PANAJI
The Goa government’s ambitious NAKSHA survey, prompted by a Central government initiative, has rolled into three urban centres – Panaji, Margao and Cuncolim.
In addition to these three cities/towns, outlying villages are also being covered, with the stated objective of documenting every property and land mass, government as well as private.
Officials describe it as a modernisation drive aimed at creating a comprehensive database of ownership and boundaries, but the exercise has stirred widespread apprehension among Goans, raising multiple questions about its legality, feasibility, and intent.
Objective of the survey
The NAKSHA initiative seeks to generate a 'Property Card' for each parcel of land or building, consolidating ownership details, survey records, and supporting documents into a single identifier. Authorities say it will streamline governance, reduce disputes, and provide clarity in urban planning. In theory, as officials and the government claim, it could become a one-stop reference for property transactions, inheritance claims, and redevelopment projects.
However, what is promised, those questioning its intent argue, is shadowed by fears of intrusion, bureaucratic overreach, and the spectre of fraud, as Goa has so often experienced in land transactions in recent years.
Why only Panaji, Margao and Cuncolim?
According to one explanation provided by a top bureaucrat, this is a 'pilot project' and, depending on the experience and outcome, it will then be extended to other cities, towns and adjoining urbanising parts of the State.
Panaji and Margao were picked since the former is the capital and the core of the State's administration and the latter is the second most important city and urban habitat. As for Cuncolim, although smaller, it has a history of land disputes and complex ownership patterns.
Together, these three urban areas provide a testing ground for the survey’s methodology and an opportunity to cover diverse urban realities. Officials hinted that success here could pave the way for expansion into other municipalities and peripheral urbanising villages.
Withdrawn villages
Initial plans included several villages, but these were later withdrawn after protests, in which rural communities argued that their traditional landholding systems and communal tenancies could not be captured by the rigid formats and rules of the NAKSHA survey.
The State government backtracking and withdrawing the villages from the ambit of the survey underlines the sensitivity of Goa’s land politics, where memories of past surveys and colonial legacies still strongly influence public perception of land issues.
Mandatory or optional?
Confusion reigns over whether participation in the survey is mandatory. Early announcements described the survey, which began on January 1, as optional, but subsequent notifications have carried undertones of either compulsion or have instilled fears of losing out. Many are worried that refusal to submit documents could be interpreted as forfeiture of rights, and the lack of clarity is fuelling suspicion. Critics allege that the ambiguity and the government's shifting of the goalposts are deliberate to push compliance.
The 'Property Card'
The proposed Property Card is billed as a legal identifier, but lawyers caution that it cannot override title deeds, sale agreements, or court orders. At best, it may serve as an administrative record but definitely not as proof of ownership. The danger, they warn, lies in citizens mistaking the card for conclusive proof of title, potentially undermining or blurring established legal processes.
Cross-verification, risk of fraud
An official of the Directorate of Land Survey and Records claimed that, in the NAKSHA survey, documents are verified and go through a three-stage process with separate maps for each stage before the property cards are finally issued. "If the norms are not met and the necessary documents are not produced, no property card will be issued," the official said.
However, citizens who are wary of the process cite the spate of property frauds Goa has witnessed, involving forged papers and impersonation, to question the efficacy of the survey. "NAKSHA could inadvertently provide new hope for fraudsters, offering them a fresh platform to legitimise their dubious claims. Without robust safeguards, the survey risks becoming another layer of vulnerability for genuine property-holding citizens and their families," said a lawyer who was actively involved in the proceedings of the land-grab SIT, whose outcomes are still inconclusive.
Fears of original owners
A pressing concern is the plight of original property owners who may lack complete documentation, including missing links due to incomplete inventory or succession proceedings between generations. Elderly citizens, families with inherited holdings, and those entangled in litigation also fear exclusion if they fail to submit papers within the stipulated time. In such cases, clarity is lacking on whether the survey will jeopardise their rights.
The question that looms in many minds is: are executive or administrative authorities empowered to decide ownership, bypassing the civil court route? Legal experts insist that only courts can adjudicate disputes, but say the NAKSHA framing leaves room for administrative discretion and overreach.
30-day deadline
Perhaps the most contentious aspect is the 30-day deadline for the submission of documents. Many say it is practically impossible to collate decades of paperwork in such a short span. Housing societies, already burdened with bureaucratic procedures, say the tearing hurry betrays a lack of sensitivity to ground realities. The deadline has amplified fears that the survey is an act of coercion by the government.
Non-residents and NRIs
Goa’s property landscape is complicated by non-resident owners and NRIs. Many families live abroad, while their ancestral homes remain in their native villages or towns. How will authorities deal with absentee owners? What happens to those who have inherited properties without complete legal documentation? The survey offers no clear answers. For NRIs, the challenge is even greater: absence from Goa could mean missing deadlines and being excluded from the database.
These fears reflect a deeper mistrust of State interventions in land matters, rooted in Goa’s not-so-positive history of tenancy reforms, Comunidade encroachments and malfunction, and colonial land records.
Govt's defence
Officials defend NAKSHA as a step towards transparency, arguing that digitisation will reduce corruption, streamline urban planning, and empower citizens with clear records. The government maintains that the survey is not intended to usurp the jurisdiction of the courts but to provide a reliable administrative database.
The State’s version is backed by the Centre’s Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP), under which the Central Department of Land Resources and the Survey of India have launched NAKSHA as a one-year pilot in 152 urban local bodies nationwide.
In Goa, CCP and surrounding villages in Tiswadi, along with the Margao and Cuncolim clusters in Salcete, have been chosen. The availability of comprehensive digital urban land records, reduction in disputes, legal clarity to assist court cases, faster urban planning, improved property tax collection, simplified transactions, and easier credit access for those who succeed in obtaining a property card are some of the advantages the government has highlighted.
Modern technologies like GIS, drone surveys and geospatial tools are being deployed to ensure accuracy and consistency. The survey, officials stress, is an initiative to modernise land governance and not to dispossess owners.
Nonetheless, NAKSHA represents both promise and peril. Its objective of documenting properties comprehensively may be laudable, but the hurdles are formidable -- legal ambiguity, the risk of fraud, the exclusion of vulnerable owners, and impractical deadlines.
The choice of Panaji, Margao and Cuncolim as pilot sites reflects the government’s intent to test the waters in diverse urban settings. But unless clarity is provided on mandatory participation, the legal standing of the 'Property Card', and safeguards for absentee owners, the survey may remain mired in controversy.
