Goa has long been a ground for the tension between developmental needs and environmental concerns. On one hand, its coastline is commercially lucrative; and on the other, 54.06% of its land area fall under ECO I Zone, regions of such ecological importance that no development is permitted, with a further 26.29% designated as ECO II Zones where only minor interventions are allowed.1 In between these extremes is a planning framework that has struggled to balance competing stakes for decades. It is in this context that the Bombay High Court at Goa delivered two PIL judgements concerning the operation of Goa's Regional Plan 2021('RP-2021').
The Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 ('TCP Act') establishes the regulatory framework for planned development and use of land across the entire State of Goa. It provides for the Town and Country Planning Board ('the Board') under section 4 to guide and direct planning across the state, appoints the Chief Town Planner under section 3 to prepare state-level planning instruments, and designates Planning and Development Authorities to govern specific local area plans.
At its foundation sits the Regional Plan ('RP'), prepared under Chapter III of the Act, which broadly demarcates the entire state for various activities such as forestry, industry, agriculture, mining, and urban & rural settlement.Within this overarching framework, the Government may, under section 18, declare specific areas as 'planning areas'. Upon such declaration, a Planning and Development Authority ('PDA') is constituted under section 20, and an Outline Development Plan ('ODP') is prepared in consultation with local authorities under section 29 of the TCP Act.
Both the Regional Plan and ODPs are subject to the TCP Act's procedural requirements: mandatory public notice, opportunity to file objections, and consultation with local authorities including village panchayats under sections 19, 26 and 29. These mechanisms are more than administrative formality. They serve as means through which planning instruments derive public legitimacy and circumvention of the same lies at the heart of the two cases.
Case 1: Goa Foundation v State of Goa, (PIL WP No.16/2023 & connected matters, order dated 13 March 2025)
Facts and Issues
In 2023, section 17(2) of the TCP Act was inserted by an amendment. It empowered the TCP Board to alter the Regional Plan to rectify what were described as inadvertent errors or inconsistent and incoherent zoning proposals. To operationalise this provision, the Goa Town and Country Planning (Alteration/Modification in the Regional Plan for Rectification of Inconsistent/Inadvertent Zoning Proposals) Rules, 2023 ('the 2023 Rules') were notified. Between March 2023 and January 2025, 353 approvals were granted through these provisions, affecting an area of approximately 26,54,286 square metres2.
The Goa Foundation, Khazan Society of Goa, Goa Bachao Abhiyan and several individual petitioners filed PIL petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 17(2) of the TCP Act, and the 2023 Rules on the grounds that they are violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The main contention of the petitioners was that these regulations enabled piecemeal alterations of zones that favoured private landowners without any public participation, in a way detrimental to the fragile ecology of Goa3.
Order of the Court
1. Section 17(2) read-down
Section 17(2) empowered the TCP Board to make alterations to the Regional Plan to rectify inadvertent errors or inconsistent and incoherent zoning proposals. The Court accepted that a power to correct genuine errors in a Regional Plan is not inherently unconstitutional. However, it noted that the expression 'inconsistent and incoherent zoning proposals' is “vague and uncertain” and “deserves to be struck down as conferring unguided power upon the executive to discriminate”4.
Moreover, the Court compared the procedural requirements of section 17(2) with that of section 39A which covered exceptions to zoning laws. Section 39A had a stricter threshold as it provided that any changes to the zoning laws must be approved by the Board, public notice must be given and public participation by offering suggestions is required. Section 17(2) had no such constraints. Therefore, the Court stated that section 17(2) is “guided by the applications made at the behest of private owners for zone changes”.5
2. 2023 Rules struck down
The 2023 Rules established the procedure through which section 17(2) was implemented. It provided for three mechanisms. One, Rule 3 provided that any person, including a private landowner, could file an application in Form A to the Chief Town Planner (Planning) ('CTP'). The application would describe the alleged error or inconsistency and the correction sought. Framed as an error-correction mechanism, it opened up an avenue for rezoning private land without subjecting the same to procedural safeguards envisaged in the TCP Act.
Two, Rule 4(f) provided that before carrying out any zonal alterations, CTP may consult such authority as deemed necessary. Based on this, the Board constituted a Scrutiny Committee by notification dated 25 May 2023 and delegated powers to process applications. However, the Court noted that TCP Act does not confer powers on the Board to sub-delegate its functions in this manner.
