Parra Panchayat Issues ‘Incorrect’ Stop Work Order To ‘Protect’ Builder?

MAPUSA: In a discreet and indirect attempt to protect and safeguard the interests of an out-station builder involved in illegal construction, hill-cutting and cutting of trees in Survey No 28/10 of Parra village in North Goa, the office of the Village Panchayat issued an incorrect ‘stop work’ notice to builder Harkirat Singh, who had purchased a plot of land and commenced construction work on the premises.

The Panchayat notice only partially mentions the illegal acts, ignoring the violations in other plots or other survey nos., within the jurisdiction of the same ward/panchayat which should have been collectively quoted and mentioned in the stop work order.

According to social activist Benedict D’souza from Parra, the builder has indulged in encroachment, hill cutting and illegal cutting of trees in three different portions or parcels of property bearing three different survey nos., and yet the Village Panchayat in its recent ‘stop work’ order has mentioned only one survey no.

“It is not clear if the builder has obtained zone conversion, as the property falls in Orchard, Settlement and No Development zones,” D’souza said, adding that he will point out the error to the Sarpanch and get the stop work notice rectified.

“It is obvious that the Sarpanch is either aware of all the facts, or completely ignorant of the violations, but has issued an incorrect and incomplete stop work notice to apparently safeguard the pecuniary interests of the builder and save him from further penalties, when the matter gets escalated to higher forums,” opined social activist and co-convenor of Goa Against Corruption, Adv Andrea Fernandes.

As reported earlier, the builder had indulged in illegal hill cutting, (Read Here), cutting down trees and encroachment, at B Arradi,  Parra, which was eventually stopped by locals and activists who alerted the Forest Department, Panchayat and police officials on Monday.

D’souza said even the boundary demarcation marker stone was removed from the communidade property, in which the builder had encroached upon, on the pretext of constructing a boundary and retaining wall.

“The position and location of the construction is not as per the plans and permissions obtained and the builder was trying to ‘grab’ portions of the surrounding property, part of which are owned by private entities as well as fall within communidade land,” D’souza alleged.