PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa asked the Additional Sessions Judge-I at Merces to consider deferring the hearing of a land-grab case, citing a serious question of jurisdiction raised in a petition challenging the very legal basis of the government’s designation of special courts for such cases.
The Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar directed the Additional Government Advocate to take instructions and posted the petition filed by Royson Rodrigues for hearing on September 2.
“Considering that a serious question of jurisdiction arises for consideration and requires to be addressed,” the Bench said, as it also conveyed that the Sessions Judge may consider deferring the hearing of the said matter to a date after September 16.
The petition, among other factors, challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court designated to adjudicate criminal cases under the land grab category. The State government, pursuant to a notification dated June 24, 2026, designated the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Merces, for North Goa and the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao, for South Goa for this purpose.
Rodrigues questioned whether the executive government can create or designate a criminal court as a Special Court for a particular class of cases without a statute expressly conferring such power.
According to the petition, the notification was issued pursuant to recommendations of Justice VK Jadhav (Retd), Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry, State of Goa, and with the concurrence of the High Court conveyed through a letter dated February 24, 2025.
The petitioner contended that the notification did not cite any constitutional provision, provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or special enactment authorising the State government to constitute or designate special criminal courts for land-grabbing cases.
The petitioner’s case arose from a chargesheet filed on September 24, 2025, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa and was subsequently committed to the designated Special Court.
Rodrigues argued that he would be compelled to face proceedings before a special criminal forum whose legal foundation is itself under challenge unless interim protection is granted.
