Despite a demolition notice issued on May 27, 2025, to remove encroachments on government land declared as a ‘tourist place’ within 15 days, the owners of Romeo Lane continue to operate their bar and restaurant — leaving Director of Tourism, Kedar Naik, red-faced.
“I am aware of the notice sent but will discuss the matter with you in detail when I call back,” stated Naik. However, he did not return the call by the time of going to press. More than a month since the deadline, Naik and the Department of Tourism have no credible explanation for their lackadaisical approach and attitude. Meanwhile, villagers from Vagator and surrounding areas are losing patience.
In an oral order in Writ Petition No 694 of 2023 dated March 19, 2024, Justice M S Sonak observed: “When such large unauthorised constructions are openly put up on public beaches and on government property, the Director of Tourism, who is a competent authority under the provisions of the Goa Tourist Places (Protection and Maintenance) Act 2001, cannot remain a silent spectator.
Ultimately, the Director must remember that this is not his or the Government’s property.”
Nilesh Phadte of Vagator, who alerted the Department of Tourism on March 10, 2025, said the bar’s owners had once again reconstructed a structure after having previously demolished it. “The owners of the bar and restaurant are making a fool of the law,” said Phadte. “They demolish the place, and after a few days, they rebuild it and carry on until one of us is forced to approach the tourism department or the High Court for justice.”
Justices M S Sonak and Valmiki S A Menezes, in their joint judgment in Writ Petition Nos 834 and 825 of 2023 dated December 14, 2023, recorded the submission of Advocate General D J Pangam: “This is a clear case of encroachment on a public beach to the extent of almost 476 square metres.”
“The petitioner (owner of Romeo Lane) consistent with his undertaking must remove the encroachment and demolish the construction on the encroached portion. He submitted that the entire purpose for instituting this petition is to delay in removal of encroachment and, in the meantime, to use this property for commercial purposes during the peak season.”
In the demolition notice served to Antonio D’Souza, Naik had stated that the illegal construction “...is impacting the tourism potentiality of the tourist places as stipulated under Section 3 of the Goa Tourist Places Protection and Maintenance Act and is in violation of the CRZ notification issued from time to time.”
“This must be the third or fourth time Romeo Lane has demolished and rebuilt the structure,” alleged Michael Dias of Anjuna. “It’s always the same pattern. They comply when under pressure and rebuild once the dust settles.”
Indeed, the owners had earlier complied with demolition, as noted in a July 8, 2024, judgment by Justices Valmiki Menezes and M S Karnik on a contempt petition: “In view of the above, the respondents have complied with the directions of the demolition.” A sum of Rs 10,97,880 was deposited with the Goa Biodiversity Board for restoration.
“Within 15 days of demolition after the High Court judgment, they rebuild the structures,” said Phadte. “Being a fisherman, I cannot afford to go to court. That’s why I approach the tourism department. But I won’t allow the owners of Romeo Lane to stamp over me.”
When contacted, Anna D’Souza, daughter of owner Antonio D’Souza, distanced the family from current operations. “At the moment, the place has been given on rent. So, we are not involved in what is happening there. We are therefore not aware of what is going on or what the person who has taken it on rent is doing.”