Dr Suresh Shanbhogue
The author is a retired senior bureaucrat
The debate over Section 39A of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act has become one of the most contentious public policy issues in the State. To some, it is a necessary instrument that provides flexibility to address genuine development needs and planning anomalies. To others, it represents a departure from the principles of comprehensive and participatory land-use planning, opening the door to piecemeal changes in the Regional Plan. The resulting divide has often reduced the discussion to an extreme choice between either retaining or repealing the provision. Yet the real challenge is not whether Goa needs a mechanism for changing land use, but whether such a mechanism can be made transparent, accountable and consistent with the long-term vision embodied in the Regional Plan. The answer may lie not at either extreme, but in a carefully crafted middle path.
The Section 39A debate cannot be seen in isolation. This needs to be seen through the prism of Section 16B and Section 17(2). Section 16B, introduced in 2018, enabled individual landowners to apply for a change of zoning in the Regional Plan. It allowed case-by-case changes instead of revising the Regional Plan comprehensively. Large numbers of agricultural, orchard and natural cover lands were proposed for conversion. It was perceived as favouring influential applicants and weakening the sanctity of the Regional Plan. Owing to widespread criticism, the Government repealed Section 16B in 2024 and replaced it with Section 39A.
Section 17(2), introduced in 2023, was read down by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in March 2025. While not striking it down completely, the High Court held that the power under Section 17(2) cannot be used for parcel-by-parcel zoning changes sought by private landowners under the guise of correcting “inadvertent errors” or “inconsistent zoning.” The Court concluded that such use was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and the concept of planned development. The Court also quashed the 2023 Rules and Guidelines framed to implement the provision. The appeal by the Government of Goa is presently pending in the Supreme Court, while the Court has declined to grant a stay on the High Court judgement.
The Government appears to be of the opinion that Section 39A replaces the repealed Section 16B with a more structured process. A bare reading of the Section 39A provision reveals that it requires TCP Board approval, public notice, excludes notified eco-sensitive lands, and cannot alter the overall character of the Regional Plan and/or the Outline Development Plan. The Government feels that it provides flexibility to correct genuine planning anomalies without waiting years for an entirely new Regional Plan.
But civil society feels that the fundamental flaws pointed out in Sections 16B and 17(2) regarding subjectivity in considering and approving piecemeal proposals have remained unaddressed under Section 39A. The principal concern is that these provisions permit piecemeal changes to the Regional Plan, thereby undermining comprehensive planning. The general feeling is that the so-called TCP Board approval is simply an administrative formality and that the provision for public objections may have limited practical impact. The fear is that many ecologically valuable lands outside the ecologically sensitive areas, as well as agricultural lands, are prone to conversion due to the accrual of undue financial gains. There are no objective criteria defined to decide whether the overall character of the Regional Plan and the Outline Development Plan is altered or not.
It is important to note that prior to the introduction of Section 16B (2018), Section 17(2) (2023) and Section 39A (2024), the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 did not permit individual landowners to seek a plot-specific change of zone in the Regional Plan or Outline Development Plan (ODP). Land use changes were expected to occur only through the statutory planning process. Therefore, from a public policy standpoint, the key question is whether Section 39A advances a discernible public interest and, if so, what that public interest is.
It is also a fact that a watertight approach may not be suitable, as genuine needs and planning anomalies are to be addressed in the public interest. However, any public policy should serve the larger public interest while minimising adverse externalities on society. Therefore, the Government and civil society need to jointly find a calibrated approach rather than retaining Section 39A unchanged or repealing it entirely. The statutory criteria have to be objective, clearly defining when a zone change is permissible, totally eliminating administrative discretion.
Genuine proposals for zone changes for roads, schools, hospitals, public infrastructure and projects in the social services sector serving the larger public interest may only be considered. Zone change proposals for a small plot (say not more than 500 sqm) from domiciled Goans for the construction of a house may be considered. Commercial projects may be made to follow a stricter approval process, such as mandatory gram sabha or municipality consultation and an independent expert review by a committee including planners, environmental experts and representatives of local bodies before TCP Board approval. Protection needs to be given to lands beyond formally notified eco-sensitive zones, including orchards, khazan lands, paddy fields, wetlands and private forests.
There is a need to prescribe a threshold for determining what constitutes an alteration in the overall character of the Regional Plan and the Outline Development Plan. This further requires a cumulative impact assessment annually, so that multiple individual changes in an area are evaluated together to ensure they do not undermine the Regional Plan or Outline Development Plan. Public trust can be achieved through transparent online disclosure of each proposal, including the applicant’s identity, survey numbers, existing and proposed zoning, planning justification, environmental assessment, and reasons for approval or rejection.
