JUDGMENT : 1. The two PIL Writ Petitions are filed for redressal of a common grievance, being illegal grant of technical clearance and in the matter of approval of plans by the Town and Country Planning Department of Government of Goa and Mormugao Planning and Development Authority (MPDA) for the proposed construction of Multi-Family Dwelling Villas and Swimming Pools in Survey No.257/1 of village Sancoale within limits of village panchayat Sancoale, Mormugao, Goa.Objection is also raised to the grant of construction license of village panchayat Sancoale in favour of the project proponent, M/s Parmesh Construction Company Ltd., having its registered office in Uttar Pradesh. 2. PIL Writ Petition No.2020 of 2025 is filed by Goa Bachao Abhiyan, a Non-Government Organisation through its Convenor, in which the project proponent is impleaded as Respondent No.5 and the Petition seeks the following reliefs :- (a)Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Technical Clearance/Development Permission No.MPDA/7-P-165/2023- 24/1254 dated 2/2/2024 granted by Respondent authorities in favour of Respondent No.5 for the project “Acqua Eden” in Survey No.257/1 of Sancoale village, as well as quashing the Construction License dated 11/3/2024 issued by the Village Panchayat of Sancoale for the said project, and any other consequential building permissions or clearances issued thereafter in respect of this project; (b)Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the NOC/Permission dated 03/06/2025 under ref no. MPDA/7-P-165 (Part)/2025-26/332 granted by Respondent authorities in favour of Respondent No.5 for the project “Acqua Eden” in Survey No.257/1 of Sancoale village.” Apart from the aforesaid reliefs, the Petition also seek issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to strictly enforce the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 and the EIA Notification 2006 in relation to the project in question and thereby restrain the project proponent from undertaking any construction or development work at the site, without ensuring its compliance.It is also prayed that the registration of the project “Acqua Eden” be suspended and the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) be directed to take appropriate action under Section 7 of the RERA ACT , 2016 against the promoter and direct RERA to issue a public notice or advisory informing the existing and potential buyers about the legal status of the project and warn them of the risk of investing into this project. The PIL Writ Petition also seeks constitution of an independent Expert Committee to investigate the matter of illegal hill cutting alongwith the regulatory lapses in “Acqua Eden” project, which shall comprise of different functionaries, so that it can report to the Court on the alleged violations and feasibility of the project on the site, without causing any damage to the environment and also ix the accountability on the officers, who have acted in dereliction of duty. The Petition filed by Goa Bachao Abhiyan specifically offers the particulars of the Petitioner, as a civil society organisation, formed in the year 2006, for adverting to public causes and has given its credentials in Part II of the Petition, with the details of the proceedings instituted by it in past in larger public interest and it is pleaded that the cause raised in the present Petition is one such cause as it involves environment and future generations of Sancoale village and Petition is filed purely in larger interest of the public. 3. PIL Writ Petition No.1884 of 2024 (F) on the other hand is filed by five individuals, all residents of village Sancoale, who have pleaded that they have been espousing the social issues affecting their village and State of Goa at large, whenever they perceive threat to its natural environment, biodiversity etc. The Petition contains a specific statement that the Petitioners have no personal interest in the matter, but the same is filed in the interest of larger public, as according to them, the development of the project by M/s Parmesh Constructions, by securing the technical clearances and other permissions in an illegal and fraudulent manner, would result in environmental degradation, resulting in depletion of natural resources and causing irreversible damage to the natural green cover and also reduce the ground water table, thereby putting the life of the villagers to peril, which in turn would result in violation of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. According to the Petitioners, they have raised objections from time to time before the construction license was granted and they sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking relevant documents only upon collection of the necessary material, when the Petitioners could infer that the subject property cannot be zoned as ‘Commercial (C-1)’ zone, as it do not come under the municipal limits and, therefore, the development permission is in contravention of the Building Regulations and, they were armed with the material to expose the fraud, being played by the project proponent in connivance with the officials of MPDA, and hence, they have approached the Court by iling the Petition. 4. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned counsel, represents the Petitioners in PIL WP No.2020 of 2025 (F), whereas Advocate Richard Almeida with Mr.Samuel Abraham has represented the Petitioners in PIL Writ Petition No.1884 of2024 (F). Senior counsel Mr.A.N.S. Nadkarni alongwith Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande have represented the project proponent, M/s Parmesh Constructions. The learned Advocate General Mr.Devidas J. Pangam with Ms.Akshata Bhatt have marked their appearance for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 i.e. State Authorities, whereas Mr.Nikhil Pai with Mr.Anant Nagi represents MPDA and Advocate Neelesh Takkekar has represented Village Panchayat of Sancoale. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, on completion of pleadings in both the PIL Writ Petitions, we issue ‘Rule’, by making it returnable forthwith and by consent, the Petitions are taken up for inal hearing at the stage of admission. 6. In order to appreciate the stand of the Petitioners, who have espoused the public cause, as it is their claim that if the project “Acqua Eden” developed by M/s Parmesh Constructions also known as ‘Bhutani Infra’ is permitted to be carried out on land bearing Survey No.257/1 of Sancoale village, it would cause irreparable damage, as the project is being undertaken with environmental violations and fraudulent representations in securing the permission and the object of the Petition is to stall this project or atleast examine its illegality by appointing a Committee. For the sake of convenience, we would initially refer to the pleadings in the Petition filed by Goa Bachao Abhiyan, as Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias has laid before us the grounds on which the Petitioners have raised serious objection to “Acqua Eden”. 7. For the sake of convenience, we would initially refer to the pleadings in the Petition filed by Goa Bachao Abhiyan, as Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias has laid before us the grounds on which the Petitioners have raised serious objection to “Acqua Eden”. 7. The project proposes a sanctioned built-up area of approximately 85,886.06 sq.m. and involves a high-density development comprising multiple villas, 685 private swimming pools, and parking provisions for over 800 vehicles. For highlighting the magnitude of the project, he would rely upon the brochure of the project downloaded from the website of bhutanigroup.com/acquaeden. The Petition highlights the following facts :- (a) Following the acquisition, the Developer made an application to the MPDA on 21/11/2023 seeking Development Permission, which was followed by two revised proposals dated 15/12/2023 and 08/01/2024. Despite various technical, legal and environmental shortcomings detailed therein, the MPDA granted Development Permission on 02/02/2024 vide Order No.MPDA/7-P-165/2023-24/1254 for construction of Multi- Family Dwelling Villas and Swimming Pools under a questionable C1 Zone classification, purportedly as per the Outline Development Plan (ODP) 2030. (b) The project has a proposed built-up area of 85,886.06 sq. meters and is situated on hilly terrain with contours indicating slopes exceeding 25%, as substantiated from the Survey Plan of India and as analysed by the expert appointed by the Petitioners. Further, the contour plan submitted by the respondent No.5 for approval also clearly depicts that the land legally qualifies as “No Development Slope” under Regulation 4.10(e) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations (GLDBCR) 2010. This should have triggered an immediate bar on any development in the NDS. Furthermore any balance portion of the land with slopes between 10% and 25% required mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Town & Country Planning Act, however, the MPDA granted the Development Permission without the same. In fact, the application for permission under Section 17-A was already under scrutiny since 28/11/2023, and contour data submitted to the MPDA clearly established that the site had a majority of its land with gradient of 25% and