HC Upholds Land Rules, Dismisses PIL Alleging Discrimination Against Emphyteutic Grantees

Team Goemkarponn

Panaji: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging recent amendments to land legislation in the state, ruling that the new provisions do not infringe on constitutional rights.

The PIL, filed by a local advocate in March 2025, contested the legality of the Goa Legislative Diploma (Amendment) Act, 2025 and the Goa Comunidade Land Development and Regulation Rules, 2025. The petitioner alleged that the legislation unfairly favored large developers while placing stricter restrictions on emphyteutic grantees—long-term leaseholders under traditional land grant systems.

Central to the petitioner’s argument was the claim that the rules enabled extensive land-use changes for commercial projects while preventing individual leaseholders from making similar modifications. He asserted that this discrepancy amounted to discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

The PIL also took issue with provisions that barred changes in land use altogether and allowed for the automatic reversion of land back to the Comunidade (village community institution), alleging these rules infringed on property rights protected under Article 300A. Citing Article 13, the petitioner argued that any law curtailing fundamental rights was subject to judicial scrutiny and sought to have the contested clauses struck down.

However, the High Court declined to intervene. As per submissions made by Advocate General Devidas Pangam, the court held that the regulatory framework governing leasehold land usage—including limitations on how such land can be used—is constitutionally sound and consistent with established legal norms.

The bench noted that conditions restricting land-use change in lease agreements are standard practice, and the requirement for prior approval does not violate fundamental rights. Therefore, the court concluded that the challenged provisions did not warrant judicial invalidation.

With this ruling, the court reaffirmed the legal standing of the 2025 land legislation, providing clarity on the rights and limitations of emphyteutic landholders under the revised rules.