The recent ruling by the High Court of Mumbai regarding the demolition of unlawful edifices throughout Goa represents a pivotal moment in confronting the challenge of unauthorised construction that has beset Goa. Every authority entrusted with the enforcement of regulations has seemingly turned a blind eye, presumably due to political patronage. The court's pronouncement emerges amidst escalating apprehensions regarding environmental degradation and the safeguarding of Goa's distinctive cultural and ecological heritage. While the structures will face demolition, one must ponder whether the officials who flouted the directive will be held accountable.
Goa has experienced a distressing escalation in illegal constructions over the past few decades. Numerous structures have been erected without the requisite permits, frequently encroaching upon ecologically sensitive regions, including coastal zones, forests, and both communidade and private lands. The intervention of the High Court signifies a judicial acknowledgment of the imperative to uphold urban planning regulations and environmental safeguards. Furthermore, it underscores the administration's failure to effectively enforce the law.
Given the political conundrum that illegal construction represents, it is hardly surprising that the State's political leadership has consistently sought to defer the issue, frequently attempting to regularise these unlawful edifices, albeit with limited success. This approach merely postpones the inevitable and instils false hope among the proprietors of such properties. On one hand, those illegal structures located within highway expansion zones were urged to dismantle voluntarily, while others were reassured that, for the time being, only identification—not demolition—was under consideration. MLA Carlos is the sole figure who has unequivocally asserted that the ruling mandates the Government to identify and subsequently demolish these illegal structures; there exists no alternative.
Illegal constructions serve as vote banks, and every effort will be exerted to safeguard them under the guise of humanitarian considerations. Such justifications, however, are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny, as the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that illegal constructions cannot be legitimised, irrespective of prolonged occupancy. These infractions must catalyse prompt remedial measures, encompassing both demolition and penalties for negligent officials. Will those who wilfully ignore the onset of illegal construction or its subsequent demolition face repercussions? Without such accountability, demolitions will merely address the symptoms rather than the underlying affliction. This ruling not only endeavours to uphold extant laws but also aspires to dissuade future transgressions by establishing a precedent for accountability.
This necessitates the identification of unlawful structures; some of which already have pending demolition orders, yet no action has been undertaken. Once these structures are identified, is there a possibility for their regularisation? If regularisation is not feasible in areas designated for road widening, can the Government regularise them on land that it does not possess? Furthermore, in relation to the road-widening zones, what were the Public Works Department officials doing while their territory was encroached upon? Did they report the encroachments to the relevant authorities, only to be instructed to disregard them, or did they choose to overlook them independently?
Local administrative bodies in Goa have now been apprised of their responsibilities. They are tasked with ensuring that all construction endeavors adhere to legal stipulations, thereby safeguarding the interests of the community and the environment. This ruling serves as a clarion call for local officials to engage in vigilant monitoring and enforcement practices, thereby ensuring that the enchanting essence of Goa is preserved for posterity.
The ruling has elicited a spectrum of reactions among the populace. On one hand, environmental advocates and community leaders have lauded the decision as a crucial stance against the rampant urbanisation that jeopardises Goa's natural allure and fosters an “anything goes” mentality. Conversely, certain property owners have articulated apprehensions regarding the potential forfeiture of their homes or businesses, contending that the abrupt implementation of these regulations may precipitate economic distress for those who have invested in these assets. What of the law-abiding citizen, for instance, whose enterprise is adversely impacted because he dutifully pays taxes on his legitimate premises, thereby rendering his services costlier than those offered by illegal establishments?
If the Government were to resolve to enact an ordinance to safeguard illegal constructions, would those illegal edifices, already demolished, be permitted to be reconstructed under the tenets of equality? The proposed ordinance aims to regularise irregular structures situated on private land; however, what provisions exist for illegal constructions, which are the primary concern? Irregular structures can invariably be regularized, provided they adhere to established regulations. Might this ordinance, for instance, preserve illegal constructions erected on agricultural land, where development is proscribed according to zoning laws? Should this be permitted, it would signify that law-abiding citizens could derive significant advantages from flouting the law. If the Government does indeed choose to confront this issue decisively and take action, it will undoubtedly send a clear message that, in the future, individuals will be compelled to reconsider their inclination to engage in illegal construction or to treat regulatory frameworks with contempt.
What is imperative is decisive action against officials who willfully ignore violations at the outset and, when alerted, compel the complainant to navigate an arduous bureaucratic labyrinth. Ideally, a centralised command center should be established to receive complaints confidentially, taking the requisite administrative measures to address issues proactively. The rapid response teams designated to tackle hill cutting or unlawful filling—initial steps toward illicit construction—ought to be integrated within this command center. Each report will be meticulously monitored, with diligent follow-ups conducted. This approach will safeguard officials from intimidation by local politicians, and should it be determined that the accountable officials have neglected their duties, they must face immediate repercussions. This framework will empower them to resist any coercion to avert their gaze from wrongdoing.
With the hammer descending upon “Lala Ki Basti,” can the other illegal colonies remain untouched? The residents must come to the realisation that they have been deceived. The Goa State Rehabilitation Board may serve as a viable solution. This Board has the capacity to construct temporary transit accommodations for those whose residences have been deemed illegal. This initiative was envisioned by the late Chief Minister Parrikar but has since been neglected. Another crucial aspect that the Government ought to address is apprehending the land sharks who have duped these individuals into believing they were acquiring land with legitimate documentation. There are con artists at large, and if the Government is genuinely committed to safeguarding the rights of the affected populace, then this is a viable course of action—not merely resorting to the expedient ordinance route.
The High Court of Mumbai's adjudication regarding the demolition of illegal structures in Goa signifies a momentous juncture for the future of the state, as the local leadership grapples with the intricacies of executing this ruling. Will the Government possess the fortitude to confront this formidable challenge? Only time will reveal the answer.
(The author prefers to write rather than chat in a balcao)