EDITORIAL
Much depends upon how the government responds to the draft Bill on agricultural land protection
Retired Allahabad Chief Justice Ferdino Rebello has submitted a draft Bill aimed at protecting Goa’s agricultural land. The one-time legislator’s core team has submitted it to political parties and Independent MLAs. It is the demand of the ‘Enough is Enough’ movement that the Bill be moved and passed in the forthcoming Budget Assembly Session, which begins on March 6. The draft Bill is linked to the 10-point charter first adopted at a public meeting of the movement held at the Institute Menezes Braganza hall,
Panaji, last month.
The proposed legislation seeks to halt further construction permissions beyond the 526.31 sq km Settlement Zone notified in the Regional Plan 2021. It also proposes nullifying permissions granted for cutting hills and slopes allegedly contrary to a 2010 explanatory memorandum issued by the Chief Town Planner, based on contour plans prepared by the Surveyor General of India. It seeks repeal of Section 39(A) of the TCP Act, amendments to the Goa Restriction on Transfer of Agricultural Land Act, 2023, and repeal of Section 32(1) of the Land Revenue Code introduced in 2024. A new Section 22(A) is proposed to restrict transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists and for non-agricultural purposes. Justice Rebello said the Bill aims to ensure transparency and protect agricultural land while permitting development within notified settlement zones.
Some ground realities justify such a law to protect agricultural land. First, such land is a finite ecological and economic resource. It underpins local food security, groundwater recharge, flood buffering and biodiversity. Once converted to real estate or infrastructure, it is impossible to recover. Second, there has been a rapid rise in tourism-driven construction, speculative investment and fragmented landholding. This has accelerated the diversion of paddy fields, khazan lands, orchards and comunidade-managed plots. Collectively, this threatens traditional livelihoods and increases Goa’s dependence on imported food. Third, agriculture in Goa carries cultural and historical significance. It has long shaped village settlement patterns, festivals and community relations. Its erosion would mean not just economic loss but also erosion of heritage and social stability. Fourth, unchecked conversion tends to exacerbate environmental stress through loss of carbon sinks, saline ingress in coastal tracts and greater vulnerability to climate-related extremes, including flooding.
Another reason is that protective legislation can provide planning clarity by balancing development with sustainability. It can prevent ad hoc land-use changes and ensure that future generations retain both productive landscapes and ecological services.
From media discussions, Justice Rebello’s proposal appears to have some useful features. Notably, it attempts to impose strict curbs on land-use change outside the notified settlement zone, including halting construction permissions, revisiting hill-cutting approvals and restricting transfers of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. These directly target the main drivers of farmland conversion in Goa. The attempt is to align planning practice with existing regulatory frameworks such as the Town and Country Planning regime and the Code of Comunidades. Similarly, requiring written justification for hill cutting “in public interest” and proposing amendments to conflicting provisions could, in principle, introduce accountability and coherence across overlapping statutes. Yet, there may be some weaknesses too, which will have to be seen for practicability. However, it remains to be seen how the government responds to the draft Bill.
