PIL against building regulations amendments
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has fixed April 15 for final hearing and disposal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging amendments to Goa’s Building Regulations that permit enhanced Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and building height across the State.
The PIL, filed by the Goa Foundation and two other petitioners, questioned the legality of amendments that allow additional floors and height relaxations on payment of Rs 1,000 per sq metres. The petitioners contended that the changes enable the government to grant such relaxations anywhere in Goa, including village panchayat and Outline Development Plan (ODP) areas, without adhering to the statutory framework under the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations (GLDBCR), 2010 and the Regional Plan 2021.
The petition stated that amended Regulation 6.1.1(a)(2) permits case-by-case enhancement of FAR and corresponding height relaxations, resulting in “plot-by-plot intensification” detached from zoning classifications. Under Section 6A.4 of the GLDBCR, permissible FAR and height are determined by zone classification.
The petitioners argued that granting development intensity equivalent to higher commercial zones in lower-intensity settlement or residential zones alters the character of such areas. It cited instances where FAR 200 and 24-metre height have been permitted in zones otherwise capped at FAR 60 and 9 metres.
Referring to Note (1) of Table VIII of the Regulations, the petition stated that C-1 zoning is designated for central business districts of Panaji, Margao, Mormugao, Mapusa and Ponda. It alleges that over 100 permissions under Regulation 6.1.1(a)(2) have granted C-1 equivalent FAR and heights in non-CBD areas, including village panchayat jurisdictions.
The PIL further raises concerns over infrastructure capacity, traffic impact and environmental consequences, contending that large-scale FAR and height increases are being granted without comprehensive studies on cumulative impact.
It also submitted that 739 permissions or NOCs had reportedly been granted up to January 2025 under the amended regime, but details are not in the public domain, which has limit transparency and public participation.
The amendments have been challenged on grounds that removal of quantitative ceilings on FAR through corrigendum violates procedure under the 2008 Act; that conferral of discretionary powers to enhance FAR and height raises issues under Article 14 of the Constitution; and that differential premium structures lack rational basis.
The matter is posted for final hearing on April 15.
In a related writ petition filed by Sabina Martins challenging FAR enhancement granted in respect of development in her building, the High Court observed that the development would remain subject to the final outcome of her petition.
