D.Y. Chandrachud JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order passed by the National Green Tribunal (Western Zone) Bench, Pune dated 29th May, 2015 in Application No. 51/2014 and dated 14th December, 2015 in M.A. No. 180/2015 (WZ) and Review Application No. 15/2015(WZ).
3. Respondent Nos. 1-4 had filed an application before the Tribunal Under Section 14(1) read with Section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 complaining about degradation of environment on account of unauthorized construction on plot of land falling within CRZ(III)(No Development Zone-in short NDZ).
4. According to the said Respondents (original applicants), the Appellant (original Respondent No. 3) was responsible for construction of a commercial building on plot of land bearing Chalta No. 1/PTS No. 10, Panjim City and Survey No. 65/1-A Village Morombio Grande in Merces Panchayat, without obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Authorities. That construction is detrimental to the coastal ecosystem and river ecosystem; and is also likely to cause pollution of river water due to the commercial activities of the Bar and Restaurant. It was alleged that the Appellant exerted political influence to facilitate construction of the unauthorized structure on the said plot.
5. The Appellant opposed the said application by raising preliminary objections. Firstly, that the subject application was not maintainable-as remedy of appeal Under Section 16 against the decision of the Authority could be preferred. Secondly, the applicants had failed to comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011. Thirdly, the application was barred by limitation-as the cause of action had arisen soon after the construction work was commenced in the year 2011. The application, however, was not filed within 6 months therefrom. Further, a writ petition for similar challenge was filed before the High Court and has since been withdrawn. No liberty has been given by the High Court to the applicants to pursue the same cause of action. On merits, it was asserted that the structure was in existence prior to 19th February, 1991 when the CRZ Policy came into force. It was used as a garage at the relevant time. The Appellant after purchasing the plot and the structure standing thereon vide registered sale deed dated 3rd August, 1992, initially used it for motor garage and allied activity. The same structure after repair and renovation was used as Restaurant and Bar. In substance, the stand of the Appellant was that since the structure was in existence prior to 19th February, 1991, the change of user after taking permission of the concerned authorities would not make the same unauthorized. The Appellant had taken due permission of the competent Authority for re-roofing and re-flooring of the structure. It was n........