Bombay High Court
Betqui Candola Samvardhan Samitee, ... vs Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By ... on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-GOA:32-DB
2026:BHC-GOA:32-DB
1/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO.14 OF 2016
Betqui Candola Samvardhan Samitee .. Petitioner
A Society registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860 under
Registration No.601/Goa/2013, with
its ofice at c/o Shri Umakant Shetye
H. No.295/1, Damodaralay Devlay,
Candola, Marcela, Goa 403107
Through its authorized Member Shri
Arun Madgavkar, major, son of
Mr.Vijay A. Madgavkar, Resident of
House No.377, Candola, Mercela Goa
Fax NO.Nil, Mobile No.9226857379
PAN No.AGGPM8225
National Unique Identity Number -
Nil
Email : [email protected]
Annual Income Rs.5,00,000/-.
Versus
1 M/s.Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. Respondents
Represented by Shri Dwarka Rao,
General Manager Liaison, major, r/o
G-18, Gera's Imperium, Ground Floor,
Plot No.17, Patto Plaza, Panaji - Goa.
2 The Village Panchayat of Betqui-
Candola, Through its Secretary,
Candola, Ponda, Goa.
3 The State of Goa, Through its Chief
Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim,
Goa.
4 The Additional Collector-II, North
Goa at Panaji, Having Ofice at
Collectorate Building, Panaji-Goa.
5 The Town Planner, Town &
Country Planning Department,
KISHOR
Digitally signed
RAJSHREE by RAJSHREE
KISHOR MORE
Date:
Ponda-Goa.
MORE 2026.01.13
15:25:15 +0530
6 The Chief Town Planner, Town &
rajshree
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 :::
2/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc
Country Planning Department,
Panaji-Goa.
7 The Goa SEIAA c/o Goa State
Pollution Control Board, 3rd Floor,
Dempo Tower, EDC Patto Plaza,
Panaji Goa 403001.
...
Mr.Nigel Da Costa Frias a/w Vishal Sawant and Vineet
Surlekar for the Petitioner.
Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate a/w Parag Rao
(Through VC), Shubhra Swami, Akhil Parrikar and Shulin
Singbal for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Sagar Dhargalkar, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General a/w Siddharth Samant,
Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 6.
Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General a/w Deep Shirodkar,
Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.7.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th OCTOBER,2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th JANUARY,2026.
JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :
1 Writ Petition iled by Betqui Candola Samvardhan Samittee, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860, is aimed to preserve and protect rights of the villages of Betqui Candola and its ecology and environment.
The grievance raised in the Petition is against Respondent No.1 M/s.Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. which has rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 3/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc proposed to develop the property bearing Survey No.33/1 of Village Candola, Ponda Taluka, which was earlier surveyed under Survey No.33/0, as the Respondent No.1 propose to develop a 'Group Housing Project' comprising of 784 lats, 44 villas and shops and 13 ofices alongwith town centre and a club house. The total built up area of the project proposed is approximated as 101,147.69 sq. mtrs.
2 The PIL Petition raises objection to the development by Respondent No.1 on various counts and the prominent objections raised are as below :-
A) That the proposed construction by Respondent No.1 in Survey No.33/1 of Village Candola of Ponda involves large scale hill cutting since the property is a hillock, the proposed built up area is 1,01147.69m2. The Town and Country Planning Department has granted permissions for development as well as hill cutting under Section 17A of the Town and Country Planning Act (for short "TCP Act") without actual physical veriication of the contours. That part of the property is a No Development slope (exceeding 25% gradient) the location of this area has not been demarcated or veriied by the Town and Country Planning Department as also the NDZ (area under steep slope and forest cover with dense tree canopy) has not been demarcated.
B) The permissions has been issued with an FAR of 80% whereas the project would be entitled to an FAR of 60% since Candola village is classiied as VP2 under the Regional Plan for Goa 2021.
rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 4/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc C) That the project site is not accessible by a 10 meter wide road as shown in the approved plan. The project being a residential cum commercial project the access road needs to be minimum of 8 meters width in terms of Regulation 6A.3.1 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010. Further as per the approved plan there is an area reserved for sub-division in which case the access road would have to be minimum of 10 meters in terms of Regulation 12.6 of the same Regulations.
D) The Environmental Clearance granted to the Project Proponent by the Goa SEIAA on 31/10/2016 comprise of various conditions and this include construction of access/ approach road prior to commencement of construction, marking of NDZ, issuance of NOC from Forestry and Wildlife Authorities including clearance from Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife, but none of these conditions are complied with.
E) The village of Candola does not have the requisite infrastructure mainly water and electricity supply to support a project of this nature which comprises of 784 lats, 44 villas, 44 shops and 13 ofices. The project is bound to affect the grounds water table and the ecology of the otherwise purely agrarian village of Candola.
3 In the backdrop of the aforesaid objections, the PIL WP seek writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Village Panchayat of Betqui Candola as well as the Town Planner and Chief Town Planner rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 5/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc of Town and Country Planning Department, Ponda-Goa, to take action to restore the property in Survey No.33/1, Village Candola to its original condition by removing the construction/development carried out thereupon. A direction is also sought to the Collector, North Goa at Panji to revisit the Conversion Sanad and quash the Conversion Sanad dated 23/04/2013 issued to the Project Proponent.
