PANJIM: After appointing former Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi to challenge in the Supreme Court, the order of the Bombay High Court at Goa directing the State to declare Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary as Tiger Reserve, the government has now engaged legal eagles to defend newly-added Section 17 (2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 which seeks to allow ad-hoc and arbitrary conversions of privately owned plots in the Regional Plan 2021.
Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf is likely to represent the State government while, senior counsel Nalin Kohli will argue on behalf of the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department. Senior Advocate Shyam Mehta and senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas will respectively appear for two respondents i.e. M/s Gangareddy Infra Private Limited and Konidela Ramcharan Tej.
The two PIL writ petitions filed by Pravinsingh Shedgaonkar, Mayur Shetgaonkar and Swapnesh Sherlekar and by three environmental organisations including the Goa Foundation, the Khazan Society of Goa and the Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA) will come up for hearing before the Bombay High Court on Monday.
The petitioners are represented by Adv Norma Alvares and Adv Nigel Da Costa Frias while, senior counsel Subodh Kantak is representing the Morjim Village Panchayat.
The PIL writ petitions seek to quash and set aside the Section 17 (2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 which allows ad-hoc and arbitrary conversions of privately owned plots in the Regional Plan, based simply on individual applications on the grounds of alleged errors that need to be corrected in the said Plan. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of such a provision, introduced into law.
Section 17 (2) was inserted by amendment to the TCP Act on March 1, 2023, which according to the petitioners, appears to be similar to the provisions of Section 16B of the TCP Act by which the government was empowered to entertain applications for change of zone of private parties on various grounds. Section 16B of TCP Act is also pending for final hearing before the High Court.
According to the petitioners, under Section 17(2) provision, the State government is empowered to change so called “erroneously” zoned plots in the existing Regional Plan on payment of set fees and charges. The rules framed under Section 17(2) enable private individuals to file applications to seek correction of such allegedly wrong zoning of their plots in Regional Plan 2021.
Also immediately after inserting Section 17 (2) the Act, several dubious zone changes have been notified with speed, the petitioners have stated. Section 17 (2) gives unbridled powers to the Chief Town Planner and the government to make changes to the Regional Plan under the guise of correcting errors and inconsistent zoning proposals in the RP.