By: Vrinda Gopinath Published in: *The Wire* Date: January 31, 2026 Spitece: https://thewire.in/environment/earlier-petitions-fell-short-were-filing-anew-justice-rebello-on-revisiting-goas-nexus-its-ecological-cost
It’s no surprise that retired chief justice of the Allahabad high court Ferdino Rebello, whose resounding call of “enough is enough” which swept in a people’s movement in Goa to stop the pillage of the state’s hills, land, water and fields by real estate sharks and greedy politicians and bureaucrats, believes the present laws protecting the ecology are robust and forceful, and all it needs is the right legal representation in courts, to book the offenders. The surge in people’s anger in the coastal state came after the tragic fire at Birch <https://thewire.in/government/goa-nightclub-fire-kills-25-magisterial-probe-ordered/> nightclub in Arpora, on December 6, 2025, in the party haven of north Goa, that led to the death of 25 people, mostly staff and a few guests. It exposed the criminal nexus between local authorities – from the panchayat to the police, fire department, government officials and politicians – and moneybags within and outside Goa, who went on a land grabbing spree to set up nightclubs and restaurants, even as all environment and safety regulations were blatantly and illegally discarded because of political and administrative patronage. In an interview with *The Wire*, Justice Rebello explains how Goa can be saved. Below are the excerpts from the interview: *A 10-point charter has been put together by you to set in motion the laws and provisions that protect the environment, land and water in the state. Can you elaborate?* All the points in the charter are interlinked and are focussed on the protection of Goa’s ecology and environment. The devastation of the environment arises from three sections in the law – first, is section 17 (2) of the Town and County Planning Act; second, section 39 (a) of the same TCP, and, third, Section 17 (a) where hills cannot be cut without the permission of the chief town planner. It was introduced way back in 1997, but no rules have been framed and has been misused since 2023, by passing the Contour Plan of the Surveyor General of India. We have asked for Section 17 (2) to be repealed. The Bombay high court has read down the Section 17 (2) rules and struck down the rules and guidelines after activists filed challenges so, to an extent this section is not enforceable until the rules are once again made in conformity with the TCP. As for Section 39 (a), the challenge is before the high court, but we want the scrapping of 17 (2) and 39 (a) which allows for making major changes in the Regional Plan for Goa (RPG). Both the Outline Development Plans or ODP 2021 and RGP provides the land use framework and defines development, conservation and construction permissions but not in eco-sensitive zones. *Why is Section 17 (2) and Section 39 (a) seen as arbitrary?* Section 17 (2) was inserted in the TCP in March 2023, through an amendment, which allowed the government to entertain applications for change of zones from private parties, as the latter claimed their land was erroneously marked as agricultural in the existing Regional Plan 2021. In other words, this section allowed for the swift conversion of marked agricultural land, forest areas and hillsides to settlement status, on a payment of fees decided by the TCP. Section 39 (a) was brought in a year later, in February 2024, which authorised the Chief Town Planner to approve conversions of privately owned plots within the Regional Plan 2021 and ODP, after a public notice was issued. This arbitrary clause flew in the face of the regional plan which outlined land use policies and regulation in the state. If this is left unchecked and unchallenged, the repercussions on the ecosystem of Goa will be devastating, as one already witnesses today. *How did the BJP-led Pramod Sawant government push these resolutions? Is it not illegal?* Now, to make section 17 (a) effective, you have to make rules, that is normal procedure. But this was not done; instead the TCP department issued guidelines whereby they outlined the procedure for hill cutting for which the TCP has no authority to do so under its own Act. Also, the then state government had issued a document in 2010, based on the contour plan prepared by the Surveyor General of India. The latter had outlined counter plans of all hills and forests, and this was studiously followed and no permission was granted for hill cutting and forest clearing if it went beyond the 25 gradient limits. However, in September 2023, a new resolution was passed yet again by the TCP, which said people could submit contour plans, and these are now prepared by private architects bypassing the SGI. This new resolution has been grossly misused. However, as there are no rules, no permission could have been granted. Now, assuming that TCP officials were acting bonafide on these resolutions, they could have done so based only upon the contour plans outlined by the memorandum of 2010, which had issued as an explanatory statement to Section 17 (a) saying that these are the plans based upon which permissions will be granted to applications. But today, the moment plans are submitted, permissions are granted at the behest of private architects. *How did agricultural land get converted to settlement for luxe villas and resorts?* When I was a judge of the Bombay high court, and had my sitting in Goa, I had passed a judgement based on the existing laws, that you cannot convert agricultural land to non agriculture land, and so, there was a complete ban. In 2023, the state government passed a law that paddy fields whether tenanted or not tenanted cannot be converted to settlement but added if it was in a settlement zone, they could be converted. In spite of all this, the TCP first tried to defeat my judgement; developers then moved courts or civil courts asking for ‘negative declarations’ when the buyer would go before the mamlatdar court and the tenant would say he was never a tenant, as he was now getting money for his land sale. The mamlatdar is required to go into historical records, available from 1964 onwards, which shows the name of the tenant and the crops produced on that land, but they simply accepted the submissions and granted permission thanks to political patronage. *It’s apparent the TCP enjoys political patronage as it seems to be the fount from where corruption flows.