The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Monday issued notices to the State government, the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Secretary, former Chief Town Planner Ra jesh Naik, incumbent Chief Town Planner Vertika Da gur, and the Directorate of Vigilance over the alleged non-levy of fees for grant ing additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and height re laxations. The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Swapensh Sherl ekar and Rupesh Shinkre, who have challenged a “deliberate and unlawful waiver” of statutory fees resulting in massive gains for developers at the cost of the public exchequer.
At the heart of the peti tion is the August 9, 2023 amendment to Regulation 6.1.1 of the Goa Land De velopment and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, which enabled the grant of additional FAR and height relaxations on a case-to-case basis. The petitioners contend that while a July 2015 notifica tion mandating a fee of Rs 20,000 per square metre for such approvals “con tinues to remain in force,” the amended regulation conspicuously omitted any reference to fee collection “This omission was neither inadvertent nor procedural — it was a conscious design to benefit the building lobby by granting development rights virtually free of cost,” the pe tition alleges. According to the plea, between August 2023 and Septem ber 2024, the TCP Depart ment cleared numerous proposals granting what it terms “unlimited additional FAR” without levying any fees, leading to “windfall profits for select private parties and a correspond ing, substantial loss to the State.” Even after the Finance Department flagged the issue in September 2024 and directed that fees be imposed and recovery ex plored in past cases, the petition claims that “the illegality persisted unabat ed.” Approvals without fee recovery allegedly contin ued from October 2024 to February 2025, “with full knowledge and approval at the highest levels, including the Chief Minister.” The Law Department, in April 2025, advised that fees must be levied through an amendment to the reg ulation. However, instead of halting approvals or cor recting the legal framework, the petitioners allege that “an impermissible admin istrative route was adopted to retrospectively legitimise an otherwise illegal regime.” The controversy deep ened with the suspension of then Chief Town Planner Rajesh Naik on April 30, 2025, on charges of serious irregularities and miscon duct. Despite this, the peti tion claims that “the prac tice of granting additional FAR without statutory fees did not cease.” An audit by the Accountant General of Goa found that 321 proposals had been approved under the amended regula tion up to April 2025, all without fee recovery.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The estimated loss to the State exchequer stands at Rs 107.36 crore as per Finance Department calculations, but could be as high as Rs 2,147.12 crore when computed under the TCP Department’s own fee structure. “These figures underscore a staggering transfer of pub lic value into private hands, in clear violation of statutory norms and public trust,” the petition states, terming the ap provals “a largesse extended to a select few under the guise of regulatory discretion.” The petitioners have also challenged the July 23, 2025 ex ecutive order (published on July 31), which fixed a sharply reduced premium of Rs 1,000 per square metre for addition al FAR in most categories, while retaining the Rs 20,000 rate for select uses such as 4-star and 5-star hotels and educa tional institutions. “The executive order not only lacks statutory backing but effectively legitimises an arbitrary and deeply discounted regime of development premiums,” the plea argues. Seeking urgent judicial intervention, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the executive order, a determination on whether the 2015 notification remains binding, and di rections to recover all dues retrospectively. They have further urged the court to ensure that any grant of additional FAR or height remains subject to the outcome of the PIL, and that “no occupancy or completion certificates be issued in respect of such projects without prior leave of this Court.” Adv Rohit Bras de Sa is appearing for the pet ioners.
