The High Court of Bombay at Goa has issued notices to the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department and Scrutiny Committee following a pub lic interest litigation (PIL) writ petition filed by the Goa Foundation challenging amendments to the Building Regulations 2010. The PIL writ petitions have questioned the legal ity of over 739 relaxations in FAR and expand building heights, including approvals to several private develop ers, arguing that they under mine zoning laws and were granted without public scru tiny or impact assessments. The High Court has given respondents four weeks to file their replies after which the petitioners will file their rejoinders, with the matter posted for hearing on No vember 17. The PIL writ petition sclaim the relaxations amount to backdoor zone changes, affecting transpar ency and planning in Goa. Incidentally, the amended Building Regulations 2010 empowers the Goa gov ernment to approve appli cations for relaxations of height and FAR restrictions across the State, contrary to the norms laid down under the same regulations. The petitioners – Goa Foundation and the Goan Citizens from Margao, Pan jim, Chimbel and Pernem have challenged unprec edented amendments to Goa’s building regulations to allow huge and unre stricted increases in FAR and height on a plot-by-plot basis, granted privately and without public scrutiny, and without studies of environ mental, social and planning impacts to favour a few at the expense of the rest. Such discretionary and in herently arbitrary power to grant unrestricted FAR and construction heights is unique in the history of town planning. Granting such discretion ary relaxations without pri or publication to the public amounts to a violation of Article 14. It enables and is based on colourable ex ercise of power. These so called “relaxations” are, in substance, changes of zone, as they permit develop ment intensities consistent with higher zones. What the impugned amendments attempt indirectly, plot-spe cific intensification, cannot be done directly under the law.For example, permit ting FAR 200 and 24metres height in a settlement zone capped at FAR 60 and 9m height effectively nullifies the zoning framework, the petitioner has stated
High Court Notice to TCP on Goa Foundation PIL Challenging FAR and Height Relaxations
