Team Herald
MARGAO: Following the recent High Court ruling that invalidated certain amendments under Section 17(2) of the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act, farmers from Loutolim are hopeful that the government will now address their longstanding concern.
The regional plan has mistakenly marked their khazan fields as something else, allowing the PWD to push forward with its proposal to construct a new Borim bridge through these lands. Correctly marking these fields as khazan would have safeguarded them from such development.
Albert Pinheiro, president of the Carbot, Mascasana & Bebdo Tenants Association in Loutolim, questioned why farmers must bear the financial burden to correct the government's error.
"It was supposed to be a correction of RP2021 errors, yet applicants are charged Rs 1,000 per square metre. If it’s the government’s mistake, why should the applicant pay?" Pinheiro asked.
He stressed that the faulty RP2021 had left Loutolim’s khazan farmers struggling. "Our fields are not shown as khazan in RP2021, and now they are marked for acquisition for the new Borim bridge. Praising RP2021 as Goa's best plan is unacceptable. Section 17(2) can’t be defended either," he said, calling for RP2021 to be scrapped and replaced with a new regional plan based on expert input.
The farmers’ association had written to the TCP requesting corrections, but no response was received. With Section 17(2) now invalidated, Pinheiro pointed out that farmers have no viable way to fix these errors.
"There’s no provision to correct zoning other than 17/2, but paying ₹1,000 per square metre is unfeasible for agricultural fields. Farmers are already burdened with rising labour costs, and even after correcting the error, only agricultural activity would be permitted," he explained.
Pinheiro warned that the issue extends beyond khazan lands, with many morod fields wrongly marked as settlement areas, encouraging plotting activities. In response, Loutolim's gram sabha passed a resolution instructing authorities not to issue zoning certificates based on RP2021 due to its numerous errors.
Highlighting further inconsistencies, Pinheiro pointed to small, 1,000 sq m pockets of land between houses incorrectly marked as orchard zones. "How can a small patch between settlements be called an orchard? A zone should cover a larger, continuous area," he questioned.
Despite his criticism of Section 17(2), Pinheiro acknowledged it provided some relief, as there was no alternative method for correcting zoning errors until the next regional plan. "Now, with 17(2) invalidated, farmers are left with no recourse at all," he said.
Pinheiro revealed that two recommendations had been sent to the TCP office from Loutolim — one by the Village Level Committee and another involving an FIR filed by villagers. To maintain green cover, some settlement areas were reclassified as orchards, even in cases where sanads had been obtained, due to RP2021 errors.
He suggested that future zoning corrections should involve consultations with authorities such as the ZAO, Forest, and Biodiversity departments. Property owners should be allowed to apply for corrections by paying only a processing fee, with site inspections and clear documentation to ensure accountability and the right to appeal if requests are
rejected.