MAPUSA
The State government's decision to amend the Code of Comunidades, aimed at restricting the change of use of comunidade land for purposes other than those for which it was originally allotted, has sparked widespread debate among stakeholders.
While the government claims that the amendment will protect the traditional land tenure system from misuse, several key figures in Goa’s comunidade system view the move with skepticism, calling it either unnecessary or ineffective.
Self-sufficiency of Comunidade code
A prominent comunidade leader, Andre Pereira sees the amendment as an act of "mischief-making," arguing that the existing Code of Comunidades already addresses the issue of land misuse through provisions that allow for forfeiture of land.
According to Pereira, Articles 371 and 372 of the Code provide sufficient legal avenues to address unauthorised land use, making any additional amendments redundant.
He emphasises that the Code is self-contained and criticises the government’s motives, hinting that external influences may be at play.
Pereira’s perspective raises a fundamental question about the need for such an amendment.
If existing laws already provide for the forfeiture of land in cases of misuse, then what gap is the proposed change seeking to fill?
His view suggests that the government might be attempting to create a perception of reform, even though the legal framework already allows for addressing the issue in question.
Challenges of land
ownership rights
Aldona MLA Carlos Ferreira, a former Advocate General of Goa, expresses strong reservations about the amendment, calling it a "sugar-coated pill."
He highlights that once a comunidade grants definitive possession of land to an allottee, that land becomes the property of the allottee, who enjoys full ownership rights.
Ferreira’s argument is rooted in established principles of property law, where ownership includes the right to use and enjoy land in perpetuity.
He sees the amendment as an attempt to curtail these rights, but questions its efficacy, given that the current legal framework already grants absolute ownership to the allottee upon payment of dues.
Ferreira's stance underscores a critical legal challenge to the amendment.
If ownership rights are already vested fully in the allottees, can the government’s proposed amendment truly limit the use of land?
More importantly, Ferreira suggests that for the government to genuinely prevent changes in land use, the amendment must be retrospective – a step he believes the government is unlikely to take, given its potentially contentious nature.
Stakeholder
criticism
Other comunidade leaders echo similar concerns. Saligao Comunidade President Desmond Da Costa argues that the government's proposed amendment is largely redundant, as the current law already allows landowners to use their land for various purposes once ownership is vested.
He views the amendment as a superficial attempt by the government to appear proactive, without addressing the root of the issue.
Da Costa stresses that any meaningful change would first require a broader overhaul of the country’s property laws, which currently permit such usage.
Assagao Comunidade President Ruildo D’Souza also questions the utility of the amendment, suggesting that once definitive ownership is granted, any attempt to control how the land is used becomes futile.
Government’s
motivations
A recurring theme in the criticism of the proposed amendment is the belief that it is a political move rather than a genuine effort to safeguard comunidade land.
Both Pereira and Ferreira suggest that the government’s motivations may be more about managing public perception ahead of elections than about effectively addressing land misuse.
Pereira's statement that the government is engaging in "mischief" and Ferreira's view that the amendment is designed to "drag the matter until the next elections" point to widespread skepticism about the government's intentions.
In its current form, the amendment seems unlikely to satisfy either legal experts or the comunidade leadership, many of whom view it as a political manoeuvre rather than a serious attempt to address the issue at hand.
