The Pramod Sawant government pushed through the amendment to the Code of Comunidades to provide legal backing for the regularisation of illegal houses built by encroaching on the lands of the age-old village landholding communes, triggering a major controversy. While the government claims the motive is noble — to give land to landless residents living in these houses for years — the comunidades and the Opposition legislators, on the other hand, call it legalised plunder by the government of land which does not belong to it. 'The Goan' dives into the new legislation and elicits views from all sides
PANAJI
With the Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15-4-1961 (Amendment) Bill, 2025, passed by the Goa Legislative Assembly on August 7, the Pramod Sawant-led BJP government hopes to achieve what several past governments failed to do – legalise the thousands of illegal constructions, ostensibly dwelling homes, built on encroached comunidade land.
It inserts a whole new 'Article 372-B' to regularise unauthorised dwelling houses constructed before February 28, 2014, on comunidade land provided certain conditions are met.
Apart from the cut-off date of February 28, 2014, another crucial condition is that no regularisation will be permitted of houses built on agricultural tenanted land, protected forest land, in wildlife sanctuaries, the post-1991 Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZs), No Development Zones, Eco Sensitive Zone-I, Khazan land and water bodies.
However, it will be allowed in land-use zones such as settlement, institutional, industrial, cultivable and orchard.
The actual regularisation process will be a quasi-judicial one conducted by a government-appointed 'authorised officer' who at the end of it will grant "ownership" of only the plinth area plus a buffer area of two metres around the house, if available. However, only a maximum of 300 square metres can be granted and regularised, with the excess land having to be surrendered by the applicant.
The process
According to the amendment, the application must be filed by occupants of the illegal dwelling within six months of the Act coming into force in a 'form' which will be prescribed by the government.
The application must also be supported with documents which show ownership or occupancy of the illegal dwelling. The applicant will also have to pay the fees which will be articulated in the rules the government will notify.
Consent from comunidades
The process of regularisation in the amendment also requires the applicant to obtain the explicit consent of the respective comunidade by applying for it.
Restrictions and penalties
While the amendment does come as a huge benefit for those owning illegal dwellings on comunidade land, it isn’t carte blanche. For, after being granted the land and the dwelling is regularised, it cannot be sold or transferred to third parties for 20 years. It can, however, be granted as a 'gift', but only to a family member.
Also, false declarations by applicants will lead to revocation of regularisation and criminal action, which could earn them a punishment of imprisonment of up to two years in addition to being fined Rs one lakh.
Unarguably, the amendment is a significant move towards resolving long-standing land disputes and providing legal clarity for informal housing on comunidade lands, but it does spark contentious debates over legality and could spawn prolonged legal battles in the courts between the government and comunidades, either singly or collectively.
How encroachers will have to apply
Encroachers on comunidade land must have built their dwelling unit before February 28, 2014 and will have to formally file the application before the 'authorised officer' within six months of the Act coming into force.
Along with the application, proof of construction date, which could either be an electricity bill, property tax receipt or photographs to additionally show ownership/occupancy of the illegal structure, will also have to be furnished. Additionally, the applicant has to file a site plan showing the plinth area and the surrounding two-metre buffer area, if available, and any other documents which the government may prescribe in subsequent rules it notifies after the Act comes into force.
The most contentious and crucial requirement could be the consent from the concerned comunidade which they have to apply for directly. But if denied, all is not lost as the amendment provides them alternatives, including a 'deemed consent' if the comunidade attorney fails to respond in 45 days. The deemed consent will be in the form of a certificate issued by the Administrator of Comunidades, which will have to be separately applied for.
Another avenue in case comunidades reject consent is also provided, where the applicant will have to challenge the decision of the comunidade with the Administrator, who will conduct a separate quasi-judicial process and grant the consent.
Comunidades at the receiving end
For Goa’s centuries-old comunidades, which are independent, self-governing village landholding bodies, this amendment is more than just a procedural tweak. It will end ownership of its own land where illegal encroachments are built. Additionally, many comunidade leaders and protagonists are also most restive about the government's direct challenge to their autonomy.
Before this amendment, the power to regularise illegal encroachments and structures on their land rested solely with the comunidades themselves. Now, this amendment strips them of this power and transfers it to the government through an "authorised" bureaucrat – that too, without the "active approval" of the comunidade.
Many comunidades contend that it bypasses their decision-making authority, effectively transferring a core power – granting or refusing land rights – to the government.
The heritage (asmitai) argument
Comunidades are not merely land-holding bodies. Their protagonists claim they are also the custodians of a legal and cultural system of self-governance which pre-dates the Portuguese colonial period of 500-odd years by several centuries, albeit by a different name – the Gaunkary system.
The amendment weakens this Gaunkary system and even undermines its ability to preserve land for community benefit and future generations, they say.
Another fear expressed by the comunidades and their components who are opposing the amendment is that although the government claims it is a one-time measure, it will clearly set a precedent for similar regularisation by future governments, thus encouraging many to resort to fresh encroachments.
For several other Gaunkars, this isn’t just about land but identity, heritage, and self-determination. To them, the law feels like “legalised plunder” of land by the government, which ironically, does not belong to it but to the comunidades.