The PIL WP also seek a direction for quashing and setting aside all the licenses and permissions obtained by Respondent No.1 for the project including No Objection Certiicate and Technical Clearance Order issued on 20/03/2015, as well as construction license issued by the Village Panchayat on 27/11/2015.
Another relief in the Petition is in form of a direction to the Town Planning Department to carry out a detail study and analysis of the contours and gradient of the property and submit a report before this Court.
4 In the Petition being iled in the year 2016, the pleadings being completed, it was indicated that the Petition shall be heard inally.
On 30/06/2025 when the Petition was listed for hearing, Mr.Frias for the Petitioner raised serious objections as regards the permission being granted under Section 17A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and that the permission is granted without physical veriication of the contours and it was urged that six contour plans were submitted to different Authorities, which were not in consonance with each other.
rajshree
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 :::
6/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc
In the light of this submission, we requested
Mr.Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate, representing the State Authorities to place before us the original ile alongwith Afidavit iled by the Chief Town Planner explaining the process that was adopted when the plans were processed by the Department. Accordingly, the Afidavit of the Chief Town Planner (Land Use)/ Head of the Department, Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Goa is placed before us. Similarly on 04/10/2025, upon a direction issued before us, the learned senior counsel Mr. Sakhardande representing Respondent No.1 has placed an Afidavit, making a particular commitment, to which we would refer to at an appropriate time.
5 We have heard learned counsel Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias for the Petitioner, learned senior counsel Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande alongwith Parag Rao for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar represented the Village Panchayat, whereas the learned Advocate General Mr. Devidas Pangam alongwith Additional Government Advocate Mr. Siddharth Samant and Mr.Deep Shirodkar represented the State Authorities.
6 According to Mr.Frias the proposed property for development by Respondent No.1 is a hilly terrain with dense tree canopy covering large part of the property and according to him some portion of the property is a steep slope, where no development is permissible in terms of the Building Regulations. He would submit that the approved plan dated rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 7/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc 20/03/2015 shows demarcation of the area as 18,000 sq. mtr. and in the conversion Sanad plan the no development zone (NDZ) area admeasuring 9203 sq. mtrs is shown on the site plan which is submitted by Respondent No.1 to the Ofice of Collector alongwith the application seeking conversion Sanad. It is further submitted that in the report of the Deputy Conservator of Forest dated 07/08/2012 issued to the Collector for the purpose of grant of conversion plan Sanad there is mention of area of 14450 as having tree canopy density of more than 0.1 and the area reserved due to tree density as per TCP approved plan dated 20/03/2015 is 10,653 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, the location and extent of the area under NDZ i.e. the area with dense tree canopy and steep slope differ in the TCP approved plan dated 20/03/2015 and the conversion plan and the overlay of the two plans relect that they do not tally.
For this purpose, Mr.Frias has placed reliance upon the technical report of a private Architect Ritu Prasad, who, on comparison of the technical clearance order by the Town Planning Department and the conversion Sanad has opined that the area under the development/construction shown in the plan approved by TCP department is not in accordance with the area granted for conversion as per conversion Sanad.
7 Mr.Frias has speciically contended that the Project Proponent has submitted different contour plans on different occasions to various Authorities and reliance is placed upon the report of the Surveyor Mr.Gonsalves who has veriied the copies of the plans in respect of plot bearing Survey No.33/1 of rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 8/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc Candola Village, Ponda Taluka, which has relected that the contour plan submitted by the Developer has mention of different highest points as the plan was submitted to the Forest Department or to the GSEIAA as well as to the GSPCB for consent to establish the project and he has, therefore, inferred as below :
"My Conclusion is as follows:-
Comparing the Contour survey plan no. I with the survey plan II. I say that the Contour plan no. II of Saldanha 2001 is not the same as the Contour plan no. I, it shows almost the entire survey no. 33/1 as having gentle slope Comparing the Contour survey plan no. I with the Contour survey plan no. III of Environs Architects, I say that said contour survey plan no. III is not the same as contour plan no. I. The plot area on the north is shown as almost lat.
Comparing the Contour survey plan no. I with the Contour survey plan no. IV of M.J. Pai dated 5/5/2010, I say that said contour survey plan no. IV is the same as contour plan no. I. Comparing the Contour survey plan no. I with the Contour survey plan no. V submitted to G.S.E.I.A.A, I say that said contour survey plan no. V is the same as contour plan no. I except that the drainage line is shown as Nalla in the south west.
Comparing the Contour survey plan no. I with the Contour survey plan of Survey of India the highest point is shown as 61 metres (above Sea level) and the lowest point on the west in the plot bearing survey no. 33/1 which is superimposed by me is about 15 metres The copies of all the above mentioned plans veriied by me are attached to this report."
8 According to Mr.Frias, the Chief Town Planner who has iled an Afidavit, has made an incorrect statement that the contour plan submitted by Respondent No.1 was veriied and accordingly approval was granted. According to him, the approval was granted without any mention of how and in what manner the contour plan was veriied and by whom and rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 9/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc he has also reported that the contour analysis vis-a-vis survey of India Toposheet was not required in this case as Respondent No.1 has submitted a contour plan through a chartered surveyor/engineer which was veriied and admittedly the demarcation of no development slope has not been done. It is the contention of Mr.Frias that the ile notings of TCP prior to the grant of Technical Clearance mention that a contour analysis has to be done with reference to the survey of India Toposheet to ascertain whether the proposed construction is within the permissible gradient and the Site Inspection Report of the TCP Department in the earlier round of litigation prepared by the Panel of three Town Planners clearly stipulated that the detail land survey is required to be carried by the Director of Settlement of Land Records to ascertain the exact extent of deviations or development or cutting of the land carried out by Respondent No.1.
