Latest news with #ODPs
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Setback to state as Supreme Court declines relief to Goa govt on TCP's Sec 17(2), ODPs
Panaji: In a major setback to state govt, Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant relief to the town and country planning (TCP) department, which had sought a stay on a high court judgment concerning the Section 17(2) matter and the two outline development plans (ODPs) of Calangute-Candolim and Arpora-Nagoa-Parra. Supreme Court In March, the high court struck down the rules and guidelines of the controversial Section 17(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, in the 'public interest'. State govt challenged the order in the Supreme Court. In June, the high court set aside govt's ODPs for five villages and directed the state to follow Regional Plan 2021 for the approval of plans and the grant of permissions in these villages. The two ODPs — Calangute-Candolim and Arpora-Nagoa-Parra — cannot operate, and the five villages of Calangute, Candolim, Arpora, Nagoa, and Parra will not be governed by them, a division bench comprising justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta ruled. Supreme Court bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on the special leave petitions filed by state govt and the TCP department but proceeded to order a 'status quo' to be maintained, said Goa Foundation director Claude Alvares. 'This in effect means that all construction activities connected with the subject matters of the two judgments — and now subject matter of the appeals filed by the state — would have to remain at a standstill till the apex court disposes of the appeals,' he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ranked: The 25 Best Cities To Live In The World Learn More Undo Former Odisha high court chief justice, senior advocate S Murlidhar and senior advocate Shoeb Alam appeared for Goa Foundation in the two Section 17(2) appeals filed by Goa govt and TCP. Alvares said that the court has fixed the matter for Aug 26. 'There are more than 60 respondents in the three SLPs filed by the state and TCP, since the high court judgments were passed in a batch of writ petitions and PILs, including the PILs filed by Goa Foundation,' he said.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Villages pulled from planning areas are governed by RP: HC
Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa has held that govt was incorrect in assuming that planning areas, once removed, cease to be governed under the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act. In a major setback to the TCP department's plans for allowing construction activities along the North Goa coastal belt, the high court last week held that the two ODPs of Calangute-Candolim and Arpora-Nagoa-Parra could not operate for these villages, and would not govern them. It directed the state to follow Regional Plan 2021 for the approval of plans and the grant of permissions in these villages. 'Since the villages now fall in non-planning areas and the North Goa planning and development authority (NGPDA) has no jurisdiction, but the town and country planning department has assumed jurisdiction, it is open for it to process the permissions for development not as per the outlined development plan, which already lapsed, but as per the Regional Plan 2021,' stated the division bench comprising justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta. These villages, once withdrawn from planning areas, still continue to be governed by the Regional Plan as the planning area falls within the state of Goa and the TCP Act extends to the whole of Goa, the high court observed. The high court order on the ODPs came after a series of legal back and forths, with the matter even reaching the Supreme Court, as the TCP department desperately tried to defend its implementation. The high court stated that state govt was not justified in invoking executive powers in issuing an executive order (enabling continuance of impugned ODPs) on the premise that there was a vacuum in the absence of a statutory regime governing the withdrawn planning areas, and that to fill the gap, the executive must step in and make an 'order' governing areas which are withdrawn as planning areas. As long as the Goa TCP Act continues to govern land development in the state through the regional plan, and since the Regional Plan 2021 is already in operation, there was no justification for the state in using the executive order, the court observed. From issuing circulars to even an ordinance, state govt has been trying hard to keep alive the ODPs despite initially suspending them due to large-scale illegalities. But in between all the legal wrangles, the TCP department went ahead with zone changes on its own. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
ODPs case another indictment of TCP's urban planning flaws
Panaji: The order of the high court of Bombay at Goa regarding the outline development plans (ODPs) for five prominent coastal villages — Calangute, Candolim, Arpora, Nagoa, and Parra — brings into sharp focus the long-standing allegations of arbitrary land conversion and procedural violations that have plagued the town and country planning (TCP) department. This is not the first time the judiciary reversed the department's policies. From putting on hold a circular on ODPs for the five villages to virtually striking down the TCP department's power to unilaterally alter the zoning of private plots through Section 17(2) of the TCP Act, 1974, the courts have emerged as the battleground for Goa's land politics. In most of these cases, the judiciary found the department's actions procedurally flawed, environmentally negligent, or contrary to statutory planning norms, say activists who have taken up cudgels against the department. The earliest large-scale expression of public distrust began with the Regional Plan 2011. Accusations of arbitrary zoning changes benefiting real estate interests led to the plan's scrapping, triggering the formation of the task force for Regional Plan 2021. This exercise ran into allegations that large swathes of land were