Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1698 (BOM)

Goa Foundation v. Panchayat of Candolim

2006-10-13

N.A.BRITTO, R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR

body2006
JUDGMENT R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard, In both these petitions, the petitioners seek to restrain the respondents authorities from granting permission for new residential units or development in the CRZ-III zone contrary to the provisions comprised under clause 6(2) CRZ-III(iii) of Annexure-I (hereinafter called as "the said clause") of the CRZ notification dated 19th February, 1991 as amended till this date, hereinafter called as "the said CRZ notification" and further to remove all constructions in the said CRZ III zone in the village of Candolim and Calangute which have been constructed in violation of the said clause, as also to conduct an inquiry to fix responsibility for the large-scale violations of the said clause of the CRZ Notification and to take necessary action against and to ensure punishment to those who are responsible for such violations. 3. Under the said CRZ Notification, an area between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line, hereinafter called as "the said zone" is earmarked as 'No Development Zone.' It is the case of the petitioners that the construction activities within the said zone are restricted for residential purposes subject to the conditions incorporated in the said clause, and accordingly it prohibits construction in excess of dwelling units twice the number of dwelling units as existed in the said zone on 19th February, 1991. As of 19th February, 1991 the total number of dwelling units in the said zone in the village of Candolim were 608 whereas in the village of Calangute, they were 946. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents authorities in violation of the said clause of the said CRZ Notification have granted approval to the dwelling units in excess of twice the number of the said dwelling units and a large portion of the land in the said Zone in the said two villages is virtually sought to be converted into a concrete jungle which paradoxically the CRZ Notification had designed to prevent. The general principles on which the said CRZ Notification is based include control and restrictions over unwarranted development in the coastal areas essentially for ecological reasons without disturbing traditional rights and customary uses of dwellers and those enjoyed by the people of the coastal villages and that is why the said clause protects right to construct dwelling units and to organise daily life activities for the traditional inhabitants of the coastal villages as per their customary needs. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents authorities ignoring the object behind the said clause of the said CRZ Notification had been indiscriminately granting permission for new construction in the said zone which not only needs to be stopped but action is required to be taken to restore the situation as was on 19th February, 1991 and to punish the guilty and those who are responsible for violation of the said CRZ Notification. 4. According to the respondents, the figure relating to the total number of dwelling units stated in the petitions is based on the survey which was conducted in the year 1970-71, and considering the same, structures in 1991 would be much more than those claimed by the petitioners. According to the 1991 census which was conducted in February, 1990, the total number of residential houses in the village of Candolim was 1523 while number of households were 1563. According to the respondents, they have not granted any permission in violation of the said clause of the said CRZ Notification, and apart from the dwelling houses, there are also government buildings religious premises and school buildings in the said area. The respondents have also sought to dispute the contention of the expression "dwelling units". According to the respondents, the said expression refers to the entire structure or the building irrespective of the sub-units in a building or structure and the entire building is to be considered as the one dwelling unit. Further, the coverage of the plot for the purpose of 33% rule, the same would relate to the plinth area of the building irrespective of how many separate families may occupy the same or how many floors the building has, and further for the purpose of understanding the meaning of doubling of the dwelling units, the same are to be counted plot wise. In a vacant plot, the construction of one or more unit can be permitted provided its total coverage area shall not exceed 33% of the plot area. Similarly, if the plot is already having two dwelling units, maximum of two or more can be permitted with, only restriction being related to the total permissible coverage of the plot i.e. 33% of the plot area. It is also sought to be argued on behalf of the respondents that there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court, and therefore, there is no justification for finding fault with the respondents in relation to the permissions which have already been granted or with the constructions, according to such permissions, which have already been completed in the said area. 5. It is to be noted that at the time of hearing for admission on 17th December, 1998, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, viz. the State of Goa and the Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, on instructions from the said respondents, undertook not to grant any approval or licences for construction within the area lying between 200 to 500 meters from HTL and in CRZ III zone in the State of Goa. Similar assurance was also given on behalf of the concerned village Panchayats. Further, on 6th May, 1999, the Learned Advocate General assured the Court that Coastal Zone Management Authority would not consider any application for approval of construction in the area comprised of said zone lying between 200 to 500 meters of HTL defined as the CRZ III zone in view of the fact that the clarification and further instructions were awaited from National Coastal Zone Management Authority, and further that as and when instructions/clarifications would be received from the said authority, the same would be placed before this Court for further directions. Thereafter, an application was moved being Civil Misc. Application No. 329 of 2000 by the Government of Goa for relieving of its statement and assurances, however, the same came to be rejected by a reasoned order passed by this Court on 13th September, 2000. 