Goemkarponn desk
PANAJI: On Tuesday, the Minister for Town and Country Planning issued an order revoking permissions to reconstruct a house at the Old Goa heritage zone.
The order came after protests from across Goa against destroying the heritage zone, close to the St Cajetan Church in Old Goa.
While the permission has been revoked, Goa now wants an FIR registered against the owner Jose Maria de Gouveia Pinto and Maria Lizette de Abreu e Gouveia Pinto, Manish Munot and Suvarna Suraj Lotlikar, and so also teh officials of Town and Country Planning for forgery, manipulation and corruption.
The government order clearly states that the existing structure was small (a hut), and one shown on the plan was mammoth size.
Secondly, the order also says that despite selling the property to Manish Munot and Suvarna Suraj Lotlikar, the owners Jose Maria de Gouveia Pinto and Maria Lizette de Abreu e Gouveia Pinto continued to get permissions in their name.
Third, Director (Monuments-If), Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi vide their letter did 03/02/2020 had granted the approval only for taking up *repair to an existing residential house.” with a condition at Sr. No, 11 as “the permission does not cover reconstruction”.
In view of the above, the TCP now needs to file an FIR to bring the culprits to books.
REVOCATION ORDER
To Mr Jose Maria de Gouveia Pinto
and Maria Lizette de Abreu e Gouveia Pinto
Whereas, an application in the name of Shri Jose Maria de Gouveia Pinto and Maria Lizette de Abreu e Gouveia Pinto for NOC’s repair/reconstruction of the existing house and the compound wall was submitted by you vide inward No. 91 dtd. 13/01/2016 to the Tiswadi Taluka Office, Form I & XIV of the property submitted along with the application as ownership document of the property bearing Sy.No. 4/1 of Ella village, Tiswadi Taluka, also reflected the name of occupant is Jose Maria de Gouveia Pinto and Maria Lizette de Abreu e Gouveia Pinto. The said application was accompanied with forms prescribed under the Goa
Land Development & Building Construction Regulations, 2010 for the issue of Technical Clearance Order.
Whereas, it is observed that the plans submitted by you for the issue of NOC along with prescribed forms for grant of Technical Clearance were titled as “proposed repair/reconstruction of the existing house and existing compound wall and whereas the site plan submitted along with the application referred to the structure as “proposed house.”
And whereas, based on approval granted by the Conservation Committee vide No, 27/15-3/782/TCP/2016/4195 dtd. 7/10/2016, conditional Technical Clearance Order was granted by Tiswadi Taluka Office of TCP Dept. vide ref.No. TIS/8482/Ella/TCP/16/404 dtd. 18/10/2016 for “reconstruction of residential house” wherein condition imposed ut St.No. 28 read us “the applicant should obtain NOC from NMA prior to commencement of any construction activity in the above property.”
Whereas, it is found that as applicable in the present case, the Competent Authority le. Director (Monuments-If), Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi vide their letter did 03/02/2020 has granted the approval only for taking up *repair to an existing residential house.” with a condition at Sr. No, 11 as “the permission does not cover reconstruction”.
Whereas the permission dtd. 03/2/2020 granted by Competent Authority is also found to have been issued in favour of Smt. Suvarna Suraj Lotlikar, which clearly implies that the approval of the Competent Authority was only for repairs to the existing residential house and
not for the proposed reconstruction of residential house, as mentioned in the Technical Clearance order dated 18/10/2016 and that too is found to have been issued in favour of Mrs, Suvarna Suraj Lotlikar @ Suvarna Dyanesh Dunge, and therefore it is construed that you have undertaken the construction without complying fully with the conditions imposed in the Technical Clearance
Order did. 18/10/2016.
Whereas, it is further observed that Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority vide letter No. GCZMA/N/15-16/101/2215 did. 28/12/2015 had earlier granted the permission for “proposed reconstruction of existing house’ in the property bearing Sy. No. 4/1 of Ella Village,
Tiswadi Taluka in favour of Mr. Jose Maria De Gouveia Pinto Maria Lizette de Abreu e Gouveia Pinto, wherein the plan attached to the approval of GCZMA shows the plinth area as 19.00 mts. x 23.00 mts, whereas as seen from the plans approved, you have obtained the
Technical Clearance Order for the reconstruction of the structure with a plinth area of 15.00 mts x 26.46 mts., which is in variance with the limits/plinth area as permitted by GCZMA and for which no revised approval from GCZMA has been obtained by you.
It is further seen that an application under Section 49(6) of TCP Act dtd. 24/8/2021 under inward No. 1575 dtd. 24/8/2021 was subsequently made by Mrs Suvarna Suraj Lotlikar @ Suvarna Dyanesh Dange to Tiswadi Taluka Office for the issue of NOC for registration of Sale Deed
(re-sale) of the property bearing Survey No. 4/1(Part) of village Ella, Tiswadi Taluka for an area admeasuring 2400.00 sq.mts., and was considered.
And whereas another application under Section 49(6) of TCP Act dtd. 24/8/2021 under inward No. 1576 dtd. 24/8/2021 was also made by Mr Manish Navratn Munot to Tiswadi Taluka Office for the issue of NOC for registration of sale deed (re-sale) of the remaining part of the same property bearing Survey No. 4/1(Part) of village Ella, Tiswadi Taluka for an area admeasuring 9500.00 sq.mts., and was considered.
As per the ownership documents submitted along with these applications for the issue of NOC for Registration of Sale Deed dtd. 24/8/2021 by Mrs. Suvarna Suraj Lotlikar @ Suvara Dyanesh Dange and Mr. Manish Navratn Munot, it is quite evident that at the relevant time of grant of NOC u/s 49(6) of TCP Act, the property bearing Survey No. 4/(Part) having an area of 2400 sq. mts. the area was under the ownership of Mrs Suvarna Suraj Lotlikar @ Suvama Dyanesh Dange and whereas the remaining property under survey No. 4/(Part) having an area of 9500 sq.mts. was under the ownership of Mr. Manish Navratn Munot, and therefore you were no
longer the owner of the property bearing Sy.No. 4/1 at the time of grant of Technical Clearance Order dtd. 18/10/2016, Due to the fact that the property under reference was already sold by you at the time of
applying for Technical Clearance, it is quite clear that you could not have obtained the permission in your name and which implies that you have obtained the said permission
fraudulently and by misrepresentation of fact, thus attracting the action as stipulated under condition No.2 of the Technical Clearance Order dtd. 18/10/2016, which reads as under:
“The permission granted shall be revoked if any information, plans, calculations, documents and any other accompaniments of the application are found incorrect or wrong at any stage after the grant of the permission, and the applicant will not be entitled to any
compensation.”
Now, therefore, in view of the reasons cited above, Technical Clearance Order No. TIS/8482/Ella/TCP/16/404 dtd. 18/10/2016 hereby stands revoked. Consequently, you are directed to immediately stop the construction activity in the property as permitted vide same Technical Clearance Order.
S.P Surlakar
Dy Town Planner
