The Bombay High Court at Goa disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with the grievance that Petitioner’s complaints about the illegal filling of paddy fields, conversion and sinking of bore wells are not being attended to by the statutory Authorities.

Rohit Bras de Sa ,Advocates for the Petitioners pointed out to the complaint dated 02.08.2023 and other complaints, which are placed on record along with this Petition. The complaints give the survey numbers and even photographs are enclosed to it.

Accordingly, the Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande directed the Authorities to dispose of the complaints within three months by following the principles of natural justice and fair play. The decision on such complaints must be communicated to the Petitioners and the affected parties within three months .

The Advocate General stated that the complaint about the filling of low-lying areas/paddy fields will be dealt with by the Town and Country Planning Authority. He says that the complaint of conversion will be attended to by the concerned Deputy Collector of Mapusa and the complaint as far as sinking of the bore wells is concerned will be looked into by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Work Division I, Panaji. The Advocate General states that the adversely affected parties will also be granted an opportunity for a hearing.

In the peculiar facts of the case, even the Petitioners should be given an opportunity for hearing, provided they do not seek any adjournment.

Rohit Bras De Sa points out that the complaints have also been made to the Panchayat, based upon which, the Panchayat has also issued notices on the institution of this Petition. Even the Panchayat should take such notices to their logical conclusion. The Panchayat must also dispose of such complaints within a maximum period of three months.

The Bombay High Court at Goa disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed highlighting the issues of road safety, including increased accidents in the Sancoale village near a particular location, that is Simpal in Sancoale village.

The petitioner has pointed out how this area is prone to accidents by placing some photographs on record.

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondent to take some road safety measures at this spot, including, inter alia, placing speed breakers.

Considering the issues raised in the petition, the Division Bench of Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande think that this petition could itself be considered as a representation to the District Magistrate, South Goa, who is the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules for directing the placement of speed breakers.

The Advocate General pointed out that the District Magistrate has to act in consultation with the Superintendent of Police (respondent no.3).

“Accordingly, it would be appropriate if the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police consider this petition as representation and take a decision on the petitioners’ prayers as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a maximum of two months from today”, the Bench directed.

The petitioner stated that he will also assist the two authorities and place necessary statistics details before them. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police should accordingly give an appointment to the petitioners and consider their suggestions in the matter , the Bench further directed.

Zeller De Sousa pointed out that the Panchayats have no authority to place speed breakers on the road and, therefore, the prayer for mandamus against the Panchayat is misconceived.

De Sousa may be justified in making this submission, but still, the High Court feels that the Panchayat on its own should have been more proactive if, indeed, this spot is accident-prone, as alleged by the petitioner. It is the duty of the Panchayat to ensure that there is traffic safety so that the respondents are not victims of road accidents.

“Further, what was quite disturbing were the photographs placed on record by the petitioner, which show stray cattle on the roads and near the spot. Certainly, it is the duty of the Panchayat to deal with the menace of stray cattle. It appears that sufficient steps are not being taken to address this issue of stray cattle. There is no point in perpetually remaining in a state of denial on such an issue.”

Recently, the Court has issued several directions to the Panchayats on the issue of stray cattle management.

Athnain Naik, the petitioner in person, is requested to furnish an authenticated copy of this order to the Panchayat of Sancoale so that this Panchayat complies with the directives even though such directives may or may not have been directly addressed to this particular Panchayat. The directions are general and are meant to be complied with by the Panchayats within whose jurisdictional limits there is any problem of stray cattle.

The Panchayat members must also give an appointment to Athnain Naik and other petitioners so that they can explain the problem to the other members, and the Panchayat must take all possible steps to ensure that the roads within their jurisdiction do not have stray cattle which pose serious hazards to traffic safety and the cattle themselves. The Panchayats cannot avoid such duties by pointing out defects in a prayer clause in a Public Interest Litigation , the Bench observed.

The Court directed that the director of the Panchayat must also require this Panchayat to submit at least quarterly reports each year regarding the steps taken by this Panchayat on the issue of stray cattle on the public roads.

