Panaji: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has set aside the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority’s (GCZMA) approval for
25 temporary cottages and a shack at Agonda, saying the authority had failed
to explain why it disregarded its own beach carrying capacity report,
which prescribed zero carrying capacity for shacks at Agonda beach.
The matter concerned permission granted to Prashant Kankonkar for 25 temporary cottages and one shack in survey numbers 101/1 and 101/3 at Agonda. The approval was challenged by Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company, which also raised objections over title disputes and alleged encroachments on the property.
The appellant said the GCZMA had accepted the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management’s Beach Carrying Capacity and Sand Dune Mapping reports in 2017. The report recorded Agonda’s available carrying capacity for shacks as zero and recommended that “no additional shacks, huts/tents/cottages should be considered” at Agonda, which is a designated turtle nesting site.
The NGT also noted that at its meeting in February 2019, the GCZMA had resolved, as a precautionary measure to conserve Goa’s beach ecology and prevent overcrowding, that no new applications for huts, shacks, tents or cottages on private properties within 0-200 metres of the high tide line should be accepted or processed until the Coastal Zone Management Plan was finalised.
The tribunal questioned why this decision was disregarded while granting the Agonda approval. “No specific reason has been mentioned” for the permission, the bench said, particularly as to why the beach carrying capacity had been disregarded.
“It was their own decision which should have been adhered to and respected,” it said, terming the conduct a “gross violation”.
The GCZMA failed to explain when or how its earlier prohibition had been modified, while the project proponent also failed to provide a satisfactory response on the issue.
The NGT said it would not examine the disputed ownership issues concerning the survey numbers. It set aside the approval solely on the ground that the GCZMA had violated its own beach carrying capacity decision.