above. (c) The project proponents manipulated technical drawings and made misrepresentations in the data submitted. Upon queries raised by the Chief Town Planner, the contour and section drawings were conveniently revised (from Section-1 to Section 1-1),with altered dimensions and scale references, instead of providing clarifications on the earlier submission. (c) The project proponents manipulated technical drawings and made misrepresentations in the data submitted. Upon queries raised by the Chief Town Planner, the contour and section drawings were conveniently revised (from Section-1 to Section 1-1),with altered dimensions and scale references, instead of providing clarifications on the earlier submission. The resulting sections approved for the Development Permission do not accurately relect the site’s natural topography. (d) No Environmental Clearance (EC) has been obtained or integrated with the Development Permission, which is a statutory pre-condition for the issuance of any construction license as per Notification of 9 th December 2016, as the built- up area being in excess of 20,000 sq.m. requires prior Environmental Clearance (EC) under the EIA Notification, 2006, Clause 14(12). The project does not comply with environmental conditions such as preparation of an Environment management Plan (EMP), ensuring compliance with the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC), safeguarding natural topography-all of which have been grossly violated. (e) The Development Permission has also overlooked several safety and infrastructure regulations which go against the Regulations 2010, such as mandatory widths of access roads, internal road slopes as per, Regulation 5(f) read with 12.6(d), which compromise vehicular movement, incompetent evaluation of Road drainage layout, emergency response times and violate ire safety norms. It is pertinent to note that No- Objection Certificate from the Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services has not been obtained, despite its requirement for all high-rise developments. (f) The project has been sanctioned under the C1 zone category, which, as per Regulation 6.A.4 (Notes-1), is only permissible within Central Business District (CBD) limits of designated municipalties like Panaji, Margao, Mapusa, Mormugao, and Ponda. Sancoale is a Village Panchayat, and therefore classification under C1 is ultra vires and without jurisdiction. C1 zoning permits high-density development and assumes the presence of robust infrastructure, which is absent in Sancoale. (g) The Village Panchayat of Sancoale issued the Construction License on 11/03/2024, based on the lawed Development Permission and without assessing or integrating the mandatory conditions. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.4 has not even applied its mind to the said project from the infrastructure point of view as to whether the village of Sancoale is equipped with the infrastructure facilities such as available road, water supply, electricity power etc. for such Group housing projects. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.4 has not even applied its mind to the said project from the infrastructure point of view as to whether the village of Sancoale is equipped with the infrastructure facilities such as available road, water supply, electricity power etc. for such Group housing projects. 8. Apart from the above, serious doubt is also raised by the Petitioners about the permission granted by the MPDA for filling of the hilly/sloping land of Survey No.257/1 and it is contended that the contour plan submitted by the project proponent, though refer to the average slope of the property, as approximately 23%, however gradient appears to be beyond the permissible limit at loco, on northern side of the property and a detailed reference is made to the file noting of the TCP Department and based on the same it is urged that as per site condition, the gradient of the property appears to be beyond the permissible limit. Reliance is also placed upon the guidelines issued by the TCP Department for grant of permission for cutting of hilly land and this necessarily involve inspection of the contour plans with an interval of 1m longitudiness and cross section, explaining the scope of the road, retaining walls etc. Reliance is placed upon the guidelines dated 06/09/2023, which necessarily are to be followed while granting permission under Section 17A, however, it is alleged that there is a abject failure to adhere to the guidelines is the specific submission. It is also specifically urged that the project blatantly violate the mandatory access requirement under the Regulations of 2010 and the project is reliterant with the steep slopes and Regulation 4.10 forbids any development on slopes and the survey number being classified as ‘no development slope’, it was not permissible to permit the construction activity. Mr.Frias would place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vanashakti Vs. Mr.Frias would place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vanashakti Vs. Union of India , [ 2025 INSC 718 ] , with emphasis being laid on securing environmental clearance for the project particularly, by relying upon the Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 14/09/2006, which according to him has clearly contemplated that a building and construction project with more than 20000 sq.meters and less that 150000 sq.meters of built up area, necessarily require prior environmental clearance and as the Apex Court has clearly restrained the Central Government from issuing any Circulars/OMs, providing for grant of ex-post facto EC in any form or manner or regularising the acts done is contravention of the EIA Notification, it is his submission that the said aspect has been completely ignored by the Town Planning Department as well as the MPDA. 9. In the second PIL Writ Petition filed by five individuals, the grounds raised in permitting the project conceptualized by Respondent No.1 more or less are based on same lines as what has been raised by Goa Bachao Abhiyan in its PIL Writ Petition. With a special emphasis being laid upon the objections raised on issue of construction license in its favour, by the Petitioners and residents of the village Sancoale, as time and again objections were raised that before the construction activity commence, an NOC from PWD Water Department, Goa Pollution Control Board as well as the clearance from the Central Government, including the Environment and Forest Department ought to be in place. It is also urged that on 16/04/2024, a complaint was filed with the TCP Department as well as MPDA and the village panchayat for revoking the development permissions issued for construction of Multi- Family Dwelling Villas, as the property is stated to be zoned as ‘C-1’ zone in ODP 2030. It was also urged that since the property cannot be zoned as ‘C-1’ zone, as it do not come under municipal limits, and hence, the development permission is in contravention of the Building Regulations. It was also urged that since the property cannot be zoned as ‘C-1’ zone, as it do not come under municipal limits, and hence, the development permission is in contravention of the Building Regulations. As per Regulations of 2010, the property sought to be developed as Commercial (C-1) zone would require minimum access of 10 meters as per Regulation 6A and there is no continuous and uniform access of 10 meters width made available to the property on site and the available access is hardly around 6 meters is also the grievance. A request was, therefore, made to conduct site inspection to determine the width of the access as the factual aspect has been misreported. Apart from this, the point that the subject property constitutes no-development slopes (NDS) having a steep gradient far exceeding 1:10 with the forest cover is also specifically raised as a ground by amending the Petition. By way of amendment, it is alleged that there are no contour plans before the MPDA and no efforts or action is taken by it to verify the steep gradient inspite of repeated complaints by the Petitioners and it is also urged that since the subject property constitutes no-development slopes with natural forest cover, no development is permissible on such land. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Almeida has also vehemently urged before us that the sanad granted for change of use of land by the office of the Collector in favour of Parmesh Construction Company issued on 08/11/2023, refer to the environmental clearance granted on 08/12/2009 for the project, but according to him, the EC has lapsed and the conversion based on this EC cannot be supported. Another objection raised is, if the MPDA had noted that some part of the property having slope more than 25% and had addressed a communication to the Project Architect seeking a clarification, a sudden U turn is taken by now stating that the slope is below 20%, but according to the Architect appointed by the Petitioners, it is more than 75%. He would also submit that the MPDA had issued a show cause notice to M/s Parmesh Constructions about requirement of the development permission granted on 02/02/2024, but no action is taken pursuant to the said show case notice. 