that they had leased the said property to Kudchadkar on October 30, 2001, on a annual lease rent of Rs 5,07,000, yet till date no lease deal has been executed by GTDC in favour of Kudchadkar.
It is further learnt that the accounts and arrears due till July 6, 2007 is Rs 15,32,250 and no action has been initiated by GTDC for recovery of dues.
The High Court has asked GCZMA to decide the matter, whether the structures are legal or illegal within a period of 8 weeks from today. The Court has also stated that it is open for GCZMA to take appropriate action against the alleged construction if found to be illegal and in violation of CRZ regulation.
Further, the Court observed that it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to GTDC, within a week's time. The Court directed that if the petitioner makes a representation, then the same should be decided within a period of 12 weeks, after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and Kudchadkar.
Advocate Shivan Dessai appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while the public prosecutor Winnie Coutinho represented the state government and GCZMA. The counsel for Anjuna village panchayat was advocate Nitin Sardessai and the counsel for GTDC was senior counsel Saresh Lotlikar.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Candolim panchayat to produce all documents and files regarding the alleged "illegal" constructions
PANJIM: The Court has asked Candolim panchayat to produce all documents and files regarding the alleged "illegal" constructions indulged in by Calangute MLA Agnelo Fernandes that were demanded by a commoner Betty Alvares under Right To Information Act today in the Court.
The Division bench Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto directed the panchayat to produce the documents and files after Candolim panchayat refused to give information to the petitioner Alvares, stating that she is a foreigner.
Advocate General Subodh Kantak orally told the Court that if a person has any grievance then they should come to the Court with all the documents rather than direct the Court to inquire into it.
However, the Court observed that a foreign national could ask for documents if any illegality is committed. The petitioner had written to the panchayat informing about illegalities indulged in by the MLA. The Court further made an oral observation that the Panchayat is only raising some technical objections and not looking into the CRZ violations.
It must be recalled that the petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and GCZMA had illegally regularized the illegal structures in violation of Coastal Zone Regulation, Town and Country Planning Act and Panchayat Act. Further, despite the constructions being illegal, no action was taken against Agnelo, she alleged.
The Court has asked Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to file an affidavit after conducting the inspection and examining the licenses that have been obtained.
The Division bench Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto directed the panchayat to produce the documents and files after Candolim panchayat refused to give information to the petitioner Alvares, stating that she is a foreigner.
Advocate General Subodh Kantak orally told the Court that if a person has any grievance then they should come to the Court with all the documents rather than direct the Court to inquire into it.
However, the Court observed that a foreign national could ask for documents if any illegality is committed. The petitioner had written to the panchayat informing about illegalities indulged in by the MLA. The Court further made an oral observation that the Panchayat is only raising some technical objections and not looking into the CRZ violations.
It must be recalled that the petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and GCZMA had illegally regularized the illegal structures in violation of Coastal Zone Regulation, Town and Country Planning Act and Panchayat Act. Further, despite the constructions being illegal, no action was taken against Agnelo, she alleged.
The Court has asked Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to file an affidavit after conducting the inspection and examining the licenses that have been obtained.
Illegal huts in Arambol: Matter in HC
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has converted a letter, complaining about illegal huts erected within High Tide Line (HTL) in Arambol, which is given on rent to foreigners during tourist season, into public interest litigation. The huts are erected every season since 2004, alleged the petitioner.
One John Fernandes had written a letter to the High Court on September 19, which was converted into a PIL on October 26. Ten illegal hutments were erected within 50 mts of HTL at Arambol beach, besides two illegal houses.
When the matter came up before the Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto they issued notice to Suresh Pai, Yashoda Pai of Khalcha wadda and Nitin Kudov of Girkar waddo from Arambol for illegally erecting the structures in no development zone (NDZ).
The petitioner, who appeared in person, alleged that Pai didn't obtain the construction license and the house number allotted by the village panchayat of Arambol is bogus and illegal. It was issued even as the application didn't comply with the house registration procedures, the petitioner stated.
He also stated that the illegal hutments were erected in October 2006 even though Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had demolished it earlier. He further submitted that he had approached various authorities for justice but without any avail.
Further, the Court has asked GCZMA to carry out site inspections within 2 weeks.
