The introduction of the Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on Tuesday, reflects a desperate shift in the State's approach to land encroachment and urban settlement regulation. While ostensibly aimed at providing relief to those who have constructed dwelling houses on government land before February 28, 2014, the bill's various sections reveal a deeper intent, one that opens doors for the regularisation of encroachments by all and sundry and raises serious concerns about setting a precedent and ill-conceived governance.
Section 38A forms the centrepiece of this bill. It grants the Deputy Collector the authority to regularise unauthorised constructions on government land, provided these constructions were made before the cut-off date. The scope includes unauthorised dwellings on land belonging to the government, with a maximum permissible area of 400 square metres and restrictions against encroachments in ecologically sensitive or protected zones. Only the land on which the pucca houses exist and an additional two metres on all four sides of the structure will be cleared for regularisation, with a rider that the applicant is barred from selling the house for the next 20 years.
From an assessment perspective, Section 38A is designed to give legal sanctity to unauthorised dwellings and thereby save them from demolitions following the High Court’s order. However, the criteria set forth are so lenient that they could lead to opening floodgates to illegalities. There is also no reasoning behind the February 2014 cut-off date.
The bill does not specify detailed eligibility criteria beyond the date of construction and residency duration, nor does it differentiate between “Niz Goemkar” and outsiders. It effectively means anyone who has encroached on government land, regardless of their origins or intent, can now get ownership. Therefore, anyone who has been illegally occupying government land before February 2014 now becomes the lawful owner of that piece of land.
The section’s emphasis on regularisation by paying a prescribed occupancy price, but the Bill as a whole reflects the government's desperation because of its willingness to overlook the broader implications of legitimising encroachments, many of which may be illegal, environmentally damaging, or are in litigation. Such a blanket approach risks creating a horrible precedent, undermining land governance and the rule of law.
Against the backdrop of the numerous settlers or migrants encroaching on the government’s land, the bill's provisions raise questions about equity and fairness. While “born Goans” or “mull Goemkars” should have been exclusive beneficiaries of such concessions, the explanation in sub-section (11) defines an "applicant" as a resident who has been in Goa for at least fifteen years and who constructed the dwelling before the stated cut-off date. The government’s decision to make regularisation available to all, rather than prioritising long-established Goans, reflects a policy of expediency rather than justice.
Moreover, regularising unauthorised constructions without stringent and reasonable criteria encourages future encroachments, eroding the sanctity of government land. Such populist measures have far-reaching consequences and long-term implications for the landscape of Goa. The absence of a clear policy prioritising "born Goans" over outsiders is a missed opportunity to safeguard local interests.
The Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, aims to bring order and formalisation to unauthorised settlements, and inadvertently paves the way for a surge in encroachments, thereby giving them new hope. To uphold fairness and protect the rights of residents, the government should have tightened eligibility criteria rather than adopting an open, indiscriminate regularisation policy. The move defeats the very spirit with which the High Court viewed the issue of encroachments and illegal structures.