6. Ms. Thereafter, an application was moved being Civil Misc. Application No. 329 of 2000 by the Government of Goa for relieving of its statement and assurances, however, the same came to be rejected by a reasoned order passed by this Court on 13th September, 2000. 6. Ms. Norma Alvares, the learned advocate for the petitioners, while elaborating the contentions on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the construction activities which are permissible within the areas comprised between 200 and 500 metres of HTL in the coastal zone are essentially restricted to the dwelling houses in accordance with the clause (6(2) CRZ-III(iii) of the said CRZ Notification and the same permits only dwelling units which are within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as fishing villages and gaothans and the total number of dwelling units, which could be allowed, should not be twice the number which existed on 19th February, 1991, total coverage on all the floors being restricted to 33% of the plot size, and the overall height of construction to 9 metres with only two floors including the ground floor. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of C.I.T., Madras v. K.S. Ratnaswamy, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 548 , Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, reported in AIR 1982 SC 3 , and Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, reported in 2000(2) Goa Law Times 187. Attention has also been drawn to the dictionary meaning of the term "dwelling unit", definition of the said expression under the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulations 2000 and interpretation of the said expression by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, while contending that essentially the dwelling unit is a home, an abode, and not merely a habitable place but indicates residency of a more permanent nature. 7. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, while complaining about the absence of sufficient factual data regarding plot wise violation, if any, so as to appreciate the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners, more particularly in view of the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification refers to 33% of the plot size, submitted that the term 'dwelling unit" has to be understood with reference to the floor area and pertaining to each plot. According to the learned Advocate General, there is no scope for restricting the dwelling units under the said clause to mean that it relates to an occupation by one family alone. An unit can include sub-units, and therefore, it will relate to the entire building irrespective of number of sub-units which may exist in one unit. Drawing attention to the Clause (ii) of CRZ-II of the said CRZ Notification, it was contended that the very notification permits construction of hotels and beach resorts in the said area comprised between 200 and 500 metres of HTL. Being so, there is no scope to define the dwelling unit in the manner it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners. As regards 33% of the plot area, the provision only requires 67% of the plot area should remain open. In other words, if 33% of the plot area is occupied by plinth area and the structure, then it would satisfy requirement of keeping 67% of the plot area to be open. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in Goa Foundation, Goa v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 184 , and of the Calcutta High Court in People united for better Living in Calcutta Public and another v. State of West Bengal and others, reported in AIR 1993 Calcutta 215. 8. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") and the rules made thereunder (hereinafter called as "the said rules") issued the said CRZ notification classifying the coastal area in four categories for the purpose of regulating and restricting the development in such area as per the said CRZ Notification. The areas which are ecologically sensitive and important, such as national parks, marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wildlife habitats, mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas close to breeding and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of outstanding natural beauty/historically/heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity, areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming and such other areas as may be declared by the Central Government and which lies between Low Tide Line and High Tide Line, have been categorised as CRZ-I. The areas which have already been developed upto or close to the shore-line and which are situated within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are already substantially built up and which have been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructure facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains, are classified as CRZ-II. The coastal stretches in the Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep and small islands, except those designated as CRZ-l. CRZ-II or CRZ-III, are classified as CRZ-IV category. 