“The explanation often offered is familiar. Lack of manpower. Delays in getting demolition squads. Procedural bottlenecks. But these are not reasons. They are symptoms of a deeper problem. When multiple authorities are involved and none can be held directly accountable, inaction becomes the easiest outcome.
Meanwhile, the violations themselves are far from harmless.
Paddy fields are not empty spaces waiting for construction. They are part of a delicate ecological system that supports water flow, prevents flooding, and sustains local agriculture. Filling them up for illegal structures is not just a land use violation. It is environmental damage with long-term consequences.
And yet, such encroachments continue with alarming regularity.”
The order to demolish illegal structures in the paddy fields of Arpora is not just about enforcing the law. It is a stark reminder that governance, in too many cases, begins only when the courts step in. By the time such directives are issued, the damage is already done, and the system’s failure is laid bare.
What is most troubling is not that illegal constructions came up. It is that they were allowed to remain. Notices were issued, violations identified, and yet, little moved on the ground. This gap between action on paper and action in reality has become the defining feature of local administration. Files move, responsibilities shift, and in the end, nothing changes until a judicial order forces movement.
This is where the real crisis lies. Enforcement in Goa today appears less like a function of governance and more like a reaction to legal pressure.
The explanation often offered is familiar. Lack of manpower. Delays in getting demolition squads. Procedural bottlenecks. But these are not reasons. They are symptoms of a deeper problem. When multiple authorities are involved and none can be held directly accountable, inaction becomes the easiest outcome.
Meanwhile, the violations themselves are far from harmless.
Paddy fields are not empty spaces waiting for construction. They are part of a delicate ecological system that supports water flow, prevents flooding, and sustains local agriculture. Filling them up for illegal structures is not just a land use violation. It is environmental damage with long term consequences.
And yet, such encroachments continue with alarming regularity.
There is also the question of inconsistency. In many such cases, some structures face action while others escape scrutiny. This selective enforcement raises doubts about the process itself. On what basis are decisions taken? Why do some violations attract urgency while others fade into silence? These are questions that authorities rarely answer, but the public increasingly asks.
The result is a steady erosion of trust.
The pattern is now well established. Illegal construction takes place. Complaints are raised. Authorities respond with notices. Time passes. Nothing happens. Eventually, the matter reaches the court. Orders are issued. Only then does enforcement begin.
This is not how a functioning system should operate.
The consequences extend beyond a single village or a few structures. They shape the way development unfolds across the state. When rules are not enforced consistently, they lose their meaning. When violations are not penalised swiftly, they become incentives. Builders and landowners begin to see illegality as a manageable risk rather than a serious offence.
That is a dangerous shift.
Goa is already grappling with the pressures of rapid urbanisation and tourism driven expansion. In such a scenario, the protection of agricultural land and natural ecosystems becomes even more critical. Allowing unchecked construction in paddy fields only accelerates environmental degradation and increases vulnerability to flooding and water scarcity.
What makes it worse is the absence of accountability.
When delays occur, who is responsible? When demolition orders are not executed, who answers for it? These questions rarely find clear answers. Responsibility is spread so thin across departments that it effectively disappears. Without accountability, there can be no real reform.
The High Court’s intervention in Arpora may ensure that the specific violations are addressed. But it does not solve the underlying problem. That requires a shift in how governance is carried out. Enforcement must be proactive, not reactive. Action must be timely, not delayed. And responsibility must be fixed, not diffused.
Until then, such episodes will continue to repeat.
Each new case will bring the same cycle of violation, delay, and eventual judicial intervention. And each time, the cost will be borne not just by the environment, but by the credibility of the system itself.
Because when governance depends on court orders to function, it is no longer governance. It is failure dressed up as compliance.
