MARGAO
Non-governmental organisation Goemcho Ekvott, and the villagers of Velsao have refuted claims made by the South Western Railways on land issue at Velsao, saying that RVNL/SWR’s claim that “the land has been in legal possession of Railways for over a century” is unfounded as Goa was in Portuguese occupation till 1961.
Goencho Ekvott president Orville Dourado said the Chief PRO South Western Railway (SWR) Dr Manjunath Kamamadi must clarify why the encroached land in Velsao village has not been mutated in the name of SWR, when innumerable parcels of land across Goa, including the adjoining villages of Cansaulim and Sancoale, have been mutated and partitioned in the name of SWR.
He further said that SWR is required to clarify why replies to the objections raised by villagers before ISLR (ROW) have not been filed for the past several months, prompting ISLR (ROW) to grant SWR a last and final opportunity to file their reply before August 27.
Issuing a rebuttal to South Western Railway's response on encroachments published in a section of the media, stating that “All lands, public roads, lanes, paths -- which are not the property of any person are hereby declared to be the property of the Government, subject to right of way and all other rights, public or individual, legally subsisting”, Dourado said the encroached land has been in open, peaceful, continuous occupation of the villagers as a public motorable village road, without any objections from prior to 1890 when the existing railway track was laid. “SWR admit that villagers have been in casual, permissive occupation. This land has not been assigned a Survey Number and consequently is the property of the local government, ie the local Village Panchayat of Velsao-Pale-Issorcim. SWR offer no basis to claim ownership to the ‘encroached’ land,” he added.
Whilst admitting to administrative instructions listed in letter dated 19th June 2026, Dourado said Dr Kamamadi has not provided details of the withdrawal claimed. Dr Kamamadi appears confused between administrative instructions pertaining to Right of Way and title proceedings pending before ISLR (ROW), he added.
He asserted that administrative instructions to ‘ensure that no action is taken which results in complete blockage of access to residents without providing a suitable alternative arrangement’ have been blatantly violated by SWR.
