MARGAO
The long-running issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings in Margao has taken a new turn, with the Margao Municipal Council (MMC) admitting before the South Goa District Collector that it lacks the resources to demolish such structures on its own.
In a recent submission, MMC Chief Officer Melvyn Vaz requested the intervention of the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) to execute demolition orders for two unsafe buildings. Acting on the request, District Collector and DDMA Chairperson Egna Cleetus directed the Public Works Department (PWD – Buildings) to carry out the demolitions.
However, this move has raised questions about whether MMC’s stand aligns with the provisions of Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act, which places the responsibility of dealing with buildings “in ruins or likely to fall” squarely on municipal bodies and their chief officers.
Section 190 empowers municipal authorities to order owners or occupiers of such buildings to repair, secure, or demolish them. In cases of imminent danger, the municipal chief officer is authorised to take immediate action, including fencing off or removing hazardous structures, with costs recoverable as property tax dues.
Statutory obligations vs resource crunch
Observers point out that MMC’s claim of lacking the necessary resources may conflict with these statutory obligations. Even in cases where a municipality is unable to execute demolition work directly, the law implies that local bodies—both municipalities and panchayats—must coordinate with demolition squads led by Deputy Collectors to ensure enforcement of safety orders.
Further complicating matters is the apparent lack of preventive measures. Section 190 mandates the municipal Chief Officer to fence, secure or repair any structure which is ruinous and about to fall, and to erect fencing for the protection of passers-by. Following the partial collapse of two old buildings in the city last week, questions have emerged about whether MMC had previously conducted audits of ageing structures or compelled owners to address visibly dangerous portions.
Calls for transparency
While MMC has reportedly updated its list of unsafe buildings and has asked the DDMA to assess the structural stability of 21 properties, critics are asking for greater transparency. Civic activists are calling on MMC to disclose the criteria used to identify these buildings and explain why only 21 structures made it to the list—despite widespread evidence of decaying balconies, chhajjas, and galleries along major roads.
As the MMC seeks external help, it remains to be seen whether statutory responsibilities under the Goa Municipalities Act will be fulfilled or deferred amid administrative and logistical hurdles.