9 Another contention of Mr.Frias is, that the hill cutting permission dated 20/03/2015 is granted in favour of the Project Proponent without site inspection and without contour analysis and demarcation of area under steep slope. He would submit that the approval for the change of zone granted by TCP department from Orchard to Settlement was granted subject to strict veriication of contours and subject to making available the access, but the same is not at all adhered to.
According to him, the approved plan of Respondent No.1 show that the plot in question is accessible by 12.5 meter wide road which is 6 meter wide at certain stretches and the plot do not have 12.5 meter access road and in terms of Regulation rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 10/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc 6A.3.1 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, the project must have minimum 8 meters wide road since it is the residential-cum- commercial project as it comprise of lats, villas, ofices, club houses, whereas the conversion Sanad granted is only for residential purpose.
It is the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the Chief Town Planner has also made a false and misleading statement that the project is a multi dwelling residential project, which in fact it is not, as some part of the property is reserved for sub division and in which case, Regulation 12.6 of the Regulations of 2010 would apply and the project would need a minimum 10 meter wide access road since the area of plot exceed 20,000 sq. mtrs.
It is, thus, contended that the approved plans for the project are carefully crafted and drawn to conceal the necessary particulars and the manner in which the approvals are granted would disclose complete non application of mind. It is, therefore, contended that considering the magnitude of the project, it is necessary to have a proper road access, failing which it would lead to chaos in the village due to trafic congestion, road accidents etc. as the villagers residing in the coastal belt such as villages of Calangute, Colva, Candolim etc. are already facing huge problems due to trafic congestion and the available infrastructure would not be able to take up the actual load of the multiple units in the project.
In short, according to Mr.Frias the project of Respondent No.1 as sanctioned, deserve a review for the following reasons :-
rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 11/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc "a. Contour analysis and veriication of contour plans submitted by the Respondent no.1 viz a viz site conditions has not been carried out by the TCP department.
b. No demarcation of NDS has been done at the site.
c. Permissions for hill cutting have been granted without proper site inspection and application of mind.
d. Requisite road access is admittedly not available.
e. Probable impact of the project on the ecology and environment has not been assessed by the planning authorities.
f. The project has erroneously been granted an FAR of 80% whereas it is entitled to an FAR of 60% this increases the built up area and hence creates additional burden on the infrastructure and the environment.
g. No sanad has been granted for commercial use.
h. Conditions of the EC dated 31/10/2016 have not been complied with.
i. Availability of requisite infrastructure has not been assessed by the concerned authorities i.e the TCP and the Village Panchayat."
10 It is to be noted that the present PIL iled by the Betqui- Candola Samvardhan Samiti was adjudicated by the Division Bench and in the Judgment/Order dated 27/09/2018, the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner was appreciated by noting that the property was initially in Orchard zone, in the Regional Plan and the owner Mr.Antonio Edward Saldanha wanted to change the zone to Settlement zone and to subdivide the property and he obtained a No Objection Certiicate from Comunidade of Candola. Alongwith the NOC, Mr.Saldanha also submitted a contour plan to the TCP Department of Goa and by order dated 29/10/2001, the department permitted conversion of 1,28,000 sq. mtrs. of property from Orchard zone to Settlement zone and on rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 12/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc 28/12/2001 the TCP department granted a provisional NOC for sub division of the property for the residential purpose.
M/s. Gera Developers Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Respondent No.1 purchased the property in the year 2007 and applied to the Collector of North Goa for conversion Sanad. It also sought change of land use in respect of the property for an area admeasuring 1,27,120 sq. mtrs. and proposal for conversion of land was forwarded to the TCP department. The developer also submitted a contour plan to the Town Planner on 05/09/2009, but was directed to resubmit the contour plan specifying certain details. The Town Planner by letter dated 07/09/2009 recommended conversion of area admeasuring 1,09,120 sq. mtrs. and an area around 19000 sq. mtrs. of land which fell on the steep slope was directed to be deducted.
The Village Panchayat of Betqui Candola forwarded the Application of the Developer to the TCP Department on 24/06/2010 and a note was put up by the Town Planner on 21/07/2010 pointing out the road requirements, open spaces and the contour plan.
The Chief Town Planner issued a direction on 04/06/2012 that all the projects and proposals based on Regional Plan of Goa 2021, in which Candola village is classiied as Village Panchayat- 2, were to be kept in abeyance till the Government takes appropriate decision. The Town Planner issued NOC for subdivision and technical clearance for the proposed construction on 18/11/2011 and a conversion Sanad was obtained from the Collector for an area of 102387 sq. mtrs. in Survey No. 33/1 of Village Candola. The construction license was also granted by the Panchayat rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 13/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc pursuance to the meeting held on 10/04/2012.