9. CRZ-III zone, with which we are concerned in the matter in hand, comprises of areas which are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong to either category CRZ-I or CRZ-II and they include coastal zones in the rural areas, either developed or undeveloped, and also areas within municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up. As regards the areas in this category, the development therein is regulated and restricted under the said CRZ Notification in the following manner : "CRZ-III (i) The area upto 200 metres from the HTL is to be earmarked as 'No Development zone, ** [No construction shall be permitted within this zone except for repairs of existing authorised structures not exceeding existing FSI, existing plinth area and existing density, and for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for such activities. An authority designated by the State Government/Union Territory Administration may permit construction of facilities for water supply, drainage and sewerage for requirements of local inhabitants J. However, the following uses may be permissible in this zone-agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, play fields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water. An authority designated by the State Government/Union Territory Administration may permit construction of facilities for water supply, drainage and sewerage for requirements of local inhabitants J. However, the following uses may be permissible in this zone-agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, play fields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water. (ii) Development of vacant plots between 200 and 500 metres of High Tide Line in designated areas of CRZ-III with prior approval of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF) permitted for construction of hotels/beach resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions as stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II. (iii) Construction/reconstruction of dwelling units between 200 and 500 metres of the HTL permitted so long as it is within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and gaothans. Building permission for such construction/reconstruction will be subject to the conditions that the total number of dwelling units shall not be more than twice the number of existing units; total covered area on all floors shall not exceed 33 per cent of the plot size; the overall height of construction shall not exceed 9 metres and construction shall not be more than 2 floors (ground Hoor plus one floor). * [Construction is allowed for permissible activities under the notification including facilities essential for such activities. An authority designated by State Government/Union Territory Administration may permit construction of public rain shelters, community toilets, water supply, drainage, sewerage, roads and bridges. The said authority may also permit construction of schools and dispensaries, for local inhabitants of the area, for those panchayats the major part of which falls within CRZ if no other area is available for construction of such facilities]. (iv) Reconstruction/alterations of an existing authorised building permitted subject to (i) to (iii) above." 10. The grievance essentially relates to the alleged non-compliance of the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification quoted above. It is the case of the petitioners that the said notification clearly regulates and restricts developments within the area of 200 and 500 metres of HTL as specified in clause (iii) quoted above of the said CRZ Notification. The grievance essentially relates to the alleged non-compliance of the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification quoted above. It is the case of the petitioners that the said notification clearly regulates and restricts developments within the area of 200 and 500 metres of HTL as specified in clause (iii) quoted above of the said CRZ Notification. Whilst it regulates development to the extent of 33% of the plot size and permits construction activity to the extent of twice the total number of dwelling units as they existed on 19th February, 1991 and within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and gaothans and further the height of construction being restricted to 9 metres and two floors including the ground floor and to be utilised as dwelling units. The clause (iv) thereof further specifies that even reconstruction or alterations should be in terms of the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification. It is, therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that in the course of grant of permission for new dwelling units, the number of dwelling units cannot be allowed to exceed twice the number of the units which existed on 19th February, 1991. Further that such dwelling units would not include development of land by builders and estate agents for commercial purposes but it would essentially be for the people who traditionally exercise their rights in those coastal areas such as fisher-folk, toddy tappers, horticulturist, etc. It is essentially for the dwelling units by the persons engaged in such traditional occupations which are prevalent in the coastal areas. 11. Plain reading of the above quoted CRZ-III Notification would undoubtedly disclose that in the area between 200 and 500 metres of HTL, the development is sought to be regulated and restricted in terms of the clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) thereof. While clause (iv) relates to reconstruction or alterations, it essentially provides that such reconstruction and alterations are permissible subject to the provisions in the clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) thereof. Obviously, clause (i) relates to the area upto 200 metres from the HTL with which we are not concerned in these petitions. 12. As regards the clause (ii) of CRZ-II of the said CRZ Notification, it undoubtedly permits construction of hotels/beach resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II of the said Notification. 12. As regards the clause (ii) of CRZ-II of the said CRZ Notification, it undoubtedly permits construction of hotels/beach resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II of the said Notification. In addition, the clause specifically refers to "development of vacant plots between 200 and 500 metres of HTL." The expression "vacant plots" is not unintentional or meaningless. The relevancy of the said expression in the said clause can at once the realised on proper reading of the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification. The clause (iii) thereof refers to "construction/reconstruction of dwelling units between 200 and 500 metres of the HIL." In other words, while the clause (iii) specifically refers to the, development of an area lying between 200 and 500 metres of HTL exclusively for construction or reconstruction of the dwelling units, the open plots in such area are allowed to be utilised for construction of the hotels in terms of the clause (ii) thereof. The expression "construction/reconstruction of dwelling units" in clause (iii) further refers to "within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and goathans." It is settled principle of law of interpretation that no word in a statutory provision including the one in the subordinate legislation can be presumed to be redundant or unintentional. Reference to the "traditional rights" and "customary uses" while regulating construction activities of dwelling units in the coastal area is neither unintentional nor insignificant but evidently it discloses the intention of the framers of the law that the construction activities of dwelling units have to be "within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses" prevalent and practiced in the concerned locality i.e. coastal area. Obviously, it will relate to the persons engaged in traditional occupations in such locality in the coastal area which would include fishing, toddy tapping, plantation, etc., otherwise the framers of the law would not have occasion to restrict the activity of construction of dwelling units "within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses." The said expression essentially discloses that the law makers have considered the importance and necessity of and have, therefore, granted recognition to the activities of the nature of traditional occupations in such coastal area and that has been described as the ambit of extent to which the construction activities can be permitted to have the dwelling units in the said area. 13. It is pertinent to note that while on one hand construction of hotels and beach resorts are permissible in the vacant plots in the said area, on the other hand, construction activity which is permissible under the clause (iii) relates to the dwelling units. It does not relate to construction activity otherwise than dwelling units. Further it restricts such construction activities to be within the ambit specified thereunder. While reading the said provision, one should not ignore the description of the category CRZ-III under the said CRZ Notification which specifically speaks of "relatively undisturbed" area. At the same time, the category CRZ-II which is also close to the shore-line has been specifically classified as "developed area." This apparently shows that, the framers of the law did not contemplate any construction activity within the area of 200 to 500 metres of HTL otherwise than the, one specifically stated in the clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said Notification and they are dwelling units, with one exception in favour of, hotels and beach resorts but only in vacant plots in the said zone. The petitioners are justified in contending that the construction activities in the said zone would not include construction of the buildings by the builders or developers for commercial purposes. 14. The connotation of term "dwelling unit" has been of major controversy between the parties. Undisputedly, the term has not been defined either in the said CRZ Notification or under said Environment Ac, or the said rules. 14. The connotation of term "dwelling unit" has been of major controversy between the parties. Undisputedly, the term has not been defined either in the said CRZ Notification or under said Environment Ac, or the said rules. However, the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulations, 1989 issued under Section 141 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 defines the term "dwelling" to mean a building or a portion thereof which is designed or used wholly or principally for residential purpose. Likewise, the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulations, 2000 issued under Section 141 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 defines the term "dwelling unit" to mean a habitable place, which should be provided with a kitchen, a W.C. and a bathroom. In common parlance a dwelling unit would obviously mean a built up structure which is meant for habitation provided it is equipped with necessary, amenities like kitchen, toilet, living room and bedroom. Normally an unit would include sub-unit. However, considering the provisions of law comprised under the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification and various restrictions specified in relation to the dwelling units under the said clause, it is implicit that the expression "dwelling unit" under the said clause refers to unit which is commonly understood as the one sufficient to make a place for habitation in the sense that it is equipped with necessary amenities like the living room, bedroom, kitchen and toilet. Any other meaning to the dwelling unit under the said clause would virtually result in rendering the said clause to be totally redundant. It is to be noted that the clause specifically prohibits the increase in the "total number of dwelling units" beyond the "twice number of existing units". It further provides that total covered area on all floors, the total number of floors inclusive of ground floor should not exceed 33% of the plot size. The overall height of construction cannot exceed 9 metres. In addition, as already stated above, construction and/or reconstruction of dwelling units is permissible within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses. Taking into consideration all these aspects under-the said clause, obviously the "dwelling unit" has essentially to be a home or abode indicating residency of permanent nature. The overall height of construction cannot exceed 9 metres. In addition, as already stated above, construction and/or reconstruction of dwelling units is permissible within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses. Taking into consideration all these aspects under-the said clause, obviously the "dwelling unit" has essentially to be a home or abode indicating residency of permanent nature. Even the National Coastal Zone Management Authority in its meeting held on 6th May, 2004 had accepted that the definition of the word "dwelling unit" has to be in terms of the building by-laws adopted by the State Government. Undoubtedly, the Ministry of Environment and Forests had advised for further examination in detail about the terminology used in the said CRZ Notification. Nevertheless, the concerned authorities have accepted that the same is to be understood as defined under the respective building bye-laws. The definition of the said term as provided by the Planning and Development Authorities Regulations in Goa is on par with common understanding of the said terminology i.e. the unit which is equipped with necessary amenities like kitchen, bedroom, toilet and bathroom. 