Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: The legality of construction activities in a restricted coastal stretch of Anjuna is now before the Bombay High Court at Goa, following a petition alleging violations of environmental regulations and lapses by local and state authorities. The Court has issued notices to the concerned departments as well as Michael Lobo, named as a private respondent in the case.
The petition, moved by Anjuna-based activist Desmond Alvares, concerns development on land covered by Survey Nos. 354/1, 340/0 and 340/1. These properties fall within the CRZ-III No Development Zone, where construction is subject to specific coastal regulations.
One of the principal objections raised in the petition is that the development allegedly carried out at the site does not correspond with the permission granted by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority in January 2025. While the approval reportedly covered temporary wooden installations, the petitioner claims that the site now has structures supported by cast-iron columns and concrete foundations.
The environmental concerns raised in the case extend beyond the construction itself. The petition alleges that heavy equipment was used to alter the natural sand dune formation, with dunes estimated to be six to seven feet high being flattened. It also puts the alleged removal of approximately 40 truckloads of sand under scrutiny.
Other activities questioned include the installation of a borewell in the restricted belt and the creation of an access route using metal aggregate, reportedly located just 20 metres from the sea.
The petition also highlights an incident involving coastal authority officials. During a proposed inspection on June 12, 2025, GCZMA personnel allegedly faced resistance from security staff at the property’s entrance and could not carry out the inspection.
Alvares has additionally questioned how the Anjuna-Caisua Village Panchayat granted a construction licence without the required TCP technical clearance and land-conversion sanad.
The petitioner has cited earlier directions issued by the Chief Town Planner and the District Collector in July and August 2025, alleging that the authorities failed to ensure the required site inspection and follow-up.
After considering the matter, the High Court ordered notices to the respondents, seeking their explanations on the issues raised. The authorities and the private respondent have been given four weeks to submit their affidavits.
The Court has further cautioned that government officers who fail to comply with the deadline could face personal liability for exemplary costs.
