PANJIM: Three real estate firms have approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the State government’s abrupt decision to roll back land-use changes granted under Section 39A of the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act in the Sant Andre constituency — a move triggered by sustained public protests.
The petitions stem from the government’s February 25 announcement suspending and withdrawing all change-of-zone proposals in Sant Andre with immediate effect, following widespread agitation led by residents of Palem-Siridao. The protests, which quickly drew support from across Goa, were largely directed against the use of Section 39A to convert orchard and natural cover zones into settlement areas.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
At the core of the dispute is the State’s reversal of permissions it had itself granted. The three firms argue that they had secured no-objection certificates (NOCs) and approvals for land conversion under Section 39A, only to see these permissions revoked without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. They contend that the rollback, allegedly under pressure from public protests, violates principles of natural justice and due process.
Acting on the pleas, the High Court has issued notices to the State government and the TCP Department, seeking their response. The matter has been posted for further hearing on June 17.
The TCP Department had, in its order, directed the immediate suspension of all provisional and final land conversions under Section 39A in the Sant Andre constituency. The controversial provision — introduced after the simultaneous scrapping of Section 18B — enabled large-scale land-use changes, a shift that had already drawn sharp criticism from civil society groups.
Notably, the Goa Foundation has separately challenged the constitutional validity and rules governing Section 39A of the TCP Act, 1974, adding another layer of legal scrutiny to a provision that has become a flashpoint between development interests and environmental concerns.
With competing claims of legality, public interest, and procedural fairness now before the court, the case is set to test not just the State’s policy reversal, but the broader framework governing land-use changes in Goa.
