Anil Hoble v. Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Ors.
Background
The appellant owned a plot in a No Development Zone near Panjim, Goa, on which he had built and operated a Restaurant and Bar. Neighbours complained to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that the structure was an unauthorised construction within the Coastal Regulation Zone, built well after the 1991 CRZ notification came into force, and that the appellant had used political influence to get it built. The NGT examined the sale deed, revenue records and inspection reports and found that only a small garage structure had existed on the plot in 1991-92, the present restaurant/bar building was a much larger, differently located structure built later, and ordered it demolished along with a cost of Rs. 20 lakh. The appellant challenged this finding and the dismissal of his review petition before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an appellate court should not re-appreciate evidence already carefully analysed by a specialised tribunal unless the finding is perverse or suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, and it found no such error here. On the documentary evidence (the 1992 sale deed, revenue records, and inspection reports), the Court agreed with the NGT that the structure existing on the critical date (19 February 1991) was only a small garage, whereas the present commercial structure was built later, in a different shape, size and location, making it an unauthorised construction within the "No Development Zone" under the CRZ notification. The Court rejected the argument that the CRZ rules only restricted repair/renovation of "dwelling units," holding that the relevant clause simply bars all new construction within 200 metres of the high tide line except repairs to existing authorised structures. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the demolition and cost directions, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A change of ownership, a later municipal permission, or a change of use (e.g., converting a garage into a restaurant) cannot retroactively legalise a structure that did not actually exist, in its current form, on the date a coastal/environmental zoning notification took effect: courts will rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence (sale deeds, revenue records) over later-obtained permissions.