11. He would also submit that the MPDA had issued a show cause notice to M/s Parmesh Constructions about requirement of the development permission granted on 02/02/2024, but no action is taken pursuant to the said show case notice. 11. Mormugao Planning Authority is represented by Mr.Nikhil Pai and he has tendered before us File No. 7-P-165 (Part) pertaining to the permission granted under Section 17A of the TCP ACT on Sy.No.257/1 of Sancoale village and he would rely upon the file notings, which has analyzed the slope from top to bottom at various sections, which was found to be less than 25% and he would submit that the north west area about 50 m X 30 m, which is about 1500 meters,, where the slope is more than 25% is counted as not feasible area and it is kept open without any structure. According to him, upon the project proponent submitting the necessary documents, including the Zoning Certificate, Survey Plan, Conversion Sanad, Longitudinal Section/Contour Plan as well as the Structural Liability Certificate, the proposal was submitted to the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) for approval and directions for issuance of NOC for hill cutting and filling under Section17A. He would also refer to the NOC issued by the MPDA on06/03/2025, which is accorded strictly in terms of the plan of cutting/filling enclosed with the approval, by stipulating a condition that cutting/filling of land shall not lead to any environmental issue, with a specific clarification as below :- “This NOC shall be read alongwith plans annexed herewith. The Application is processed by this authority on the basis of the order issued by the Chief Town Planning (Land Use) vide REF No.21/13/17-A GEN/TCP/2022/133 dated 06/09/2023”. According to Mr.Pai, the physical inspection was carried out and it is only pursuant thereto, the slopes were measured. The Application is processed by this authority on the basis of the order issued by the Chief Town Planning (Land Use) vide REF No.21/13/17-A GEN/TCP/2022/133 dated 06/09/2023”. According to Mr.Pai, the physical inspection was carried out and it is only pursuant thereto, the slopes were measured. He would place reliance upon the affidavit filed by Mr.Sanjay Halornekar, Member Secretary and Authorised Representative of MPDA in Writ Petition No.2020 of 2025, where it is clarified that by letter dated 05/01/2024, the project proponent was directed to comply with directives of CTP (Land Use) to process the application and pursuant thereto, there was a compliance reported and thereafter, on 29/04/2025, the deponent of the affidavit alongwith Architectural Assistant and Technical and Planning Draftsman inspected the property and recorded their observations and forwarded the file to the office of CTP (Land Use) for decision on the application under Section 17-A. The affidavit contain the following specific statement :- “I state that the Afiant, alongwith other officials of the Respondent, had thoroughly checked the said property and contour plans to verify the gradient of the said Property. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure R-5, is a copy of the Noting Sheet bearing page No.N/5 to N/6 of the said File.” However, when the CTP returned the file with observations, directing the project proponent to re-submit the proposal, this was conveyed and compliance was sought. It is only upon re-submission of the contour and section plan by the project proponent on 26/05/2005, the same was examined and the slope analysis was carried out as the property was already inspected by the MPDA and no fresh inspection was necessary as the contour plan submitted on 12/01/2024 and the plan submitted on 26/05/2025 by the project proponent were same. Upon the detailed slope analysis being carried out, the report was forwarded to the CTP to approve the application and to grant NOC to the project proponent. The affidavit is enclosed with the necessary noting to which we would make reference in due course of our discussion. 12. Learned Advocate General Mr. Upon the detailed slope analysis being carried out, the report was forwarded to the CTP to approve the application and to grant NOC to the project proponent. The affidavit is enclosed with the necessary noting to which we would make reference in due course of our discussion. 12. Learned Advocate General Mr. Devidas Pangam referred to us the noting in the file of the MPDA, as he would submit that the Chief Town Planner, while considering the application for permission filed under Section 17A, inspected the site and noticed that there was a steep slope from south to north direction and the contour plan submitted by the applicant could not be verified as scale of drawing was not mentioned, but since the gradient appeared to be beyond permissible limit at loco on the northern side, the file was sent to the TCP, who send it back to the Planning Authority. He has also taken us through the contents of the Note of the MPDA under the signature of the Architectural Assistant, Member Secretary and the Chief Town Planner (Land Use). With reference to the said Note, since it was noted that the gradient of the slope was more than 25%, only upon exclusion of the area where the slope was more than 25%, it is pointed that upon a joint inspection being carried out on 05/08/2025, and upon detailed analysis of the contour plan being resubmitted third time by the project proponent, an inference was drawn that the permission granted under Section 17A is in order and this Note is found to be appended as Annexure R-11 to the affidavit of Respondent No.3. It is the submission of Mr.Pangam that whenever a doubt was expressed about the gradient of the land being more than the permissible limit, the exercise of measuring the slope was undertaken, both, by visiting the site at loco and by carrying out inspection and carrying out an analysis of contour plan and it is only thereafter, permission of hill cutting is approved. 13. Learned senior counsel Mr.Nadkarni representing the project proponent has called in question the locus of the Petitioners in PIL WP (F) No.1884 of 2024 and by inviting our attention to the reliefs sought therein, he would strongly object to the prayers of quashing and setting aside the technical clearance/construction license/conversion sanad. 13. Learned senior counsel Mr.Nadkarni representing the project proponent has called in question the locus of the Petitioners in PIL WP (F) No.1884 of 2024 and by inviting our attention to the reliefs sought therein, he would strongly object to the prayers of quashing and setting aside the technical clearance/construction license/conversion sanad. By inviting our attention to the pleadings in the said Petition, and in particular paragraphs 20 and 21, where it is pleaded that the suit property cannot be zoned as commercial (C-1) zone, as it do not come under municipal limits and, therefore, the attempt to develop the property as Commercial (C-1) zone cannot be allowed, it is the submission of Mr.Nadkarni that the property is categorised in C-1 zone since 2009 i.e. prior to coming into force the Regulations of 2010 and the zoning was never challenged by the Petitioners either in ODP 2011 or ODP 2026 or ODP 2030, by taking recourse to Section 38 of the Act and as on date, if a challenge is raised by filing a petition, it would be time barred. It is urged by the learned senior counsel that the zoning of the said property is consistently C-1 and the same is allotted after compliance of scrupulous procedure laid down in Chapter VI of the Act of 2008, which includes preparation of draft plan by Planning and Development Authority as well as the Experts, approval of the draft by the Government, public notice of the draft plan calling for objections, consideration of the objections by the authority and the final approval of the Government. Apart from this, he would also submit that the zoning of the neighbouring property of the subject plot is also C-1, since ODP 2011 is in force. As regards the contention that C-1 zone is allegedly limited to Central Business Districts of municipal limits in terms of Regulation 6A.4, it is submitted that the Regulations came into force w.e.f. 09/09/2010 while the ODP 2011 was notified on 05/02/2009, wherein the subject property was zoned as C-1 and the Regulations only having prospective effects, it was never intended to defeat the finally notified development plans and vested rights created thereunder. He would thus submit that as per the provisions of the Development Regulations the permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the said property since 05/02/2009 has been 200. 14. He would thus submit that as per the provisions of the Development Regulations the permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the said property since 05/02/2009 has been 200. 14. With regard to the contention raised of an access of 10 meters not being available for the subject plot, he would categorically submit that the property has 10 meters wide access from Survey No.258/1 which culminates in a 12mX12m cul-de-sac approximately 23 meters prior to the said property. He would submit that the 10 meters road from survey No.258/1 was duly approved by the TCP on 09/01/1997 and the village panchayat in terms of Regulation 12.1(g), has deemed it to be a public road. In terms of Regulations 6A.4 (Note 60), it is the submission of Mr.Nadkarni that illegal constructions and encroachments are not to be considered as reducing the width of the road and a lesser width is permissible for a Multi-Dwelling project, as long as the same does exceed the length more than 75 meters. Bringing our attention to the contradictory pleadings as regards the width of road, where at times it is contended that width of the road is 6 meters, but in rejoinder it is averred that it is 2-3 meters, it is the submission of Mr.Nadkarni that the allegations are merely based on conjectures and surmises. 