Latest news with #TCPAct
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
High Court notice to Goa govt over fees waved for land zone corrections
The High Court of Bombay at Goa Thursday issued notice to the state government, Secretary Town and Country Planning department, Town and Country Planning Department, Directorate of Vigilance and former chief town planner in a petition seeking directions to the authorities to recover the fees allegedly 'illegally waived' under a contentious provision of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act. According to the petitioner, activist Swapnesh Sherlekar, the fees for correction of certain land zones was illegally waived under section 17 (2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act on the 'specious' ground that 'deletion of proposed road fee is not applicable'. The section 17(2), which was introduced through an amendment to the TCP Act and notified in 2023, allows the conversion of privately owned plots in Goa's Regional Plan 2021, based on individual applications from such parties to 'correct inadvertent errors' and 'rectify inconsistent or incoherent zoning'. The government notified the fees for correction of zones under section 17 (2) of the Act on March 16, 2023. Subsequently, the revised fee for zone changes was notified through the supplement official gazette on March 28 last year. The HC read down the section in March this year. The petition states in the list of cases considered for correction of zone under section 17 (2) of the Act, several entries contained a notation 'deletion of proposed road fee not applicable' without any statutory basis for such exemption. The petition stated that among such cases were properties belonging to TCP Minister Vishwajit Rane, who is also a respondent in the petition, alleging that he 'benefited from an unauthorized exemption of fees'. The petition said there are 'numerous' cases of deletion of proposed roads since the Act was notified, which require scrutiny for similar unauthorised exemptions. It further said that there is no provision in the TCP Act or any rules, regulations or notifications thereunder that provide exemption of fees for deletion of proposed roads under section 17 (2) of the Act. The petition said the respondent authorities have acted with 'manifest arbitrariness, mala fide and abuse of power in exempting certain applications from payment of statutory fees without any legal basis or justification.' The petition further claimed that the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their duties in accordance with law and have instead acted in a manner that suggests collusion to confer undue benefit on certain individuals at the expense of the public exchequer. On Thursday, the High Court heard the submissions of the petitioners. In the order, the court said: 'At this stage, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to respondent 1 to 4 as well as respondent 6 in the capacity of chief town planner (planning)…' The Court also directed the respondents to file an affidavit in response within three weeks. The court said it has 'noted the specific pleadings in the petition, which revolve around the properties' belonging to Rane, but did not issue a notice to him.
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
HC wants replies from TCP on zone-swap fee waivers
Panaji: The high court has called for replies from the TCP department and the director of vigilance in a PIL seeking to recover fees illegally waived under Section 17(2) of the TCP Act. This waiver was for deleting roads proposed in the regional plan, thereby reclassifying them as settlement areas. The PIL filed by Swapnesh Sherlekar alleged a loss to the exchequer in cases considered for correction of zones. under Section 17(2), where several proposed roads were deleted without the collection of fees and without any statutory basis for such exemption. Among these were properties belonging to TCP minister Vishwajit Rane, who benefited from this unauthorised exemption of fees, the petition stated. In one such case at Carapur in Bicholim, published in the official gazette dated Nov 21, 2024, includes the deletion of a proposed road resulting in 4,214sqm being reclassified as a settlement zone. As per the revised notification, this change should have attracted fees of Rs 1,000 per sqm, amounting to Rs 44.1 lakh, which was improperly waived, Sherlekar submitted in the PIL. The decision for correction of the zone was taken post-March 28, 2024, making the revised rates applicable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo In another case published in the official gazette dated March 7, 2024, in the same village, also belonging to Rane, the deletion of a proposed road resulted in 17,802 sqm being reclassified as a settlement zone, the petition stated. 'This should have attracted fees of Rs 150 per sqm (as per rates applicable before March 28, 2024, for areas between 10,000 sqmto 20,000 sqm) amounting to Rs 26.7 lakh, which was similarly waived,' Sherlekar submitted through his advocate, Rohit Bras De Sa. The total revenue loss in just these two cases amounts to approximately Rs 69.8 lakh, he stated, adding that there are numerous similar cases of deletion of proposed roads between March 2023 and March 2024, as well as after March 2024, which require scrutiny for similar unauthorised exemptions. 'The fee schedule as notified in the official gazette specifically applies to 'fee for correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning provisions which amount to change of zone of land to settlement zone or the sub-zone settlement (commercial), per square metre of land,' and there is no notified order on record indicating that removal of proposed roads under Section 17(2) is exempted from payment of fees,' Sherlekar further submitted. 'We have heard the counsel Rohit Bras De Sa in support of the petition, and noted the specific pleadings in the petition, which revolve around the properties belonging to Vishwajit Rane, and a specific allegation is levelled that he benefited from this unauthorised exemption of fees,' stated the division Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta.
