The directorate of panchayats in Goa has dismissed an application by a resort owner at Saunta Vaddo, Calangute, who challenged a demolition order issued by the Calangute village panchayat after a delay of 14 years. The owner, Joseph Sylvester da Rosa, approached the director of panchayats seeking condonation of a delay of 5,231 days to appeal against the 2011 demolition order of illegal structures.
Additional Director's Observations
The additional director of panchayats observed that Rosa failed to provide a justified explanation for the extensive delay in filing his appeal. The reasons cited by Rosa were deemed vague and unsubstantiated. The additional director noted that Rosa made general statements about various litigations pursued before different authorities, claiming he had to run from pillar to post. Rosa also stated that he was under the impression that the demolition order did not need to be challenged. He attributed the delay to his age and ill health, claiming he inadvertently skipped challenging the order until he received a notice in a petition filed in the high court.
Further Delay After High Court Notice
The additional director further observed that Rosa filed the appeal before the directorate six months after receiving the notice of the hearing before the high court. Rosa failed to justify this additional delay, which further weakened his case.
Site Inspection Findings
The site inspection report, dated July 20, 2011, revealed that structures were constructed in gross violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification of 1991. The inspection noted that sand dunes had been cut to facilitate the illegal constructions, with one sand dune cut measuring approximately 20 meters. Additionally, four wells were constructed within 200 meters of the high tide line, and solar water heaters were erected on RCC slabs. The inspection also found a septic tank constructed in an area close to the beach, which belongs to the captain of ports department.
Implications
The dismissal of the appeal underscores the importance of timely action against violations of CRZ norms and the need for property owners to adhere to legal procedures. The case highlights the consequences of prolonged delays in challenging administrative orders, particularly when they involve environmental regulations.
