The Goa Comunidade Land Development and Regulation Rules, 2025 have opened the floodgates for large-scale commercial exploitation of Goa’s ancestral community lands. Notified on 28th February 2025, these Rules empower “financially insecure” village comunidades to invite private developers for projects on lands over 10,000 sq. m., provided the comunidade retains 50% of the plots and 20% are reserved for affordable housing for local Gaunkars (community members). Once a bidder is selected via public tender, the comunidade grants a development order with prior government approval, effectively making the State a partner in these transactions. Ostensibly aimed at monetising idle community land for development, the Rules have in practice facilitated what many see as state-sponsored commodification of communally held lands passed down through generations.
Speaker’s company and
conflict of interest
These concerns crystallise in the recent Loliem-Polem Comunidade decision to lease out 27.3 lakh square meters (2.73 million sqm) roughly one-third of its lands for seven different projects. This includes a 10 lakh sqm tract for a state-run Film City, a 15 lakh sqm parcel for a 100 MW private solar plant, and various smaller plots for a Sainik School, a cricket stadium, tourism amenities, and even an office complex for the comunidade. Most controversially, in April 2025 the Comunidade approved an allotment of 1 lakh sqm to Mallikarjun Multifruits Processing & Producer Co. Ltd., an agro-based company in which the current Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly is a director.
The spectacle of the State’s highest legislator personally entangled in a deal to derive private commercial benefit from comunidade land has justifiably raised eyebrows.
Lifting the corporate veil
Legally, the fact that the Speaker’s personal interest is routed through a company does not immunize it from scrutiny. Indian jurisprudence has long recognized that the corporate entity cannot be used as a shield to perpetrate injustices or mask conflicts of interest. Courts are empowered to lift the corporate veil to look at the reality behind a company’s façade. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 622, the Supreme Court famously disregarded the separate corporate personality of a developer’s companies, holding that a court “can ignore the corporate character and look at the reality behind the veil” in order to do justice. Earlier, in State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 59, the Court pierced the veil of a 100% subsidiary to treat it as the alter ego of its parent company (Hindalco), noting that the *“veil of corporate personality… is becoming more and more transparent in modern company jurisprudence”*. These precedents make clear that where a corporate form is used to circumvent legal obligations or public policy, judges will not hesitate to “look through” the company and identify the true beneficiaries and movers.
Conflict of interest
and fiduciary duty
The involvement of a sitting Speaker in this land deal offends basic conflict of interest principles that underpin our constitutional and corporate governance frameworks. As a constitutional functionary, an MLA (and certainly a Speaker) is expected to serve the public interest without any competing personal stake. Indeed, Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution of India bars a state legislator from holding any “office of profit” under the government, the intent being to ensure “no conflict between the duties and interests” of an elected member. The office of profit prohibition reflects a foundational norm: lawmakers should not be in positions that could sway them with financial gain or executive influence. While a private company directorship is not literally an office “under” the government, the spirit of this constitutional mandate is clearly violated when a lawmaker exploits state-enabled opportunities for personal profit. It raises the question of whether the Speaker can independently hold the government accountable, his constitutional duty, when he stands to benefit from a government-approved land concession. The appearance of undue influence is inescapable.
Office of profit
analogy
The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments, has underscored the importance of transparency and accountability from public officials to prevent democracy from devolving into cronyism. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399, a case concerning disclosure of candidates’ background information, the Court held that voters have a fundamental right to know the financial, educational and criminal records of those who seek public office. The rationale is simple informed voting and public debate are possible only if politicians lay bare any facts that might influence their ability to serve honestly. By the same token, the dealings of a powerful legislator’s private company in acquiring community land are matters of legitimate public concern. Voters and citizens are entitled to ask: Is the Speaker profiting from laws he oversees? Does this amount to an indirect office of profit, where a public office is leveraged for private benefit, defeating the intent of Article 191(1)(e)? These questions strike at the heart of good governance.
Exposing eyewash,
demanding reform
The Goa comunidade land saga illustrates how high-handed lawmaking can enable powerful actors to ride roughshod over community rights. The government touts these development leases as bringing investment, jobs, and public infrastructure but locals see this narrative as a public eyewash. The comunidade president’s assurances that they are balancing development with preservation ring hollow when grassroots stakeholders the gaunkars are denouncing the process as unlawful, anti-environment, and against their express resolutions. Far from empowering comunidades, the 2025 Rules have empowered builders, corporations and political insiders to carve up communally-owned land under the veneer of legality. It is a model of development that prioritises quick commercial gains (often for well-connected players) over long-term community welfare and ecological sustainability.