15. Dealing with the challenge to the conversion sanad, it is his specific contention that in terms of Section 188 of the GOA LAND REVENUE CODE , the Petitioner has remedy of challenging the conversion sanad byf iling an appeal, but no such attempt has been made and, therefore, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction while an alternate and efficacious remedy being available, may entertain the grievance. As regards merits, it is the contention of Mr.Nadkarni that the conversion sanad itself record that there exists a structure with plinth area 2.80 m2 in the plot sought for conversion and when inspection of the area under Survey No.257/1 is carried out, it is noted that there exists a house with plinth area admeasuring 100.00 sq. meters, however, the said house area is already converted and the applicant possesses the conversion sanad for the same and, therefore, the proposed conversion deserve to be recommended. meters, however, the said house area is already converted and the applicant possesses the conversion sanad for the same and, therefore, the proposed conversion deserve to be recommended. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel that the erstwhile owner has secured conversion sanad for the property as early as on 20/07/2007 purely for residential purpose, as the Land Use clause recorded that the applicant shall not use the land and building erected or to be erected for any purpose other than residential purpose and it also prescribed a time-line of one year to commence the construction of the plot in form of a building of substantial and permanent description, and according to him, the present sanad refer to such construction. Since the applicant was desirous of changing the use of the land to commercial purpose, according to Mr.Nadkarni, it applied under Section 32 and the conversion sanad was granted on 08/11/2023 after payment of requisite fees. As far as the contention of using a lapsed environmental clearance to secure the conversion sanad, it is urged that the same was only a supporting document and it is his specific stand that there is no requirement of environment clearance for conversion sanad. As far as obtaining of environment clearance is concerned, relying upon the affidavit filed, Mr.Nadkarni, makes a statement that M/s Parmesh Constructions shall not commence any construction, without obtaining EC and it is his further submission that this Court as well as NGT has held that construction upto 20000 sq.meters can commence prior to EC on the basis of the undertaking not crossing 22000 sq.meters and the Respondent has taken a conscious decision to commence the construction activity only after securing EC and undertake to abide by the terms and conditions therein. 16. Mr.Nadkarni has also contested the Petition filed by ‘Goa Bachao Abhiyan’ and also raised an objection to the application for intervention by submitting that they lack the locus to challenge, as they are not even the residents of the concerned village and the application for intervention is filed just at eleventh hour, which is indicative of the fact that the intervenors are the persons acting in collusion. 17. 17. On hearing the respective counsel representing the parties, we shall deal with the preliminary objection raised by the project proponent as regards the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation and not availing the alternative and efficacious remedy in form of an appeal available to the Petitioners in raising a challenge to the development permission/construction license as well as the conversion sanad. In light of the objections raised by the PIL Petitioners, when we perused the pleadings in the Petitions, which are filed in form of public interest litigation, we ind the locus in the Petitioners and we are not at all impressed by the submission of Mr.Nadkarni about credentials of some of the Petitioners in PIL WP (F) No.1884 of 2024, as we are of the view that the Petitioners in the said Petition are residents of Sancoale and they are justified in raising the grievance as regards the alleged permissions secured illegally by the project proponent and have expressed concern for the most relevant factors, namely, environment, water, biodiversity etc. Time and again, it is noted that the objections were raised by the individual Petitioners about issuance of construction license and the development permissions governing the project and cognizance thereof was also taken, when the Director of Panchayat Panaji issued directions to the Block Development Officer, Mormugao to examine the material in the complaint and submit a detailed comprehensive report within stipulated time-line. The Block Development Officer referred to the objections raised, sought necessary instructions from the Secretary, village panchayat Sancoale and sought a compliance report. The entire correspondence, including the complaints annexed with the Petition is sufficient to establish that the complaints were looked into, though a conclusion was arrived that the MPDA had already granted necessary permission and there was no justification in denying the construction license. Time and again, the necessary documents were sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and those documents form part of the proceedings. Time and again, the necessary documents were sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and those documents form part of the proceedings. As far as the second PIL Writ Petition filed by Goa Bachao Abhiyan is concerned, when we have examined the credentials of the Petitioner, an NGO and its past commitment towards the cause of environment, we are of the view that it is not some ‘ly-by-night operator’ and its claim of the proposed project impacting the environment cannot be outrightly rejected and, since, it is brought before us through the PIL Writ Petition, we feel bound to examine the grievance and reject the preliminary objection raised about the locus of the Petitioners to institute the two PIL Writ Petitions. Merely because there are some criminal proceedings pending against one of the Petitioners, is also not a ground for not entertaining the cause, which is brought before us, which is of grave consequence for the residents of the village as well as citizens of the State and we ind this cause being espoused through the PIL Writ Petitions. As far as the second objection about not taking recourse to the remedy available under Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and GOA LAND REVENUE CODE , 1968, as the orders granting permission are appealable and the Petitioner permitting limitation to expire as they approached this Court by filing a writ petition despite the fact that the permissions are granted as early as in March 2024, we also ind that this objection shall not also limit us from examining the merits of the matter, as in an issue relating to environment and that too being espoused by public spirited citizens and an NGO, we do not think that the permissions granted ought to have been challenged as the appeals are permitted to be filed by the individual persons aggrieved by the said decision and, therefore, we reject the said objection. 18. Coming to the merits of the matter, from the pleadings placed before us, we take a note that M/s Parmesh Construction is the sole lawful owner in exclusive possession of the property admeasuring 35050 sq.meters, situated at Survey No.257/1 Sancoale village and it has acquired the same from ANS Construction Private Ltd. by a registered Sale Deed dated 14/07/2023 for valuable consideration. The sale has been duly registered with the Sub-Registrar bearing Registration No.MOR-1-1294-2023 dated 17/07/2023. The sale has been duly registered with the Sub-Registrar bearing Registration No.MOR-1-1294-2023 dated 17/07/2023. The predecessor of M/s Parmesh provided the zoning and land use information about the property and even as per the MPDA/zoning information, the property is classified under ‘C-1’ zone as per the ODP for Vasco Da Gama Planning Area-2030. It is also brought to our notice that the zoning classification of the property was always ‘C-1’ and it was so notified in ODP 2011 as it was so depicted in the ODP Vasco Da Gama Planning Area 2011. It is worth to note that the Outline Development Plan prepared in terms of the TCP ACT , 1974 is expected to follow an exhaustive process, where the draft is prepared by the concerned Planning and Development Authority (“PDA”)with the help of Experts and, thereafter, on obtaining the consent of the Government, objections from public at large are called for and upon the receipt of the objections, the draft plan alongwith objections is forwarded to the Committee constituted under Section 35(3) of the Act and the Committee, after affording opportunity of appearing to the persons, who filed objections, make a report, which is forwarded to the concerned PDA. The authority, after considering the report and after making alterations, if any, forward the draft plan for approval of the Government and upon the approval being conferred, a Notification is published, declaring the date on which the Outline Development Plan shall come into force. A statutory appeal is provided before the District Court having appropriate jurisdiction to challenge the ODP or any of its part within a period of one month. 