15. Undoubtedly, in a building, there could be more than one unit. However, for the purpose of clause (iii) of the said Notification, it cannot be said that the entire building comprising of such units will have to be understood as the one unit. A building comprising of different units will have to be considered as consisting of more than one unit. We hasten to clarify that this will have to be understood with reference to the area between 200 and 500 metres of HTL i.e. CRZ-zone. The same definition may not be understood in relation to the other area or zone as the definition has to be understood with reference to the said clause which necessarily relates to an area between 200 and 500 metres of HTL. Albeit, the old houses will have to be distinguished in comparison to the buildings which normally comprise of flats which would obviously disclose separate dwelling units in the same building. Obviously, old bungalow type family house in a village will have to be considered as one dwelling unit. Merely because in such a house, with the passage of time, the occupants thereof might have erected partition to protect privacy of couples staying in such houses, that by itself will not transform the house into multiple units. Obviously, old bungalow type family house in a village will have to be considered as one dwelling unit. Merely because in such a house, with the passage of time, the occupants thereof might have erected partition to protect privacy of couples staying in such houses, that by itself will not transform the house into multiple units. However, the same rule cannot be applied to a building comprising of different flats which is essentially planned and built to accommodate each family separately and independently. The nature of the structure at the time it was built is most relevant factor to be taken into consideration to decide whether it is one unit or more. Subsequent interior changes cannot be of any relevance. 16. As regard the point relating to 33% of the plot size, while it is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the figure of 33% refers to the total floor area of dwelling units, according to the respondents, it relates to the total plinth area. The basis for the argument about its reference to the plinth area is that since it permits occupation of 33%, it essentially requires 67% of the plot to be kept open. The contention is totally devoid of substance. The provisions of law comprised under the clause (iii) while prescribing permissible limit of coverage to 33% of the plot size specifically refer to "total covered area on all floors". The relevant portion in that regard reads thus : "total covered area on all floors shall not exceed 33% of the plot size." The provisions of law being very clear as regards the coverage being referable to the total area of all the floors, one fails to understand the logic behind the argument that 33% covered area would merely require an area of 67% of the plot to be kept open. Once the law c1early provides that the percentage regarding coverage of the plot is referable to the total area of all the floors, the question of referring the coverage to the plinth area does not arise. 17. There is no dispute on the point of maximum height of 9 metres and total number of floors permissible being two floors, including ground floor, under the said clause of the said CRZ notification. 18. The next point which requires consideration relates to the restriction regarding doubling of the units. 17. There is no dispute on the point of maximum height of 9 metres and total number of floors permissible being two floors, including ground floor, under the said clause of the said CRZ notification. 18. The next point which requires consideration relates to the restriction regarding doubling of the units. The question is whether it is in relation to each plot or to the entire area in a village lying between 200 and 500 metres of HTL. Plain reading of the clause quoted above would disclose that as far as restriction relating to 33% coverage is concerned, the same specifically refers to the plot size; however, in relation to the restriction to the extent of doubling the dwelling units, the clause nowhere refers to a plot as such. Indeed, the framers of the law in their wisdom have avoided to refer the clause relating to the restriction of doubling units to a plot area and in our opinion, rightly so. It is to the common knowledge that in the villages, the people usually prefer to live in reasonable proximity to each other. The settlement or the gaothan area in the village is developed consequent to the habitation of the villagers by constructing their residential accommodations. Apart from the safety point, culture and traditions also contribute to this method of habitation by the villagers. Being so, if the restriction regarding doubling of the units is related to the plot size, it may cause great hardship to the villagers in having their dwelling units in such area. For example, if the plot consists of 5000 sq. metres of an area and there are already five dwelling units and on account of increase of family members, if they want to have more dwelling units the restriction of doubling would not permit them to construct more than five units in addition to the existing five units. For that purpose, they will have to have their dwelling units in different plot in spite of the fact that the land for construction of dwelling units within their plot is available. At the same time, since undue increase in the dwelling units is to be prevented, the restriction to the extent of 33% of the plot area is required to be observed. Bearing these in mind, therefore, it is difficult to relate the concept of doubling of the units to a plot. At the same time, since undue increase in the dwelling units is to be prevented, the restriction to the extent of 33% of the plot area is required to be observed. Bearing these in mind, therefore, it is difficult to relate the concept of doubling of the units to a plot. It will have, to be considered as referable to the total number of units in the total area between 200 and 500 metres of HTL in a village. This is also clear from the very clause which speaks of "total number of dwelling units." While referring to the permissible construction or reconstruction between 200 and 500 metres of HTL the expression used being "total number of dwelling units", obviously, it has to relate to the entire area situated between 200 and 500 metres of HTL in a village. 