Supreme Court Directs High Court to Hear GF challenges to 2 coastal ODPs

The Supreme Court of India has reverted the issues raised by the PIL filed by the Goa Foundation challenging the ODPs of Calangute, Candolim, Parra, Arpora, Nagoa to the High Court for an expeditious hearing.

It may be recalled that the Goa government had notified the two ODPs on 15.12.2022 and thereafter withdrawn all the five villages as planning areas under the Town & Country Planning Act. As a result of the withdrawal, the two ODPs were rendered invalid and the land use of the 5 villages reverted to the Regional Plan 2021.

However the government issued a circular dated 22.12.2022 by which it instructed the TCP department to continue granting approvals on the basis of the withdrawn ODPs.

The circular was challenged by the Goa Foundation and the High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the circular by a detailed judgment dated 14.2.2024.

However, on 28.2.2024 the government issued an ordinance by which it introduced Section 19(3) in the Town & Country Planning Act to undo the effect of the High Court stay order. The ordinance also allowed the ODPs to survive even when there is no planning area. This ordinance was again challenged by the petitioner and the High Court was pleased to pass a second order in May 2024 staying the two ODPs of these five villages till the hearing of the petition in the second week of July.

The state government, however, moved the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition. The SLP came up before the vacation bench which passed an initial order staying the order of the Bombay High Court. Thereafter the Goa Foundation once again moved the Supreme Court for vacation of the stay on the grounds that the Foundation had completed substantial portions of its research into all the changes made in the 2 ODPs relating to the eco-zones of the five villages.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a brief order on the GF stay vacation application, which is enclosed herewith. It directed the High Court to hear the petition expeditiously and without any unnecessary delay. The court also directed: “While the matter(s) are being decided, the present position with regard to the concerned areas be maintained.”

Claude Alvares

Director/GF