“The concerns raised by villagers must be heard seriously. The temples are not just structures on a map. They represent the religious and cultural heritage of the local community. Bhoma lake has environmental significance, while the old houses represent the history of the settlement. If there are technically viable alternatives that can reduce the impact on these assets, they must be properly examined.
The NHAI’s proposal of a bow string bridge over Bhoma lake and its claim that the construction methodology can protect the temples must therefore be placed before the affected stakeholders in clear and understandable terms.”
The continuing uncertainty over the proposed NH 748 alignment through Bhoma raises a question that the government and the National Highways Authority of India can no longer afford to avoid: how much longer can the expansion be delayed while motorists continue to face dangerous road conditions?
The Bombay High Court at Goa has now directed those opposing the proposed alignment to meet NHAI officials, representatives of the local temple committee and technical experts before the next hearing on September 30. The exercise is expected to be completed within a week.
This is a welcome step. But it should have happened much earlier.
The Bhoma road issue has been debated for years. There have been objections over the impact on temples, Bhoma lake and old houses. Villagers have legitimate concerns about their homes, heritage and religious places. At the same time, the government has a legitimate responsibility to provide safe and efficient road infrastructure.
These two positions do not necessarily have to be in conflict.
What is unacceptable is allowing the dispute to continue indefinitely while the existing road remains a serious safety concern.
Every delay in upgrading an accident prone stretch comes with a human cost. Roads are not merely lines on government maps. They are used every day by thousands of people going to work, school, hospitals and homes. When a road is narrow, congested, poorly designed or unable to cope with increasing traffic, accidents become a predictable consequence rather than an unfortunate surprise.
The government cannot keep talking about development and connectivity while allowing a critical highway corridor to remain stuck in controversy.
At the same time, the answer cannot be to simply bulldoze through Bhoma in the name of public interest.
The concerns raised by villagers must be heard seriously. The temples are not just structures on a map. They represent the religious and cultural heritage of the local community. Bhoma lake has environmental significance, while the old houses represent the history of the settlement. If there are technically viable alternatives that can reduce the impact on these assets, they must be properly examined.
The NHAI’s proposal of a bow string bridge over Bhoma lake and its claim that the construction methodology can protect the temples must therefore be placed before the affected stakeholders in clear and understandable terms.
The High Court’s latest direction provides precisely that opportunity.
The government and NHAI should use it constructively rather than treating the court mandated meeting as another procedural hurdle. Technical experts should explain the alignment, the proposed bridge, the construction methodology, the expected land acquisition and the safeguards for the temples and lake. Local representatives should be allowed to raise specific objections and seek specific answers.
Most importantly, alternatives should be considered on technical merit rather than political convenience.
There is also a need for transparency. If the proposed alignment is genuinely the safest and least damaging option, the authorities should be able to demonstrate it convincingly. If an alternative alignment can save houses, temples or environmentally sensitive areas without compromising road safety and project feasibility, that option too should be examined honestly.
The earlier High Court ruling dismissing the petition filed by 57 villagers recognised the importance of national highways and noted that the alignment had been finalised by engineers and technical experts with an attempt to minimise the impact on properties and structures.
That finding cannot mean that every subsequent concern should be dismissed without discussion.
Public interest is not simply about building a wider highway. Public interest also means protecting lives, respecting communities and minimising avoidable damage to heritage and the environment.
The government must therefore strike the right balance.
There is a larger lesson here for Goa’s infrastructure projects. Consultation should happen before disputes reach courts. Had NHAI, local representatives, temple committees and technical experts sat together at an early stage and placed all options on the table, much of the present confrontation may have been avoided.
Goa cannot afford endless litigation over every major road project. Neither can it afford infrastructure projects that ignore legitimate local concerns.
The objective must be simple: build a safer highway, protect what can reasonably be protected and settle the remaining disputes through facts and technical evidence.
The government must now demonstrate urgency. The stakeholders must also demonstrate reasonableness.
The Bhoma issue cannot become another project trapped between files, protests and court hearings. Every additional year of delay on an unsafe and congested road carries consequences that cannot be measured merely in crores and kilometres.
The government and NHAI must sit with the people, answer their concerns and find a workable solution at the earliest.
Because the next accident on the existing road should not become another reminder that everyone knew the danger, but nobody acted quickly enough.