19. The Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4033 had clearly observed that the development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need thereof. However, while holding so, the Apex Court also ruled in favour of protection of environment and highlighted the need to strike the balance in that regard, and therefore, cautioned that: "............... protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment." 20. Going through the records placed before this Court in relation to the various constructions carried out after 19th February, 1991, particularly in the village of Candolim, it is apparent that in some cases, same person has been allowed to construct more than one unit when in fact some people have been allowed to construct shops, hotel rooms, etc. Permitting the construction of hotels or beach resorts in terms of the clause (ii) in the vacant plots within the said area is totally different from allowing the construction of hotel rooms and shops within the area which is required to be utilised for the construction of dwelling units. Certainly, construction of hotels and beach resorts would not be permissible within the locality wherein there exist the dwelling units. Hotel construction would be permissible only in the vacant plots situated within the said zone. Certainly, construction of hotels and beach resorts would not be permissible within the locality wherein there exist the dwelling units. Hotel construction would be permissible only in the vacant plots situated within the said zone. The provision in that regard is very clear under clause (ii) as also disapproval for such construction under the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification. Obviously, the respondent/authorities seem to have granted permission in disregard to the provisions comprised under the said Notification and in particular the clause (iii) thereof. The permissions appear to have been granted indiscriminately for all types of development in the area which is essentially meant only for construction or reconstruction of the dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of law comprised under the clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification. Certainly, this is a clear violation of the CRZ Notification by the authorities, and therefore, would require necessary directions in that regard. 21. As regards the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Ratnaswamy's case (supra) is concerned, undoubtedly, it refers to the meaning of the expression "dwelling place." However, that is with reference to the provisions under the Income Tax Act. Being so, that could not be of any help to understand the expression "dwelling unit" under the said Notification which does not relate to the tax matters but essentially relates to the construction activities in the fragile area covered by the CRZ Notification. 22. The decision in Jeewanti Pandey's case (supra) refers to the expression "residence" and the meaning thereof, but the same is in relation to the provision under the Hindu Marriage Act. Obviously, therefore, it is of no help to the petitioners or the respondents in understanding the meaning of dwelling units under the said CRZ Notification. 23. 22. The decision in Jeewanti Pandey's case (supra) refers to the expression "residence" and the meaning thereof, but the same is in relation to the provision under the Hindu Marriage Act. Obviously, therefore, it is of no help to the petitioners or the respondents in understanding the meaning of dwelling units under the said CRZ Notification. 23. The Apex Court in Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 's case (supra), while indicating the approach of the Court which should be in the matters concerning environment and development, had taken notice of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in People United for Better Living in Calcutta's case (supra), wherein it was held thus: "There is no manner of doubt that this issue of environmental degradation cannot but be termed to be a social problem and considering the growing awareness and considering the impact of this problem on the society in regard thereto, in my view, Law Courts should also rise up to the occasion to deal with the situation as it demands in the present day context; Law Courts have a social duty since it is a part of the society and as such, must always function having due regard to the present day problems which the society faces. It is now a well-settled principle of law that socio-economic condition of the country cannot be ignored by a Court of law. It is now a well-settled principle of law that while dealing with the matter, the social problems shall have to be dealt with in the way in the manner it calls for, since benefit to the society ought to be the prime consideration of the Law Courts and ecological imbalance being a social problem ought to be decided by a Court of law so that the society may thrive and prosper without any affection." 24. The Apex Court in the said Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) referring to its earlier decision in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 281 , had observed that the Apex Court therein had indicated that with a view to protect the ecological balance in the coastal areas, notifications having been issued by the Central Government, there ought not to be any violation and the prohibited activities should not be allowed to come up within the area declared as CRZ Notification. It was further ruled that "the Court also emphasised that no activities which would ultimately lead to unscientific and unsustainable development and ecological destruction should at all be allowed and the Courts must scrupulously try to protect the ecology and environment and should shoulder greater responsibility of which the Court can have closer awareness and easy monitoring." 