19. We have examined, whether this procedure was followed by the PDA, when it published ODP 2011 as well as ODP 2030, where the subject property is declared as ‘C-1’. Since there is no denial by the Petitioners that the subject property was classified as ‘Commercial-1’ and, since, it is so indicated in the ODP of 2011 for Vasco Da Gama Planning Area and which is maintained in ODP 2030, it is confirmed that the property was and is classified as C-1 and the relevant documents to that effect are placed on record alongwith the affidavit filed by Mr.Pangam in PIL Writ Petition No.1884 of 2024 and,since, no challenge is raised to this zoning, we proceed on a assumption that the property is classified as Commercial ‘C-1’ 20. Upon the project proponent conceptualizing the project of development of multifamily dwellings and villas, it initiated the process of securing necessary permissions and approvals required and secured the following permissions :- (a) Development Permission dated 02/02/2024, granted by Respondent No.4, in response to an application filed on 16/11/2023 (including subsequent revisions as requested by Respondent No.4); (b) Construction Licence dated 11/03/2024, issued by the Respondent No.5; (c) Registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 dated 22/03/2024, granted by the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority; (d)Environment Clearance (currently in the data collection stage as per the EIA Notification, 2006); (e)Permission for Cutting of Land under Section 17A of the TCP ACT (application filed on 28/11/2023, before Respondent No.4); (f)PWD Permission for Water Connection for the Property (application submitted on 12.04.2024); (g)Conversion Sanad bearing No.CAD/MOR09-23-185/317 dated08/11/2023. 21. The challenge raised to all the aforesaid permissions in both the Public Interest Litigations, are more or less identical. The procedure that has been followed, preceding the grant of development permission is to be found in the reply affidavit of project proponent as well as the MPDA. In terms of the Government Order dated 17/08/2023 issued under Section 132 of GOA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT , all permissions for approval of Sub-Division of land under Section 44 of the Act for the properties having total area 25000 sq.m 2 and above is required to be dealt with and cleared by the Member Secretary/Town Planning Officer of the PDA, by obtaining necessary Government approval. In furtherance of these directions, the Goa Town Country Planning Board constituted under the Act of 1974 in its 190 th meeting held on 21/09/2023 decided to forward the proposal to the Chief Town Planner (Planning) to be placed before the Board to consider and decide on the same and for forwarding its recommendation before submitting it to the Government. Pursuant thereto, a Committee consisting of the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) alongwith four other members was constituted for carrying out scrutiny, verification and examination of the proposal by an order dated 08/11/2023. Pursuant thereto, a Committee consisting of the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) alongwith four other members was constituted for carrying out scrutiny, verification and examination of the proposal by an order dated 08/11/2023. In the same meeting of the Committee held on 12/01/2024, the decision of the Committee was placed for consideration and with regards the proposal, in form of an application from M/s Parmesh Constructions to issue development permission, it was noted that the area for the project is earmarked as Commercial C-1 and the MPDA had granted earlier development permission for construction of Multi Family Dwelling to M/s Mtech Developers c/o ANS Construction Ltd. on 08/10/2007, in property under reference which was zoned as S-2 zone with 80% FAR, but no development was carried on, as a result, the permission had lapsed. Since the Owner, M/s Parmesh Construction submitted a fresh plan with permissible FAR under C1 zone with respect to the area of plot 35,050.00m2, with the details of the project, including Floor Area Consumed, Open Space etc and the project comprising Villas/Apartments, total 657 in number, the MPDA recorded its comments to the following effect :- (a) Environment Clearance submitted is for Group Housing dated 08/12/2009 issued to M/s Mtech Developers Ltd., hence fresh Environment clearance is required to be submitted in the name of applicant. (b) Access to the property is shown as 7.00 mtrs wide road, however as per Regulation 64A for Commercial (C-1) zone, the minimum width of road required is 10.00 mtrs. (c) As per the Regulations, at least 20% of number of units shall comply with the space standards and facilities as per the harmonized guidelines and space standards for Barrier Force Built Environment for Persons with Disability and Elderly Person. However, the applicant has stated in his letter dated 08/01/2024, that only 16 Nos. Apartment with an area of 3950.56 sq. mtrs (8.20%) of total floor area confirms to norms of Persons with Disabilities, Rest are Studio Apartments and hence sizes are smaller. As per Regulations does not comply to number of units required for compliance.” 22. The Committee, which was constituted for examination of proposal, recorded its decision as below :- “Members went through the details of the proposal along with earlier permission granted by the Mormugao Planning and Development Authority. As per Regulations does not comply to number of units required for compliance.” 22. The Committee, which was constituted for examination of proposal, recorded its decision as below :- “Members went through the details of the proposal along with earlier permission granted by the Mormugao Planning and Development Authority. It was noted by the Committee that Development Permission granted in property bearing Sy.No.257/1 of Sancoale village is lapsed. The fresh proposal submitted by the new project proponent has revised the proposal based on C1 zone with apartment and villa block scheme. The Committee found that proposal is within applicable regulation of FAR, Coverage and setback. Parking area are provided within apartment block and villas. Open space requirement is met. As regards to road width, the Committee noted that property under reference is about 90 mts. away from centre line of main Panaji-Vasco road. Proposed road width as per ODP is 30.00 mts. 10.00 mts. wide road is available till 20.00 mts. from centre line of road. The balance area is having approximately 70.00 mts. width for a distance of about7.00 mts. Committee felt that relaxation of road width is to be decided by TCP Board in view of past approval etc. The Committee therefore recommended the proposal to the TCP Board.” 23. This was followed by a meeting of the Planning Board held on 18/01/2024, wherein the proposal of M/s Parmesh Constructions Company upon due deliberation was found to be in conformity with the Regulation in force and upon due deliberation on the proposal and considering the findings of the MPDA, the proposal was forwarded to the government for approval and the development permission was accorded on 02/02/2024, by stipulating that the construction to be carried out shall be strictly as per the provisions of Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulation, 2010. It is thus evidently clear that the requisite procedure for grant of development permission was strictly adhered to and the respondent no.4 has also categorically admitted that the proposal dated 21/11/2023 was placed in the board meeting and upon due deliberations when it was forwarded to the government for approval, it was approved by the government. It is worth to note that the development permission itself includes the condition of securing clearance/permission from the MOEF as well as securing the permission for hill cutting. 24. It is worth to note that the development permission itself includes the condition of securing clearance/permission from the MOEF as well as securing the permission for hill cutting. 24. Coming to the objections as regards the zoning of the property as C-1, since the zoning of the subject property was consistently C-1, and it is found that the zoning of the neighbouring properties in the ODP 2011 is also C-1, the grievance of the petitioners about zoning do not deserve any consideration. However the contention as regards C-1 Zone being limited to central business districts of Municipal limits in terms of Regulation 6A.4, we ind that the Regulations of 2010 framed under the Act of 2008 came into effect on 09/09/2010 and ODP 2011 was notified on 05/02/2009, which had reflected the subject property as ‘C-1’ and since the Regulations have been given a prospective effect, it did not impact the zoning in ODP 2011, which has notified on 05/02/2009. In any case, we ind a statement in the affidavit of the project proponent that though C-1 zone permit floor area ratio of 200, it has only utilized FAR 159.24% against the permissible usage of 200%. 