Reported by
Legal Review by
Edited by
Updated by
Published on
June 23, 2022
May 31, 2023
Edited on
May 26, 2023
June 23, 2022
In February 2022, the Velsao Panchayat, which administers the villages of Velsao, Pale and Issorcim in South Goa, moved the High Court against double-tracking of the South Western Railway line between Hospet in Karnataka and Vasco da Gama in Goa. The local body claimed that it had not been consulted before the project was approved and the required permits had not been acquired. Six private landowners in Velsao have approached the High Court separately on similar grounds. Residents of Cansaulim-Arossim-Cuelim panchayat area were also agitating against the acquisition of land for the project, but their panchayat said it did not have the authority to take action.
Of the entire stretch that the railway line will cut through in Goa, Velsao-Pale-Issorcem is one of the most densely-populated areas, said Olencio Simoes, joint secretary of Goencho Ekvott, a civil society organisation that is leading the protests against the double tracking project. Protests in the area picked up pace in November 2021, when villagers came out in large numbers to oppose the land survey and demarcation work being carried out by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL). According to Olencio Simoes, RVNL officials forcefully entered private land and installed barbed wires to fence off the land.
Residents said the existing railway track passing through the village has been built on land that has still not been acquired. “When the existing track was laid in 1890, this land was given by the people as a ‘gift’ to the Portuguese government. The Railway continues to use the land but ownership belongs to the original land owners,” said Simoes. Heritage conservationist groups and activists say that double tracking will increase vibrations from the train movement and cause cracks in the homes lined along the road.
A larger state-wide agitation has been brewing in Goa since June 2020 against the section of the proposed rail line that would cut through the Bhagwan Mahaveer Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. The double-tracking of South Western Railways is one of the three linear projects in the state sanctioned in December 2019 and April 2020 during the first lockdown, allegedly without adequate debate and consultation. The other two projects were the laying of an additional transmission line and the widening of National Highway 4A. The railway line, which would cut across 342 km of land in the two states of Goa and Karnataka, is divided into two phases: Hospet-Tinaighat and Tinaighat-Vasco. The Castle Rock-Kulem stretch of Phase II cuts through 120 hectares of forest land, including 113 hectares of protected land, and the Kulem-Margao section of the same phase cuts through 16 ha of forest land, including 14 hectares of protected area. As many as 59,000 trees are likely to be cut for the three projects.
In early 2020, Goa’s civil society erupted in a series of marches, study groups, created protest art, and launched a massive awareness campaign. Citizen movements like Goyant Kollso Naka (‘No Coal in Goa’), Aamchem Mollem (‘Our Mollem’), and Goenche Ekvott led the agitation. They highlighted the wealth of biodiversity housed in the protected forest stretch and pointed to shortcomings in the Environment Impact Assessment reports ([here](http://www.dstegoa.gov.in/EIA report from Kulem-Madgaon Section.pdf) and [here](http://www.dstegoa.gov.in/EIA report from Kulem to Castlerock Section.pdf)). These included problems like vague methodology, glaring omissions of certain species, undercounting of mammal species, and lax standards of monitoring.
On May 9, 2022, the Supreme Court struck down the environmental clearance granted by the National Board for Wildlife to a 26 Kilometre stretch extending from Castle rock in Karnataka to Kulem in Goa. This verdict came in light of the recommendations of the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted by the Court for examining the clearance. The apex court also noted that the capacity of the existing track is underutilised. However, work beyond the Kulem stretch – which includes Velsao, Cansaulim, and Chandor, among others is continuing. Villagers have pointed out that it is a waste of money to continue work on one stretch when proposed work on another section has been struck down.
In early August 2022, the High Court dismissed a separate petition filed by a group of citizens of Chandor and Girdolim who have organised themselves under the banner 'Ganv Bhavancho Ekvott'. Their petition was against the double tracking work being carried out on their village land. Similarly, the Court dismissed the petition filed by Velsao Panchayat on October 11, 2022. In both cases, the High Court noted that the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 would override the need for prior permissions from state legislations, such as the Panchayat Raj Act of 1994.
Goenche Ekvott members said they would challenge the verdict in the Supreme court. On ground, RVNL's work and protest by villagers has been ongoing. Most recently, in January 2023, RVNL’s attempt to build a 260-metre service track was met with opposition from locals. Residents said the land where the work in ongoing is private property and there has been no agreement over acquisition.
Refusal to give up land for the project
Demand to cancel the project
Complaint against procedural violations
Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources
Urban and Rural
Common and Private
Forest, Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
Arrest
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
10
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Out on bail
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 141 (Unlawful assembly), Section 339 (Wrongful restraint), Section 146 (Rioting)
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Yes
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
2127
Type of investment:
Cost of Project
Year of Estimation
2019
Page Number In Investment Document:
4
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Violation of environmental laws
Non-consultation with stakeholders
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Non-implementation/violation of LARR Act
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
No
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Supreme Court, Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court
Case Number
I.A. no. 107884 of 2021 and I.A. no. 30853 of 2022 in W.P. (C) 202/1995 [Supreme Court], WP 25/2022 [Bombay High Court]
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Yes
Reported Details of the Violation:
On the intervening night of November 1 and 2, 2020, around 3,000 Goans gathered at Chandor - one of the affected villages - to protest double tracking. In the following week, six conveners of two NGOs (Goyat Kolso Naka and Goencho Ekvott) were booked by the police. They were charged with unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, and rioting. As of May 2022, even after the Supreme Court verdict, these charges have not been dropped, inviting severe criticism from activists. Separately, on December 19, 2020 - Goa's Liberation Day, a number of protesters had organised a march in the heart of capital city Panjim. To avoid a clash with President Ram Nath Kovind, who was visiting the state at the time, the police detained several people gathered outside the Immaculate Conception Church. Those detained, which included students and youngsters, were released late into the night.
Date of Violation
December 18, 2020
Location of Violation
Panjim, Chandor
Nature of Protest
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Goa state government, South western railways, Velsao panchayat, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Union of India
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Goenche Ekvott, Goyant Kollso Naka, Aamchem Mollem, Goa Foundation
What was the action taken by the police?
Arrest
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
10
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Out on bail
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 141 (Unlawful assembly), Section 339 (Wrongful restraint), Section 146 (Rioting)
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Yes
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
The pipe filled with concrete (photo from March17, 2023)
Image Credit:
Ella Mascarenhas
Ongoing RVNL work in Arossim (Photo from April 11, 2023)
Image Credit:
Ella Mascarenhas
© 2023 Nut Graph LLP
All Rights Reserved.
