Goa
,
Mopa
,
North Goa
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
SC Upholds Environmental Clearance to Mopa Greenfield Airport Project in Goa
Reported by
Nihar Gokhale
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
7869
People Affected
2008
Year started
919
Land area affected
Households affected
7869
People Affected
2008
Year started
919
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Airport
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

Mopa Greenfield Airport is a proposed international airport in North Goa. It will be spread over 2,200 acres of land, making it the largest land acquisition in independent Goa. The land is situated on a laterite plateau, consisting of forests, grazing lands, orchards and farms under seasonal cultivation, falling under the territory of six villages situated on the slopes of the plateau. Farmers and traditional cattle grazers, known as dhangars, will be among those affected.

The process of land acquisition began in 2008, but the airport project caught public attention in 2009, when civil society organisations, citizens and even sections of the Roman Catholic church protested with banners stating "Goans for Dabolim Only" and "Maka Naka Mopa" (I Don't Want Mopa). The government claims that a new airport is necessary as the Dabolim airport, which is a defence airport, cannot be expanded.

The affected farmers have alleged that the government has not outlined a rehabilitation plan for the oustees, offered poor compensation rates and forcibly acquired their land. In 2013, they decided to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the land acquisition by the government. The farmers, along with the non-profit Federation of Rainbow Warriors, challenged the environmental clearance (EC) granted to the airport before the Pune bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). In November 2016, the NGT ordered a status quo on the relocation of the affected farmers until the case was decided upon.

To appease the farmers, the state government increased their compensation. But the farmers refused, saying that they wanted to continue with their traditional occupation and not part with the land at all. According to a [reply](https://englishnews.thegoan.net/story.php?id=26825#sthash, http://www.thegoan.net/story_preview.php?id=2933) in Rajya Sabha in December 2016, only 618 farmers were paid compensation out of the 7,869 persons eligible. The others refused to accept it.

Meanwhile, the Goa government awarded a 40-year construction and operations contract to the GMR Group for the project, which is estimated to cost around INR 3,000 crore.

In 2017, as GMR commenced construction work, people living in two neighbouring villages alleged that their homes were wrongly demolished. The residents claimed they had received no prior intimation or compensation for land acquisition and were given just two minutes to clear their belongings.

In March 2018, the state approved an additional compensation of three times the original rate to those displaced by the project. In August that year, the NGT upheld the EC granted to the project citing public interest but imposed additional conditions.

Environmental groups, however, continued to protest against the project and the displacement of dhangars. They pointed out that while the EC mentioned that the project site was barren, a government survey revealed that more than 55,000 trees at the site were going to be felled. They filed an appeal against the tree-cutting at the NGT.

When the NGT upheld the EC, the people appealed the case before the Supreme Court. In March 2019, the apex court struck down the NGT's order and suspended the EC. It ordered the government to re-assess the project. After the government completed the process, the apex court revived the EC in January 2020 and allowed the project to be completed. According to the government, the airport would become operational by 2022. After the Supreme Court's decision, there has been no reports of further opposition to the project.

On January 29, 2021, two lawyers who were supporting the anti-Mopa protesters were arrested by Pernem police after a government engineer, also the surveying officer, filed a police complaint against the locals for stopping him from discharging his duty during his visit to Dadachiwadi area in Dhargal panchayat. Both lawyers, Suryakant Chodankar and Jitendra Gaonkar, were released later in the evening.

The anti-Mopa protestors were primarily agitating against the additional land acquisition of 46.6693 hectares of land located in the villages of Dhargalim, Varconda, and Casarvarnem from local agricultural land-owners for the construction of the 'Mopa link road', which would connect the village of Dhargalim to the Mopa Airport.

The locals approached the Bombay High Court against the land acquisition for the Mopa Link Road in a batch of writ petitions filed in 2022. Soon thereafter, various other locals approached the National Green Tribunal challenging the construction of the Link Road on environmental grounds. However, stating that the construction of Link Road was ‘absolutely essential’, the Bombay High Court dismissed the challenges vide its order of 13 April 2022, which was the rationale which was echoed by the National Green Tribunal as they disposed of the NGT petition vide their order dated 27 September 2022.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Forest and Non-Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

2

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

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

S. 341 (Punishment for Wrongful Restraint), S. 143 (Unlawful Assembly), S. 353(Assault or Criminal Force to Deter a Public Servant from discharge of Duty) read with S. 149(Common Intention)

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Neither were they informed, nor did they have access

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?

Quantum of Bail was Rs. 10,000 of personal bond and one local surety of like amount. Furthermore, the following conditions were imposed on both the accused: 1. Furnishing of detailed address along with proof and contact numbers 2. Prohibition in commission of similar offences 3. No direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case 4. Not interference with the complainant 5. Reporting from 10 am to 12 noon for 3 days after date of release

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

The accused Jitendra Gavkar and Suryakant Chodankar were summoned to the Pernem Police Station under the pretext of 'investigation'. However, upon their arrival, they were instead placed under arrest.