25. In Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had held that the object of the legislation regarding protection of environment is to prevent degradation of the coastal areas including the sand dunes and ecologically sensitive areas. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the Panchayats by Mrs. Agni, the learned advocate appearing for the Panchayats that the contention that the construction activity in terms of the clause (iii) is permissible only by the locals has been rejected by this Court in the matter of The Goa Foundation v. United Breweries and others, 2001 (2) Goa L.T. 162 and the said issue stands finally decided. The contention is devoid of substance as the said decision nowhere deals with the said issue. It was only observed therein that though it was sought to be initially argued that the construction of the dwelling houses is permissible by the locals, in the course of argument, the same was not pressed, and that therefore, it was not necessary to be decided. In any case it is nobody's case that the development is permissible by locals only. We are concerned with the limitations as prescribed under clause (iii) of the said notification. 26. It was sought to be argued that the restriction for construction of only dwelling units within the area of 200 to 500 metres of HIL would virtually deny the rights of development to the property holders and it would be contrary to the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. This contention is also devoid of substance. Article 300-A of the Constitution certainly prohibits deprivation of property save by authority of law. However, imposition of restriction on development does not amount to deprivation of the property. The regulations which are provided under clause (ii) and the restrictions imposed thereunder do not in any way amount to dispossessing or taking away the property otherwise than by authority of law. It merely regulates the construction activities and does not amount to taking away somebody's property. 27. The regulations which are provided under clause (ii) and the restrictions imposed thereunder do not in any way amount to dispossessing or taking away the property otherwise than by authority of law. It merely regulates the construction activities and does not amount to taking away somebody's property. 27. Undoubtedly, the restrictions comprised under the said clause would discourage indiscriminate construction activities in such areas. Merely because it will arrest the indiscriminate construction activities, that would not amount to prohibiting the development in such areas. Certainly, large-scale development is permissible in the area beyond the 500 metres of HTL. The restrictions have been imposed from the point of view of protection of environment and ecology and to avoid degradation thereof. Till and until the CRZ notification is in force, it has to be given effect in letter and spirit. Merely because some restrictions are imposed on the enjoyment of the property in relation to the construction activities in the coastal belt of 300 metres width, that by itself cannot amount to impose illegal or unwarranted or arbitrary restrictions. The restrictions are essentially for proper protection of the environment and ecology. It is well said that we have not inherited the earth from our fathers, but we have borrowed it for our children. Injudicious over exploitation of natural resources, including the land mass, would undoubtedly result to enormous degradation of the environment. 28. As regards the point relating to the objection raised by the respondents on the ground of laches, it is to be noted that it is a public interest litigation. The matter pertains to indiscriminate violation of CRZ notification and in particular relating to the CRZ-III zone. The Apex Court in Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1392 had clearly ruled that the delay should not be the sole ground to throw out a public interest litigation irrespective of merit of the matter or the stage thereof and that keeping in view the magnitude of public interest, the Court may consider the desirability to relax the rigours of the accepted norms relating to the applicability of rule of laches. In cases where the public authorities by misuse of their power try to virtually render the statutory provisions made for environment protection to be nugatory and act in a manner detrimental to the protection of environment in clear violation of the provisions of law made in that regard, the laches and delay cannot be a justification to give clean chit or carte blanche to such enemies of environment and allow them to go scot free at the cost of destruction of environment and ecology. No amount of delay can legalise the illegal acts, more particularly so, when the same relate to violation of environmental law and that too in relation to the CRZ-III zone. 29. The Courts are not only empowered but are also duty bound, as the enforcing authority of the constitutional objectives to prevent all actions and activities, not only of the citizens but also of the State and public authorities which can upset or even affect the environmental balance. To protect and improve environment is the solemn duty of every citizen, and albeit of the State and every public body. Environmental management while assuring due protection to the environment and ecology, is the obligatory function of every public body and that of the State, and in case of failure thereof, the Courts cannot remain to be silent spectators. 