Introduction and background
In February 2024, Section 39A was introduced into the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (TCP Act). This provision authorised the Chief Town Planner to approve alterations or conversions of privately owned plots within the Regional Plan or Outline Development Plans, following a process of public notice. Soon thereafter, a batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 39A on the grounds of arbitrariness, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and inconsistency with the planning framework of the TCP Act. The High Court has directed that these petitions be taken up together, with the outcome expected to have far-reaching consequences for land use regulation in the State.
Simultaneously, the High Court had previously “read down” the rules framed under Section 17(2) of the TCP Act, which permitted plot-by-plot zoning corrections. The Court held that such corrections, if left unchecked, mutilated the integrity of the Regional Plan and distorted the broader purpose of coherent land use planning. This trend, combined with the High Court’s firm stand against illegal constructions across Goa, sets the stage for the likely trajectory of the forthcoming decision in the Section 39A batch of writ petitions.
Section 39A and its tensions with Section 17(2)
The invalidation of Section 17(2) rules has had a decisive effect on the debate around Section 39A. The Court had made it clear that the TCP Act’s framework was designed for regional coherence and not for piecemeal adjustments favouring private parties. Section 39A, however, explicitly enables land conversions by permitting applications for zone alterations, provided procedural requirements such as public notice are met.
Petitioners argue that this mechanism legitimises arbitrary spot zoning and allows powerful interests to bypass the planning framework. In their view, the law undermines democratic accountability by enabling the conversion of land use at the behest of individual applications. The State government, by contrast, maintains that Section 39A contains adequate safeguards, including notice and objections, and insists that conversions already sanctioned will remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
Thus, the Court is tasked with deciding whether Section 39A can coexist with the fundamental principle of preserving the coherence of the Regional Plan, or whether it creates an opening for excessive discretion and ad hocism.
Judicial posture on illegal constructions:
The Court’s position on illegal constructions in Goa provides an important contextual signal. In recent years, the High Court has taken a proactive stance, directing local authorities to identify and remove unauthorised structures. Particular attention has been placed on environmentally sensitive areas, no-development zones, paddy fields, and lands required for infrastructure. In parallel, the Court has ordered geo-mapping of the State to prevent encroachments.
These directions reveal a judicial philosophy that prioritises the sanctity of the planning framework and environmental conservation over individual encroachments or post-facto regularisation. Such a posture suggests that the High Court is unlikely to endorse a reading of Section 39A that would permit widespread legitimisation of irregular constructions or planning violations.
The likely judicial path
From the legal and factual context, several elements of the High Court’s likely decision emerge.
1. Limited constitutionality:
The Court may uphold Section 39A as constitutionally valid, but only subject to strict procedural safeguards. Such safeguards may include mandatory public notices, opportunities for objections, and written reasons for each conversion decision. The Court could make it clear that the exercise of discretion must be consistent with the overarching planning scheme, and cannot extend to conversions in ecologically sensitive areas.
2. Interim restraints:
Given the number of conversions already processed under Section 39A, the Court may impose a restraint by directing that all approvals remain subject to the outcome of the pending petitions. This would prevent a fait accompli while ensuring that the judicial process remains meaningful.
3. Rejection of inconsistent conversions:
Where conversions under Section 39A are shown to conflict with the approved Regional Plan or Outline Development Plan, the Court is likely to strike them down. Such an approach would be consistent with its earlier reasoning under Section 17(2).
4. Protection of communal and public lands:
Structures or conversions on community lands, including those of the Comunidades, may not find favour if carried out without due process. The Court has previously demonstrated unwillingness to allow statutory frameworks to be bypassed in favour of private or individual gain.
5. Oversight and monitoring:
The Court may also consider directing the State government to establish transparency mechanisms. These could include the publication of data on all Section 39A applications, mandatory impact assessments for conversions in sensitive zones, and periodic reviews by expert committees to ensure compliance.
Consonance with Supreme Court precedent
The High Court’s eventual decision will not exist in isolation. It will need to align with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India on land use, planning, and judicial review. The Supreme Court has consistently held that deviations from master plans must be permitted only under carefully delineated circumstances, with proper reasoning and proportionality. Arbitrary or unguided discretion in altering land use has been repeatedly struck down.
Equally, the Apex Court has underlined that public interest and ecological conservation are superior to private convenience, particularly in cases where land rights are exercised in breach of the law. The High Court is therefore expected to interpret Section 39A in a manner that curtails arbitrariness, aligns with the principle of reasoned decision-making, and safeguards environmental imperatives.
Expected outcome
The decision in the Section 39A batch of writ petitions will likely follow a calibrated course. The High Court is expected neither to wholly invalidate the provision nor to leave it entirely unchecked. Instead, it may read limitations into Section 39A to ensure that the power of conversion is exercised sparingly, consistently with the Regional Plan, and subject to strict scrutiny.
The Court’s approach to Section 17(2), combined with its continuing orders against illegal constructions, demonstrates an institutional commitment to preserving the integrity of Goa’s land use framework. The likely ruling will emphasise that planning laws cannot be dismantled piecemeal and that judicial review remains the bulwark against arbitrary governance in land regulation.
Conclusion
The High Court of Bombay at Goa, when deciding on the validity of Section 39A, will face the central tension of balancing the State’s authority to make corrections in zoning with the constitutional obligation to protect coherent planning and fragile ecosystems. The reading down of Section 17(2), coupled with the Court’s consistent activism against unauthorised constructions, strongly suggests that Section 39A will be upheld only within carefully defined boundaries.
A decision of this nature would preserve the overall planning matrix of the State while ensuring that no provision of law becomes a blanket licence for arbitrary conversions. It would also harmonise the Court’s approach with the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court on judicial review and land conservation. In this sense, the ruling would reaffirm that the ultimate guardian of Goa’s land and environment remains the constitutional power of judicial review.