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Adv. Jitendra Gavkar (Accused) - 9665861544

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2022

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Grazing, Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

3000

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2016

Page Number In Investment Document:

6

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

January 2020

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

After the Supreme Court upheld the environmental clearance in January 2020, the construction resumed and there was no further protest from the community.

Author
Reported by
Nihar Gokhale

Goa

Kumar Sambhav is a social entrepreneur and award-winning journalist, leading innovative research in accountability investigations. He is the founder of Land Conflict Watch and is currently working as India Research Lead with Princeton University’s Digital Witness Lab.

Read More

Latest updates
Rajasthan
Rajasthan

UIT Bikaner's Jorbeer Housing Project on Stalls Following Rajasthan High Court Order

Rajasthan
Rajasthan

Jaipur Development Authority Acquires Land for Township Project, Ending Conflict

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Farmers land acquired under Mansarovar Housing Scheme in Lucknow

Maharashtra
Maharashtra

Citizens unite against cycle track around Powai, Vihar Lakes in Mumbai

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Families displaced by Mandal Dam in Jharkhand opppose project resumption

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Jharkhand approves Adani's thermal plant, farmers allege violation of LARR Act

Gujarat
Gujarat

Pastoral Community in Gujarat's Banni Grasslands Demands Titles Recognising Community Forest Rights

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Builder Encroaches Upon Farmers Land in Gosaiganj Lucknow, 150 Allottees in Lurch

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for more compensation than promised

SC Upholds Environmental Clearance to Mopa Greenfield Airport Project in Goa

Reported by

Nihar Gokhale

Legal Review by

Anmol Gupta

Edited by

Anupa Sagar Kujur

Updated by

Updated by

Maitreya Ghorpade

Published on

March 13, 2017

August 5, 2024

Edited on

August 5, 2024

March 13, 2017

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Airport

Eco-Sensitive Zone

Starting Year

2008

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

919

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

7869

State

Goa

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

7869

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

919

ha

Starting Year

2008

Location of Conflict

Mopa

North Goa

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Airport

Eco-Sensitive Zone

Land Conflict Summary

Mopa Greenfield Airport is a proposed international airport in North Goa. It will be spread over 2,200 acres of land, making it the largest land acquisition in independent Goa. The land is situated on a laterite plateau, consisting of forests, grazing lands, orchards and farms under seasonal cultivation, falling under the territory of six villages situated on the slopes of the plateau. Farmers and traditional cattle grazers, known as dhangars, will be among those affected.

The process of land acquisition began in 2008, but the airport project caught public attention in 2009, when civil society organisations, citizens and even sections of the Roman Catholic church protested with banners stating "Goans for Dabolim Only" and "Maka Naka Mopa" (I Don't Want Mopa). The government claims that a new airport is necessary as the Dabolim airport, which is a defence airport, cannot be expanded.

The affected farmers have alleged that the government has not outlined a rehabilitation plan for the oustees, offered poor compensation rates and forcibly acquired their land. In 2013, they decided to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the land acquisition by the government. The farmers, along with the non-profit Federation of Rainbow Warriors, challenged the environmental clearance (EC) granted to the airport before the Pune bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). In November 2016, the NGT ordered a status quo on the relocation of the affected farmers until the case was decided upon.

To appease the farmers, the state government increased their compensation. But the farmers refused, saying that they wanted to continue with their traditional occupation and not part with the land at all. According to a [reply](https://englishnews.thegoan.net/story.php?id=26825#sthash, http://www.thegoan.net/story_preview.php?id=2933) in Rajya Sabha in December 2016, only 618 farmers were paid compensation out of the 7,869 persons eligible. The others refused to accept it.

Meanwhile, the Goa government awarded a 40-year construction and operations contract to the GMR Group for the project, which is estimated to cost around INR 3,000 crore.

In 2017, as GMR commenced construction work, people living in two neighbouring villages alleged that their homes were wrongly demolished. The residents claimed they had received no prior intimation or compensation for land acquisition and were given just two minutes to clear their belongings.

In March 2018, the state approved an additional compensation of three times the original rate to those displaced by the project. In August that year, the NGT upheld the EC granted to the project citing public interest but imposed additional conditions.

Environmental groups, however, continued to protest against the project and the displacement of dhangars. They pointed out that while the EC mentioned that the project site was barren, a government survey revealed that more than 55,000 trees at the site were going to be felled. They filed an appeal against the tree-cutting at the NGT.