The Bombay High Court at Goa directed the Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Quepem, to initiate action in accordance with law inter alia to find out whether there was any illegal hill cutting and landfilling in properties surveyed of Village Xeldem of Quepem Taluka.

The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) complaining the same.

From the record the Court noted that on 30.06.2023, the Deputy Collector, South-1 and Incharge Flying Squad, South Goa District at Margao issued a reminder to Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Quepem, Goa, that prima facie activities attracting Section 17(A) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 were noticed in the above properties. The report was also forwarded to the Town Planners, who were urged to act according to law.

The Town Planner has filed an affidavit that, as of now, there is no illegal hill cutting or landfilling at the above site. The Advocate General stated that a charge sheet has already been filed against Respondent and two others and will be pursued according to law.

From the photographs placed on record and the reports of the Flying Squad, the Bench thinks that the mere filing of charge sheets is insufficient in such matters. Once illegal hill cutting or landfilling is noticed, those responsible for such illegal hill cutting and landfilling must be called upon to restore the site to its original condition at their cost and in a time-bound manner. Otherwise, an impression is gaining ground that no worthwhile action follows once illegal hill cutting or landfilling is completed. The Town planners or the police rarely follow up the criminal prosecution, and the wrong-doers reap substantial financial benefits from their illegal acts. This must stop. The legal provisions must be seriously enforced, and the violators must be visited with severe penal and civil consequences.

Accordingly, the Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Quepem, must initiate action in accordance with law inter alia to find out whether there was any illegal hill cutting and landfilling. Suppose the inquiries establish such illegal hill cutting or landfilling. In that case, the Town Planner is duty-bound to issue necessary directions to the persons responsible for ensuring restoration at the cost of such persons, held by the High Court.

The Advocate General stated that if the persons fail to restore the land within the timeline indicated, the matter is referred to the Collector to ensure restoration of the land to its original condition at the cost of the persons responsible.

In this case, the Bench directed the Town Planner and, if necessary, the concerned Collector/Deputy Collector to complete the above exercises as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within four months from today. The Town Planner must comply with principles of natural justice which might involve hearing the persons responsible for alleged illegal hill cutting and landfilling. In the peculiar facts of this case, the Town Planner should also afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The concerned Town Planner must file a compliance report with photographs in this Court by 20 November, 2023.

Stop work orders have already been issued.The Advocate General stated that no work has been seen at the site for the last three years. Even Respondents have stated before the High Court that they are not undertaking any work at the site.

“Until the Town Planner completes his action, the Town Planner and the Collector must ensure that no works are taken up at the site in question”, the Bench directed.

The Bombay High Court at Goa directed the  direct the Mormugao Planning & Development Authority (MPDA), Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) and Margao Municipal Council (MMC) to take serious action based on the petitioners’ complaints about the illegal activities like landfilling, unauthorised constructions, reclamation of water bodies, etc., in property of Vasco city.

The allegation in the Public Interest Litigation  is that these properties are agricultural tenanted fields which can be used for no purposes other than agriculture. The allegation is that unauthorised landfilling and construction have come up in this area. 

Fawia Menezes Mesquita, Advocate for the Petitioners states that even respondents no.1 (The Southern Central Railway ,Goa) and 2 (Railways) are involved in illegal activities, including dumping construction debris and demolition waste.

The petitioners have pleaded that the above areas are low lying paddy fields. It is also pleaded that the fields are known as khazan/Casana land and are flanked on the southern side by the twin lakes of Maimollem and Dhaktollem collectively referred to as the Maimollem Lake. It is pleaded that these lakes/water bodies are indicated as such in the ODP for Vasco.  

The petitioner’s grievance is that despite their complaints, no effective action was taken by the authorities. Mesquita pointed out that some of the authorities did issue show-cause notices and invited action-taken reports. However, there was no follow-up. She submits that from the material on record, it is apparent that the authorities were only pushing the buck on each other without any serious action. Accordingly, she submitted that necessary directions be issued to the respondents to take emergent steps to ensure that this area is rid of encroachments, unauthorised filling and unauthorised constructions. She submitted that suitable directions must be issued to restore this area to its original position so that the low-lying fields and water bodies are used or retained for the purposes they were meant to be.   

