The National Green Tribunal Western Zone has clarified that authorities cannot order demolition of structures located outside the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) boundary, even if they are physically contiguous to illegal constructions within the CRZ. This ruling reinforces the territorial limits of regulatory jurisdiction under the CRZ Notification, 2011, and underscores the necessity of precise spatial mapping in enforcement actions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the legality of five structures identified as "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" on Survey No. 116/35, Village Morjim, Pernem, Goa. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) issued an order dated 28.02.2025 directing demolition of Structures "C" and "E", while permitting retention of Structures "A", "B", and "D". The appellants, members of the Pednekar family and members of the Kharvi (traditional fisherfolk) community, challenged this order on grounds of violation of natural justice, suppression of evidence, and misapplication of CRZ regulations.
Key Facts
- The property lies partially within the Non-Development Zone (NDZ) of CRZ-III (riverine area) and partially outside the CRZ as per the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) 2011.
- The appellants claim the original structure, House No. 135, was constructed prior to 1991 and has been continuously occupied by their family since then.
- The appellants produced a construction permission dated 16.08.1986 issued by the Morjim Village Panchayat, bearing Plan No. 106/86-87, to substantiate pre-1991 existence.
- GCZMA disputed the authenticity of the 1986 permission, citing computerized font usage as evidence of fabrication, despite the absence of computerized systems in 1986.
- Site Inspection Report dated 07.10.2024 identified five structures, with Structure "C" under construction at the time of inspection.
- The appellants submitted caste certificates from the Deputy Collector, Pernem, and the Akhil Goa Maratha Kharvi Samaj, affirming their status as traditional fisherfolk.
- The complainant, Anil Prabakar Naik, relied on the Bombay High Court’s 2023 judgment in PIL No. 2/2022 to argue that local bodies lack jurisdiction to validate pre-1991 structures.
Procedural History
- 25.04.2022: Complaint received by GCZMA alleging illegal construction on Survey No. 116/35.
- 07.10.2024: Site inspection conducted by GCZMA; violations of CRZ Notification, 2011 recorded.
- 15.10.2024: Show Cause Notice issued to appellants.
- 17.09.2025: Reply affidavits filed by GCZMA and Respondent No. 5.
- 08.01.2026: Rejoinder affidavits filed by appellants.
- 28.02.2025: GCZMA issued impugned order directing demolition of Structures "C" and "E".
- 12.03.2026: Oral arguments concluded before NGT Western Zone Bench, Pune.
- 20.03.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants
- Argued that Structures "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" are integral parts of a single pre-1991 dwelling, House No. 135.
- Relied on the 1986 Panchayat permission and survey records from the 1970s showing their father’s ownership.
- Invoked Para 8(III)(A)(ii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, which permits reconstruction of dwelling units for traditional coastal communities between 100 - 200 meters from High Tide Line (HTL).
- Contended that Structure "E" lies entirely outside the CRZ boundary as per the Site Plan annexed at page 139 of the paper book.
- Asserted that GCZMA ignored their caste certificates and failed to apply the principle of natural justice by not addressing their submissions.
For the Respondents (GCZMA & State)
- Argued that the 1986 permission is fabricated due to computerized font and unusual "Permit No." nomenclature.
- Stated that the original structure was only 66 sq. m., while the current footprint exceeds 112 sq. m., indicating unauthorized expansion.
- Cited the Bombay High Court’s 2023 judgment to assert that only GCZMA has jurisdiction to determine pre-1991 status.
- Claimed Structure "E" was extended eastward into the CRZ, making it contiguous with Structure "C" and justifying joint demolition.
- Denied appellants’ claim of being traditional fisherfolk due to absence of verification by the Scrutiny Committee.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, restoration of the entire structure as a pre-1991 dwelling, and recognition of their rights under CRZ Notification, 2011, for traditional fisherfolk.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) has jurisdiction to order demolition of a structure located entirely outside the CRZ boundary, even if it is contiguous to an illegal construction within the CRZ.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on Para 8(III)(A)(ii) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, which permits reconstruction of dwelling units for traditional coastal communities. They argued that the 1986 Panchayat permission, coupled with historical survey records, established the pre-1991 existence of the original structure. They further contended that Structure "E" was entirely outside the CRZ line as per the Site Plan annexed at page 139, and therefore, GCZMA had no authority to direct its demolition. The failure to consider caste certificates and the suppression of the Site Plan constituted a violation of natural justice.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the 1986 permission was fabricated, citing anachronistic font and nomenclature. They maintained that the current structure’s footprint far exceeded the original 66 sq. m., indicating illegal expansion. They relied on the Bombay High Court’s 2023 judgment to assert that only GCZMA can determine pre-1991 status, and local bodies lack jurisdiction. They further claimed that Structure "E" was an extension of Structure "C" into the CRZ, making demolition of both necessary for effective enforcement.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a meticulous review of the Site Plan annexed at page 139 of the paper book, which clearly delineated the CRZ boundary. It was undisputed that Structure "E" lay entirely outside this boundary. The Tribunal noted that jurisdiction under the CRZ Notification is strictly territorial and cannot extend beyond the demarcated zone. The GCZMA’s assertion that Structure "E" was an extension of Structure "C" was not supported by any technical survey or measurement data.
"Once it is admitted by the GCZMA that Structure 'E' fell outside the CRZ area, the same could not have been ordered to be demolished as they do not have any jurisdiction regarding the same."
The Court further observed that the GCZMA’s order was procedurally defective for failing to distinguish between structures within and outside the CRZ. While the Tribunal accepted that Structure "C" was under construction and therefore illegal, it rejected the justification for including Structure "E" in the demolition order. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants’ caste certificates, though not verified by a Scrutiny Committee, were issued by the Deputy Collector and could not be summarily dismissed without due inquiry.
The Court rejected the respondents’ claim that the 1986 permission was fabricated solely on the basis of font style, noting that such an assumption lacked evidentiary foundation and ignored the possibility of later reproduction or transcription of original documents.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded in part. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 to the extent it directed demolition of Structure "E". The GCZMA is directed to demolish only Structure "C" to the extent it lies within the CRZ boundary, as shown in the Site Plan annexed at page 139. The demolition of Structure "C" shall be completed within 30 days from the date of uploading of this order. No costs are awarded. Structures "A", "B", and "D" are permitted to remain.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Bound by Spatial Demarcation
- Practitioners must challenge demolition orders that include structures outside CRZ boundaries, regardless of contiguity.
- GCZMA cannot expand its jurisdiction by claiming "functional integration" without precise geospatial evidence.
- Site Plans must be independently verified and mapped to the CRZ line before any enforcement action.
Pre-1991 Claims Require Holistic Evaluation
- Documents such as Panchayat permissions, survey records, and tax receipts must be evaluated on merit, not dismissed on technicalities like font style.
- The burden to prove fabrication lies with the authority; mere suspicion is insufficient.
- Traditional community status, when certified by competent authorities like the Deputy Collector, cannot be ignored without a formal inquiry.
Enforcement Must Be Precise and Proportionate
- Demolition orders must specify exact structures and their precise location relative to CRZ lines.
- Authorities must avoid collective punishment of structures where only one is illegal.
- The principle of proportionality under environmental law requires that enforcement be targeted, not sweeping.