Upon these developments taking place, the villagers from Betqui-Candola Village formed a society as they apprehended severe repercussions of the proposed project on the existing situation of the village and the Petitioner complained to the Director of Panchayat about the provisional NOC granted to the Developer, for subdivision of the property and they raised various objections including the grant of NOC without conversion Sanad as well as raised an objection that the Pollution Control Board had issued consent to Establish on 31/01/2012 without proper veriication of documents.
The Petitioner continued to make representations, but considering that no cognizance thereof was taken, they iled Public Interest Litigation No.3/2014, which sought relief of stoppage of construction and restoring the property to its original condition and relief was also sought for setting aside the permissions. A speciic grievance was raised that the Developer was illegally proceeding with hill cutting and a statement was made by the Developer that unless and until the revised plans are received no construction will be undertaken.
The Division Bench recorded that the construction activities were at stand still and directed the Authorities to hear the Petitioner before sanctioning the revised plans and the PIL Petition was disposed of.
11 The Petitioners submitted their written representation
before the Chief Town Planner who passed an order on
rajshree
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 :::
14/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc
16/10/2014 granting the permission and even revised technical clearance was issued in favour of the Developer, approving the plans on 20/03/2015. The NOC from Health Department was issued on 15/06/2015 and based on it, the Village Panchayat issued the construction license on 27/11/2015.
It is, in the wake of the aforesaid permissions being granted, the Petitioners iled the present PIL WP raising challenge to the permissions which included challenge to the grant of conversion Sanad dated 23/04/2013, No Objection Certiicate and technical clearance order dated 20/03/2015 and the construction license dated 27/11/2015. On 27/09/2017 recording that no work was going on on the site, status quo was granted.
The matter appeared before the Division Bench, which expressed that the Authorities had omitted crucial aspects from consideration and had mechanically granted the permissions which has defeated the very purpose of planned development.
Recording that the property has a gradient and the dispute was about the degree of gradient and as to how much area would fall within the prescribed gradient, the Bench noted that in the earlier PIL No.3/2014 the Town Planning Department was directed to consider the issue of technical clearance on considering the representation of the Petitioner and subsequent thereto the Developer and Petitioner attended the hearing before the Town Planner and pointed out that the survey of the property was necessary to determine the sloppy area under NDZ and that the survey of India Topographic rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 15/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc Sheets show the highest point in Survey No.33/1 as 61 mtrs. above sea level/the drop of more than 30 mtrs. It was also noted by the Division Bench that during the hearing before the Chief Town Planner, the Petitioner repeated request for re- survey of the contour plans, to which the Developer seriously objected and thereafter, the Chief Town Planner directed the Developer to submit contour plan from a registered Chartered Surveyor of its choice and upon this plan being submitted the technical clearance was granted on 20/03/2015.
12 The Petitioner made a serious grievance about the contour maps submitted by the Developer not being consistent, relying upon the report of the Surveyor.
The Division Bench noted that when the Petitioner approached the Court making grievance about the anomalies in the contour Plan and direction was issued to the Chief Town Planner to hear the parties, the decision ought to have been taken with care and on application of mind and unless there is a genuine and a certain contour plan, it was noted that it is not possible to decide about the land which has natural gradient and no part of the land which has inclination of more than 25% slope should be permitted for development as usable plot and unless a reliable contour plan is placed on record. It was noted that the Planning Authorities cannot be sure as to the extent of the slope with an incline of more than 25% and this has to be physically veriied by going to the site and carrying out the survey and/or the contour plan submitted by the Chartered Surveyor must be completely free from doubt and its veracity has to be cross-checked.
rajshree
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 :::
16/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc
Apart from this, the Court also focused its attention on the aspect of availability of water in favour of those who would occupy the premises in the project and its impact upon the right of villagers as well as the absence of an appropriate waste management system being in place.
It is, in this background the Division Bench observed thus :
"86. Thus it is clear that the Planning Authorities and the Village Panchayat have completely ignored the crucial aspects while granting the permissions, such as availability of water and sanitation and basic infrastructure. No independent reliable contour analysis is carried out. There is no clarity in the documents as to whether the Project is only a group housing project or a residential cum commercial. There is no certainty on the requirement of access. There is no study of the resultant trafic situation. The issue regarding the FAR has not been considered in proper perspective. The State is under obligation to ensure that mechanical grant of permission does not jeopardize the very object of planned development in the State.
87. The core argument of the Respondents that, once all permissions are granted no further scrutiny is permissible or required, is entirely fallacious. The Respondent Authorities do not have an absolute unquestionable power. The Respondent Authorities have a duty to ensure that the objects of the statutes under which they are established, are not defeated. The relevant planning legislations in the State of Goa impose a duty on the Planning Authorities and the Village Panchayats to scrutinize the grant of permissions with due care. These legislations do not expect the Authorities to be mere rubber stamps oblivious to realities and the long term sustainable planning goals. Non consideration of relevant criterions and acting mechanically defeating the purpose of the conferment of power, are well settled grounds of judicial review. Grant of such permissions cannot attach themselves a label of inality and seek immunity from judicial review. These laws make the decisions ultra vires of the statutes. Having considered the matter in detail, we conclude that the permissions granted by the Planning Authorities and the construction licence granted by the Village Panchayat are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Authorities ought to carry out a study and apply their mind to the various factors as above.