The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande have perused the record, and find that the Deputy Collector, South Goa, in charge of the Flying Squad, based upon the petitioners’ complaints, issued a show cause notice-cum-stop work order dated 22.04.2022.  The show cause notice also records no signboard at the site displaying permission from the Town and Country Planning Department. No permissions or NOCs from the statutory authorities were also produced. The show cause notice, therefore, adds that all this prima facie attracts Section 17(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. The show cause notice records that breach of this provision is a cognisable offence.

The show cause notice dated 22.04.2022 directed all concerned to remain present in the office of the Member Secretary, South Goa Planning and Development Authority (SGPDA), either personally or through any authorised pleader with all necessary permissions, approvals, licenses, if any, failing which an FIR was directed to be filed.  

A copy of this notice was marked to the Deputy Collector, Mormugao, Goa, for immediate action to stop the illegal construction/development and report compliance. A copy was also marked to the Member Secretary, SGPDA, Mormugao, for immediate action. The Police Inspector of Vasco Police Station was also directed by the High Court  to serve notices to the concerned parties to ensure no further hill cutting/filling. The Police Inspector was directed to keep a vigil on further illegal activities and report the same to the Deputy Collector for necessary action under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.  

Despite the apparently prompt action by , IAS, Deputy Collector South-I and in-charge of Flying Squad, Margao Goa, the authorities concerned did not take serious action on the petitioners’ complaints. A case of inaction is therefore made out , the Court observed. 

The petitioners have placed on record a communication dated 31.05.2022 addressed by the Planning Assistant from the Mormugao Planning & Development Authority (MPDA) to the PI, Vasco Police Station requesting the latter to take some action. However, the MPDA has not taken any serious action in the matter. The communication also requested the PI to register an FIR against unknown persons. The Court  is not sure whether such FIR has indeed been registered. If the FIR is not registered, the PI, Vasco Police Station, must take necessary action at the earliest and, in any case, within a month . 
The petitioners have also placed on record communication dated 22.09.2022 addressed by the Chief Officer, Margao Municipal Council (MMC) to the Town Planner simply forwarding petitioners’ and other complaints to the Town Planner. The Chief Officer of MMC has also forwarded such complaints to the Station Manager of the South Central Railways and perhaps even to the police authorities. “However, the MMC or its Chief Officer have not bothered to take any action on the complaints.”

The petitioners have also placed on record communication dated 23.11.2022 addressed by the Member Secretary, Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) to the Chief Officer MMC forwarding petitioners’ complaint about illegal dumping of construction and demolition waste in Maimollem Khazan land/ agricultural tenanted/low lying paddy fields. “However, the GSPCB has not bothered to inspect the site or take serious action on the complaint.”

Therefore, from the material placed on record , the Court noted  that the petitioners’ complaints are unattended even though the Flying Squad on inspection found prima facie merit in them. The MMC, the MPDA and the GSPCB have only apprised each other of the complaints but refrained from taking any serious action. A case of inaction and passing of the buck is therefore made out.  

The Railways have denied any illegal activity on their part. Agha submitted that some parties had established unauthorised roads in the area. He pointed out that several illegal constructions have also come up in this area for which the Railways are not responsible. He pointed out that some commercial activities are also undertaken in this area, which, according to him, in all probabilities, would be unauthorised. Iftikhar Agha with Ms V. Fernandes, Advocates for Respondent No.2 , made these submissions to point out that the petitioners must not target only the Railways and ignore such patent illegal and unauthorised activities by all other parties, in case the   petitioners were genuinely interested in protecting the low lying paddy fields, khazan, tenanted lands and water bodies.

Agha, on instructions, submits that the Railways have laid a pile foundation and built a retaining wall in the Railway property itself. Mr Agha, on instructions, categorically states that Railways have not dumped any construction material or debris in the area, which the petitioners complain of. Further, on instructions, he states that the Railways will not dump any construction waste, debris, or other waste in this area. These statements are accepted. The railways are bound to comply with such statements made on their behalf.  