Time of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
New road notification to affect 1k livelihoods: Mandrem locals
Mapusa: Mandrem residents want major district roads (MDRs) in the constituency to be registered as other district roads (ODRs). Locals said six 53km-long MDR roads are likely to affect nearly 1,000 structures and over 30% of constituents directly or indirectly. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The high court has directed village panchayats to act against roadside illegal structures and submit reports. Govt notification states that a setback of 12.5m from the road centerline must be maintained. Locals say the new MDR road notification may severely impact Mandrem residents. MLA Jit Arolkar and villagers met chief minister Pramod Sawant, demanding changes to the TCP Act, cancellation of the MDR notification, and its denotification from the Regional Plan 2021. Arolkar also discussed the impact with the CM and submitted panchayat resolutions. Under the banner of Jagrut villagers, locals said most Mandrem families are joint, and some are nuclear. They often build homes or small shops on ancestral land along the roadside and start small businesses. If the panchayat secretary submits survey reports, nearly 1,000 structures may face legal action, leading to mass unemployment. 'Denotify the clause in the regional plan 2021 notifying 25m width MDR and maintain its width from 8-10m or as the existing roads,' the committee said.
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Now, TCP approves conversion of 1L sqm land under Sec 39A
The airstrip and hangar at Michael Boren's Hell Roaring Ranch in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho, May 30, 2025. Boren, nominated by President Trump to lead the Forest Service, is accused of threatening trail workers with a helicopter, building an airstrip without a permit and putting a cabin on federal property. (Aaron Agosto/The New York Times) Panaji: The Town and Country Planning (TCP) department has approved the conversion of just over 1 lakh sqm of land that was earlier classified as orchard and natural cover. The TCP board cleared the five applications for land conversion under Section 39A of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act after 'due consideration of the suggestions' received during a 30-day window, said Vertika Dagur, TCP's chief town planner (planning). Dagur said the alteration and conversion of the five plots in the Regional Plan, 2021, will be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions pending before the high court. The PIL, filed by Goa Foundation, challenges the provisions of Section 39A, alleging that they allow arbitrary and ad hoc conversions of privately owned plots within the Regional Plan and notified outline development plans, which could lead to unplanned and undesirable development in Goa. Of the 1 lakh sqm that was put up for conversion, nearly 69,129sqm falls in Pernem's Parcem village. The entire tranche of land was converted for residential housing. The TCP department said that it examined the five proposals along with scrutiny reports before placing the applications before the TCP board for its decision. Dagur said govt has also approved the change of zone for the five plots. 'Therefore, in view of the recommendation of the Goa TCP board being approved by govt and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39A of the Goa TCP Act, the Regional Plan and the outline development plan is hereby altered and modified as specified,' Dagur said. Section 39 of the TCP Act garnered attention after the HC read down Section 17(2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act, which the department was using to facilitate land conversion in the Regional Plan and outline development plans. The high court had observed that 'plot-by-plot conversion' under Section 17(2) 'virtually has the effect of mutilating the Regional Plan' and thus the scope of the law had to be narrowed.
Time of India
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC adjourns ‘urgent' TCP case as Goa says counsel unavailable
Panaji: on Friday adjourned to July 21, state govt's special leave petition challenging the high court's verdict in the Section 17(2) matter after state informed SC that its counsel was not available. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now State govt filed the SLP challenging the HC's reading down of the Town and Country Planning Act's Section 17(2). When the appeal was called out on Friday before the SC's vacation bench, state informed the court that their counsel was not available, and the SC adjourned the case to July 21. State govt had specifically sought an urgent hearing before SC. The letter from the office of senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi on May 28 to the registrar seeking an urgent hearing said that the state would suffer irreparable harm and irreversible consequences if Section 17(2) is not implemented in accordance with the legislative framework, especially as the impugned decision directly affects the exercise of statutory powers and ongoing planning processes. 'Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that several cases pertaining to Section 17(2) are currently pending before the HC, and the impugned judgment will impact the outcome of those cases,' the letter said. State, in its petition before SC, said that the HC transgressed the power of the legislature by reading down Section 17(2) of the TCP Act, which restricts govt mechanisms to undo past errors in the regional plan efficiently. The petition filed in SC two months after the high court's order states that the constitutional validity of a provision cannot be decided on the basis of factual considerations. It said that the high court failed to appreciate that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the act and rules needed to be decided separately from the factual challenges contained in the PILs. The high court struck down the rules and guidelines of Section 17(2) on March 13 in 'public interest', but stayed the order for six weeks. The bench rejected the plea to declare Section 17(2) as unconstitutional, but made it clear that no applications for approvals under the section shall be considered.
