The Goa govern ment on Monday informed the High Court of Bombay at Goa that it will frame a fresh set of criteria govern ing the grant of additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and building height permis sions, effectively putting on hold the processing of any new applications seeking such benefits. Appearing for the State, Advocate General Devidas Pangam submitted that the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Board has decided to revise its ex isting policy on granting additional FAR.
A clear and revised framework is currently being formu lated and, once finalised and the necessary amend ments are carried out, it The statement was made during the hearing of public in terest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by activist Sabina Mar tins and the Goa Foundation challenging the amendment to Regulation 6.1.1(a) (Note-2) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, which was notified on August 9, 2023. The petitioners have sought a declaration that the amend ed regulation is ultra vires the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, and the provisions of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. The controversial amendment permits the grant of addi tional FAR and building height and empowers the Steering Committee to alter the regulations without pre-publication or public consultation in specified cases — a provision the petitioners contend opens the door to arbitrary and un checked development.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Pending the disposal of the PILs, the petitioners had sought interim relief restraining the authorities from pro cessing any further applications for enhancement of FAR and building height under the amended regulation. During an earlier hearing, the Court was informed that as many as 255 applications seeking additional FAR and height permissions were pending before the TCP Board. Taking note of the large number of pending applications, the High Court directed the Board to notify all such appli cants, as well as any future applicants, about the pendency of the PILs and the challenge to the amended regulation.
The Court also ordered that any permissions granted un der the impugned provision must expressly state that they are subject to the final outcome of the PIL petitions. It further clarified that beneficiaries of such permissions would not be entitled to claim any equities in their favour, as the validity of the amended regulation remains under judicial scrutiny. The matter has now been adjourned to July 29, when the State is expected to submit a report on the progress made in finalising the revised policy framework.
