From Green to Grey: Goa's Controversial Land Law

Residents fight against Section 39A of the Town Planning Act, fearing it threatens Goa's ecology and local livelihoods amid rising concrete developments.

Gopi

•March 21, 2026•6 mins read

Goa’s land row: Development vs Ecology under Section 39A

Introduction

India loses approximately 29 lakh hectares of forest cover to land use change annually, with coastal and ecologically sensitive states bearing a disproportionate burden. Goa — a state where 83% of land is classified as eco-sensitive under its Regional Plan — is at the centre of a sharp conflict between real estate-driven development and ecological preservation. The Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2024, particularly Section 39A, has triggered one of Goa's largest grassroots resistance movements since the Goa Bachao Abhiyan of 2006, raising foundational questions about participatory planning, decentralisation, and the limits of legislative override of ecological protections.

Background & Context

Goa is a unique planning case: 320 inhabited villages across two districts, a single city (Panaji), and a colonial land tenure legacy under the Code of Communidades (1933) — Portuguese-era community-owned land law that ran parallel to Indian land law post-1961.

Timeline of Land-Use Legislation in Goa

Year	Legislative Change
1988 onwards	Zone changing begins; ~1.4 crore sqm settlement land added by 2006
2006	New Regional Plan triggered Goa Bachao Abhiyan; plan denotified after protests
2018	Section 16B introduced — allowed Chief Town Planner to change regional plan zones
March 2023	Section 17(2) introduced — private owners could "correct errors" in regional plan without public consultation
2024	Section 16B repealed; Section 39A introduced under TCP Amendment Act
April 2025	Bombay HC (Goa Bench) read down Section 17(2)
Feb 2025	2,000+ protesters; hunger strikes; FIRs filed against 1,500+ people

What is Section 39A?

Section 39A of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2024 allows ecologically sensitive zones — forests, hills, farmland, orchards — to be converted into settlement zones on application by individual landowners or companies, without mandatory Gram Sabha consent.

Key features (and concerns):

Recognises only 7 eco-sensitive zone categories, versus 17–18 under the Regional Plan
Orchard zones (ESZ-2 — restricted development) can be converted; ESZ-1 (no development) protections are weakened
Applications are processed at the TCP Department level, bypassing local bodies
Predominantly large real estate companies are applicants
No requirement to approach Gram Sabha before conversion

"The problem with Section 39A is that it destroys the concept of planning. Every property owner is now a planner for their plot." — Norma Alvares, Environmental Lawyer, Parra

Scale of Impact — Key Data

68 lakh sqm of land across Goa has applications for conversion to settlement areas (Goa Gazette analysis by architect Tahir Noronha)
13.6% of applied land already unlocked/converted
Pernem alone (near Manohar International Airport): 10.2 lakh sqm provisionally converted
Ella village (Old Goa): 2.6 lakh sqm proposed for conversion — including buffer zones of a 16th century heritage chapel and Carambolim Lake Wetland
Palem village: 5,000 sqm already converted; 84,137 sqm applications pending
North Goa is more severely affected than South Goa

Ecological & Governance Concerns

1. Bypassing Participatory Democracy Section 39A bypasses Gram Sabhas — the constitutionally mandated (Article 243A) forum for village-level decision-making. Villagers argue that development projects must come to the Gram Sabha rather than being decided at the ministerial level.

2. Heritage and Wetland Threat Conversions are occurring near UNESCO-recognised heritage zones (Old Goa churches), wetlands (Carambolim Lake), Fort Aguada heritage precinct, and disaster-prone hill slopes — raising questions of legal compliance with the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules and the Environment Protection Act.

3. Carrying Capacity Ignored Infrastructure and ecological carrying capacity — water availability, drainage, biodiversity corridors — are not assessed before conversion approvals. The Chimbel case (proposed 17-storey building near a village lake) exemplifies this gap.

4. Colonial Land Law Confusion The Code of Communidades created community-owned land categories not recognised in standard Indian land law. Post-1961, Form I & XIV under the Goa Land Revenue Code records occupation, not ownership — creating title ambiguity that real estate interests exploit.

