Petition cites rules allow arbitrary conversions; matter slated for Oct 3
PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Tuesday issued notices to the State government including Town & Country Planning in connection with a fresh Public Interest Litigation challenging the vires and rules of Section 39A of the TCP Act, 1974.
The Division Bench of Justice M S Karnik and Valmiki Menezes adjourned the matter on October 3, for interim relief.
As per the plea filed by NGO Goa Foundation, Section 39A of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act – that came into force on February 22 – seeks to allow once again entirely ad-hoc and arbitrary conversions of privately owned plots in the Regional Plan and notified Outline Development Plans (ODPs) based on individual applications from such parties (spot zoning). The Rules under the Act for Section 39A were enforced on March 7.
“Such provisions are contrary to the very scheme of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and are also violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the petitioner stated, adding that the new feature when compared to 16B and 17(2) means the government has given itself powers to interfere openly in the permissions for plots lying within planning areas governed by Outline Development Plans.
“Thus, the government has now given itself the power to change land use not only in the Regional Plan but also in notified planning areas, which now includes every nook and corner of the State. This can only bode ill for the future of the State, since every planned area is now subject to arbitrary influence, especially from interested parties including real estate bodies and developers,” it alleged.
The new PIL recorded that 95 per cent of the applications under Section 39A which appeared in the gazette for public objections involve changes from orchard (2,37,710 sq mt) and natural cover zones (1,42,462 sq mt) to settlement. The petitioner claimed that the gazette notifications are bare, giving no details of the name of the applicant, area to be changed, existing zone and proposed zone whereas only the survey number of the village is indicated.
“The entire exercise is to conceal, not disclosing. These actions of the government are not transparent and against public interest,” it said.
Meanwhile, more than 6,000 applications for changes in the Regional Plan under Section 16B have become infructuous, since it was removed from the TCP Act after the issue was legally challenged.
