The villagers of Sancoale received a legal boost in their ongoing battle against Bhutani Infra as Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA) filed a separate petition, and environmental researcher Swapnesh Sherlekar was tagged in the matter before the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday.
The courtroom, packed with petitioners and supporters, saw Adv Richard Almeida lead arguments against the proposed development by Bhutani Infra, asserting that the company lacked necessary permissions for the project.
Almeida argued before Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P Mehta that the 200 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) granted to the project was not applicable, as the plot in question—Survey No. 257/1—was classified as C-1, which does not allow such high FAR.
“By doing this, they will alter the entire topography of the village. We live at the base of the hill, and they want to cut the hill for their development. Sancoale falls under Panchayat jurisdiction despite being under the Mormugao Planning and Development Authority (MPDA), and hence 200 FAR cannot be claimed,” Almeida explained.
“They could have been eligible for FAR of 150 had the property been classified as C-2, but not under C-1,” he added. Almeida argued that the approved development plan could not stand legal scrutiny as it violated the Town and Country Planning (TCP) department’s own rules.
The second major objection raised by the villagers pertained to the sanad granted for the project on January 8, 2023. “The NOC for conversion was issued back in 2009 and used in 2023. To date, Bhutani Infra claims it has no Environment Clearance (EC) as it is still in the data collection stage,” Almeida stated.
“The Sancoale Panchayat issued a construction licence without Environment Clearance and has yet to file its reply. This urgent issue remains unaddressed by both the MPDA and the Panchayat,” he said, as Justice Dangre sought supporting documents.
The court was further informed that on June 30, 2025, the petitioners discovered Bhutani Infra had obtained 17(A) permission for hill cutting in an area where the slope exceeds 28%, where construction is proposed.
“As per regulation, the required right of way for such a project is ten metres. Their approved plan mentions only seven metres, and there’s been no verification from the TCP so far,” Almeida submitted. Some villagers exchanged amused glances as he added, “My contention is that the road is less than six metres. Facts are being suppressed and misrepresented to obtain permissions.”
“The Panchayat and MPDA issued show cause notices, but both remain silent. The development permission has no legal standing and is therefore invalid,” he concluded.
Justice Dangre, in a lighter moment, quipped, “You are representing Goa Bachao Abhiyan, but the bench is of outsiders,” as Ad Nigel Costa da Frias rose to make his submissions for GBA.
“I will restrict my arguments to two issues: first, the lack of Environment Clearance, without which the project cannot proceed; and second, the permission granted on June 30, 2025, for hill cutting,” Costa da Frias explained.
He drew attention to a letter from the MPDA secretary to the Chief Town Planner, stating:“The above matter of reply to the show cause notice was discussed at length, and all the members of the authority were of the opinion that this authority has no role in the decision-making on the Development Permission... which was issued with prior approval of the government. The authority neither took the decision nor discussed the proposal at any meeting.”
Costa da Frias commented, “It is a shame that an agency washes its hands off responsibility and blames the government, when in fact it is their duty. This is when the project should have been rejected—but it wasn’t.”
Researcher Swapnesh Sherlekar added that the approved area for cutting “includes substantial portions exceeding the 25% slope limit, thus posing a significant risk to the environment.”
Advocate Costa da Frias is scheduled to continue his submissions on Monday, after which respondent Paramesh Constructions will begin their final arguments.