Goa’s Curlies, beach shack that faced controversy over death of BJP leader Sonali Phogat, fails to get NGT relief

In its order in July 2016, the GCZMA had ordered the demolition of “illegal structures” belonging to the beach shack under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It had said the structures were constructed illegally in a “no development zone” that fell under CRZ-III. In September 2022, the NGT had upheld the order of GCZMA, which directed that the restaurant be demolished for violating CRZ guidelines.

Following the NGT order, a portion of the restaurant was demolished. The Supreme Court in January 2023 set aside the NGT order and directed the tribunal to provide an opportunity to both the parties to put forth their contentions and then pass fresh orders, following which the matter was re-heard by the NGT.

Linet Nunes had filed the appeal against GCZMA’s order before the NGT on the grounds that an effective hearing had not been afforded and the documents, provided to GCZMA to establish that the structure which was ordered to be demolished existed prior to CRZ notification 1991, were not taken into consideration.

The GCZMA told the NGT that Google images in 2003 did not show existence of any structure at the place where the offending structures are presently located, arguing that the appellant failed to produce any permissions from the Panchayat, Excise Department and Town and Country Planning Department to show that the structure was operational prior to 1991, when provisions of CRZ came into force.

The GCZMA said a certificate dated May 5, 1982, purported to have been issued to the appellant by the village panchayat Anjuna-Caisua, is fake since Goa became a state on May 31, 1987 and the emblem shown in the certificate was of Government of Goa (state of Goa) and not of Government of Goa, Daman and Diu (Union Territory).

In the order on May 31, a bench of judicial member Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and expert member Vijay Kulkarni observed that the “the burden lies upon the appellant to prove the fact as to how original area of 242 sqm plinth was extended in such a big hotel without any permission from the authority”.

“It cannot be believed that any such huge construction at the site in question could take place without permission for the same having been obtained from GCZMA or any other relevant authority, nor has the applicant produced any licence for running the hotel business. Therefore, this itself is a good enough ground to order demolition of the property in question. We find force in this argument,” the bench said.