25. On appreciating the various provisions of the Act of 2008, and on perusal of its scheme, it is to be noted that the Regulations framed under the Act has clearly defined the terms ‘plan’, ‘zone’ and zoning plan’ and clause 6A.4 reads to the following effect with the note appended thereto. “6A.4. Regulations applicable to various zones. The minimum width of access, the permissible coverage, F.A.R., and the maximum height, shall be regulated by the standards given in the Table-VIII below:- ZONE Min. width of road Max. perm Cover age Max. perm. F.A.R. Min. front setback Max. perm. height C-4 8.00 m 40% 80 5.00 m 9.00 m C-3 8.00 m 40% 100 5.00 m 15.00 m C-2 8.00 m 40% 150 5.00 m 20.50 m C-1* 10.00 m 40% 200 5.00 m 24.00 m CS 10.00 m 40% 250 10.00 m 28.00 m (Special Commercial) 10.00 m 40% 300 10.00 m 32.00 Notes: (1) C-1* zones shall be restricted to Central Business District (CBD) areas of Municipal Council/Corporation areas of Panaji, Margao, Mormugao, Mapusa and Ponda only. ODP’s shall demarcate such areas in the plans.” The aforesaid clearly indicate that it is prospective in operation and zoning which is already done cannot be undone. Further, since we ind that there is no challenge to the zoning of the subject property as C-1 in either of the petition we need not further deliberate on the said issue. 26. Now coming to the contention of grant of conversion sanad, it is to be noted that the predecessor of the project proponent had secured a conversion sanad on 20/07/2007 for Survey No.257/1 admeasuring 35050 sq meters for residential use and this included the timeline for commencement of construction on the plot with a stipulation that if there is a failure to commence the construction, the permission granted shall be deemed to have lapsed. When Parmesh Constructions secured conversion sanad for conversion from residential to commercial purpose and sought change of use of land by conversion sanad, by referring to the sanad dated 20/07/2007, which makes reference to the report of Mamlatdar of Mormugao which on factual verification declared that the plot sought for conversion is accessible by by 6.00 meter wide road and there are no tenant or mundakars on the land proposed for conversion and it is not a Communidade/Aframento. The Mamlatdar on factual assessment categorically stated thus:-“There exists structure with plinth area 2.80 m2 in the plot sought for conversion. There exists house with plinth area admeasuring 100.00 sq. meters however the said house area is already converted and applicant possesses conversion sanad for the same” and therefore the proposed conversion was recommended. Reading of the two sanads, the first one for residential purpose and the second for conversion from residential to commercial use of the property, a conjoin reading of the two documents, will indicate that the construction was already done in furtherance of the stipulation in the first sanad of 2007 and when the project proponent wanted to convert it for commercial use, application was preferred under Section 32 of the LAND REVENUE CODE , and the permission was accordingly granted. After following the procedural formalities and on deposit of a hefty sum of Rs. 4,62,66,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixty Two Lakh Sixty Six Thousand only), the subject land was permitted to be used for commercial exploitation with FAR 200, by the Additional Collector, South Goa District, Mormugao. After following the procedural formalities and on deposit of a hefty sum of Rs. 4,62,66,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixty Two Lakh Sixty Six Thousand only), the subject land was permitted to be used for commercial exploitation with FAR 200, by the Additional Collector, South Goa District, Mormugao. The submission that the sanad is invalid because the EC has lapsed, is also not worth consideration as the grant of sanad under the GOA LAND REVENUE CODE , is not dependent upon the grant of Environmental Clearance. 27. At this juncture, however, we must note that the project proponent has categorically made a solemn statement on its affidavit that steps are being taken to secure Environmental Clearance and it has engaged Aditya Environmental Services Private Limited to secure the clearance under EIA Notification of 2006, but due to persistent rainfall in the State of Goa, which has hindered soil testing and tree surveys, there is a delay. A categorical statement is made on oath in paragraph 49 of the affidavit which reads thus:- “Respondent No. 1 is fully committed to securing all necessary environmental clearances before commencing any construction work at the project site, demonstrating its dedication to environmental protection. Contrary to the allegations, Respondent No. 1 has not damaged or destroyed any natural green cover and has rather consistently shown a commitment for preserving and enhancing the environment, as evidenced by its past projects where it has planted numerous trees.” Since Mr. Nadkarni, has reiterated the assurance before us that the actual work on the site shall not commence, without securing necessary environmental clearance, we accept the said undertaking as an undertaking given to the Court. 28. Coming to the issue about the subject property being notified as private forest, we must note that the subject property was never notified as private forest and in fact the review committee did not classify it as a private forest and this decision is not a subject matter to challenge and since it is also submitted before us by the learned Advocate General that the subject property is not a forest, we do not deliberate much upon the said aspect and proceed ahead. 29. 29. The most crucial issue now which falls for our consideration is whether the property is a ‘No Development Slope’ as it is the contention of the learned Advocate General for MPDA as well as the project proponent that the property was never demarcated as a ‘No Development Slope’ and rather had a classification of C-1 for almost more than 20 years and in absence of any specific pleadings describing the gradient of the property, it is urged before us that the submissions are based on the conjectures and surmises. 30. Though Mr. Frias has relied upon the explanatory memorandum issued by the Deputy Town Planner on 29/01/2010, on Section 17-A of the TCP ACT , 1974, the learned Advocate General would submit before us that the said methodology is now superseded and there are no cross- sections in the new guidelines which are issued in the year 2023, and placed before us by the learned Advocate General. It is to be noted that the project proponent made an application for hill cutting and through the noting placed before us, we had taken note of the manner in which the application was processed and the steps taken are specifically brought to our notice by the learned Advocate General, who would rely upon the Note to be found placed in the file produced before us by the MPDA. The Note N/1 is with reference to the application dated28/11/2023, received from M/s Parmesh Constructions requesting to issue permission under Section 17-A of TCP ACT , 1974 in respect of the subject property falling under commercial (C-1) zone with an accessibility of 7.00 meters wide existing road was placed for consideration. 31. We reproduce the relevant Notings below :- (A)N/1:- “The site has been inspected by the undersigned along with the Member Secretary and it is seen that the property is having steep slope from South to North direction. The contour plan submitted by the Applicant cannot be verified as scale of the drawing is not mentioned, as per the contour plan submitted by the Applicant, it is noticed that the average slope of the property under reference is approximately 23 %, however, the gradient appears to be beyond the permissible limit at loco at the Northern side of the property under reference. Cross Sections of road and details of retaining wall has not been submitted, which are mandatory in terms of maintaining stability of land in terms of proposed villas/ structures which shall be constructed upon issue of Development Permission. Section 1-1 through proposed Villa Nos. namely; 23, 17, 11 and Building, have been submitted, however, contour details are given and land cutting height is not readable, hence, same cannot be verified. The Applicant has submitted the following documents: 1. Deed of Sale dated 14/7/2023 – C/2 to C/46. 2. Zoning Certificate C/63. 3. Survey Plan C/64. 4. Conversion Sanad vide Ref. No. CAD/MOR09-23/185/317 dated08/11/2023- C/52 to 62. 5. Longitudinal Section/ Contour plan C C/48 to C/50. 