88 Accordingly, the impugned Technical Clearance granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, Goa dated 20 March 2015 and the impugned construction licence granted by the Respondent- Village Panchayat dated 27 November 2015 are quashed and set aside. The grant of fresh permissions, if any, shall only be after rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 17/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc evaluating various facets highlighted in this judgment. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs."
13 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, Gera Developers Pvt.Ltd. iled an application for Review (Civil Application (Review) No.12/2019), when the Court was of the view that the planning permission granted could not have been set aside simply on the ground that there ought to be a better consideration and if there was inadequate consideration, it was for the Court to consider the matter further and quash and set aside the permission order, if it was found to be vitiated on any of the statutory violation or perversity.
Recording that just because the Applicant before the Court was a PIL Petitioner, it was not open for the Court to relax the level or standard of scrutiny and being satisied with the grounds raised in the Review Petition, the same was accepted and the Judgment/Order dated 27/09/2018 was recalled restoring the Petition to its ile for fresh hearing.
14 In the wake of the Petition being restored to its ile, the Afidavits came to be iled by the Project Proponent as well as the Chief Town Planner, where the grounds in the Petition are seriously contested. The Petitioner also iled certain additional documents and rejoinder Afidavits, making certain additional pleadings in support of the reliefs sought in the main Petition.
The Chief Town Planner, who has afirmed the Afidavit on 10/07/2017, has pleaded that the Petition challenging the Environment Clearance order dated 31/10/2016 issued by the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 18/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc (GSEIAA) in favour of Gera Developers before the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone, Pune, in Appeal No.9/2017 and the matter is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. Apart from this, it is also urged by the Town Planner that the Petitioner had earlier iled PIL WP No.3/2014 and by order dated 09/09/2014, the Respondent was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before granting any sanction, with respect to the revised plan and accordingly an hearing was granted to the Petitioner before passing the order on 16/10/2014.
A categorical stand adopted by the Town Planner in its Afidavit is that the Developer had obtained Environment Clearance for the Project on 19/05/2011, but now since the project is revised, fresh environment clearance will have to be obtained from the Competent Authority. The Afidavit also proceed to state that the Developer shall submit the actual contour plan as per ground condition from a Registered Chartered Surveyor/Engineer and in any case it is agreed that the area reserved by the Forest Department shall not be allowed for development and no part of the property having slope of 25% or more shall be allowed for development.
In addition, as regards allegation about contour plan, the Afidavit categorically state as below :-
"I say that the there is no requirement of carrying out contour analysis of the plans submitted by the respondent vis-a-vis survey of India topo sheet as it is representing actual ground condition as contour plan is submitted by Chartered surveyor/Engineer. The revised Technical Clearance was issued after verifying the contour plan submitted."
Reliance placed by the Petitioner upon the report of private Surveyor is speciically objected to by submitting that rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 19/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc the Planning Authority, after verifying the contour Plan submitted on 20/11/2014 granted approval to the revised plan which is granted subject to the condition that Approach Road of 12.50 mtrs. shall be developed for the Group Housing Project and in any case the minimum road required for multi dwelling units is 6.00 mtrs as per the Regulations of 2010. The objection raised about the Garbage and Sewerage disposal as well as water and power supply was speciically dealt with in the following manner :-
"I say that the Garbage and sewerage disposed is part of environment aspect the project proponent, has been asked to obtain revised environmental clearance from the competent authority. Further, the project proponent has also shown sewerage treatment plant in the revised plan approved by this ofice. As regards to water and power supply, there are many area reserved for sub- stations in the property and power supply and water supply is proposed to obtain from state authority."
15 Respondent No.1 Developer also iled a detail Afidavit, where it made reference to the earlier PIL WP No.3/2014 and order dated 09/09/2014, when the Court took note of the fact that Respondent No.1 had submitted revised plans and those plans were being considered by the Competent Authority and an opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to be heard before according any sanction to the revised plans.
Respondent No.1 adopted a stand that it purchased the property on 28/09/2007 and applied for technical clearance order for the Group Housing Project to Respondent No.5 and submitted that there was change of zoning/land use of the property 33/0 in the Regional Plan from Orchard to Settlement Zone which was permitted in the year 1996 and notiied in the oficial gazette. Apart from this, there is also a reference to rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 20/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc the inal approval accorded by the Government under Section 14 of the TCP Act on 05/11/1997 for change of proposed land use in regional plan from Orchard to Settlement and an area of 1,28,000 sq. mtr. being allowed to be changed.
It is categorical stand of Respondent No.1 that though permission for subdivision of Survey No.33/1 of Candola was applied by its former owner, the said subdivision was never carried out and there can be no grievance as regards the same.
About the availability of the road, the Afidavit of Respondent no.1 contain the following statement :-
"11. I say that the contents of Para 13 are totally distorted. It is admitted that the Chairman of the Respondent no. I has indeed iled an afidavit dated 27-05-2009 but as suggested by the Petitioner, the said afidavit does not make any reference to any statement that "he shall build a 6 meter tar road to the property" and therefore the contents of the said Para 13 are misrepresented and frivolous and made with the sole intention to mislead this Hon'ble Court. I say that there exists a tar road on site and the same has been constructed on the basis of the No Objection Certiicate dated 07-08- 2007 issued by the Attorney of the Communidade of Candola. A perusal of the said NOC dated 07-08-2007 clearly demonstrates that the NOC on behalf of the Communidade of Candola was for widening/constructing and using the existing 3 meters road to 12.5 meters width leading to Survey no. 33/0 through Survey no.34/2 of Village Candola known as "Sheticho Tembo" belonging to Communidade of Candola. I say that the property bearing Survey no.34/2 of Village Candola is situated on the eastern side of the property bearing survey no.33/1 (33/0) belonging to the Respondent no.1 and accordingly the requisite access/road is presently existing on the eastern side of the property and hence the grievance raised by the Petitioner that there is no 6 meters access on the west side of the property as required for a mega housing project is false, frivolous, baseless and misleading made solely with a view to project a wrong doing on the part of the respondent no.1."
