Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5281 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 16728 OF 2008)

Goan Real Estate & Construction  Ltd. and another ... Appellants

Versus

People’s Movement for Civic Action And others ... Respondents

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This  Court  has  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties regarding relief claimed by the appellants.

3. The  appeal  is  directed  against  order  dated  July  10,

2008, rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in

Miscellaneous  Civil  Application  No.  866  of  2007,

which was filed in Writ Petition No. 403 of 2007 by

which  the  parties  have  been  directed  to  maintain

status quo in respect of construction within 50 to 100

meters  of  High  Tide  Line  on  survey  Nos.  12/1  and

99/2 situated near river Zuari at Goa till the matter is

finally heard by the Court.

4. The record would indicate that after purchase of the

lands  in  question  the  appellants  applied  to  the

Panchayat  for  sanction  of  plans  for  construction  of

hotel.   The  permission  was  granted  by  the  village

Panchayat  on November  26,  1993.   The  Ministry  of

Environment  and  Forests  had  issued  a  notification

called  Coastal  Regulation  Zone  for  regulating  the

development of areas within 500 meters of the coast.

The  said  notification  was  amended  on  August  16,

1994  reducing  the  “No  Development  Zone”  to  50

meters  from 100  meters.   The  appellant  No.  1  had

submitted amended plans seeking permission to put

up construction leaving 50 meters  “No  Development

Zone”.   The  Village  Panchayat  had  granted  the

2

permission sought for.  In  Indian Council for Enviro-

Legal Action vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281, this

Court  held  that  the  amendment  reducing  the  No

Development Zone from 100 meters to 50 meters was

illegal.  The case of the appellants is that in view of

financial  constraints  and  depressed  market

conditions,  the  construction  was  not  actively

progressed but building plans were revalidated by the

Panchayat from time to time and the respondent No. 4

has granted extension for a period of three years from

September 17, 2005.  It  may be mentioned that the

Ministry of Environment and Forests had clarified on

January 24,  2007 that the construction activities  in

the zone between 50 to 100 meters would attract the

provisions  of  CRZ  Notification  from  the  date  of

judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court.   Though  the

appellants had commenced construction prior to the

date of pronouncement of judgment by the Supreme

Court,  the  Additional  Collector  had  not  vacated  the

stop work order passed on December 22, 2006.  The

3

respondent No. 1 has filed Public Interest Litigation for

quashing the revalidating and grant of extension for a

period of 3 years to enable the appellants to put up

the  construction  of  the  plans  granted  to  the

appellants.   Similarly,  the  appellants  have  filed

petition challenging the validity of order by which they

were directed to stop construction work.  The Bombay

High  Court  at  Goa  had  recorded  the  statement  of

Additional  Solicitor  General,  appearing  for  MOEF,

Union of India in the petition filed by the appellants to

the effect that the project of the appellant No. 1 was

treated by MOEF as an ongoing project.  In view of the

said  statement,  the  learned  Advocate  General,

appearing for the State, had withdrawn the impugned

orders by which the appellants were directed to stop

the construction work.

5. It may be mentioned here that in the Public Interest

Litigation MOEF has filed reply confirming its stand

taken  in  the  petition  filed  by  the  appellants  and,

4

therefore,  the  High  Court  rejected  the  application

made in PIL for interim relief on September 12, 2007.

The High Court declined to grant interim relief noting

that  the  Central  Government  had  itself  referred  the

matter  to  National  Coastal  Zone  Management

Authority.  The Court, while declining to grant interim

relief,  directed  the  said  Authority  to  consider  the

matter after giving personal hearing to all parties.  The

record shows that the said Authority gave hearing to

all  the  parties  and  has  treated  the  project  of  the

appellants as an ongoing project.   By the impugned

order  the  High  Court  has  directed  the  parties  to

maintain  status  quo regarding  construction  because

according to the High Court it was admitted by one of

the directors of the appellants that from 1997 to 2005

there was no construction activity and the Apex Court

has struck down amendment restricting the NDZ to 50

meters only.

5

6. As  noted  earlier,  the  project  of  the  appellants  is

treated to be an ongoing project.  The decision dated

October  30,  2007  rendered  by  the  National  Coastal

Zone  Management  Authority  is  in  favour  of  the

appellants,  which  is  now  challenged  by  the

respondents in PIL by amending the petition.  Without

considering  the  validity  of  the  same  the  impugned

interim direction should not have been granted, more

particularly, when interim relief was earlier refused to

the respondent.  Grant of stay of construction activity

would result into considerable loss to the appellants

who have invested huge amount in the project.   On

the  facts  and in  the  circumstances  of  the  case  this

Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be

served  if  the  appellants  are  permitted  to  complete

incomplete construction at their own risk and cost.

7. For the foregoing reasons the appeal partly succeeds.

The  impugned  order  is  set  aside.   During  the

pendency  of  the  petition before  the  High Court,  the

6

appellants  are  permitted  to complete  the  incomplete

construction work done by them at their own risk and

cost.  The High Court is requested to dispose of the

matter on merits without being inhibited by this order

granting  interim  relief  to  the  appellants  as  early  as

possible and without any avoidable delay.

8. No costs.

      ………………………....…CJI.                                       (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

…………………………....…J.    (J.M. PANCHAL)

New Delhi; August 28, 2008.  

7