"Many present-day decisions ignore original Comunidade plans and treat such lands as if they have no established use." — Elsa Fernandes, Architect-Environmentalist

5. Biodiversity Loss Wildlife sightings (bison, leopards) near villages have increased — a signal of habitat encroachment pushing fauna toward human settlements. Deforestation on hill slopes increases flood and soil erosion risk in downstream areas.

The Grassroots Resistance

The protest movement against 39A is significant for its decentralised, village-level character — cutting across party lines and involving former sarpanches, MLAs, architects, lawyers, and young residents simultaneously.

Key demands of protesters:

Repeal Section 39A entirely
Introduce a Person of Goan Origin (POGO) Bill to prioritise local residents in land transactions
Restrict sale of agricultural and forest land to outsiders
Define scope of mega projects under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act with mandatory Gram Sabha approval

The CM's assurance to suspend conversions in St. Andre constituency and scrap FIRs has not been fully honoured — FIRs remain, and 1,500 unnamed protesters face potential legal and employment consequences.

Constitutional & Legal Dimensions

Article 243A (Gram Sabha powers) and the 73rd Constitutional Amendment mandate community participation in local governance — Section 39A's bypass of Gram Sabhas is arguably in tension with this framework.
Article 21 (Right to Life) has been interpreted by courts to include the right to a clean environment — a basis for challenging ecological degradation from unplanned conversion.
Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification impose restrictions on development near ecologically sensitive areas — compliance with these in 39A conversions is legally contestable.
The Bombay HC reading down of Section 17(2) in April 2025 signals judicial receptivity to challenges against such amendments.

Comparison: Land Use Planning Models

Dimension	Goa — Section 39A	Best Practice Model
Consent requirement	TCP department; no Gram Sabha	Mandatory Gram Sabha consent (as per 73rd Amendment spirit)
Eco-zone recognition	7 categories	17–18 (Goa Regional Plan); international models recognise more
Carrying capacity assessment	Absent	Mandatory EIA for zone changes
Heritage buffer compliance	Inconsistent	Strict enforcement (UNESCO/ASI norms)
Transparency	Gazette notification only	Public consultation + online disclosure

Conclusion

Goa's Section 39A controversy is a microcosm of a broader national tension: between land as a commodity in a liberalised economy and land as an ecological and community commons. The state's unique ecology, colonial land tenure legacy, and strong tradition of village-level civic engagement make it a particularly stark case. The solution is not to freeze all development but to institutionalise participatory, ecologically informed planning — where Gram Sabhas have genuine veto power, carrying capacity assessments are mandatory, and heritage and wetland buffers are non-negotiable. India's commitment to LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) and its biodiversity obligations under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022) demand nothing less. Legislative shortcuts that privatise ecological commons at the cost of local consent are not development — they are dispossession by another name.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Section 39A of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) (Amendment) Act, 2024, is a provision that allows the conversion of ecologically sensitive zones (ESZs)—such as forests, hills, orchards, and agricultural land—into settlement zones. This enables landowners or developers to legally change land use for residential or commercial construction by applying to the TCP Department.

Shift in planning paradigm: Traditionally, Goa’s Regional Plan (2011) classified nearly 83% of land as eco-sensitive, ensuring strict regulation over development. Section 39A disrupts this framework by allowing plot-level decision-making, thereby weakening centralized, long-term planning. As noted by experts, it effectively turns “every property owner into a planner,” undermining the scientific and participatory nature of regional planning.

Implications:

Encourages piecemeal and uncoordinated development
Reduces protection for multiple ESZ categories by simplifying them
Facilitates large-scale real estate expansion in previously protected areas

For instance, in villages like Palem and Ella, thousands of square metres of land have already been proposed or approved for conversion, indicating a significant transformation of Goa’s land-use regime.

The protests against Section 39A stem from concerns over ecological degradation, loss of local livelihoods, and erosion of community rights. Villagers fear that the law opens the floodgates for unchecked real estate development, particularly in ecologically fragile and culturally significant areas.