16 In respect to the accusations levelled as regards the conversion Sanad, Respondent No.1 has stated that it applied for conversion Sanad on 23/12/2008 and on complying with rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 21/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc various notings and directions, the conversion Sanad was granted on 23/04/2013 and it is categorically denied that there is any discrepancy in granting the permission as it is submitted that the Developer complied with the notings of Respondent No.5 and only on being satisied, the approval was granted by the TCP Department for subdivision of land of property bearing Survey No.33/1 considering 80% FAR.
17 Coming to the objections raised by the Petitioner in seriatim, the irst being about involvement of large scale hill cutting and permission granted under Section 17A of the TCP Act and allegation that the part of the property is No Development Slope and the location of the area has not been demarcated or veriied by the TCP Department, it is to be noted that amongst the existing conundrum, on 14/08/2025 when the additional Afidavit was iled by the Chief Town Planner, TCP Department before us, a consensus was expressed by the counsel representing the Parties to have a fresh veriication to be done by the Chief Town Planner, who was expected to carry out physical inspection in the backdrop of the contour plan submitted by the project proponent and we directed thus :-
" We expect the exercise of actual site inspection for ascertaining the veracity of the contour plan and determining the radiant gradient on site shall be carried out on or before 31.08.2025, so that we are with the fresh and recent report of inspection about the gradient and, consequent upon that, the issue of permission under Section 17A can be determined.
We expect the CTP to undertake this exercise by issuing two days' advance notice and the report be placed before us for consideration."
The proceedings were also permitted to be video- graphed not for ascertaining the validity of the procedure to be rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 22/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc carried out, but to appraise the Court about the procedure that is actually carried out when the contours are measured.
18 In compliance of the said direction, the Additional Government Advocate Mr.Samant iled the Site Inspection Report before us and the report record thus :
"An entire property was checked extensively along with the Representative of Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioner and all the 04 nos of Bench Marks were veriied at site and land cutting carried out was checked at site and 02 nos of structures built i.e. the Sales Ofice and the Mock-up Apartment.
Contour Analysis
1. No of Contours 29 X 100/320 = 9.06% average slope works out to 9.06% towards the north side of the property.
2. Number of contours 19 X 100/225 = 8.4% average slope works out to 8.4% towards the north side of the property.
3. The slope Analysis of west side of property where the area is marked for phase 1 sub division, the slope of the area works out more than permissible gradient(i.e. 25%) from the contour line of 93 upwards upto 98 contour line
4. The contour line 93 downwards upto contour line 78 the average slope works out to 18%.
5. Therefore the average slope of the major portion of the property is 9.6% except the portion of the land shown as phase on sub division where the average slope works out to be 18% from contour line 93 downwards upto contour line 78 which is within the permissible gradient.
Findings based on the physical survey and analysis of the contour to determine the gradient are as under:
1. There are 8 concentric contour lines which are not numbered and which fall in the centre of the property the reference of the same is at benchmark No. 2. (shown in the map of 1:1000 scale at Annexure B) and whereas the said area is mentioned as the highest point 50 mts in the 1:500 scale (site plan) in Annexure C.
2. The contour analysis of west side of property where the area is marked for phase 1 sub division, the slope of the area works out rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 23/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc more than permissible gradient from the contour line of 93 upwards up to 98 contour line which is touching the no development slope shown in the site plan.
The 8 concentric contour lines which have not been numbered needs to be mentioned on the site plan. The contour line 93 to 98 from the Westside of the property will not be granted permission under section 17 A as the gradient is more than the permissible limit."
19 The analysis is based on the background that the property is admeasuring an area of 1,26,040 with length of 600 mtrs. from South to North and average width of aproximate 185 from East to West. The Site Inspection Report noted that the cutting of land is carried out within the property under reference to make the internal road as shown in the site plan approved by the TCP Department on 20/03/2015, however, the internal road is Kutcha road and the representative of Respondent No.1 informed that the work of land cutting was stopped in the wake of the order passed by the High Court. During the site inspection, the Petitioner's Architect pointed out that the area under slope has more than 25% gradient and further as to the area under slope, Respondent No.1 has shown Phase I for subdivision on the West side.
The aforesaid report has signature of the persons who were present and it is also accompanied with the contour analysis as well as the necessary plans.
20 On perusal of the report alongwith the plans showing the contours of the plot bearing Survey No.33, we ind that area admeasuring 9203 sq. mtrs. is not recommended for conversion by Town and Country Planning Department and area admeasuring 14450 sq. mtrs. is not recommended for rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 24/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc conversion by Forest Department. The plan has shown the contours at the respective gradient, as the report has categorically stated that the slope of the area which work out more than permissible gradient from the contour line of 93 upwards to 98 which is touching the no development slope, will not be granted permission under Section 17A as the gradient is more than permissible limit.
