IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 257 OF 2001

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 294 OF 2001

  1. People’s Movement for

Civic Action with its

Office at E-74, Campal,

Panjim, Goa

  1. Indian Heritage Society

Through Percival Noronha,

With address at H. No. E-426,

Fountainhas, Panjim, Goa.

  1. Nirmal Vishwa, with

Registered office at

Sarjyotishi, Khadpabandh,

Ponda, Goa.

  1. The Goa Foundation, being a

Registered Society, having

its office at Rm. 7,

Above Mapusa Clinic,

Mapusa, Goa.…. Petitioners

V/s

  1. North Goa Planning and

Development Authority

through its Member-Secretary,

Mala, Panaji, Goa.

  1. State of Goa through its

Chief Secretary, Secretariat,

Panaji, Goa.

  1. The GoaTownand Country

Board through its Member-

Secretary,Town and Country

PlanningDepartment,

OldGoaMedicalCollege

Complex, Panaji, Goa.

4. The Conservation Committee

Through its Member-Secretary,

c/o Town and Country Planning

Department, Old Goa Medical

College Complex, Panaji, Goa.

  1. Corporation of the City of Panaji,

through its Commissioner,

Panaji, Goa

6. Bharat Shah,

Residing at 5/C

Swapnalok, L. Jagmohandas Marg,

Mumbai 400 006.

7. J.C. Teles, Teles House,

Luis de Menezes Road,

Panaji, Goa.

8. Jose Critovam Pinto,

r/o VelhoBuilding,

3rd Floor, Opp.MunicipalGarden,

Panaji, Goa.

9. Eduardo Francisco Sertorio Coelho,

C/o Landscape Developers,

Sea View, Campal, Goa.

10.Shri Suresh Priolkar

House No. 120/C9,

Boca de Vaca,

Panaji-Goa.… Respondents

Mrs Norma Alvares, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Mr.S.D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate for Respondent No. 10.

CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE &

N.A. BRITTO, JJ.

DATE: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per N.A. BRITTO, J.)

Heard Mrs. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners.

  1. The Petitioners in this petition filed in public interest, raised certain issues as regards zoning and constructions being allowed on hill slopes, being detrimental to planning and environment. The Development Regulations of the year 1989 had prohibited the construction on such hill slopes having gradient of more than 25% but such a restriction disappeared from the Planning Regulations of 2000. The Petitioners had challenged the grant of permissions to Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, but during the pendency of the petition an affidavit was filed stating that as far as Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, a decision was taken by the Planning Board on 18.2.2003 that the land should be reverted to its original land use i.e. recreational conservation and as far as Respondent No. 8 is concerned the height of the structure was restricted not to exceed 12 meters as per the Order of the Minister dated 18.2.2003, and the Petitioners, as stated by learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners, are, satisfied about the said decisions taken. Subsequently, the Government issued Circular dated 25.2.2005 by which the Development Authority (Development Plan Regulation 2000) were sought to be enforced in the respective planning areas which, inter alia, provided that no development would be permitted in areas having gradient of 25% though the said Circular might not have legal sanctity. Nevertheless the fact remains that the Government did prohibit constructions on slopes having gradient of 25% and above. Thereafter the Government has published what is known as the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2008 and pursuant thereto, has published certain Draft Regulations which also provide that no construction would be permissible in areas having gradient of more than 25%, and which sufficiently address the concern of the Petitioners. As things stand today, the concerns of the Petitioners that no development ought to be permitted in such areas having a gradient of 25% have been sufficiently taken care of by the authorities, and, as such at present nothing survives in this petition and therefore the same is hereby dismissed as infructuous.

A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

N.A. BRITTO, J.

RD

6.11.2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI,

GOA BENCH, AT PANAJI

Writ Petition No. 257 of 2001

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 48A AND 51A (g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1974 AND RULES THEREUNDER

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CHANGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF PANAJICITY AND DEVELOPMENT ON HILL SLOPES IN THE STATE OF GOA

  1. People’s Movement forCivic Action

with itsOffice at E-74, Campal,

Panjim, Goa

  1. Indian Heritage Society through Percival

Noronha, with address at H. No. E-426,

Fountainheas, Panjim, Goa.

  1. Nirmal Vishwa, with registered office

AtSarjyotishi, Khadpabandh,

Ponda, Goa.

  1. The Goa Foundation, being a Registered

Society, having its office at Rm. 7,

Above Mapusa Clinic,

Mapusa, Goa.…. Petitioners

V/s

  1. North Goa Planning andDevelopment

Authority through its Member-Secretary,

Mala, Panaji, Goa.

  1. State of Goa through itsChief

Secretary, Secretariat,Panaji, Goa.

  1. The GoaTownand Country Board

through its Member-Secretary,

Town and Country PlanningDept.,

OldGoaMedicalCollege Complex,

Panaji, Goa.

  1. The Conservation Committee through

its Member-Secretary,c/o Town and

Country PlanningDepartment, Old

GoaMedicalCollege Complex,

Panaji, Goa.

  1. Panajim Municipal Council through

its Chief Officer, Panaji, Goa

  1. Bharat Shah, residing at 5/C

Swapnalok, L. Jagmohandas Marg,

Mumbai 400 006.

  1. J.C. Teles, Teles House,

Luis de Menezes Road,Panaji, Goa.

  1. Jose Critovam Pinto,r/o

VelhoBuilding,3rd Floor,

Opp.MunicipalGarden,

Panaji, Goa.

  1. Eduardo Francisco Sertorio Coelho,

C/o Landscape Developers,

Sea View, Campal, Goa.…. Respondents

(The above are registered addresses of parties)

(Spl. – H.C., A.S., C.D., 78-e)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

PANAJI-GOA

APPELLATE SIDE

WRIT PETITION NO.257/2001 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 294/2001.

Office Note, Office Memoranda of Quorum

Appearances, Court’s orders, or directions andCourt’s or Judge’s Orders

Registrar’s orders.

Ms. Norma Alvares, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate

General with Mr. V.P. Thali, Addl.

Advocate General for the Respondents No.

1 to 4.

Mr. P.A. Kholkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate for the Respondents No. 6 and 7.

Mr. S.G. Dessai, Sr. Advocate with

Mr.S.D. Padiyar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 8.

CORAM: V.K. BARDE &

A.S. AGUIAR, JJ.

DATE: 6TH NOVEMBER, 2001.

P.C.:

The learned Advocate General has filed Affidavits in both these Writ Petitions and the Chief Town Planner has made a statement that he has made a reference to Government with respect to the points raised in these Writ Petitions and a decision will be taken on the basis of that reference and till the final decision is taken the concerned authorities will be directed not to grant any permission in the area covering these Writ Petitions for development.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions states that in view of this Affidavit, they be given permission to approach before the authorities to make out their case. So also is the request made by the learned counsel for the Respondents No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Writ Petition No. 257/2001.

  1. The learned Advocate General states that there cannot be any objection if a hearing is given to all these persons before any final decision is taken in the matter. In view of this, it is directed that before taking any final decision in the matter, all the concerned parties be heard and the petitioners as well as the Respondents No. 6 to 9 to appear before the Town & Country Planning Board and notice to that effect be issued to them to place before the Board their respective cases. It is also directed that if any decision is taken in the matter, the same be communicated to this Court and no final action should be taken on that decision for a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the same to the Court. All the parties are at liberty to make out their respective cases in this Court even after the said decision.
  1. The petitioners and the respondents appearing before the Board will do so without prejudice to the various points they have raised in these petitions.
  1. Hence S.O. after eight weeks.