6. Photographs of site C/42 to C/46. The Applicant has not submitted drains showing existing natural/ artificial drain pattern with details. The Applicant has also not shown the alternate drainage pattern with special reference to the linkage to the existing drainage system. The length and breadth with volumes of storm water for drainage shall also be indicated. Structural Liability Certificate to ascertain the Structural Stability of the proposed retaining wall and foundation of the construction of slopes having slope between 10% to 5% to be submitted. The proposal is hereby submitted by the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) for approval and directions, if any, for issue of NOC for hill cutting and filling of land in property bearing Sy. No. 257/1 of Sancoale Village, Mormugao Taluka, Goa u/s 17/A of the TCP ACT .” (B) N/3, under the signature of Deputy Town Planner then record thus:- “As per the contour plan submitted at page C/50, the slope of the land cannot be ascertained as the Scale of the drawing has not been mentioned however assuming the scale of the drawing to be 1:500 based on the dimensions mentioned on the drawing the overall slope of the land along section 1 is approximately 25.4%. It is further informed by the Mormuago Planning Development Authority on prepage N/1 that as per the site conditions the gradient appears to be beyond permissible limits towards the northern side of the property. As per the digital elevation models obtained from Survey of India the slope of the party property is beyond permissible limits for development. It is further informed by the Mormuago Planning Development Authority on prepage N/1 that as per the site conditions the gradient appears to be beyond permissible limits towards the northern side of the property. As per the digital elevation models obtained from Survey of India the slope of the party property is beyond permissible limits for development. Further, it has also been informed that, the applicant have not submitted the required documents as prescribed in the 17-A guidelines.” (C) N/5:- Pursuant to the compliance by Project Proponent then record as below:- “As per the contour plan submitted, the slope of land has been mentioned, based on the dimensions mentioned on the drawings, the overall slope of the land along Section is approximately 23.15%as per the plan enclosed at C/72 to C/74. As per the site inspection carried out by the officials of Mormugao Planning & Development Authority, the gradient appears to be within permissible limits towards the Northern side of the property. Provision for rain water harvesting has been made and shown in the layout plan.” (D) N/7 “As per the contour plan submitted most of the property is bearing a slope of more than 25% as such the recommendation made by the MPDA for cutting & filling required for foundation is not in compliance with the guidelines. In view of the above the proposal needs to be re-submitted adhering to the regulations in force. This has reference to noting at ‘A’ above which sought clarification from the applicant as regards to the discrepancy with the slope analysis 21/06/2025” 32. Note N/9, subsequent to the fresh plans being submitted by the applicant and the copies of the photographs, inwarded, when the proponent clarified regarding the actual slope at site submitting the contour plans and the detail analysis of the slope was carried out which was recorded thus:- (which is less than 25% as per plans submitted) CUTTING FOR BUILDING FOOTPRINTS) 1.BuildingH-1 9.00 mtsx100= 15.83 % L- 120.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 20%) 2. Villas type B4 to 10H- 5.00 mts x100 = 22.73% L-22.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 25%) 3. Villas type B 11 to 16 H- 4.00 mts x100 = 22.73% L-22.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 25%) 4. Villas type B4 to 10H- 5.00 mts x100 = 22.73% L-22.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 25%) 3. Villas type B 11 to 16 H- 4.00 mts x100 = 22.73% L-22.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 25%) 4. Villas type A 5 to 10H- 5.00 mts x100 = 22.73%L-22.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 25%) 5. Villas type A 11 to 14H- 5.00 mts x100 = 22.73%L-22.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 25%) 6. Villas type A 1 to 4H- 4.00 mts x100 = 16.67%L-24.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 20%) 7. Villas type B 2 & 3H- 3.00 mts x100 = 13.04%L-23.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 20%) 8. Villas type B 1 H- 5.00 mts x100 = 22.73%L-22.00 mts (For building footprints which is less than 25%) The North-West area about 50 mts x30 mts which is about 1500 mts is kept open without any structure which has slope more than 25 % and it is not feasible area. CUTTING AND FILLING FOR INTERNAL ROADS (A)H-15 mts x 100= 69.94 which is less than 10%L-216 mts (B)H-15 mts x 100= 2.62 which is less than 10%L-191 mts (C)H-8 mts x 100= 5.55 which is less than 10% L-144 mts (D)H-20 mts x 100= 6.10 which is less than 10% L-328 mts The average filling works out for internal roads is about 1.14 mts. H-40 mts. H-40 mtsx100 =4.55/4=1.14” L-879 mts 33. The aforesaid Note make reference to the pendency of PIL WP NO. 1884/2024(F) before the High Court and the Member Secretary and the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) specifically note thus:- “It is stated in the above order that Cutting/excavation shall as far as be limited to digging for foundation/footings and for providing services like drains, water lines, sewage line, septic tank, soak pits, sump pits, well and access/circulation space. In special circumstances, where terracing is required to be undertaken for accommodating, it may be permitted to a maximum extend of 10 mts. Width with a vertical cutting limited to 2 mts. In such case, certification from a Structural engineer on the stability of slope and protection measures to be undertaken are to be separately obtained. In special circumstances, where terracing is required to be undertaken for accommodating, it may be permitted to a maximum extend of 10 mts. Width with a vertical cutting limited to 2 mts. In such case, certification from a Structural engineer on the stability of slope and protection measures to be undertaken are to be separately obtained. The proposal is hereby submitted to the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) for approval and directions, if any, for issue of NOC for hill cutting and filling of land in property bearing Sy. No.257/1 of Sancoale Village, Mormugao Taluka, Goa u/s 17/A of the TCP ACT . This has reference to the details Note No. MPDA/7-P-165 (Part)/2025-26/284 dated 27/05/2025, received from Member Secretary MPDA, Vasco, it is reported that, contour plan has been checked, with respect to the overall slope of the property under reference and further it was discussed in the office with the Member Secretary of MPDA, In view of above you may issue the N.O.C./permission under section 17-A of TCP ACT as per noting N/9 to N/11 by following the guidelines of section 17A, issued by the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) dated06/09/2023.” 34. In light of the aforesaid noting, Mr.Pangam, the learned Advocate General would submit that as and when compliance was directed to be ensured by project proponent, on its compliance, the site inspection was carried out and when it was found that the gradient was beyond permissible limits towards the northern side, a decision was taken to exclude the area with slope of more than 25% and in the area where the over all slope of land along the section was approximately 23.16%, it was held to be a gradient within permissible limits. It is in light of the aforesaid, the application for cutting/filling of land under section 17-A in respect of a low- lying area was proposed to be considered for building footprint for foundation footing only within the permissible area. It is in light of the aforesaid, the application for cutting/filling of land under section 17-A in respect of a low- lying area was proposed to be considered for building footprint for foundation footing only within the permissible area. Since this was the recommendation of the Member Secretary and the Chief Town Planner (Land Use), the joint inspection was conducted by the Chief Town Planner along with Member Secretary on 5/08/2025 in the presence of the Architect Shri Sanjay Belurkar and physical measurement of the site was taken and cross-checked with the contour plan submitted by the applicant and the measured area having more than 25% of the slope falling on the north west side of the property found to be admeasuring 1500 sq meters (50 mts x30 mts) and the remaining area of the property cross verification of the contour plan was done and the area falling within average slope of less than 25%, the permission was granted under Section 17A. Mr. Pangam has submitted before us that the permission was issued as per the guidelines laid down on 6/09/2023 with respect to the proposal of hill cutting and filling. It is, therefore, clear to us that only after following the due procedure, including carrying out of a joint inspection, the permission under section 17-A has been granted to the exclusion of the area where the slope has been identified beyond the permissible limit of 25% and it is directed that the said area shall be kept open without any structure as it is not feasible to allow any structure to stand thereon. On examining all the necessities, the Member Secretary MPDA along with the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) has accorded the permission under Section 17-A. 35. Though Mr. Frias has urged before us that there is some more area which is covered by more than 25% slope and an attempt is made to show that the marking is wrong by relying upon the report of a private Architect, in our considered opinion, if the decision is taken by the planning department which possess an expertise, and that too in the presence of the Architect Mr. Sanjay Belurkar and it was approved by the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) and Member Secretary MPDA, we are not ready to accept the private report placed before us by a private architect, as according to us, the Town Planning Department and in specific the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) as well as the MPDA are satisfied with the inspection carried out. They have analyzed the contour plan and have expressed satisfaction in respect of the cutting and filling of the land based on the contour plan and the area about 25% slopes towards north west of the property having been directed to be kept open without any structure, found the permission granted under Section 17-A to be in order. 