The Bombay High Court at Goa has issued notices to key planning and vigilance authorities following a petition challenging the alleged illegal waiver of fees for land zoning corrections under Goa’s TCP Act. The petition claims exemptions were arbitrarily granted, raising concerns about misuse of legal provisions and potential favouritism in regional land use decisions.
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday initiated judicial scrutiny into alleged irregularities involving the waiver of statutory fees for land zone corrections, signalling legal concern over selective exemptions permitted under Section 17(2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act. Notices were issued to multiple government departments, including the Town and Country Planning Department, its secretary, and the Directorate of Vigilance.
The action stems from a public interest petition filed by a local activist, who alleged that certain zone corrections were approved without proper fee collection. The petition specifically questioned the exemption of fees related to the “deletion of proposed roads,” a clause that reportedly has no statutory backing within the TCP Act or its supporting regulations. The petition claimed that the exemptions lack transparency and legal grounding.
Section 17(2) of the TCP Act, introduced via a 2023 amendment, allows landowners to request corrections to errors or zoning inconsistencies in Goa’s Regional Plan 2021. While the provision facilitates individual applications for zone rectification, the government had issued notifications prescribing associated fees in March 2023. However, the petitioner pointed to multiple cases where fees were reportedly waived without legitimate justification, undermining the legislative intent of the clause.
The petition further alleged that several properties which benefitted from such fee waivers included land linked to key state officials. It asserted that the exemptions appeared to be granted with mala fide intent, suggesting collusion within administrative circles. The petitioner urged the court to direct authorities to recover waived fees and conduct a comprehensive review of all cases processed under the disputed clause since its notification.
As the High Court proceedings unfold, Goa’s urban planning framework faces critical legal and ethical examination. The case has underscored the need for robust checks and institutional accountability in land zoning practices. If the petitioner’s claims are proven, the controversy could lead to sweeping reforms in how land corrections are processed, pushing for greater clarity, equity, and environmental balance in Goa’s ongoing urban development narrative.
