Goa High Court Denies Regularisation of Illegal Structure in Assolda
The Bombay High Court at Goa dismissed an application seeking the regularisation of an illegal structure at Assolda, stating that the Regularisation Act could only be applied to irregular structures, not illegal ones. This judgment, delivered on January 12, 2025, has brought clarity to the legal framework surrounding unauthorised constructions and their potential regularisation.
The case stemmed from a plea by Abdul Linganmata, who sought the regularisation of a structure he had built in Assolda, a village located in South Goa. Linganmata argued that the property, which he had purchased, contained an ancestral house and storeroom that were over 80 years old. He claimed to have been residing in an unauthorised structure since 2013 and requested the local panchayat to regularise it, allowing him to obtain essential amenities like electricity and water. However, the panchayat issued a notice in January 2018, declaring the structure to be unauthorised and ordering its demolition. The notice claimed that the structure was newly constructed, without conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, and lacked the necessary technical approvals. Despite Linganmata’s appeals to the director of panchayats and the district court, both bodies upheld the demolition order, ruling that the structure was illegal, not merely unauthorised. Linganmata then approached the High Court, challenging the earlier decisions. The High Court, led by Justice Valmiki Menezes, upheld the previous rulings, emphasising that the Regularisation Act, under Section 3, only applies to irregular structures built prior to February 28, 2014. The court noted that the structure in question was built without the required land conversion or building permits, rendering it an illegal structure.
According to the High Court, the Regularisation Act does not grant unchecked authority to regularise structures. The Act’s purpose is to provide a legal framework for dealing with irregular structures built before the stipulated date, not to accommodate illegal constructions. Linganmata’s property, constructed in an orchard zone, did not meet the criteria for regularisation due to the lack of proper legal approvals. The case has sparked discussions on the challenges faced by individuals in rural and semi-urban areas, where informal constructions often take place without proper documentation or adherence to zoning regulations. While Linganmata argued that the structure had existed for decades, the court’s decision reinforced the importance of abiding by legal norms and regulations in property construction.
Public opinion on the matter has been divided. Supporters of the court’s decision believe it underscores the necessity of maintaining urban planning and building regulations to prevent haphazard development. They argue that allowing illegal structures to be regularised would set a dangerous precedent, undermining efforts to ensure orderly growth and infrastructure development. On the other hand, some local residents and landowners expressed sympathy for those affected by such rulings, highlighting the difficulties many face when navigating complex legal and regulatory frameworks. They argue that individuals like Linganmata, who have lived in their homes for years, should be given an opportunity for regularisation, especially when the structures in question do not pose immediate safety risks.
Officials, however, emphasised the importance of adhering to laws that govern land use, suggesting that allowing unauthorised construction could lead to further complications, including environmental degradation, urban sprawl, and inadequate infrastructure. This case brings attention to the growing need for clarity and consistency in the application of land and building regulations in Goa, especially in rural areas. The ruling serves as a reminder that while the Regularisation Act offers a pathway for those seeking to legitimise irregular structures, it does not extend to those who have violated fundamental legal procedures. The High Court’s ruling marks an important step in reinforcing the rule of law regarding property development. It sets a clear precedent that illegal constructions cannot be regularised, urging property owners to follow legal procedures when building on land in Goa.
