Team Goemkarponn
CANACONA: A demolition drive targeting 33 illegal structures at Agonda beach, identified for violating CRZ regulations by the GCZMA, saw limited action on Wednesday, with only two structures demolished by the end of the day. Around ten structures were reportedly dismantled earlier by the owners themselves, while several others were deferred, prompting locals to term the exercise an “eyewash.”
The South Goa Demolition Squad arrived at the site around 10:00 am with two JCB machines, supported by police personnel from Margao, Quepem, Colva and Canacona police stations under the leadership of Canacona PI Pravin Gawas. Officials from PWD (Roads), Electricity Department, and the Department of Drinking Water, along with labourers and necessary equipment, were also present for the operation.
The team began by clearing wooden compounds and levelling a concrete floor of an already demolished structure. GCZMA official Raunak Desai identified the structures for action and later led the squad to a ground-plus-one structure. However, the owners claimed they had obtained a stay order, prompting authorities to halt demolition and allow time to produce documents.
Canacona Mamlatdar and Magistrate Gajesh Shirodkar, along with Joint Mamlatdar Gayatri Desai, granted time until 4:30 pm to submit supporting documents. As none were produced, the owners were allowed time until Friday morning to vacate guests before demolition. Another structure, including a residential house with additional constructions, was inspected in the absence of owners and marked for demolition on Friday.
By evening, only two unused covered kiosks were demolished using a JCB, while a wooden compound was removed. In some cases, owners engaged their own machinery to dismantle portions, while others assured authorities they would remove structures themselves.
With the exact number of demolished structures remaining unclear, the demolition squad withdrew for the day, stating that the drive would resume on Friday. Locals who gathered at the site expressed dissatisfaction, claiming the demolition process lacked seriousness and resulted in minimal action.
Sources said the 33 structures were listed in two separate orders—one naming 13 and another 20 structures—requiring identification by GCZMA officials. However, difficulties in identifying the targeted constructions reportedly delayed decisions, leaving much of the action pending.
