Goa
Nagzar, Tulaskarwadi, Dhargal
,
Warkhand
,
Pernem
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Residents near Goa’s new Mopa airport oppose six-lane link road
Reported by
Malavika Neurekar
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
49
Households affected
235
People Affected
2021
Year started
410
Land area affected
49
Households affected
235
People Affected
2021
Year started
410
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

On 27 February 2022, residents of four villages — Warkhand, Nagzar, Tulaskarwadi, and Dhargal — in North Goa’s Pernem taluka staged a protest against the construction of a link road that is purported to ease connectivity to the state’s new airport in Mopa. The protesters, organised under the banner of the Dhargal Mopa Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti, included residents and cashew farmers who claimed that their lands had been unfairly acquired and were being destroyed.

The 6.6-km six-lane road will connect the NH-66 in Dhargalim to Mopa near Varconda. It has a 2.7 km elevated section, along with four road overbridges and a four-leg interchange. Anticipating a growth in traffic and tourist footfall after the opening of the greenfield airport at Mopa, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) had declared the proposed road as National Highway 166SS and entrusted state authorities to develop it.

Plans to acquire land for the link road were cleared by the state cabinet in November 2020. This was followed by a MoRTH notification to acquire 46 hectares of land, immediately drawing opposition from villagers. The acquisition notification had been issued under Section 3A (1) of the National Highways Act.

In early 2021, as many as 49 petitioners filed four appeals before the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court. One set of petitioners claimed that the link road would destroy their farm lands and affect their only source of livelihood. Another set of petitioners challenged the acquisition of land under the National Highways Act instead of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013. They pointed out that the LARR mandates a social impact assessment study and a public hearing before land acquisition. Applying the National Highways Act allowed the contractor, Ashok Buildcon Ltd, to surpass these provisions. 

Additionally, one of the petitions also challenged the acquisitions claiming that tracts of the land were part of the Tillari Irrigation Project and a notified Command Area. According to these petitioners, an existing connecting road was already undergoing widening and acquisition proceedings, rendering the need for a new link road void.

Meanwhile, as opposition to the work continued to grow, the Warkhand-Nagzar Panchayat issued a stop-work notice to the developers on February 24 2022. The protests escalated when the construction work continued despite the order. The contractor then filed an appeal against the stop work order with the additional Director of Panchayat (DOP). On 28 February, the DOP by an ex-parte order stayed the stop-work notice. Subsequently, on April 2, 2022, it issued its final order, asking the Warkhand panchayat to withdraw its order and allow work to resume.

On 13 April 2022, the Bombay High Court conducted a series of hearings based on the four writ petitions. It dismissed the petitions, noting that “the Highways Act has withstood the test of time and there [have] been occasions where it has been subjected to judicial review and its provisions have not been held to be unconstitutional … In the present case, the challenge does not meet the test of illegality or unreasonableness.”

On the contention that the acquisitions were infringing on Article 300A, it observed that the state may exercise its power of eminent domain to interfere with the right of property, as long as it is for a public purpose and compensation has been paid. Further, it noted that the provisions of the LARR do not apply to certain cases listed under the fourth schedule of the Act, which includes acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.

Subsequently, a case was filed in the NGT, claiming that Ashok Buildcon Ltd had been carrying out the construction without an environmental clearance. The case too was disposed of in September 2022, expressing full agreement with the HC order.

The construction of the Mopa Link Road was completed in July 2024, and was inaugurated by transport minister Nitin Gadkari. According to latest government figures, shared on October 19, 2021 in response to a question raised in the state Legislative Assembly, Rs 18.63 lakh had been paid out as compensation and Rs 60.39 crore was yet to be paid.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to cancel the project

Demand to get back acquired land

Demand for more compensation than promised

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Private

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

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

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?

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

Project completed

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

1183

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2024

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

The Mopa Link Road has been constructed and inaugurated.

Why did the conflict end?

Author
Reported by
Malavika Neurekar

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

Demand to cancel the project

Demand to get back acquired land

Demand for more compensation than promised

Residents near Goa’s new Mopa airport oppose six-lane link road

Reported by

Malavika Neurekar

Legal Review by

Sourabh Rai, Anmol Gupta

Edited by

Anupa Sagar Kujur

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

September 22, 2024

September 23, 2024

Edited on

September 22, 2024

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Roads

Starting Year

2021

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

410

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

49

People Affected by Conflict

235

State

Goa

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

235

Households Affected by Conflict

49

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

410

ha

Starting Year

2021

Location of Conflict

Warkhand

Nagzar, Tulaskarwadi, Dhargal

Pernem

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Roads

Land Conflict Summary

On 27 February 2022, residents of four villages — Warkhand, Nagzar, Tulaskarwadi, and Dhargal — in North Goa’s Pernem taluka staged a protest against the construction of a link road that is purported to ease connectivity to the state’s new airport in Mopa. The protesters, organised under the banner of the Dhargal Mopa Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti, included residents and cashew farmers who claimed that their lands had been unfairly acquired and were being destroyed.

