Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa has fixed April 15, 2026, for the final hearing and disposal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Goa Foundation and two other petitioners challenging sweeping amendments to Goa’s Building Regulations permitting significant increases in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and building height across the State.
The PIL contends that the amendments effectively empower the Government to grant additional floors and height relaxations to individual applicants anywhere in Goa — including village panchayat areas and Outline Development Plan (ODP) regions — upon payment of ₹1,000 per square metre. According to the petitioners, this is being done without adhering to the statutory framework governing zoning and development intensity under the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 and the Regional Plan 2021.
As per the petition, the amended Regulation 6.1.1(a)(2) allows applicants to seek enhancement of FAR and corresponding height relaxations on a case-by-case basis. The petitioners argue that this creates a system of plot-by-plot intensification of development detached from the zoning structure meant to guide planned growth.
Under Section 6A.4 of the GLDBCR, maximum permissible FAR and height are determined by zone classification, forming the backbone of planned urban and rural development. The PIL states that permitting development intensity equivalent to higher commercial zones in lower-intensity settlement or residential areas fundamentally alters their character.
For example, granting FAR 200 and 24-metre height in zones otherwise capped at FAR 60 and 9 metres significantly increases density beyond what the zoning framework envisages.
The petition further points out that under Note (1) of Table VIII of the Regulations, C-1 zoning is intended for central business districts of cities such as Panaji, Margao, Mormugao, Mapusa and Ponda. However, it alleges that over 100 permissions under Regulation 6.1.1(a)(2) have granted C-1 equivalent FAR and heights in non-CBD areas, including village panchayat jurisdictions.
Although described as “relaxations,” the petition argues that such permissions operate in substance as changes in development intensity comparable to zone changes, but without following the statutory procedure required for modifying zoning classifications.
The PIL also raises concerns over the absence of comprehensive studies on infrastructure capacity, traffic impact, environmental and social consequences, and cumulative effects on small settlements and village areas before granting such relaxations.
Planned development under the 2008 Act requires balancing growth with carrying capacity and public interest. The petitioners contend that unstructured intensification risks undermining that balance.
The petition notes that 739 permissions or NOCs had reportedly been granted up to January 2025 under the amended regime, but details of these approvals have not been systematically placed in the public domain, limiting transparency and meaningful public participation in planning governance.
The amendments are challenged on grounds that removal of quantitative ceilings on FAR through corrigendum violates mandatory procedures under the 2008 Act; grant of unrestricted discretionary powers to enhance FAR and height raises concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution; and differential premium structures for similar categories of development lack rational basis.
The matter now stands posted for final hearing on April 15, 2026.
In a separate writ petition filed by Sabina Martins challenging FAR enhancement granted in respect of development in her building, the High Court observed that the development would remain subject to the final outcome of her petition.