* Let’s say it straightaway, this is where the money flows. Yes, it was happening earlier too but today it has peaked, every square kilometre of land is up for grabs because of the TCA’s arbitrary resolutions, added with the moneybags from north India who are throwing cash around. Somebody asked me where the proof is – is it not evident in the way money is being paid for lands in no development zones and the manner in which projects are swiftly cleared? *What can civil society do to check the TCP and a corrupt administration?* Unfortunately, the contention that these resolutions are contrary to the TCP Act has not been properly articulated in the petitions filed before the high court so far. It was when I sat down to examine the issue that it became clear, and I have argued, that when an Act comes into force, where the power is conferred on the town planners, that exercise of power has to be made by rules. Those rules have not been made till date. Lawyers, activists, and even the government argued based on existing guidelines, and the court proceeded on that basis. Then there was the issue of which contour plan to follow. The court asked the planning department, which, in turn, said that the contour plan filed by private architects was fine. The court told the petitioners arguing against the resolutions that the court was not an expert, and dismissed the petitions. However, I have argued that the 2010 government explanatory memorandum clearly says it has to be the counter plan as prepared by the Survey General of India. This was conveniently given the go by concerned authorities, and this was never pointed out, nor put into focus in the arguments before the court. This will be the crux of our challenge to Section 17 (2) in court. The petition is under preparation and we will be filing it soon. *How much land has Goa lost because of the resolutions made by the TCA?* The challenge to section 17 (2) was made by activists but the court read down the rules and struck down the rules by which the section was being misused. Do you know under the guise of error, MLAs and ministers of the current government have applied for change of zones running into lakhs of square metres of land? Can you imagine lawmakers participating in enacting an amendment to the law to benefit themselves? Top of the list is none other than the minister of town planning, Viswajit Rane and his wife, who is also an MLA and apparently a director of companies, both of whom have applied for conversion of acres of land as per filed documents. *Documents show there are at least three media barons and some opposition leaders too who have asked for conversion of land for development? Can you expect a fair representation of the people? * We are not concerned about who all are on the list which was filed in the high court by petitioners. All we have asked for is that these applications should now not be processed. Section 17 (2) matters have now come to a stop, the matter is now pending in the Supreme Court, and the files cannot move. *Goa has had a long history of civil society being in the forefront of ecology activism and protection of land and water? * There have been many organisations like the Goa Foundation, led by the renowned Claude and Norma Alvares, among others. While some issues have been resolved, some have not; it is because there are not enough lawyers arguing the matters and perhaps, the research is not of the standard required to put forward the case before judges. After all, the case ultimately depends on lawyers, and if you are not articulate and support it by materials, you cannot blame judges because they go by what is put forward to them. *The ongoing massive Chimbel agitation by people against the giant Pradhan Mantri Ekta Mall by the state govt coming up in the Chimbel village has put the Sawant govt on the back foot?* I have been actively monitoring the Chimbel movement and assisting on the legal issues, though I am not directly involved. What I found is revealing – first, the area of influence had not been notified as per the BD (brief document), which spoke of 26.3 hectares though the notification was for only 17 hectares. This point has now been raised by the agitators. Two, I found that there are streams flowing through the wetland, as per the documents of the Survey of India, which was not considered when permission to build the mall by the Sawant government on the land was given. This is crucial because streams which flow into the wetland have to be notified as the zone of influence because it supports the wet land. Three, there was no real detailed study done how development will affect the wetlands and the lake. Because according to the Supreme Court, under the public trust doctrine is part of law which is mandatory in any development project as it protects the ecosystem which is the heritage of the people, that doctrine has not been considered for granting environmental clearance. *So there are good laws that protect the environment?* Yes, the public trust doctrine was brought in to penalise former Congress Union minister Kamal Nath’s hotel on the Beas river. The present CJI, Justice Surya Kant has further advanced the doctrine saying the govt too must apply this public doctrine in its projects as to how it is going to affect the environmental ecology. Environment and ecology is also part of a law of what is called sustainable development. Here, the first principle is that polluters must pay to restore the land and importantly, the precautionary principle amount. The builder must prove that no harm will be caused to the environment today and in the foreseeable future. Now, all these have been given the green signal for a state project. *Coming back to the Birch tragedy when people’s anger boiled onto the streets, will the administrators and politicians responsible be prosecuted?* I have not studied the Birch case but as you know the state government passed an ordinance during the winter session last month (on December 9). An ordinance is passed only when the assembly is not in session. However, in this case, the ordinance was signed by the governor in retrospective effect on December 2, protecting public officers from criminal action. (The legislation sought to decriminalise offences related to unauthorised construction and lack of safety equipment by replacing potential jail time with fines for procedural mistakes. The ordinance came three days after Birch tragedy but was in retrospective effect from a week earlier allegedly to protect the officers involved in Birch) But they do not know one thing that the law says, you are protected if you do something only in the course of good faith in discharge of your duty, not if you do something illegal. It must be a discharge of your functions, not misuse. Further, it must be a bonafide act, without malice – your action must not show it was *quid pro quo*, or then you are not protected. This is how I read the law.