The 6.6-km six-lane road will connect the NH-66 in Dhargalim to Mopa near Varconda. It has a 2.7 km elevated section, along with four road overbridges and a four-leg interchange. Anticipating a growth in traffic and tourist footfall after the opening of the greenfield airport at Mopa, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) had declared the proposed road as National Highway 166SS and entrusted state authorities to develop it.

Plans to acquire land for the link road were cleared by the state cabinet in November 2020. This was followed by a MoRTH notification to acquire 46 hectares of land, immediately drawing opposition from villagers. The acquisition notification had been issued under Section 3A (1) of the National Highways Act.

In early 2021, as many as 49 petitioners filed four appeals before the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court. One set of petitioners claimed that the link road would destroy their farm lands and affect their only source of livelihood. Another set of petitioners challenged the acquisition of land under the National Highways Act instead of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013. They pointed out that the LARR mandates a social impact assessment study and a public hearing before land acquisition. Applying the National Highways Act allowed the contractor, Ashok Buildcon Ltd, to surpass these provisions. 

Additionally, one of the petitions also challenged the acquisitions claiming that tracts of the land were part of the Tillari Irrigation Project and a notified Command Area. According to these petitioners, an existing connecting road was already undergoing widening and acquisition proceedings, rendering the need for a new link road void.

Meanwhile, as opposition to the work continued to grow, the Warkhand-Nagzar Panchayat issued a stop-work notice to the developers on February 24 2022. The protests escalated when the construction work continued despite the order. The contractor then filed an appeal against the stop work order with the additional Director of Panchayat (DOP). On 28 February, the DOP by an ex-parte order stayed the stop-work notice. Subsequently, on April 2, 2022, it issued its final order, asking the Warkhand panchayat to withdraw its order and allow work to resume.

On 13 April 2022, the Bombay High Court conducted a series of hearings based on the four writ petitions. It dismissed the petitions, noting that “the Highways Act has withstood the test of time and there [have] been occasions where it has been subjected to judicial review and its provisions have not been held to be unconstitutional … In the present case, the challenge does not meet the test of illegality or unreasonableness.”

On the contention that the acquisitions were infringing on Article 300A, it observed that the state may exercise its power of eminent domain to interfere with the right of property, as long as it is for a public purpose and compensation has been paid. Further, it noted that the provisions of the LARR do not apply to certain cases listed under the fourth schedule of the Act, which includes acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.

Subsequently, a case was filed in the NGT, claiming that Ashok Buildcon Ltd had been carrying out the construction without an environmental clearance. The case too was disposed of in September 2022, expressing full agreement with the HC order.

The construction of the Mopa Link Road was completed in July 2024, and was inaugurated by transport minister Nitin Gadkari. According to latest government figures, shared on October 19, 2021 in response to a question raised in the state Legislative Assembly, Rs 18.63 lakh had been paid out as compensation and Rs 60.39 crore was yet to be paid.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to cancel the project

Demand to get back acquired land

Demand for more compensation than promised

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Private

Type of Common Land

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

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

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?

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

Project completed

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

1183

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2024

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

The Mopa Link Road has been constructed and inaugurated.

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

National Highways Act, 1956
Section- 2(2) [The Central Government can declare any other highway a national highway through an Official Gazette notification] Section 3A(1) [For public purposes, if the Central Government needs any land for building, maintenance, management, or operation of a national highway then it can acquire the land by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 105(3) [This section states that the Central government may notify applicability of compensation provisions to land acquisition under Fourth Schedule Statutes for which orders have been issued relating to the National Highways Act, 1956].
  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:

Non-consultation with stakeholders

Controversial land acquisition by the government

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Yes

Name of the adjudicatory body

National Green Tribunal

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Bombay High Court

Case Number

WP 1119 of 2021(F); WP1128 of 2021 (F); WP 1127 of 2021 (F); WP 1149 of 2021(F); NGT OA 40/2022

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Petitioners approached the High Court contesting the project on the grounds that their only source of income will be lost if the lands are acquired. The Court was not inclined to entertain the challenge against the provisions of the Highways Act, 1956, stating that the Act has withstood the test of time and the provisions are not unconstitutional. The court was also not inclined to entertain the challenge against the land acquisition notification. It noted that the airport being an international airport would be bound to attract a large number of visitors over the year and will develop the economy of the state. The court noted that environmental clearance is not needed under the EIA Notification 2006. The court also did not agree with the alternative routes proposed by the petitioner. They were inclined to believe that the DPR consultants had carried out the required surveys. Hence, the land acquisition for the highway was upheld and the writ petition was disposed of.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of Goa, Director of Panchayat, Public Works Department, Warkhand-Nagzar panchayat, Tulaskarwadi-Dhargal panchayat

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:

Ashok Buildcon Ltd

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Dhargal Mopa Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

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

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?

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?

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