When the NGT upheld the EC, the people appealed the case before the Supreme Court. In March 2019, the apex court struck down the NGT's order and suspended the EC. It ordered the government to re-assess the project. After the government completed the process, the apex court revived the EC in January 2020 and allowed the project to be completed. According to the government, the airport would become operational by 2022. After the Supreme Court's decision, there has been no reports of further opposition to the project.

On January 29, 2021, two lawyers who were supporting the anti-Mopa protesters were arrested by Pernem police after a government engineer, also the surveying officer, filed a police complaint against the locals for stopping him from discharging his duty during his visit to Dadachiwadi area in Dhargal panchayat. Both lawyers, Suryakant Chodankar and Jitendra Gaonkar, were released later in the evening.

The anti-Mopa protestors were primarily agitating against the additional land acquisition of 46.6693 hectares of land located in the villages of Dhargalim, Varconda, and Casarvarnem from local agricultural land-owners for the construction of the 'Mopa link road', which would connect the village of Dhargalim to the Mopa Airport.

The locals approached the Bombay High Court against the land acquisition for the Mopa Link Road in a batch of writ petitions filed in 2022. Soon thereafter, various other locals approached the National Green Tribunal challenging the construction of the Link Road on environmental grounds. However, stating that the construction of Link Road was ‘absolutely essential’, the Bombay High Court dismissed the challenges vide its order of 13 April 2022, which was the rationale which was echoed by the National Green Tribunal as they disposed of the NGT petition vide their order dated 27 September 2022.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

2

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

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

S. 341 (Punishment for Wrongful Restraint), S. 143 (Unlawful Assembly), S. 353(Assault or Criminal Force to Deter a Public Servant from discharge of Duty) read with S. 149(Common Intention)

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Neither were they informed, nor did they have access

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?

Quantum of Bail was Rs. 10,000 of personal bond and one local surety of like amount. Furthermore, the following conditions were imposed on both the accused: 1. Furnishing of detailed address along with proof and contact numbers 2. Prohibition in commission of similar offences 3. No direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case 4. Not interference with the complainant 5. Reporting from 10 am to 12 noon for 3 days after date of release

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

The accused Jitendra Gavkar and Suryakant Chodankar were summoned to the Pernem Police Station under the pretext of 'investigation'. However, upon their arrival, they were instead placed under arrest.

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Adv. Jitendra Gavkar (Accused) - 9665861544

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2022

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Grazing, Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

3000

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2016

Page Number In Investment Document:

6

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

January 2020

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

After the Supreme Court upheld the environmental clearance in January 2020, the construction resumed and there was no further protest from the community.

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Land Acquisition Laws, Environmental Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 5A: [Hearing of objections from anyone interested in land being acquired]; Section 11: [Enquiry by the District Collector regarding compensation and award to be given]
Environment Protection Rules, 1986
Section 3(2)(v): [Power of government to restrict areas where industries/operations may occur]
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Section 2: [Requirement of prior environmental clearance] 
Indian Forest Act, 1927
Section 20: [Publication of a notification declaring a forest as reserved] 
Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984
Section 8: [Restriction on felling and removal of trees without prior permission of the Tree Officer]
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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:

Controversial land acquisition by the government

Non-rehabilitation of displaced people

Incorrect estimation of compensation

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Supreme Court of India

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

The Supreme Court, in its judgement dated January 16, 2020, ordered the lifting of the suspension of the environmental clearance (EC) and noted that the project proponent - the State of Goa - had corrected the deficiencies and attempted to remedy the failures pointed out by it earlier, beginning at the initial stage of the grant of the EC. Further, to assess the fulfillment of the mitigatory steps undertaken, it directed a specialised body, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, to oversee compliance.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

January 28, 2021

Location of Violation

Pernem-Goa

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Government of Goa, Ministry of Civil Aviation

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

GMR Goa International Airport Limited

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Mopa Vimantal Pidit Xetkari Samiti

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

2

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

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

S. 341 (Punishment for Wrongful Restraint), S. 143 (Unlawful Assembly), S. 353(Assault or Criminal Force to Deter a Public Servant from discharge of Duty) read with S. 149(Common Intention)

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Neither were they informed, nor did they have access

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?

Quantum of Bail was Rs. 10,000 of personal bond and one local surety of like amount. Furthermore, the following conditions were imposed on both the accused: 1. Furnishing of detailed address along with proof and contact numbers 2. Prohibition in commission of similar offences 3. No direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case 4. Not interference with the complainant 5. Reporting from 10 am to 12 noon for 3 days after date of release

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

The accused Jitendra Gavkar and Suryakant Chodankar were summoned to the Pernem Police Station under the pretext of 'investigation'. However, upon their arrival, they were instead placed under arrest.

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Other Land Conflicts in Goa

cross
    Not a member yet?
    Sign up now
    Conflicts Map
    Conflict Database
    About Us