In a recent judgment, the High Court of Bombay at Goa delivered a strong message: Panchayat members who fail to act against illegal constructions within their jurisdiction are liable to disqualification or removal. The Court underlined that Panchayats, as statutory bodies under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, are custodians of legality in village governance. Passive tolerance of unauthorised structures constitutes dereliction of duty.
This judicial position rests on Section 153 and Section 153A of the Panchayat Raj Act, which impose a clear mandate on Panchayats to order the demolition of unauthorised buildings. Even where Panchayats may levy taxes on such constructions, the statute expressly clarifies that taxation does not amount to regularisation. The law therefore strikes a balance: Panchayats may recover revenue but must not legitimise what is illegal.
The State’s policy of amnesty
In contrast, the State Legislature, through the Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Goa Regularisation of Unauthorized Construction (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has empowered the Collector to regularise unauthorised structures built prior to 28 February 2014. By granting Class I Occupancy rights and issuing newspaper advertisements inviting applications, the State has extended amnesty to encroachers, signalling that illegality can be retrospectively cured by legislative fiat.
The tension is obvious: while Panchayats are obliged to demolish, the Collector is authorised to regularise.
Jurisdictional inflection and conflict
The conflict arises from the dual mandates of two different authorities:
Panchayats: bound under Sections 153 and 153A to demolish illegal structures, with members facing disqualification if they fail to act.
Collectors: empowered by the 2025 amendments to legitimise those same structures if they were erected before the cut-off date.
This creates a point of inflection where enforcement meets amnesty. A Panchayat that orders demolition may see its actions overtaken by a Collector’s regularisation order. Conversely, a Panchayat that stays its hand risks judicial sanction for dereliction of duty.
Constitutional dimensions
This contradiction implicates core constitutional principles.
Article 13 vests the power of judicial review in the courts, ensuring that laws inconsistent with the Constitution are struck down.
Article 14 demands equality before law, which includes consistency in governance. If some citizens face demolition while others receive amnesty, arbitrariness ensues.
Article 300A protects property rights, but through lawful authority. Granting title to those who encroached without sanction reverses the protective logic of the Constitution.
The Panchayat Raj Act, as a law flowing from the constitutional design of local self-governance, cannot be nullified by executive amnesties that dilute enforcement. Where conflict arises, it is the High Court that acts as the final arbiter, ensuring the supremacy of constitutional principles over legislative expediency.
Rule of law at stake
The High Court’s insistence on disqualifying Panchayat members for failing to act against illegality is a signal of steadfastness against the dilution of statutory duties. At the same time, the State’s regularisation scheme sends an opposite message: that illegality, if long-standing and politically expedient, will ultimately be rewarded.
The danger is that citizens, observing this divergence, may rationally choose non-compliance. Why seek permissions, pay fees, or observe zoning restrictions, if legislative amnesty is always around the corner? Such a trajectory weakens not only the rule of law but also the credibility of governance itself.
Conclusion: The judiciary as the constitutional compass
The ongoing contradiction between demolition under the Panchayat Raj Act and regularisation under the Land Revenue and Regularisation amendments cannot endure without eroding faith in law. Governance at cross-purposes breeds confusion, arbitrariness, and impunity.
Ultimately, it is the High Court, exercising the power of judicial review, that must ensure coherence by upholding constitutional supremacy. Legislative policies that undermine statutory duties and erode enforcement cannot stand in the long run. For the rule of law to prevail in Goa, enforcement and amnesty cannot coexist as parallel and conflicting paths. The High Court’s signal is clear: constitutional obligations must triumph over political bargains.
