Traditional framework under Articles 371 to 384
The Code of Comunidades (Legislative Diploma No. 2070 of 1961) historically empowered Goa’s comunidades, longstanding village land institutions, to manage land encroachments through a structured process that preserved community control. Article 371 provides that any civil suit brought by a comunidade regarding encroachment must be preceded by an administrative inquiry conducted as prescribed; the inquiry forms the basis for authorising the suit. Possessory suits are exempt.
Articles 372 to 384 establish the procedural and remedial framework. Article 372 permits removal of works or plantations from encroached land, with costs recoverable from the encroacher. Additional provisions require the comunidade’s attorney, lessees, and committee members to report encroachments promptly. The Administrator of Comunidades undertakes inquiries, issues notices, conducts inspections and, if encroachment is proven, directs the comunidade attorney to seek tribunal permission to file a title suit.
The Code provides sanctions under Article 379, such as disqualification from comunidade auctions, forfeiture of dividends, and fines up to double the land’s value, enforceable only after a court achieves a final judgment. Article 380 allows for mediated compromises: an encroacher may surrender the land or pay its value instead of litigating, subject to tribunal approval. This preserves the comunidade’s decision-making authority, with judicial oversight as a safeguard.
New regularisation provision: Article 372-B (2025)
The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 Amendment Act, 2025 has already been enacted, gaining Assembly approval amid strong opposition and passed into law late on Thursday night. It was introduced earlier this month and is now the prevailing law.
Article 372-B permits regularisation of unauthorised dwelling houses built on comunidade land before 28 February 2014. Regularisation is restricted to the plinth area and a two-metre margin, capped at 300 square metres. Excess land must be surrendered to the comunidade.
Eligibility is limited to landless Goa residents for at least 15 years prior to the cut-off date; those owning any other residence or ancestral share are excluded. Constructions on ecologically sensitive lands, CRZs, protected areas, and agricultural tenanted land are ineligible. Applications must be filed within six months of the law’s commencement, accompanied by prescribed fees and compensation payable to the comunidade.
Explicit comunidade consent is required. If the comunidade fails to act timely, the Administrator may deem consent given, allowing the authorised government officer to issue the final regularisation order. If no application is filed or if it fails, removal proceedings are to follow.
Shifting authority through delegated oversight
Under Articles 371 to 384, comunidades initiated actions and controlled resolutions, with tribunals and courts providing oversight. The state’s role was procedural assistance. Article 372-B preserves formal community consent but shifts much of the process to the state through delegated legislation.
A senior civil service officer now controls inquiry, decision, and issuance of the regularisation order. Tribunal involvement is bypassed. Time-bound decisions and deemed consent limit community control, while giving the state more influence. The new law effectively creates a parallel, executive-driven alienation mechanism distinct from original Code procedures.
Implications for Comunidade governance
This amendment marks a shift from a protective framework to one accommodating long-standing encroachments under humanitarian reasoning. It reflects the Legislature’s judgment: traditional mechanisms were inadequate to resolve persistent occupations. The balance between nominal community consent and state-led regularisation could have long-term consequences.
Governance-wise, this signals incremental centralisation. While communities still participate, the design favours rapid resolution under state guidance. Future legislation may further reduce community authority over their lands—a meaningful change for gaunkar governance.
Legislative intent: Then and now
The Portuguese colonial government’s regulation of encroachments in the Code of Comunidades was designed to safeguard the integrity of gaunkar-owned land. The objective was to keep such property under collective management, permitting alienation only with explicit community approval after formal inquiry. Encroachments were viewed as unlawful intrusions that threatened communal tenure, to be removed or resolved under strict legal and community oversight.
In contrast, the Goa Legislative Assembly’s insertion of Article 372-B frames regularisation as a form of social housing, extending legal title to long-standing squatters on comunidade land. Many such occupants enjoy the informal protection of the political class, making eviction politically unpalatable. The amendment, while retaining nominal community consent, departs from the original protective ethos in favour of politically driven humanitarian accommodation.
Legal prophecy
With Article 372-B now law, challenges are likely to follow. Constitutional scrutiny may focus on whether deemed consent undermines comunidade property rights, whether executive alienation without tribunal oversight is ultra vires the Code, and whether beneficiary classification passes Article 14 scrutiny.
Tensions may arise between environmental and land rights laws. The law’s exclusion of eco-sensitive zones may be contested. Enforcement agencies may resist or selectively apply regularisation limits.
If upheld, this law may set precedent for future state-facilitated transfers of comunidade land. Legislatures could extend eligibility beyond housing or tie regularisation to development projects. This trend may erode the decentralised ethos of Goa’s land-holding institution over time.
For now, the amendment is a narrowly bounded yet significant legal shift. Whether it remains a one-time humanitarian measure or becomes a new policy norm will depend on how comunidades, the state, and the courts engage with its ramifications.
