Judicial doctrine and the rule of zoning
In Goa, zoning laws are more than administrative devices; they are vital tools for balancing ecological preservation and planned development. The High Court of Bombay at Goa has repeatedly emphasised that structures erected in violation of zoning regulations are not merely irregular but void ab initio. The foundation of this judicial position lies in the constitutional imperative to uphold the public interest over arbitrary discretion.
In PIL WP 16/2023, the High Court considered the constitutional validity of Section 17(2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, a provision inserted in 2023 allowing unilateral re-zoning of private plots by the Government based on private applications. These applications claimed “inadvertent errors” or “incoherent zoning” in the notified Regional Plan 2021. The Court held that such language, left undefined in both the 2023 Rules and the implementation guidelines, conferred “unfettered and unguided discretion” upon the Executive. Consequently, while Section 17(2) was not formally struck down, the Court read it down, drastically narrowing its scope and invalidating the operative rules and guidelines under which 26.5 lakh square metres had been re-zoned.
Omission of Section 16B and
reinsertion via Section 39A
Earlier, the Government had introduced Section 16B into the same Act to enable change of zone through administrative route. Facing criticism, it was later omitted via the Goa Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2024 (Bill No. 7 of 2024). However, the omission was accompanied by a near-identical insertion Section 39A which revived the re-zoning power through the Chief Town Planner, subject to Board approval and a 30-day public notice.
While cloaked in procedural formality, Section 39A reintroduced the same regulatory philosophy: zoning changes can be privately triggered and publicly legitimised post-facto, even where such conversions alter the developmental character of sensitive ecological zones. This legal sleight of hand defied the normative expectation that planning laws must be forward-looking, transparent, and evidence-based. As the High Court observed, changes under Section 17(2) were often from paddy fields and no development zones to settlement, fragmenting the scientific integrity of the Regional Plan.
Departure from normative lawmaking
Lawmaking in a constitutional democracy is meant to regulate social evils, not ratify them. However, in Goa, legislation has increasingly functioned as a curative balm for illegality not to correct it, but to accommodate it under legal cover. This phenomenon is exemplified by the recently tabled Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (Bill No. 35 of 2025), which proposes to insert Section 38A into the 1968 Code. This provision empowers Deputy Collectors to regularise unauthorised dwelling houses constructed before 28 February 2014 on Government land, even in derogation of multiple other state laws including the Goa Town and Country Planning Act itself.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2025 Amendment justifies the move as a tenure-security and revenue-raising measure. But when read alongside the High Court’s warning in Goa Foundation v. State of Goa that plot-by-plot conversions mutilate the Regional Plan, the legislative trend emerges as normatively inverted. Rather than addressing the consequences of unauthorised construction or enforcing the rule of law, the Government has created a system that insulates violations granting Class I occupancy, blocking demolition, and even enabling regularisation under other Acts.
Inversion of public trust
The procedural bypassing of Select Committee scrutiny for both the 2024 and 2025 Bills further aggravates the issue. Under the Rules of Procedure of the Goa Legislative Assembly, contentious amendments to foundational legislation should be reviewed by a Select Committee. However, both Section 39A (reviving the effect of omitted Section 16B) and Section 38A (granting mass regularisation powers) were introduced and passed without public consultation, legislative committee scrutiny, or transparent impact assessments.
This unilateralism stands in stark contrast to the judicial reasoning that planning decisions must be informed by environmental sensitivity, holistic surveys, and public participation. The High Court’s judgment in WP 16/2023 underlines that the Regional Plan is the product of elaborate technical and public processes, and that its integrity cannot be undermined by administrative whim or populist revisionism.
Undermining the rule of equal compliance
Perhaps most troubling is the message sent to law-abiding citizens. Those who waited for permissions, complied with planning norms, or altered their construction to align with legal boundaries receive no benefit under the current regime. Instead, those who flouted regulations, encroached upon public land, or used political connections to secure post-facto permissions are rewarded with legislative absolution. This breeds cynicism, incentivises illegality, and renders regulatory compliance a disadvantage.
Conclusion without calling it so
In its present trajectory, lawmaking in Goa appears to have abandoned normativity in favour of expediency. Judicial decisions that sought to uphold constitutional principles, protect fragile ecosystems, and ensure equal application of zoning law have been progressively neutralised through statutory insertions and legislative repackaging. The rule of law is undermined when legislatures act not to enforce judicial guidance, but to bypass it through legal innovation.
If legislation becomes a tool to ratify the unlawful, public trust in governance deteriorates, and democratic legitimacy recedes. The foundational ethos of law that it should serve as a beacon for what society ought to be is lost when it is repeatedly repurposed to legitimise what society should never have become.
