CRZ-III construction ban prevails: later unauthorized building and local permission could not validate commercial use.

A structure within CRZ-III was found to be a later unauthorized construction, not an existing authorized structure as on 19 February 1991, because contemporaneous records showed only a small garage on the plot and the disputed building was materially different and within 100 metres of the High Tide Line. The applicable CRZ regime barred new construction in the No Development Zone, and local permission could not override binding coastal directions or legalise use as a restaurant and bar. The demolition and consequential directions were therefore upheld, and the appeal failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the structure standing on the subject plot was an existing authorized structure as on 19 February 1991 or an unauthorized construction raised thereafter within the CRZ-III No Development Zone. (ii) Whether the Coastal Regulation Zone policy and the permission granted by the local authority could sustain the structure or permit its use as a Restaurant and Bar.

Issue (i): Whether the structure standing on the subject plot was an existing authorized structure as on 19 February 1991 or an unauthorized construction raised thereafter within the CRZ-III No Development Zone.

Analysis: The contemporaneous record, including the sale deed, revenue records, settlement records, inspection report and the appellant's own affidavit, showed that only a small garage existed on the plot when the appellant acquired it in 1992. The structure complained of before the Tribunal was materially different in shape, size and location and lay within 100 metres of the High Tide Line. In such a situation, the later construction was not protected as an existing authorized structure and fell within the prohibition against new construction in the No Development Zone.

Conclusion: The finding that the impugned structure was erected after 19 February 1991 and was unauthorized was affirmed against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Coastal Regulation Zone policy and the permission granted by the local authority could sustain the structure or permit its use as a Restaurant and Bar.

Analysis: The applicable CRZ-III regime permitted no construction within 200 metres of the High Tide Line, except limited repairs of existing authorized structures and other specifically permitted activities. The directions governing CRZ-III structures in Goa required action against constructions raised after 19 February 1991, and any permission contrary to those directions could not override them. The permission obtained by the appellant therefore could not legalize the later structure or its commercial use.

Conclusion: The CRZ policy and the local permission did not protect the impugned construction, and the demolition and consequential directions were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, and the Tribunal's demolition and cost directions remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A construction raised after 19 February 1991 within 200 metres of the High Tide Line in CRZ-III is prohibited as an unauthorized structure, and permission inconsistent with binding CRZ directions cannot validate it.

---