In our view, since the contour analysis has worked out of the slope of the area and has refused to grant permission where the gradient is more than 25% , in terms of the Policy of the TCP Department, and since Respondent No.1 has speciically agreed and undertake to itself bound by the said Site Inspection Report, placed before us in pursuance of the order dated 14/08/2025, under the signature of the Chief Town Planner (Land Use) R.K. Pandita, in our view, whatever conundrum that existed in the wake of the allegation that different contour plans were placed before different Authorities now stand redressed and we expect Respondent No.1 to strictly abide by the inal Site Inspection Report which has excluded the the contour line 93 to 98 from the West side of the property as the CTP had made it clear that no permission shall be granted in respect of the said area under Section 17A as the gradient is more than the the permissible limit.
21 In the Afidavit iled by the Chief Town Planner R.K. Pandita, on 23/07/2025, the factual position emerging from the record of the Town and Country Planning Department is placed before us.
rajshree
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 :::
25/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc
As per the Deponent of the Afidavit, permission under Section 17A of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, for cutting of land in respect of the subject property was granted on 28/12/2012 and the speciic statement is made that said approval was granted after veriication of the contour plans showing no development slopes areas at the time of approval and on analysis of the slope. It is also stated that the Applicant submitted the ownership documents, area cutting of sloppy land, photograph and the proposal was processed and approval was granted with concurrence of the Chief Town Planner. Subsequently, when the revised plans were submitted, the Afidavit categorically make the following statement :-
"4. I further say that revised plans were subsequently submitted by Respondent No. 1 to seek the permission for revision to the earlier sanctioned plans in the said property, which included the construction of Residential Villas, Apartments, Town Centres, Club Houses, and a Compound Wall. The said revised proposal was also having therein the site plan showing contours and longitudinal section, submitted by the developer. The gradient was less than 25% excluding the area under slope and maximum cutting was at the height of 1.5 mts. which was within permissible limits. Since, the cutting of land proposed was as per the rules, the permission of section 17A was granted vide ref No. TPP/17-A/CANDOLA/33/1/2015/310 dated 20/03/2015, with the approval of the Government vide ref No. TPP/264/Candola/33/2014/1444 dated 22/12/2014. The said NOC was issued in supersession to the earlier NOC granted vide ref No. TPP/17-A/Candola/33/1/12/1024 dated 28/12/2012. The said contour plan of land bearing sy. No 33/1 of village Candola of Ponda Taluka from M/s Gera Developers Pvt Ltd was certiied by Chartered Engineer showing contour at 1 mts interval. The Government, upon due consideration, approved the said revised proposal VIDE Note Ref. No. TPP/264/Candola/33/2014/1444 Reference No. vide Note Ref. No. dated 22/12/2014 and TPP/264/Candola/33/1/2015/31 dated 23/03/2015.
5. I say, upon receiving the Government approval of the said project, the Technical Clearance Order was issued for construction of the revised Group Housing Project comprising 44 Residential Villas, 784 Apartments, a Town Centres comprising of 44 shops and rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 26/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc 13 ofices, 02 Club Houses and Compound Wall in property bearing Survey No. 33/1 of Village Candola, Ponda Taluka vide TPP/264/Candola/33/1/2015/311 dated 20/03/2015."
22 In the very said Afidavit, there is also mention of change of user of the land as it is stated that Respondent No.1 had earlier obtained change of use of zone from 'Orchard' to 'Settlement zone' as per the Regional Plan of Goa 2001 with permissible FAR of 80. A statement is however made that under the Regional Plan for Goa-2001, the subject property is now designated as VP 2 and the permissible FAR is 60. It is also categorically stated that the village Panchayat of Betqui- Candola is classiied as VP 2 category with permissible FAR of 60, but, as the subject land is admeasuring more than 4000 , the permissible FAR is 50 as per the policy of Regional Plan of Goa. It is stated that the project was approved initially in the year 2011 considering the permissibility of FAR of 80, whereas, the total FAR approved was 66 and that the technical clearance order was granted for revised plans on 20/03/2015 with FAR of 79.1 is stated to be within permissible limit considering FAR 80 granted on 29/10/2001.
By considering the permission granted to be an old commitment, it is stated that the revised proposal for housing was submitted with FAR of 80 and the same was taken into consideration by the Chief Town Planner, when he granted approval, treating it as an old application submitted prior to coming into force of the amended regulations.
23 In light of the aforesaid Afidavits being placed on record by the Town Planner, the position as regards the permission rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 27/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc under Section 17A and permissible FAR has been clearly worked out and when we have the reports from the Town Planning Department, which possesses an expertise as regards the country and town planning, we do not deem it appropriate to rely upon the report of a private Architect, which the Petitioner want us to look into. In any case, we ind that as per the latest land/contour survey, the area where the gradient is beyond permissible limit has been speciically excluded and we have commitment from Respondent No.1 to act in accordance with the latest Site Inspection Report iled by the TCP Department (Land Use), speciically excluding the contour line 93 to 98 from the West side of the property as it has gradient more than permissible limit i.e. 25%, but the average slope of the major portion of the property being recorded as 9.6%, we direct the Town and Country Planning Department to modify its approval/permission under Section 17A by excluding the portion which is set out in the Plan placed before us alongwith the report of the CTP (Land Use) in terms of the site inspection carried out on 22/08/2025.