“Having regard to the material on record, we direct the MPDA, GSPCB and MMC to take serious action based on the petitioners’ complaints and complete such action within four months from today. If the authorities have to hear the parties responsible for such activities, they may do so within this period. Besides, petitioners should also be heard by these authorities. The final decisions that the authorities take must be communicated to the parties, including the petitioners herein. All parties must be given a fair opportunity, but if illegalities are established, strict action must be promptly taken”, the Court directed.

The Deputy Collector in charge of the Flying Squad should also keep a constant vigil through the Flying Squad in this area to ensure that there is no unauthorised landfilling, illegal constructions or dumping of construction or other waste/debris , the Court further directed.

“The MMC, MPDA. GSPCB and the State must ensure the restoration of this area if it is found that the same is affected by illegal landfilling, illegal conversion, illegal constructions, etc. Such restoration must be ordered and executed expeditiously. “
 At this stage, the High High Court  does not wish to go into Railway’s allegations about the selective targeting by the petitioners. However, if the petitioners are genuinely interested in protecting such areas, then the petitioners cannot adopt a selective approach , held by the High Court while disposing of the PIL.

The Bombay High Court at Goa  disposed of a  Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with the main grievance with regard to non-constitution of such Board and non-sanctioning of irrigation project scheme as per Section 18 of the Goa Command Area Development Act, 1997. 

The Division Bench of Justice  M. S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande noted that since the Government has already notified the Board, the prayer in the present petition stands substantially redressed.

D. Pangam, Advocate General   submitted that the process for providing the Scheme will start and such scheme will be notified as fast as possible within a period of six months.

The other grievances of the petitioner with regard to conversion and development within such command area could be looked into by the reconstituted Board , observed by the High Court.
In view of the above submissions, the Bench  disposes of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Board.

The Bombay High Court at Goa disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the filling of a post in the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Advocate General D. Pangam stated that an offer of appointment has already been given to the selectee for the post of president of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Advocate General said that in all probabilities, the post will be filled by the end of January 2023.  

In so far as administrative control is concerned, the State Government’s order dated 16.03.2019 provides that in the absence of the president of Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, all administrative matters pertaining to the State Commission and District Forum will be entirely dealt with by the Assistant Director, Department of Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs, Panaji, Goa. 

The Advocate General submitted that once the president is appointed, such powers will automatically revert to the president from the very wordings of this order. 

In so far as the District Forums/ Commissions are concerned, the matter is governed by Office Memorandum dated 23.03.2021. This Office Memorandum provides that the Reviewing Officer shall be the Assistant Director of Civil Supplies and the counter signatory shall be the Director of Civil Supplies. 

Now that presidents have been appointed to the Forums/Commissions, the Advocate General stated that the Reviewing Officer would be the respective president of the District Forums and the Commissions and the counter signatory authority would be the president of the Goa State Disputes Redressal Commission. 

The Advocate General further stated that necessary orders to this effect will be issued within two weeks. 

The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande directed the authorities concerned to act consistent with such statements and clarifications and do the needful within the timeline indicated above.

The Bombay High Court at Goa has observed the authorities ought not to make any difference between hoardings and signage, as signages equally cause a nuisance if they are not operated and maintained as per law. The authority concerned shall take appropriate action with regard to illegal signages or those causing a nuisance by following the procedure in law.

The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande heard a suo motu Public Interest Litigation concerning the putting up of illegal hoardings and/or menace of hoardings in Goa.

The Court has observed in the detailed order passed on September 29, 2022 is to bring about a lawful regime of resistible hoardings and in such context, accountability on the concerned municipal officers or other authorities of the State Government, to strictly follow the law.   
Thereafter, the petition was heard on November 17, 2022 when the High Court recorded a statement of Devidas Pangam, Advocate General, that the concerns as addressed in the order dated September 29, 2022 are being looked into at the highest level by the State Government and the State Government is desirous to formulate a concrete mechanism as they involve fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was stated that the State Government would constitute a High Power Committee which would consist of legal experts/other experts as may be felt appropriate by the State Government, which would deliberate on such issues and that the deliberation can culminate into the framing of appropriate rules and regulations which shall govern the locations, permissions, installations, and all other aspects in regard to the installation of the hoarding in the State of Goa. 

