Mapusa crematorium land reversion plea dismissed, but wider questions remain

MAPUSA
A controversial attempt to use Mapusa Comunidade land, originally granted exclusively for a Hindu crematorium, has received a major reprieve, with the Administrator of Comunidades, North Zone, dismissing a complaint seeking reversion of the land while leaving several questions surrounding the project unanswered.
The order of Administrator Pandurang Gad comes nearly a year and a half after the Bombay High Court at Goa directed the Comunidades authority to examine allegations of illegal conversion of the land and take appropriate action under the amended Article 31-A of the Code of Comunidades.
The dispute concerns around 3,900 square metres carved out of a larger 22,300-square-metre parcel of Mapusa Comunidade land. The entire property had been granted free of cost in 1987 to the Mapusa Gramastha Hindu Sabha specifically for establishing and maintaining a Hindu crematorium for public benefit. The complainants, Sanjay Vithu Barde and Sitesh Dinesh Morey, alleged that the Sabha subsequently entered into a nine-year Memorandum of Understanding with Automotives De Cristal LLP on January 25, 2024, effectively making part of the crematorium land available for automobile/commercial use.
The issue reached the High Court, which in February 2025 directed the Administrator to ascertain the position under the newly amended Article 31-A. The Administrator has now stopped short of ordering reversion of the land.
A key finding in the order is that Article 31-A came into force only on October 6, 2024. Since the MoU was executed in January 2024 and the construction licence and certain other permissions were issued before October 6, the Administrator held that these transactions and permissions could not simply be declared invalid retrospectively under the amended provision.
However, the order also makes an important distinction: a pre-existing agreement or permission does not automatically protect an actual change of use carried out after Article 31-A came into force. The Administrator therefore examined whether the land had actually been put to a different use after October 6, 2024.
According to the order, the complainants produced the MoU, construction and development permissions, conversion sanad and related documents, but did not provide sufficient evidence establishing the precise date on which the land was physically put to the alleged alternate use, or the nature and extent of such use.
The Administrator held that the existence of an MoU or statutory permissions did not, by itself, establish the actual commencement of a prohibited use under Article 31-A. Consequently, the authority concluded that the factual foundation required for reversion of the land had not been established.
The ruling, however, does not give a clean chit to the project. The Administrator has specifically stated that the order should not be construed as validating the MoU, construction, conversion sanad, development permission, commercial activity or any other arrangement under other laws.
Nor has the authority finally decided whether the Mapusa Gramastha Hindu Sabha had the legal authority to enter into the MoU with Automotives De Cristal LLP. Questions relating to the legality of the construction, conversion, permissions, possession and contractual rights have also been left open.