906-PILWP-6-2023.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PIL WRIT PETITION NO.6/2023 ANTHONY CARDOZO … PETITIONER Versus SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD., REP. BY SUMANT KOCHAR AND 7 ORS. … RESPONDENTS Mr Nigel da Costa Frias with Mr Vineet Surlekar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr Shivan Desai with Ms M. Viegas, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr P. Arolkar, AGA for the State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED: 24th SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C. : 1. he PIL Writ Petition seek direction to the State including the TCP Department, to carry out demarcation of the area of 4.68 HA identiied as private forest in Survey No.97/1 in village Talaulim identiied by the Deepshikha Sharma Committee. he petition iled in the year 2020 comprise of several acquisitions when the petitioner had questioned the grant of license and permissions obtained by respondent no.1 for its proposed development and construction in the property in Survey No.97/1 including the technical clearance issued in its favour by the respondent no.2 as well as the conversion sanad obtained in 24th September 2025 906-PILWP-6-2023.DOC the year 2014 and 2015 from the Additional Collector North Goa at Panaji. 2. Down the line, we ind that the exercise carried out by various committees in the wake of the decision of the Apex Court in T. N. Godavarman hirumulpad v/s. Union of India – (1997) 2 SCC 267, an exhaustive exercise was carried out to demarcate the private forest and it is not in dispute that the last review committee under the edges of the Conservator of Forest Deepshikha Sharma, and as far as Survey No.97/1 of village Talaulim is concerned, 4.68 HA is identiied as private forest. It is worth to note that the aforesaid Committee has in fact iltered the indings of the Sawant and Karapurkar Committee and ultimately identiied the area in Survey No.97/1. 3. he grievance of the petitioner today is that he has attempted to superimpose the demarcated area over the approved plan of respondent no.1 and according to him there is some overlapping. We have before us aidavit iled on behalf of respondent no.7. We ind that the aidavit of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, where a categorical statement is made to the following efect:- “ I say that the proposed project of respondent no.1 and the permissions granted pertain to the area of 4.68 HA identiied as private forest by the review committee in Survey No.97/1 of village Talaulim. I say that the area of 24th September 2025 906-PILWP-6-2023.DOC 4.68 HA identiied as private forest in Survey No.97/1 of village Talaulim by Sharma Committee is already been demarcated by the review committee.” 4. By accepting the aforesaid statement made on oath by the oicial of the Forest Department, we are not inclined to further delve into the submission of the learned counsel stating that there is some overlapping as we ind that the review committee was headed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest and when it submitted its report on 20.06.2019, the said report is accepted by the NGT and subsequently was placed before the Supreme Court and the total area demarcated as the forest area came to be accepted in the State of Goa. 5. In the wake of the aforesaid inding, nothing survives in the PIL Writ Petition and the same is disposed of. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. 24th September 2025 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 26/09/2025 14:52:24