Team Herald
PANJIM: In a significant victory for public-spirited citizens who have opposed the spot zoning and changes to the Regional Plan 2021, the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday struck down the rules and the guidelines that enable the operation of Section 17 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act, prompting the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Minister Vishwajit Rane to disclose that the government will approach the Supreme Court against the order.
Speaking to mediapersons at his Miramar residence, Rane said, “Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi will represent the State in the case. There were several errors in the Regional Plan 2021. Section 17(2) was brought in to give people a chance to correct these errors. We have been given six weeks time to approach the Supreme Court.”
“I respect the judiciary. Implementing suggestions given by the judges regarding operationalisation and interpretation is not a problem," he said.
"That is why Section 39 A has been brought in for taking objections and suggestions from the people for zone changes. The High Court has suggested tweaking the rules, regulation and guidelines. We will study the suggestions and after studying them, we will submit them before the Supreme Court,” Rane added.
Rane stressed that Section 17(2) has not been scrapped and after the Supreme Court hears the matter, the government will do the necessary tweaking.
Earlier, the Court order came in response to the several public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by the Goa Foundation, the Khazan Society of Goa and the Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA) and three public-spirited citizens Pravinsingh Shedgaonkar of Betim, Mayur Shetgaonkar of Morjim and Swapnesh Sherlekar of Mulgao-Bicholim; Pilerne Citizen Forum, Sanjay Shinde of Navelim and the miscellaneous civil application by the Federation of Rainbow Warriors.
The petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity and vires of Section 17 (2) of the TCP Act, 1974, which enabled the State government to correct errors in the Goa Regional Plan 2021.
They had also challenged the Goa Town and Country Planning (Alteration/Modification in the Regional Plan for Rectification of Inconsistent/Inadvertent Zoning Proposals) Rules, 2023, on the grounds that they are violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners had further contested the re-zoning of individual plots in establishing zoning areas, arguing that this process violates the principles of planned development under the TCP Act.
The Court stated that it had only considered the challenge to Section 17(2) of the Act and the 2023 Rules. The matter has now been posted for further consideration after four weeks.
After the order, senior advocate Devitre, representing the State requested for stay of the order. Considering the nature of the challenge the Court stayed the operation of this order for six weeks. But the Court made it clear that there shall be no consideration of the applications for approvals made under Section 17 (2) of the TCP Act.
As regards Section 17(2) itself, the Court has decided that this section has to be read down which means that any proposal which comes has to be considered in the light of the Regional Plan 2021 only and not independently, not by themselves, not for reasons of inconsistencies and incoherency, informed petitioners counsel senior advocate Norma Alvares.
The Court has said that no further approvals can be granted at present when the State government sought a stay of the operation of Section 17 (2) for six weeks, she added.
The Court struck down the Goa Town and Country Planning (Alteration/Modification in the Regional Plan for Rectification of Inconsistent/Inadvertent Zoning Proposals) Rules, 2023, being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and the TCP Act, thereby rendering the guidelines for the alteration/modification to be carried out under Section 17(2) issued by the TCP Department vide circular dated 27.03.2023 null and void.
“This is a good victory for people, because, we were opposed to the zoning which was being changed spot by spot in different places changing the entire context of the landscape of Goa and literally casting aside the Regional Plan 2021, which is still valid and holds good for people of Goa, protecting Goa’s ecology and environment while also allowing for development in certain areas,” senior advocate said further.
When queried about the future of land conversions made thus far using provisions under Section 17(2) of TCP Act, senior Adv Alvares said, “We will have to read the judgment and consider each individual case because many cases were done on the basis of inconsistencies and incoherency and not error. Error has to be shown vis-a-vis the original proposal in the Regional Plan. So each of the approvals that have been granted zone change permissions will have to be reconsidered in the light of what they were in the original Regional Plan and only if they can show that there was some error in the Regional Plan then only a zone change could be considered and not because some people find that this is not a correct zone or this is not a good zone. ‘I want to develop my property’. That is all cancelled by the High Court,” she informed.
The PIL writ petitions had challenged the first 24 change of zone approvals. “Most of them were spot zoning,” senior Adv Alvares said. Incidentally, the PIL writ petition has still not been disposed of and will come for hearing after four weeks.
The Section 17 (2) of the TCP Act was inserted by way of an amendment to the Act on March 1, 2023. The rules framed under Section 17(2) enabled private individuals to file applications to seek correction or rectification of inadvertent error and correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning proposal in the Regional Plan 2021.
Reacting to the judgment, Director of Goa Foundation Dr Claude Alvares said, “The High Court has given relief which it normally does when there is a constitutional matter. The government which is supposed to protect the eco-zones has become an enemy of it. So citizens of the State had no recourse but to approach the High Court.”
He said, “The High Court has struck down guidelines and rules and once it is done then everything done under that is going to be set aside. It is the great victory of the people of Goa because everybody in the State has been agitated over Section 17 (2) of TCP Act, except of course beneficiaries, most of whom are parties from Delhi who were able to pay huge amounts of money required for the zone changes.”
Alvares said, “Some Goans were also there but they were acting as front agencies for the Delhi parties. All the NGO groups will fight to see that Goa’s environment and greenery is maintained. The High Court has given us great motivation through the judgment.”
Goa Bachao Abhiyan co-convenor Sabina Martins said, “We are very happy that the High Court put a stop to land conversions via Section 17 (2) amendment of TCP Act. GBA has been fighting to protect eco-sensitive zones like fields, hills, sand dunes, mangroves, and water bodies. The High Court also upheld the participation of people in planning which Section 17 (2) did not allow and struck down the rules and guidelines.”
She said, “This is people’s victory. So many people worked very hard to get facts as information sought under RTI Act was not given properly. The information on the TCP Department website was not uploaded from August 2024 despite the High Court order. The matter had to be argued twice as the bench changed. Also many other similar petitions were clubbed together. All the lawyers did their best to protect Goa’s land. More importantly the High Court bench understood the gravity of destruction Goa is subjected to and put a halt to some extent. There are many more violations that are currently in court and we are hopeful justice will be done. The government should not waste public money by going to the Supreme Court.”
Environmentalist Swapnesh Sherlekar said, “TCP Minister and the Chief Town Planner should take responsibility and resign from their positions if they have a sense of accountability and responsibility. The government spent crores of rupees on hiring external lawyers to defend the ill-conceived rules and guidelines of the amended TCP Act.”
Expressing his disappointment over the judgment, Federation of Rainbow Warriors founder Abhijeet Prabhudesai said, “My immediate reaction is of disappointment because we are firm in our opinion that Section 17 (2) is unconstitutional and has to be quashed.”
“Our position is that 17 (2) is for unplanned development. We do not see this order as a victory but as a challenge. We will fight against it until we get justice for Goa. We want that Section 17 (2) as a whole should be struck down because tomorrow the government can come up with new rules and guidelines. Our demand is firm that 17 (2) has to be struck down and there is no two-way,” he said.
“To put it briefly, the Regional Plan is for rural Goa and Outline Development Plan (ODP) for urban planning. In rural Goa, the need is for sustainable development. It has nothing to do with urban development. The corrections which can be done in ODP cannot be done in Regional Plan. The Regional Plan is restricted to broad demarcation.”