In Goa, where land-use decisions increasingly pit development against ecology, Section 39A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, has become a lightning rod for controversy. The provision, allowing targeted rezoning of individual plots, faces fierce local resistance — most visibly in Palem-Siridao, St Andre constituency — and a serious constitutional challenge in the Bombay High Court at Goa.
The exact text of Section 39A, inserted by the Goa Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2024 (Bill No. 7 of 2024), reads:
“39A. Change of Zone.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Chief Town Planner (Planning) upon direction of the Government or on receipt of an application in this regard and with approval of the Board, may, from time to time, alter or modify the Regional Plan and/or the Outline Development Plan to the extent as specified in sub-section (2) for carrying out change of zone of any land therein, in such manner as prescribed, after giving notice of 30 days inviting suggestions from the public, provided the change of zone shall not be in respect of any eco-sensitive land as may be prescribed.
(2) The alteration or modification carried out under sub-section (1) shall not alter the overall character of the existing Regional Plan and/or the Outline Development Plan.”
The amendment was passed by the Goa Legislative Assembly in early February 2024, received assent, and came into force upon publication in the Official Gazette on 22 February 2024.
IN SIMPLE WORDS
In plain terms, it appears that Section 39A permits any landowner or the government to apply for rezoning a specific parcel — typically from orchard, natural cover, paddy field, or no-development slope to settlement. The process requires a 30-day public notice in the Gazette for objections, TCP Board consideration, and final approval by the Chief Town Planner. Changes are reportedly barred in prescribed eco-sensitive zones and must not alter the “overall character” of the Regional Plan 2021 or ODPs.
In Palem-Siridao, residents have launched sustained protests — including overnight sit-ins at the TCP office in Patto, Panjim, and an indefinite hunger strike by MLA Viresh Borkar —against recent approvals converting nearly 80,000 sqm of orchard and natural cover land. They allege hill-cutting, water depletion, and favoritism toward large developers, with objections during the notice period largely ignored.
The impact is said to have extended statewide. Since 2024, the TCP Board is alleged to have approved dozens of applications, cumulatively converting several lakh square metres (some reports cite up to 6.88 lakh sqm by late 2025), allegedly in Bardez, Pernem, Tiswadi, and other talukas. These “spot” changes are claimed to fragment protected green belts, raising concerns about unplanned sprawl and resource strain.
WHAT GOA FOUNDATION SAYS
The Goa Foundation has challenged Section 39A in a PIL before the Bombay High Court at Goa, arguing it is unconstitutional on two primary grounds:
Violation of Article 14 (Equality before the law): The provision grants wide, unguided discretion to the Chief Town Planner without clear, objective criteria for approving or rejecting applications. It enables arbitrary, ad-hoc “spot zoning” driven by private interests, lacking transparency (Gazette notices often omit applicant details, exact area, or zone specifics), and treats similarly situated lands unequally based on who can apply and influence the process. This, petitioners contend, contravenes the principle of non-arbitrariness inherent in Article 14.
Violation of Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty): By permitting piecemeal conversions of ecologically sensitive zones (orchards, natural cover, paddy fields), Section 39A undermines the Regional Plan's protective framework, leading to irreversible environmental harm, loss of biodiversity, water insecurity, and diminished quality of life. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to a healthy environment is part of Article 21; petitioners argue these fragmented changes erode sustainable development and public interest, contrary to the TCP Act's core objective.
The High Court issued notices in 2024 and has clarified that all approvals under Section 39A remain subject to the PIL's outcome. No blanket stay has been granted, allowing conversions to continue amid ongoing hearings.
Regional Plan 2021 maps (available on the TCP Department website) illustrate the original protected zones.
Comments (0)
Please login to post a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!