One John Fernandes had written a letter to the High Court on September 19, which was converted into a PIL on October 26. Ten illegal hutments were erected within 50 mts of HTL at Arambol beach, besides two illegal houses.
When the matter came up before the Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto they issued notice to Suresh Pai, Yashoda Pai of Khalcha wadda and Nitin Kudov of Girkar waddo from Arambol for illegally erecting the structures in no development zone (NDZ).
The petitioner, who appeared in person, alleged that Pai didn't obtain the construction license and the house number allotted by the village panchayat of Arambol is bogus and illegal. It was issued even as the application didn't comply with the house registration procedures, the petitioner stated.
He also stated that the illegal hutments were erected in October 2006 even though Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had demolished it earlier. He further submitted that he had approached various authorities for justice but without any avail.
Further, the Court has asked GCZMA to carry out site inspections within 2 weeks.
Cidade de Goa resort : CRZ violation in Court
PANJIM: Taleigao panchayat and Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. are again at loggerheads. This time over a seven-storied building to be constructed on a "hill" next to the Cidade de Goa resort, estimated to cost around Rs 24,45,39,000.
The Taleigao panchayat has approached the High Court on the ground that Additional and Deputy Director of Panchayats have misconstrued the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and erred in directing the panchayat to grant the construction license Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd.. Meanwhile, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. have approached the High Court stating that the Panchayat should be directed to give them the construction license.
While the Court admitted Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. petition, they have granted permission to Taleigao panchayat to amend the petition. The Court will take both the petitions together next week.
On December 13, 2006, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. applied to the Taleigao Panchayat for a construction license of the Hotel project. Soon afterwards they addressed letters to Electricity department and Urban Health Centre on December 16 and later the panchayat conducted site inspections on February 7.
On March 14, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. appealed before the Deputy Director of Panchayats under Section 66 (2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was opposed by the Panchayat. However, on April 13, 2007, the Deputy Director of Panchayats by a judgement and order allowed the appeal filed by the Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd and issued directions to the Panchayat to issue a license to the resorts.
Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. writes a letter to the Panchayat on March 8, that they had applied for a Panchayat license for the project at Vainguinim and till date, have not received the license. It was also mentioned that they would wait for another 7 days for receipt of the said license and if for any reason should the Panchayat not receive the license before March 16, 2007, then the application may be kindly treated as withdrawn. On March 16, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. by a letter sought to withdraw its letter dated March 8, 2007.
The Additional Director of Panchayats, which was dismissed by judgement and order on July 31, 2007. After dismissal of the Panchayat's appeal, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. addressed a letter to the Taleigao panchayat to issue the license as the Additional Director of Panchayats had dismissed their appeal.
Counsel for the petitioner, Atmaram Nadkarni, alleged that the hotel project is in the green area and if allowed to construct it will destroy the green belt and the project is within 100 mts of the river Zuari. However, the High Court has asked the Taleigao panchayat to show that the project is within 100 mts.
The Taleigao panchayat has approached the High Court on the ground that Additional and Deputy Director of Panchayats have misconstrued the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and erred in directing the panchayat to grant the construction license Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd.. Meanwhile, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. have approached the High Court stating that the Panchayat should be directed to give them the construction license.
While the Court admitted Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. petition, they have granted permission to Taleigao panchayat to amend the petition. The Court will take both the petitions together next week.
On December 13, 2006, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. applied to the Taleigao Panchayat for a construction license of the Hotel project. Soon afterwards they addressed letters to Electricity department and Urban Health Centre on December 16 and later the panchayat conducted site inspections on February 7.
On March 14, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. appealed before the Deputy Director of Panchayats under Section 66 (2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was opposed by the Panchayat. However, on April 13, 2007, the Deputy Director of Panchayats by a judgement and order allowed the appeal filed by the Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd and issued directions to the Panchayat to issue a license to the resorts.
Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. writes a letter to the Panchayat on March 8, that they had applied for a Panchayat license for the project at Vainguinim and till date, have not received the license. It was also mentioned that they would wait for another 7 days for receipt of the said license and if for any reason should the Panchayat not receive the license before March 16, 2007, then the application may be kindly treated as withdrawn. On March 16, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. by a letter sought to withdraw its letter dated March 8, 2007.