Key reasons for opposition:

Environmental concerns: Conversion of forests, wetlands, and hills threatens biodiversity, increases soil erosion, and disrupts water systems.
Livelihood impact: Communities dependent on agriculture, fishing, and forest resources face displacement and economic insecurity.
Democratic deficit: The lack of mandatory Gram Sabha consultation undermines local self-governance.

For example, in Palem village, residents protested against the conversion of over 84,000 sqm of land, fearing loss of green cover and water resources. Similarly, in Candolim and Ella, projects near heritage and ecologically sensitive zones have sparked strong resistance.

Broader implications: These protests reflect a deeper tension between development and sustainability, as well as between state authority and local autonomy, making Section 39A a politically and socially contentious issue.

Section 39A significantly affects ecological sustainability by enabling the conversion of environmentally sensitive areas into built-up zones, thereby increasing pressure on Goa’s already fragile ecosystems.

Impact on ecological balance:

Deforestation and biodiversity loss: Habitat destruction has led to increased sightings of wildlife like bison and leopards in human settlements.
Water stress: Construction in catchment areas affects groundwater recharge and local water availability.
Soil erosion and flooding: Hill cutting and deforestation destabilize slopes, increasing disaster risks.

Carrying capacity concerns: Goa’s villages have limited infrastructure to support large-scale urbanization. Projects like high-rise buildings and commercial complexes may exceed the carrying capacity of local ecosystems and civic amenities. For instance, in Chimbel, proposed mega-projects near a lake raised concerns about water security and environmental stress.

Conclusion: By prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, Section 39A risks pushing Goa toward an ecological crisis, unless balanced with strict environmental safeguards and planning norms.

Section 39A presents a classic development vs. conservation dilemma. While it offers certain economic advantages, its environmental and social costs are substantial.

Potential benefits:

Boost to real estate and investment: Easier land conversion attracts developers and increases land value.
Infrastructure expansion: May facilitate housing and commercial development in growing regions.
Administrative flexibility: Reduces bureaucratic hurdles in land-use changes.

Major drawbacks:

Environmental degradation: Loss of forests, wetlands, and biodiversity hotspots.
Weakening of planning institutions: Undermines the Regional Plan and scientific zoning.
Social inequity: Benefits large developers while marginalizing local communities.

For example, areas near the Manohar International Airport in Pernem have seen large-scale conversions, raising concerns about unplanned urban sprawl.

Conclusion: While development is necessary, Section 39A lacks adequate safeguards, making it skewed toward commercial interests at the expense of ecological sustainability and participatory governance. A balanced approach is essential.

The Palem village protests serve as a powerful example of grassroots environmental activism and participatory governance in action. Villagers mobilized against the implementation of Section 39A, highlighting concerns over land conversion and ecological degradation.

Key features of the movement:

Community mobilization: Over 2,000 villagers participated in protests and hunger strikes.
Use of democratic tools: Objections, petitions, and public demonstrations were employed.
Cultural integration: Protest messages were embedded in local festivals like Shigmo.

The movement also raised issues of state response, including FIRs against protestors and alleged lack of government accountability. Despite assurances from the Chief Minister, concerns remain unresolved.

Significance: This case illustrates the importance of local participation in environmental decision-making and the role of civil society in holding authorities accountable. It also underscores the need to strengthen institutions like Gram Sabhas to ensure inclusive and sustainable governance.

The conflict around Section 39A is rooted in historical, legal, and administrative complexities in Goa’s land governance system.

Key structural issues:

Legacy of the Code of Comunidades (1933): This Portuguese-era system of community land ownership continues to coexist with modern laws, creating ambiguity.
Unclear land titles: Documents like Form I & XIV reflect occupation rather than ownership, leading to disputes.
Outdated regional planning: The absence of a clear transition from the 2011 Regional Plan has led to ad hoc mechanisms like Section 39A.

Administrative challenges: Frequent amendments (e.g., Sections 16B and 17(2)) and judicial interventions indicate instability in policy. Lack of transparency and public consultation further aggravates tensions.

Conclusion: These systemic issues create a fertile ground for conflict, as seen in widespread protests. Addressing them requires legal clarity, updated planning frameworks, and stronger institutional mechanisms to balance development with sustainability.