36. The learned Advocate General has urged before us that the term ‘contour line’ as per the dictionary meaning means a line on a map connecting points that have the same height above the surface of the earth. By relying upon the definition of the said term in Britannica he would submit that it means “a line on a map representing an imaginary line on the land surface, all points of which are at the same elevation, above a datum plane, usually mean sea level.” It is noted by us that the contour lines are used on topographic maps to represent the three- dimensional shape of the terrain such as hills and valleys, on a two dimensional surface, and the closure the contour lines are, the steeper the slope while widely spaced lines indicate a gentle slope or lat area. As far as the gradient is concerned, in topography and slope analysis, gradient is the measure of steepness or incline of land, expressed as the ratio of the vertical rise to the horizontal distance. The Gradient is calculated as under: 37. Applying the aforesaid factor, Mr. Pangam has submitted that as per the CTP and PDA the number of contour lines are found to be 42 and the horizontal length of the land is 180 meters and therefore the gradient is worked out as below:- 38. However, as per the petitioners in WP (F) No. 1884 of 2024, the number of contour lines is 43 and the horizontal length of the line is 186.65 meters. Even according to this Gradient works out below:- 39. It is in these circumstances, it is the submission of Mr. However, as per the petitioners in WP (F) No. 1884 of 2024, the number of contour lines is 43 and the horizontal length of the line is 186.65 meters. Even according to this Gradient works out below:- 39. It is in these circumstances, it is the submission of Mr. Pangam and which we accept that there is no much difference in the gradient taking the contour lines as 42 or 43. The revised guidelines dated 6/09/2023, for granting permission under Section 17-A of TCP ACT require an applicant to submit a contour plan (interval 1 mts) meaning that the contour plan must show contour lines for every 1 meter vertical rise across the property, with measurements taken in meters. The gradient of the property is determined by counting the total number of 1-meter vertical rise and comparing it to the total horizontal distance across the property, measured along a perpendicular line from one side of the property to the other. It is in these circumstances, the slope gradient has been rightly computed as 23.3 % and this has been demonstrated before us in the following diagram:- 40. In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, we do not ind any law in the permission granted under Section 17-A in favour of the project proponent and as we ind that the exercise is carried out by physically inspecting the property with the joint inspection report being placed before us. On the contrary, the report submitted before us by Mr. Jose Carlos Da Veiga Gracias is based on mere assumption as he has not even used proper scale of contour plan but has invoked the self assumed conversion factor and moreover, the report by Mr. A Rebello is also not based on any independent analysis or calculation and when these reports are compared against the whole-sole exercise carried out by the expert body/officers of the MPDA, the Planning Assistant and Chief Town Planner, who have physically inspected the said property and verified the contour plans, we must give due weightage to the latter. 41. Mr. Frias would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of The Goa Foundation through its Secretary Dr. Claud Alvares vs. The Village Panchayat of Arpora Nagoa thr, Its Secretary and Ors. 41. Mr. Frias would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of The Goa Foundation through its Secretary Dr. Claud Alvares vs. The Village Panchayat of Arpora Nagoa thr, Its Secretary and Ors. (PIL WP No.20 of 2022) dated 6/09/2022, which has only clarified that the P.D.A.s before granting any permission under Section 44 of the TCP ACT , are duty bound to cause an inspection of the site and ascertain whether any potential hill cutting is involved at the site and if there is no permission forthcoming then there is no question of any hill cutting. We do not for a minute dispute the said proposition but here we ind that on examining the contour plan as well as the factual inspection of the site, the permission granted under Section 17-A is found by the competent authorities to be in order and since we do not possess any expertise in this regard, nor do the petitioners claim expertise as compared to those who are entrusted with the functions of town planing in the State of Goa as well as the planning and development authority, we refuse to show any indulgence. 42. Coming to the last contention as regards access of 10 meters, as we have already noted that Mr. Nadkarni has pointed out to us that there exists a 10 mts wide road access from Survey No. 258/1 of Village Sancoale, and this was duly approved by the TCP as early as on 9/01/1997 and this is clearly reflected in the TCP approval dated 9/01/1997, which is deemed to be a public road. In any case, this cannot be a ground for not permitting the project to be constructed as even the expert committee has noted in its report as below:- “Proposed road width asper ODP is 30.00 meters MTS. 10.00 wide road is available till 20.00 meters from central line of the road. The balance area is having approximately 70.00 meters, width for a distance of about 7.00 meters.” 43. 10.00 wide road is available till 20.00 meters from central line of the road. The balance area is having approximately 70.00 meters, width for a distance of about 7.00 meters.” 43. Having dealt with the aforesaid aspect, as regards the challenge to the construction licence issued by the Panchayat, it is to be noted that the village panchayat after proper and due consideration of the application preferred by the project proponent and based on the development permission issued by the MPDA has issued the construction licence and we do ind any reason to interfere with the same, as the construction licence is applied for only after securing the Development Permission and in obtaining which, all the necessary procedure has been strictly adhered to. 44. In the wake of the aforesaid, since we ind that all the technical objections raised by the Petitioners are unfounded and not substantiated by any concrete material being placed on record and in fact the technical laws attempted to be pinpointed alleging that there is violation of the building regulations, 2010 and the provisions of various statutes in absence of any concrete material is not sufficient to impinge upon the permissions granted by the competent authorities. We also do not ind any discrepancy into the computation of the slope levels, as we ind that the contour plans are based and prepared on surveys carried out on loco with a total station survey, which hold within it 90% to 95% accuracy level, compared to the survey of India Topographical sheets. The Member Secretary of the MPDA in his affidavit also has emphasized upon the use of total stations, a latest and accurate system for survey and the petitioners reliance on the plans of the project proponent without an opinion of the expert being juxtaposed against the verification done by the MPDA and the CTP (Land Use) appear to be a feeble attempt to dislodged the compliance of the procedural requirements by the planning authorities. 45. We also had intervention of Mr. Sherlekar and another, who marked his appearance before us and submitted written submissions. However, on hearing Mr. Sherlekar in person and on perusal of the note, where he has attempted to demonstrate a mismatch of contours in the approved plans, for the very same reasons recorded above, we refused to show any indulgence. 46. We also had intervention of Mr. Sherlekar and another, who marked his appearance before us and submitted written submissions. However, on hearing Mr. Sherlekar in person and on perusal of the note, where he has attempted to demonstrate a mismatch of contours in the approved plans, for the very same reasons recorded above, we refused to show any indulgence. 46. For the reasons recorded above, though we have entertained the PIL Writ Petitions in larger public interest, finding no merits and substance in the objections raised therein to the project ‘Acqua Eden’, we dismiss both the Petitions alongwith the pending Applications. Easy on costs.