the goan I network
PANAJI
Fresh applications for land-use zone conversions under section 16B, appended to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 through a controversial amendment in 2018, will not be considered nor will any provisional approval be granted, the government submitted to a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday.
Noting this submission made by additional government advocate, Deep Shirodkar, the Bench comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and C V Bhadang, granted the government’s plea for adjourning the hearing in the petition challenging section 16B of the TCP Act and fixed January 9 as the next date of hearing although Advocate Norma Alvares strongly opposed the plea.
Alvares also pleaded that the Court, if it is inclined to grant the adjournment, pass orders to restrain the TCP Board from granting any provisional approvals under the impugned Section 16B.
The Bench, however, declined to pass any such order to restrain the TCP Board from granting provisional approvals but “noted” the government advocate’s submission of there being “no possibility of such approvals for the next two months” in its interim order.
Goa Bachao Abhiyan, Federation of Rainbow Warriors and Goa Foundation are the petitioners who had moved the court challenging the introduction of Section 16B in the TCP Act through an amendment passed by the Goa legislative assembly last year.
Shirodkar also told the Court at the Thursday hearing that no final approvals for change in land-use zoning have been granted under the provision by the government as yet.
Section 16B allows for changes to be made to the Regional Plan on a case to case basis.
Despite the matter having been fixed for for final hearing on Thursday, Shirodkar sought an adjournment which was opposed by Alvares and other lawyers representing the petitioners who told the court that in the meanwhile, “applications are being considered for provisional approval relying upon Section 16(b) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Department”.
Alvares sought that if any adjournment is to be granted, then the government must be restrained from considering any further applications.”
However, Shirodkar told the court that past orders of the Court had already spoken of any approvals granted under the impugned section
will be subject to the final outcome of the petition.
“Even if any fresh applications are to be considered for granting approvals, the procedure prescribed under Section 12 to 15 of the said Act requires at least two months for inviting objections, etc,” Shirodkar told the court, adding that such approvals are not possible for the next two months.
“Taking into consideration the fact that no final approvals have been granted relying upon the impugned provision or the fact that it is not likely that even provisional approvals are likely to be granted upon the fresh proposals received for at least the next two months, we make no further orders,” the court ruled.
“The submissions made that no final approvals have been granted and further there is no possibility of even granting provisional approvals in respect of fresh applications for the next two months are noted,” the High Court ruled.
