MAPUSA
The recent High Court order directing action against various illegal constructions including those on comunidade land has raised concerns over the future of longstanding migrant settlements.
The ruling, which aligns with a Supreme Court judgment from December 17, 2024, emphasizes that the duration of an illegal structure’s existence does not confer legality.
As a result, settlements like Moti Dongor in Margao, Zuarinagar in Vasco and various migrant clusters in Mapusa are now at risk of demolition.
Legal standpoint
Legal experts argue that the ruling is consistent with past judicial pronouncements on land encroachments.
Former Advocate General and Senior Counsel Carlos Ferreira pointed out that courts have consistently maintained that unauthorized structures must be removed, regardless of how long they have existed.
“Our High Court has reaffirmed what has been stated repeatedly. Some locals have built on lands owned by others, while in certain areas, migrant settlements have emerged over decades. This order applies uniformly,” Ferreira stated.
Advocate Andre Pereira, an expert on the comunidade code, reinforced this position, stating, “As long as the comunidade has not granted title to these migrants, the structures remain illegal. Whether they have been there for 50 or 100 years is immaterial.”
Impact on migrants, locals
The order has sparked concerns that it could disproportionately affect migrant communities who may have to find alternative housing.
At the same time, former MLA and legal expert Radharao Gracias highlighted that local Goans may also be impacted. He noted that many have extended their properties onto public land, particularly in beachside areas such as Colva and Calangute.
“What is illegal is illegal, and these structures will have to go,” Gracias asserted, suggesting that the order is a wake-up call for both migrants and locals engaging in unauthorized construction.
Policy response and govt dilemma
The ruling has placed the State government in a politically sensitive position. Chief Minister Pramod Sawant has indicated that amendments to the law may be considered to protect certain irregular constructions. However, he has also categorically stated that illegal structures must be removed.
Ferreira underscored the inevitability of enforcement, stating, “The government has no choice but to act. The High Court has issued sweeping directions, and reluctance from authorities due to political pressure can no longer be an excuse.”
He further noted that the Supreme Court has historically been stringent in such cases, having previously struck down legislation attempting to regularize illegal constructions.
Gracias pointed out that the State’s failure to enforce existing laws necessitated judicial intervention.
“You don’t need a High Court order to demolish illegal structures on comunidade land or other restricted areas. The government is simply not fulfilling its duty,” he remarked.
Enforcement and political ramifications
While the High Court ruling is unambiguous, its implementation remains uncertain.
The State government faces the challenge of adhering to the order while navigating the political implications, particularly concerning the migrant vote bank.
“If the order is applied strictly, all comunidade encroachments must be cleared. However, how the government chooses to enforce it will be telling,” said Gracias, hinting at potential selective enforcement.
Despite legal clarity, experts anticipate that political maneuvering may influence how the order is executed.
Pereira concluded, “The High Court order applies to all, but its enforcement is an entirely different question.”
As the government weighs its next steps, the fate of thousands of residents in long-standing migrant settlements hangs in the balance.
The coming months will reveal whether legal mandates will be upheld or if political considerations will lead to selective application of the ruling.