Three, Rule 5 allowed the Government to issue guidelines detailing what would qualify as an inadvertent error or inconsistent/incoherent zoning proposal. The Court found this provision to be conferring unfettered and unguided authority on the Executive and thus struck down these Rules as ultra vires. The Court observed that, “Almost all the conversions are from paddy fields, natural cover, no development zone and orchard to settlement zones. Such plot-by-plot conversion, creating a zone within a zone, virtually has the effect of mutilating the RP prepared after such an elaborate exercise.”6
The Court expressly declined to adjudicate on the validity of 353 approvals granted through the 2023 Rules and barred fresh approvals. It also granted a six week stay at the behest of the State.
Case 2: Goa Foundation & Ors v The Town and Country Planning Dept & Ors, (PIL WP No.30/2023 & connected matters, order dated 23 June 2025)
Facts and Issues
This case concerns five villages of North Goa, Calangute, Candolim, Arpora, Nagoa and Parra, which were declared as 'planning areas' between 2015 and 2017. It was placed under the jurisdiction of North Goa Planning and Development Authority ('NGPDA') which prepared and notified the ODPs for the villages7. In April 2022, the Government, noticing that the ODPs contained zoning proposals at variance with RP-2021 and that the eco-sensitive zones had been altered in favour of development, suspended the ODPs under section 40 of the TCP Act and constituted a Review Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Town Planner8. The suspension notification also directed that RP-2021 would apply to the five villages until further orders9.
The Review Committee reported that “change of certain areas to “Settlement Zone” without verifying the legality/authenticity of the same has encouraged unauthorized development which was mushrooming all around”.10 These findings were accepted by the TCP Board and revised ODPs were notified on 15th December 202211. Following this, the Government on 16th December 2022 invoked the power under section 19(1) of the TCP Act and decided that it was necessary in public interest to withdraw the five villages from the category of 'planning areas'.12 Subsequently, a Circular dated 22nd December 2022 and an Executive Order dated 22nd August 2024 were issued which declared that technical clearance shall be issued based on December ODPs and removed the jurisdiction of NGPDA over the said areas13.
The Goa Foundation, Calangute Village Panchayat and the Calangute Constituency Forum filed PIL petitions challenging the Circular and the Executive Order as being without jurisdiction and contrary to the TCP Act.
The Court noted that the Circular and the Executive Order “run contrary to the statutory scheme in form of Goa Town Country and Planning Department, 1974, as upon the five Villages having been withdrawn as planning areas and the consequences necessarily followed in the wake of sub-section (2) of Section 19, the December ODPs could not be made applicable to them. Upon withdrawal of the villages as planning areas, they must fall back to the Regional Plan and, therefore, the Executive Order, which permit the Town Planner to grant permission for development as per the lapsed ODPs, cannot be sustained.”14
Following this, all the zoning certificates issued based on the Circular and the Executive Order stood cancelled.15 The TCP department was directed to process the permissions as per RP-2021 and not the lapsed December ODPs.16 The Court granted a four-week stay on the operation of its order on the condition that the government will not give effect to the permissions and no activities shall be permitted in the five villages for a period of four weeks.
Status before the Supreme Court
Prior to the final judgement in Case 2, the TCP Board challenged an interim order dated 23 January 2025 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa before the Supreme Court17. The Apex Court dismissed the petition on 6 February 2025, declining to interfere and stating that the interim order is subject to the final order of the High Court.
Following the final judgements of the High Court, the TCP Department, the State of Goa, and private party Devashri Nirman LLP have filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging both the March 2025 and June 2025 judgements. All petitions are being heard together18. The matters were last listed on 3 February 2026 and remain pending before the Supreme Court.
End Notes & References:
1. Task Force report on eco-sensitive zones, as cited in The Goa Foundation & Ors v State of Goa & Ors, PIL WP No.16/2023, 2137/2024, 17/2023, 10/2024, 527/2024, High Court of Bombay at Goa, judgement dated 13 March 2025 (Karnik and Mehta JJ), para 5.8.
2. ibid, para 22.
3. ibid, para 3.
4. ibid, paras 17.3, 17.9.
5. ibid, para 18.6.
6. ibid para 22.
7. Goa Foundation v Town and Country Planning Department, PIL Writ Petition Nos.30, 24 and 828 of 2023, High Court of Bombay at Goa, judgement dated 23 June 2025 (Dangre and Mehta JJ), para 51.
8. ibid, para 52.
9. ibid.
10. ibid, para 58
11. ibid, para 61-62
12. ibid, para 90
13. ibid, para 65, 133
14. ibid, para 136.
15. ibid, para 137.
16. ibid.
17. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3289/2025, Supreme Court of India, order dated 06.02.2025.
18. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 44829/2025, Supreme Court of India, order dated 18.08.2025.
Views are personal.