30. Undoubtedly during the period from 19th February, 1991 onwards the respondents authorities who were required to ensure proper implementation of CRZ notification did not bother to pay any attention towards performance of their obligation in that regard. The respondents have not bothered to give exact year-wise increase in dwelling units from 1991 onwards in CRZ-III zone in Goa. Considering the nature of controversy and their obligations under the Constitution and statutory provisions, the respondents were required to have all the data ready with them and ought to have disclosed the same to the Court, without waiting for the Court to inquire about the same. In fact, it appears that they have not bothered to maintain any record in that regard till this day. In fact, it appears that they have not bothered to maintain any record in that regard till this day. As regards the exact number of dwelling units which were there in the CRZ-III zone in Goa on 19th February, 1991 and date-wise increase thereof subsequent thereto, undoubtedly the concerned authority will have to undertake necessary survey as well as inquiry, which shall include physical verification of the dwelling units in such area, taking into consideration of the panchayat records relating to payment of house takex, ration cards of the residents in the concerned area, licences granted for construction or reconstruction in the said area on or after 19th February, 1991, census reports, etc. and various other evidence which could be of help in the preparation of such record. Based on such survey and inquiry the concerned authority will have to identity the number of dwelling units in CRZ-III zone in each of the coastal villages and towns of Goa, which were in existence on 19th February, 1991 and which have been built thereafter. In case the number of dwelling units are found to have increased in excess of double the units which were there on 19th February, 1991, then the authorities will have to identify those units with reference to the date of permission granted to them for such construction and to take necessary action in respect of such unit according to law. The authorities will have to also ascertain whether any hotel or shop or any structure other than dwelling unit had been permitted and constructed in such area, not in open plots, but in the locality comprised of dwelling units after 19th February, 1991 and to take appropriate action in relation thereto in accordance with the provisions of law. Of course, garage or a store room would form part of a dwelling unit. The respondents will have to identify whether there is any construction of the nature not permissible, has been permitted and/or constructed after 19th February, 1991 in the CRZ-III zone in Goa and to take action against the same in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say that rule of non-permissibility for construction other than dwelling house after 19th February, 1991 would not apply to such other structure which was already in existence in coastal zone on 19th February, 1991. Needless to say that rule of non-permissibility for construction other than dwelling house after 19th February, 1991 would not apply to such other structure which was already in existence in coastal zone on 19th February, 1991. The respondents are also required to take action against those who are responsible for violation of the provisions of CRZ notification in relation to the CRZ-III zone. 31. The concern shown by the petitioners for preventing degradation of environment and ecology in Goa and in particular on its coastal belt, specifically relating to CRZ-III zone is certainly appreciable. 32. The fall-out of the above discussion is that the petitions succeed. While making the rule absolute in above terms, we hereby give the following directions to the respondents : (A) To conduct survey and inquiry as regards the number of dwelling units and all other structures and constructions which were existing in the CRZ-III zone in Goa, village or town-wise as on 19th February, 1991 and increase in number thereof thereafter, date-wise. (B) To identify on the basis of permission granted for construction of the dwelling units which are in excess of double the units with regard to those which were existing on 19th February, 1991. (C) To identify all types of structures and constructions made in CRZ-III zone, except the dwelling units, after 19th February, 1991 in the locality comprised of the dwelling units and to take action against the same for their demolition in accordance with the provisions of law. (D) To identify the open plots in CRZ-III zone which are available for construction of hotels and to frame appropriate policy/regulation for utilisation thereof before they are being allowed to be utilised for such construction activities. (E) Till and until the survey and inquiry is completed, as directed above, no new licence for any type of construction in CRZ-III zone shall be issued or granted, and no new structure of whatsoever nature shall be allowed to be constructed in CRZ-III zone, except repairs and renovation of the existing houses which shall be subject to the appropriate order on completion and result of the survey and inquiry to be held as directed above and this should be specifically stated in the licenses to be granted for the purpose of repairs and/or renovation of the existing houses. (F) The respondent No. 5 to conduct inquiry and fix responsibility for the violation of the CRZ notification in relation to clause-III of CRZ-III zone and to take appropriate action against the persons responsible for such violation of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the said notification in relation to the CRZ-III zone. (G) All these directions stated above are in relation to the CRZ-III zone in Goa in terms of the said notification. (H) The survey and the inquiry should be conducted as expeditiously as possible and should be concluded preferably within a period of six months, and in any case, by 30th May, 2007, and report in that regard should be placed before this Court in the first week after the Summer vacation of 2007, for necessary and further order, if any. (I) Meanwhile, on conclusion of the survey and the inquiry necessary action should proceed against the offending structures and report in that regard also should be placed along with the above referred report. (J) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall ensure prompt compliance of the directions given in this judgment and shall be responsible for submitting the report required to be submitted as stated above. (K) All the records relating to the survey and the inquiry should be made available to the public and in that regard a web-site should be opened and the entire material should be displayed on the web-site. The respondent No. 3 should ensure due compliance of this direction by 10th June, 2007. (L) The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the petitions to the petitioners. (M) Report to be received from the respondents should be placed before this Court in the third week of June, 2007. (N) Rule is made absolute in above terms.