converted to settlement zones without public consultation, prompting govt to once again keep it in abeyance. Since then, successive BJP govts have tried to bring in piecemeal changes in the RP2021 in the guise of amendments designed to 'correct' the errors. Vijai Sardesai was the first to try making incremental tweaks through Section 16B of the TCP Act during his brief stint as TCP minister in 2018. When this was challenged in the HC, present TCP minister Vishwajit Rane rushed in Section 17(2) in the guise of correcting 'inadvertent errors' in the RP2021. As public pressure mounted, and with Section 17(2) being challenged through a PIL, Rane brought in Section 39(A) for ease of land conversions. Under this, the TCP department's chief town planner has been empowered to alter or modify the RP2021 and the ODPs. According to Goa Foundation, 95% of the applications under Section 39(A) involve changes from orchard (2.4 lakh sqm) and natural cover zones (1.4 lakh sqm) to settlement. Meanwhile, on March 13, the HC read down Section 17(2) of the TCP Act. Justices M S Karnik and Nivedita Mehta minced no words when they immobilised the amendment, saying that it 'virtually has the effect of mutilating the regional plan'. By then, the TCP department had already converted 26.5 lakh sqm. The HC order said that such large-scale conversion could have 'disastrous consequences' on an ecosystem as fragile as Goa's. The HC's order on the ODPs is yet another indictment of the TCP's flawed functioning, said an architect. 'Money is being taken for land conversion, but nobody is talking about need-based planning. Govt must decide what happens to the zone changes that have been done till now,' the architect added. The HC order comes after a series of back and forth between environmentalists, the TCP department, the HC, and the Supreme Court. In fact, while hearing a special leave petition by Goa govt against the Bombay HC's order restraining construction based on the ODP for the five villages, Supreme Court Justice Satish Chandra Sharma told Goa's counsel, 'Please don't turn Goa into a concrete jungle.' The message never got passed down, with govt continuing to defend the ODPs in the HC. While these reversals brought uncertainty upon builders, investors, and landowners in Bardez—many of whom benefited from conversions in the ODP—the courts have signalled a zero-tolerance approach to irregularities in urban planning.
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Status of projects in 5 villages under cloud
Calangute: The status of projects constructed based on approvals under the ODPs for Calangute, Candolim, Parra, Arpora and Nagoa by the North Goa Planning and Development Authority (NGPDA) and TCP department, could once again come under a cloud following Monday's HC order. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Calangute Constituency Forum (CCF) which had filed one of the petitions against the ODPs, said, 'We have not yet received the order and have yet to see what directions have been given by the HC. But the HC has said that there can be no construction based on approvals given under the ODPs by the NGPDA and the TCP department,' said CCF president Premanand Divkar. Calangute sarpanch Joseph Sequeira said he was yet to see the HC order. The panchayat had approached the HC in 2016 against the inclusion of Calangute in the NGPDA, but it was withdrawn after a new panchayat body supported by Calangute MLA Michael Lobo was elected in 2017. Lobo was also the chairman of the NGPDA at the time. A fresh petition had been filed after a new panchayat body was elected in 2022. The Goa Foundation had also filed petitions. The imbroglio over the ODPs has gone on for more than a decade. Activists and villagers had opposed the ODPs because of large-scale conversions of hill slopes and other eco-sensitive areas which had been marked as settlement zones. When the ODP was kept open for objections and suggestions, most of the objections had been ignored, villagers said.
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC quashes ODPs for 5 villages, asks Goa govt to follow RP 2021
Panaji: In a major setback to the TCP department's plans for allowing construction activities in the North Goa coastal belt, the Bombay high court on Monday set aside govt's ODPs or outline development plans for five villages and directed state to follow Regional Plan 2021 for approval of plans and grant of permissions in these villages. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The two ODPs — Calangute-Candolim and Arpora-Nagoa-Parra — cannot operate and the five villages of Calangute, Candolim, Arpora, Nagoa, and Parra will not be governed by them, a division bench comprising justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta ruled. However, on the request of state govt, the HC stayed the implementation of its own judgment for four weeks, subject to govt ensuring that no permissions be granted and no construction or development take place in the five villages. The high court order on the ODPs comes after a series of legal back and forth with even the matter reaching the Supreme Court as the TCP department desperately tried to defend its implementation. The apex court flagged it off as a serious issue of unbridled construction when hearing a special leave petition by state govt against Bombay HC's order restraining construction based on the ODPs, Supreme Court justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while dismissing the SLP, said: 'Please don't turn Goa into a concrete jungle.' From issuing circulars to even an Ordinance, state govt has been trying hard to keep alive the ODPs despite initially suspending it due to large scale illegalities. But in between all the legal wrangles, the TCP department went ahead with zone changes on its own. The chief town planner even issued a circular taking away all the powers from the North Goa Planning and Development Authority (NGPDA) and directing that the TCP would issue clearances for development and zoning certificates. The circular was never notified but merely circulated among the district collectors, town planning officials and registrars among others.