It was also submitted that the desire of the State Government is to bring the issue of hoardings under the umbrella of a centralized authority, which would have jurisdiction over all aspects concerning the hoardings put up wherever in the State of Goa. The Bench had accordingly adjourned the proceedings to December 2, 2022.

On December 2, 2022, by a detailed order, the Bench had adjourned the proceedings, thereby observing that both the District Magistrates should further explain as to what action has been taken against the hoardings which are found illegal and beyond the specifications and the timeline within which such hoardings are required to be removed by local authorities concerned.   

On December 16,  Advocate General placed on record an order dated December 14, 2022 issued by the State Government with regard to formulating a policy for regulating and determining the issuance of permission and monitoring of hoardings in terms of the order passed by the High Court. Pangam informed the Court that the committee as constituted would deliberate in formulating a policy for regulation and determination of issuance of permissions and monitoring of hoardings, which shall be undertaken within a period of three months. 

The Court expected the committee takes such further appropriate steps and place on record such a policy/rules or regulations.

Pangam also informed the High Court that directions are already issued to different authorities including the Collector to take appropriate action in relation to illegal hoardings. Let such an exercise of identification of such hoardings be promptly taken by the said authority, the Court directed.

With regard to the action being taken by the Collector and the other authorities and to report compliance in regard to the removal of illegal hoardings and to address on the issue of signages on the adjourned date, January 13, 2023, of hearing under the caption, “For Directions,” the Court ordered.

The High Court of Bombay at Goa declined to entertain the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the conversion Sanads (The conversion of use of land from agriculture to non agriculture purpose) by the authorities.

Norma Alvares , counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the 2 Committees appointed by the State Government have recently issued only interim reports on the issue of identification of certain areas as forests. She submits that based on these interim reports, the Authorities are not justified in issuing conversion sanads enabling the use of such properties for non-agricultural purposes.

Alvares admits that such interim reports have been filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which is seized of the matter. She, however, expressed an apprehension that the NGT mightnot be in a position to issue directions to the Authorities like theCollector, in the matter of grant or refusal of conversion sanads.Hence, the petition was filed.

Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General , Somnath B. Karpe , Senior Advocate and Somnath B. Karpe , counsel for the respondents submitted that since the NGT is seized of the matter, it is only appropriate that the Court does not entertain the petition but relegate the petitioner to the National Green Tribunal.

They Submit that there is no basis for the apprehension now expressed by Alvares because the main issue is about the demarcation of the properties as forest. They further contended that the issue of grant or refusal of conversion is only incidental or consequential.Therefore, the National Green Tribunal will have the necessary jurisdiction to look into the issues now raised by the petitioner.

Pereira, Senior Advocate for respondents also submiteds that the sanads which have now been challenged by the petitioner in this petition, can as well bechallenged before the NGT because the main issue involved is about the identification of their properties as not being forest.

The Division Bench of M. S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that even in their Judgment , since the NGT is seized with the main issue about identification of properties as forest lands, it’s only appropriate that the petitioners, if they choose, shouldapproach the NGT with the grievance now raised in this petition.The apprehension expressed by Alvares has been substantially answered by the submissions made by the Advocate General, Mr. Pereira and Mr. Karpe for the respondents. Even in High Court judgment, since the issue of conversion is merely incidental or ancillary to the main issue of identification of forest land, the NGT, would have sufficient jurisdiction to look into or examine the issues now raised in thispetition.

Therefore, for the above reasons, the Bench declined to entertain this petition. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty toapproach the NGT and to raise all the issues that have been raised in the petition together with the objections which the petitioner has already filed before the NGT to the interim reports submitted from time to time.

At this stage, the Advocate General clarifies that thereports filed before the NGT are “part reports” and not interim reports. “Again, this is a matter which will have to be examinedby the NGT itself based on the rival contentions’, said the Court.