Fresh 39A Land‑Use Conversion Proposals Target Over 25,000 Sq M in Bardez and Pernem

The municipal authorities of Goa’s northern districts have recently tabled a series of Section 39A applications purporting to re‑designate more than twenty‑five thousand square metres of land within the historic talukas of Bardez and Pernem for mixed‑use development, a move announced with the typical fanfare of progress yet immediately raising concerns among local stakeholders.

According to the documents submitted to the state planning office, the projected conversion will be justified on the grounds of enhancing civic amenities, attracting investment, and alleviating perceived housing shortages, while the accompanying feasibility study claims that the designated parcels possess sufficient infrastructural capacity to support such expansion without substantial additional expenditure.

Nevertheless, the procedural record indicates that the mandatory public exhibition period, ordinarily stipulated to last at least twenty‑one days and to be promulgated in the official gazette and local newspapers, appears to have been compressed or possibly omitted, a circumstance that, if verified, would constitute a breach of the transparency provisions enshrined within the State Town and Country Planning Act.

Resident farmers and long‑time tenants, whose livelihoods depend upon the agricultural character of the affected zones, have voiced trepidation that the conversion could precipitate loss of productive soil, diminution of community cohesion, and a surge in property rates that may render continued residence financially untenable, thereby amplifying the social cost of what the council portrays as economic advancement.

Thus, as the municipality promulgates the fresh set of Section 39A applications intending to reconvert more than twenty‑five thousand square metres of land straddling the historic talukas of Bardez and Pernem into ostensibly mixed‑use parcels, a succession of pressing inquiries emerges, demanding that the reader consider whether the procedural timetable prescribed by the State Planning Act was observed with fidelity, whether the mandatory public exhibition of plans for a minimum period of twenty‑one days was in fact advertised in the official gazette and through local press as required, whether the independent environmental consultancy engaged to produce the impact statement operated free of influence from interested developers, whether the projected augmentation of municipal revenue was balanced against the documented loss of agricultural frontage cherished by resident cultivators, whether the municipal clerk’s ledger accurately records all submissions and objections lodged by aggrieved parties, and, finally, whether the ultimate sanctioning authority possesses the statutory competence and political independence to reject proposals that fail to demonstrate clear, verifiable public benefit.

Consequently, when the displaced agrarian families and long‑standing tenants of the affected zones petition the district magistrate for remedial relief, it becomes incumbent upon the provincial legislature, the municipal council, and the judiciary to examine whether the existing grievance‑redress mechanism affords timely adjudication, whether the stipulated compensation schedule aligns with market valuations or merely reflects budgetary expediency, whether the inter‑departmental coordination between the land‑revenue office, the environmental agency, and the civic utilities department was orchestrated in a manner that precludes duplication or omission, whether the public‑funded infrastructure upgrades promised in the development blueprint have been earmarked and scheduled, whether the oversight committee appointed to monitor implementation possesses the authority to enforce corrective measures, and whether the allocation of municipal bonds for these upgrades replaces direct budgetary spending without transparent justification, and whether the delayed statutory audit of land titles and environmental clearances complies with the State Planning Commission’s mandated schedule.

Published: May 10, 2026