As far as FAR is concerned, we have a commitment made by Respondent No.1 in form of Afidavit of the authorized representative, stating that in view of the status quo order calling on 27/09/2017, and despite technical clearance order dated 20/03/2015 and construction license dated 27/11/2015 by the Village Panchayat, the plans could not be submitted for fresh renewal. The Afidavit afirmed on 07/10/2025 contain the following statement :-
"2 I say that the above permissions and clearances which will be submitted for renewal/revision shall be on FAR entitlement in accordance with law as on the date on which the application for rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 28/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc renewal is made/iled.
3 I further say that the proposed project is likely to be utilised for purely residential purpose except construction of a club house which shall be restricted only to the residents of the project."
In the wake of the aforesaid, we have no dificulty in recording the contention on behalf of Respondent No.1 that FAR entitlement shall be availed only in accordance with law as on the date on which the application for renewal is made/iled.
24 Another objection about accessibility of the project site by a 10 meter wide road, the Petitioner proceeds on a footing that the project is a residential cum commercial project and access road to be provided is minimum 8 meters width in terms of Regulation 6A.3.1 of the Regulations of 2010.
On hearing the learned counsel representing the State and Respondent No.1, it is noted by us that the complex is purely residential and mere presence of a club which is only restricted to the members of the residential complex do not change the nature of the project to commercial and considering it to be a purely residential complex, a road of 6 meter is already provided. This is relected by the communication of the Deputy Town Planner addressed to the Gera Developers in regards to the subject of approval of revised plans on plot bearing Survey No.33/1 of Village Candola in Ponda taluka and this information is sought under Right to Information Act by the Petitioner clearly contain the following averment :
rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 29/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc "The existing 6 meter road access to the property under reference is inadequate for a group housing project."
However, in terms of the Regulations, the requirement of 8 meters is only for the commercial project and as far as residential complex is concerned, since 6 meter is the requirement, the project is compliant even with the condition as per requirement. The Town Planner in the Afidavit dated 23/07/2025 has also made the following statement :
" I say, further state that the property in question derives access from an existing road having a width of 6.00 meters, but whereas the proposed road as per RPG 2021, is 10 mts. wide however, the applicant has shown 12.50 mts. wide road within his property limit. Thereby showing 2.5 mts. more area for the road besides the area left for 10 mts proposed road as per Regional Plan for Goa 2021. The access thus conforms to the planning norms and road network envisaged in the said Regional Plan."
In the light of aforesaid statement based upon the factual position on grounds, we do not ind any merit in the contention raised by the Petitioner.
25 As far as the aspect of environment clearance is concerned, the objection raised is that environment clearance dated 31/10/2016 issued by Respondent No.7 include various conditions to be complied with by the Project Proponent and this includes the construction of access/approach road, marking of NDZ prior to commencement of construction, issuance of NOC from Forestry and Wildlife Authorities and the approval from SEIAA.
In this regard, it is to be noted that Respondent No.1 had obtained environment clearance from the Goa State rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 30/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc Environment Impact Assessment Authority on 31/10/2016 for construction of the building project and this is also subjected to challenge before the NGT and, therefore, we do not intend to get into the said issue as the competent Authority has granted the clearance.
Even Respondent No.1 had obtained conversion Sanad for an area admeasuring 1,02,387 sq. mtr. for residential use and, therefore, the contention that Village Candola do not have requisite infrastructure, is not an issue to be considered, as we can only observe that whenever the requisite permissions are granted by the respective Authorities, they are conversant with the availability of infrastructure and when such permissions are granted, necessarily the Village Panchayat shall cater to the need of those who are housed in the Project and we do not expect the Petitioner to possess any expertise in this ield in contrast to that which is possessed by the Village Panchayat and Town Planning Departments who has expertise and has carried out the factual inspection before granting the permission under Section 17A and has recommended the detail land/contours and have restricted the areas where the gradient is more than 25%.
Though we ind that there was some mismatch in the contour plans submitted by the Applicant and approved by the said Authorities, however, with the latest Afidavit being placed before us by the Chief Town Planner as well as the latest Site Inspection Report which has measured the contours in accordance with the applicable procedure for ascertaining the gradient and contour veracity with the report being placed before us, we are satisied that the project of Respondent No.1 rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 ::: 31/31 J-PILWP-14-2016.doc is compliant with the requisite permissions, which are granted after due veriication and assessment at site and we ind the objections raised in the Petition to be without any merit and substance, persuading us to refuse such objections being entertained.
26 Though the Petition is iled as a PIL WP and we are conscious that the same was iled by expressing concerns as regards environment, but on having examined the concerns and since they are already looked into by the Town and Country Planning Department as well as the Village Panchayat, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain the Public Interest Litigation.
As a consequence thereof, we dismiss the PIL Writ Petition, by upholding the permissions granted in favour of Respondent No.1, who is to develop the property of Survey No.33/1 village Candola, Ponda Taluka and construct a building project thereupon, but, we must caution that Respondent No.1, the Project Proponent shall strictly adhere to the requisite permissions and shall in no way act in breach of the same.
Rule is discharged.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) rajshree ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:56:55 :::