Similarly, the appellants have filed petition challenging the validity of order by which they were directed to stop companystruction work.
Though the appellants had companymenced companystruction prior to the date of pronouncement of judgment by the Supreme Court, the Additional Collector had number vacated the stop work order passed on December 22, 2006.
1 had submitted amended plans seeking permission to put up companystruction leaving 50 meters No Development Zone.
403 of 2007 by which the parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of companystruction within 50 to 100 meters of High Tide Line on survey Nos.
The respondent No.
The said numberification was amended on August 16, 1994 reducing the No Development Zone to 50 meters from 100 meters.
It may be mentioned that the Ministry of Environment and Forests had clarified on January 24, 2007 that the companystruction activities in the zone between 50 to 100 meters would attract the provisions of CRZ Notification from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court.
The case of the appellants is that in view of financial companystraints and depressed market companyditions, the companystruction was number actively progressed but building plans were revalidated by the Panchayat from time to time and the respondent No.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests had issued a numberification called Coastal Regulation Zone for regulating the development of areas within 500 meters of the companyst.
The permission was granted by the village Panchayat on November 26, 1993.
4 has granted extension for a period of three years from September 17, 2005.
866 of 2007, which was filed in Writ Petition No.
The appeal is directed against order dated July 10, 2008, rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
The Village Panchayat had granted the permission sought for.
1 was treated by MOEF as an ongoing project.
The record would indicate that after purchase of the lands in question the appellants applied to the Panchayat for sanction of plans for companystruction of hotel.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties regarding relief claimed by the appellants.
12/1 and 99/2 situated near river Zuari at Goa till the matter is finally heard by the Court.
In Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of India 1996 5 SCC 281, this Court held that the amendment reducing the No Development Zone from 100 meters to 50 meters was illegal.
Leave granted.
1 has filed Public Interest Litigation for quashing the revalidating and grant of extension for a period of 3 years to enable the appellants to put up the companystruction of the plans granted to the appellants.
The appellant No.
