The Goa’s civil society has been at war with the governments for over a decade demanding scraping of regional plans formulated by the successive governments. On the Republic Day of 2007 the Congress government bowed to the sentiments of Goans and withdrew the plan which the civil society feared would destroy the very idea of Goa. Another Regional Plan 2021 prepared under the stewardship of Charles Correia which to my mind threaded the mid path between the type of development and the conservative approach advocated by the civil society. That Regional Plan 2021 notified in 2011 was kept in abeyance again bowing to public opinion. The civil society which tasted some success now gets a bitter dose in the form of an amendment to the TCP Act 2018.
Whether in Goa, India or at the world level cities, towns and villages have master plans with designated areas for agriculture, residences and commence.
The problem arises when these areas can be changed arbitrarily. Laws giving discretionary powers to authorities permit real estate agents, rich and the powerful to abuse politically patronage to change the land use of their properties which normally quadruple its price immediately upon the change say from agriculture to settlement or commercial.
Unprecedented pressure on the land in this tiny state led the civil society to protect what is left of Goa. There is no doubt that due to its peculiar geography, growth is difficult……. The CRZ notification of 1991 and the conservative Town and Country Planning Act preserved this pristine place till the early nineties of last century. Currently the High Court and the civil society groups are doing their best.
This tiny state must grow. The land sector and in particular the changing of zones is the worst offender in Goa’s growth story. As we face land crunch for infrastructure and housing projects the real estate prices have started shooting through the roof. And the resultant demand supply mismatch and the speculations in the housing sector has provided the opportunity for all sorts of under table deals. It is believed that majority of the real estate deals have two components ‘black’ and ‘white’ and Town and Country Planning administrators feel they should also be part of that loot.
The 2018 Amendment permitting change of zone in regional plan on individual requests ‘as may be considered necessary’ based upon the report of the Chief town Planner is draconian and against the very spirit of the ongoing people’s movement sparked by the GBA after the ‘pink plan’. Our tragedy is that some of the then GBA activists were fielded to defend the new amendment of 2018 which permits changes in the plan on ‘case by case’ basis.
The individual request for changes in zones which brought in wholesale corruption in the department of Town and Planning was sought to be curbed by the then Chief Secretary Kiran Dhingra during the short stint of president’s rule. After that we believed we had entered a regime of planning for Goa through regional plans. Land governance ought to center around how people use and interact with land. We require a robust land governance where government, landlords, civil society have to collaborate. The trust deficit in the government of today have not permitted this collaboration.
The need of the hour is the restore that trust by following processes that are transparent, non-arbitrary and consultative approach fostering collaboration.
The recent amendment is a clear departure from the good practice of collaboration. The then chief secretary’s move to stop conversion on individual cases was a move forward towards transparent, participatory and inclusive process in land governance and the recent amendments of giving sweeping, unguided, totally discretionary power to the government is certainly a step backward.
Law and history tells us that wherever there is discretion there is always misuse of discretion leading to corruption and frauds. If the civil society’s concern over protecting what is left of Goa did not allow that collaboration between the administrators and the civil society, the remedy provided by the Town and Country Planning Department is worse than the disease.
The brazen move to change the zones at individual request makes mockery of the over decade long movement for transparent land governance. If we are to progress, law must be such that its administrators work within the parameters set by it.
The recently introduced Section 16B to the Goa TCP Act is far away from clear cut ideas and guidelines for change of zone. The current TCP Act cannot be expected to protect the identity of the State.
Look how it happened. In the morning session the TCP minister spoke of one crore sq. mts. of orchard land being illegally developed and that very evening, the legislative assembly passed the bill permitting change of land zoning on individual requests which in political parlance is referred to as ‘suit case by suit case’ basis. Without any debate or discussion on new tools of development called TDR, TDR for posterity and accommodation reservation got introduced into the Goa Town and Country Planning Act.
Even the opposition request for the amendment to be sent to the select committee got bulldozed. It was only expected that over a decade long people’s movement would usher in an effective and enforceable land governance providing necessary frame work for developing this tiny state in a transparent manner and doing away with all forms of corruption.
Upon passing of the bill a report in Business Standard claimed owners of 7630 hectares of land in Goa is up for reclassification. Imagine the phenomenal amounts that could change hands!
Goa’s civil society lost the battle. The war is not yet over.
(The writer is practicing advocate, senior faculty in law and political analyst)
