OPIONION…
Thirty years of residence cannot grant Goan origin status to any person. The confusion was only to create an atmosphere to accept the Bill meant for the migrant labour force. The passing of the Bill created unnecessary tension between the locals and the migrants when the state was passing through a bad phase of the corona pandemic. The Bill did not distinguish between an encroacher or a rent-paying tenant and residing in a house under an agreement. Even a person ordered to be evicted by a court of law in force could claim protection. It was an assault on the citizens right to property.
Adv Cleofato Almeida Coutinho
The government’s withdrawal of the Bhumiputra Bill with a request for the public to send suggestions is a welcome development. It shows people’s solidarity against the government bulldozing a fraudulent law without discussing, debating, and suspending procedure rules.
The announcement of the Chief Minister that the Bill would be introduced in the next assembly session after taking into account public suggestions is a clear signal that the Bill is being withdrawn.
The Chief Minister has not stated that, but change the name would require a nod of the House as Bhumiputra is defined. The Chief Minister may not want to concede that he has succumbed to public outcry and a total backlash by the locals and the ST community.
Having bulldozed the Bill, he may not want to accept a complete surrender to the social media battle waged by the public. The Bill created confusion between the people of Goan origin, referred to as Bhumiputra, against the issue of domicile.
Thirty years of residence cannot grant Goan origin status to any person. The confusion was only to create an atmosphere to accept the Bill meant for the migrant labour force. The passing of the Bill created unnecessary tension between the locals and the migrants when the state was passing through a bad phase of the corona pandemic. The Bill did not distinguish between an encroacher or a rent-paying tenant and residing in a house under an agreement. Even a person ordered to be evicted by a court of law in force could claim protection. It was an assault on the citizens right to property.
The law was so poorly drafted that any person occupying a structure in April 2019 with house tax, water and electricity connection not even standing in that person’s name could claim ownership.
Many small landlords have built small structures and have an additional apartment from their hard-earned earnings, which were let out for a price. They would be deprived of their earnings in case the law came into force. The Bill would be a tremendous setback to the real estate industry as people would not invest in apartments, etc., fearing losing them to third parties under such laws.
That would lead to mushrooming of illegal structures and shanties and give rise to more slums. The very idea of Goa would be defeated by such slums and shanties, which would grow in every village, every city and around the industrial estate. The marginalized sections and the underprivileged deserve protection from the state. At the same time, citizens have the right to be protected under the constitution. The government can come with various housing schemes after the acquisition of land for that purpose. What is required is appropriate housing for the poor, not legalizing illegal structures, and appropriating private land in the manner the Bhumiputra bill attempted. In 2016 a law was brought in to regularize unauthorized structures that do not meet building and planning regulations.
That law was just before the 2017 assembly elections. Nothing is heard of that law, and only influential few may have benefited, but it was used as part of election strategy. A law must come out as a result of the discussion, debate in society so that the law gets public sanctity. Law cannot be reduced to an instrument of electioneering.