The Additional Director of Panchayats, which was dismissed by judgement and order on July 31, 2007. After dismissal of the Panchayat's appeal, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. addressed a letter to the Taleigao panchayat to issue the license as the Additional Director of Panchayats had dismissed their appeal.
Counsel for the petitioner, Atmaram Nadkarni, alleged that the hotel project is in the green area and if allowed to construct it will destroy the green belt and the project is within 100 mts of the river Zuari. However, the High Court has asked the Taleigao panchayat to show that the project is within 100 mts.
CRZ case in High Court
PANJIM: A commoner has challenged the illegal constructions indulged in by Calangute MLA Agnelo Fernandes before the High Court.
The petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had illegally regularized the illegal structures in violation of Coastal Zone Regulation, Town and Country Planning Act and Panchayat Act. Further, despite the constructions being illegal, no action was taken against Agnelo.
When the matter came up before the division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto, they appoint Norma Alvares as the advocate for the petitioner, after the petitioner requested for appointment of a lawyer from the Court. The matter has now been kept on September 24.
The petitioner, Betty Alvares, in her petition has prayed for the appointment of a commissioner to look into illegal constructions at survey nos 148/5, 148/6, 148/2 of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village and a house in survey nos 157/17, 157/18 and 157/21 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim. The Commissioner should state whether: constructions are within permissible limits as per the CRZ regulations and guidelines, whether licenses/ permissions have been obtained from GCZMA, TCP and village panchayat of Candolim for construction and whether constructions are carried out as per approved plans and in accordance with Village panchayat and TCP Building Rules and Regulations.
The petitioner had earlier written a letter in the second week of July to the High Court, bringing to the notice of the Court illegal structures constructed by Agnelo. The petitioner had pointed out the following illegalities:
1) The survey nos 148/5of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village within 200 mt of the High Tide Line
* Sheetal restaurant and compound wall of the restaurant
* Three soak pits on the panchayat road and to cover this illegality, footpaths built, narrowing the width of the road from 10 mt to 4 mt.
2) Within 200 to 500 mts of HTL
* In survey 148/6of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village constructed several cottages, employee quarters etc.
* In survey nos 157/17 and 157/18 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim, constructed illegal first floor of the MLA's bungalow.
The petitioner in the letter also stated that she had brought these illegalities to the notice of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, who had issued a show cause notice. However, no action has been taken so far. GCZMA, Candolim panchayat, the state of Goa and Director of Panchayats have been made respondents in the petition.
The petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had illegally regularized the illegal structures in violation of Coastal Zone Regulation, Town and Country Planning Act and Panchayat Act. Further, despite the constructions being illegal, no action was taken against Agnelo.
When the matter came up before the division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto, they appoint Norma Alvares as the advocate for the petitioner, after the petitioner requested for appointment of a lawyer from the Court. The matter has now been kept on September 24.
The petitioner, Betty Alvares, in her petition has prayed for the appointment of a commissioner to look into illegal constructions at survey nos 148/5, 148/6, 148/2 of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village and a house in survey nos 157/17, 157/18 and 157/21 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim. The Commissioner should state whether: constructions are within permissible limits as per the CRZ regulations and guidelines, whether licenses/ permissions have been obtained from GCZMA, TCP and village panchayat of Candolim for construction and whether constructions are carried out as per approved plans and in accordance with Village panchayat and TCP Building Rules and Regulations.
The petitioner had earlier written a letter in the second week of July to the High Court, bringing to the notice of the Court illegal structures constructed by Agnelo. The petitioner had pointed out the following illegalities:
1) The survey nos 148/5of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village within 200 mt of the High Tide Line
* Sheetal restaurant and compound wall of the restaurant
* Three soak pits on the panchayat road and to cover this illegality, footpaths built, narrowing the width of the road from 10 mt to 4 mt.
2) Within 200 to 500 mts of HTL
* In survey 148/6of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village constructed several cottages, employee quarters etc.
* In survey nos 157/17 and 157/18 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim, constructed illegal first floor of the MLA's bungalow.
The petitioner in the letter also stated that she had brought these illegalities to the notice of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, who had issued a show cause notice. However, no action has been taken so far. GCZMA, Candolim panchayat, the state of Goa and Director of Panchayats have been made respondents in the petition.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
