Only through consistent application of legal principles can trust in planning institutions be maintained
Context of the PIL and Zoning Discrepancy: A public interest litigation (PIL) writ petition (No. 32 of 2019) in the Bombay High Court at Goa has brought to light a critical issue of inconsistent zoning classifications in Goa’s Regional Plan.
At the heart of the matter is Survey No. 267, Sub-Division 1 in Calangute, Bardez, where conflicting land-use designations have been recorded.
The petition concerns a planning permission granted for a road project on this land, despite concerns about its classification as private forest.
This discrepancy raises broader concerns about how zoning laws are applied and interpreted, particularly when governance transparency and environmental sustainability are at stake.
The case exemplifies how PILs enable judicial oversight to ensure planning authorities adhere to the law in the public interest.
Zoning Laws and Goa’s Regional Plan: Goa’s Regional Plan 2021 serves as the statutory blueprint guiding land use and development across the State. It zones areas for various purposes, such as settlements, commercial activities, agriculture, and conservation, providing a baseline for what activities are permissible in specific locations.
When official documents or plan revisions indicate divergent zoning classifications for the same property, confusion and legal disputes arise. In the case of Survey No. 267/1 in Calangute, one record treats the land as forested or conservation area, while another labels it as a developable settlement zone.
Such contradictions pose a governance dilemma— which designation should prevail when authorities make planning decisions?
Governance Transparency in Question: Transparency in governance is essential in urban planning, and public trust is undermined by inconsistent zoning classifications.
Public participation and access to planning information are fundamental, yet these principles are compromised when zoning decisions lack clarity.
If a Regional Plan map designates one use for a plot while permissions are granted for another, questions inevitably arise about the basis for such decisions.
In Goa, a mechanism was introduced to rectify inadvertent zoning errors on a case-by-case basis. However, a judicial review of these rectifications found that most changes resulted in the conversion of green zones into settlement areas, raising concerns about private interests influencing planning decisions. This trend highlights the necessity for clear criteria and robust public scrutiny when zoning amendments are considered.
Environmental Sustainability and Zoning Decisions: Zoning classifications have direct implications for environmental sustainability.
Designating ecologically sensitive land as “settlement” or developmental zone facilitates its potential degradation, whereas classifying land as No Development Zone (NDZ) can shield it from encroachment.
In the Calangute case, if Survey No. 267/1 is indeed classified as private forest or part of a green hill, any road construction through the area may result in ecological harm.
The High Court’s directive for a site inspection to verify the road’s existence and forest classification before permitting any work reflects a precautionary approach to environmental governance.
The precautionary principle, well-established in environmental law, requires authorities to exercise caution in decision-making when environmental harm is uncertain but potentially significant.
Indian courts have consistently upheld the principle that environmental protection is integral to the constitutional right to life, obligating authorities to prioritise ecological concerns in zoning decisions.
Legal Precedents and Urban Planning Principles: Judicial precedent has repeatedly reinforced the principle that any modifications to sanctioned land-use plans must serve public interest and not merely private gain.
In a landmark case involving Bangalore, the Supreme Court invalidated the conversion of a public park into a private hospital, emphasising that green spaces constitute essential public assets that must be preserved.
The ruling underscored that replacing designated conservation areas with commercial development can have long-term consequences on urban sustainability.
Similarly, the Bombay High Court at Goa has cautioned that re-zoning exercises must not disproportionately favor private interests over environmental and social well-being.
These rulings reinforce a core principle of urban planning: Development must align with approved legal frameworks unless changes are made transparently and with clear justification in the public interest.
Conclusion: The legal dispute concerning Survey No. 267/1 in Calangute exemplifies the challenges of balancing development and environmental protection within a transparent governance framework.
Regardless of how the High Court ultimately adjudicates this PIL, the case has illuminated the need for clarity, accountability, and sustainability in planning decisions.
Ensuring consistency in zoning, upholding accountability in governance, and respecting Goa’s ecological limits are not merely administrative duties but essential to protecting the public interest.
This case provides a critical lesson in urban planning, highlighting the necessity of aligning development policies with legal and environmental imperatives.
The outcome of this litigation may establish a precedent for future zoning disputes in Goa, reinforcing that land-use decisions must be rational, equitable, and environmentally responsible.
Only through consistent application of legal principles can trust in planning institutions be maintained, ensuring that development progresses without compromising Goa’s natural heritage.
