Home / Feb 28-Mar 06, 2026 / Protest / KARAPUR LOCALS PROTEST RANE LAND DEAL!
KARAPUR LOCALS PROTEST RANE LAND DEAL!
No Comments on KARAPUR LOCALS PROTEST RANE LAND DEAL!

KARAPUR LOCALS PROTEST RANE LAND DEAL!

Feb 28-Mar 06, 2026, Protest February 27, 2026 , by

The TCP minister is facing a protest in Karapur village of the Bicholim Taluka over the sale of land and conversion from agriculture to settlement in favour of the Abhinandan Lodha group.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging certain land-use change orders under the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 related to land at Karapur (a village/area in Goa), and naming the TCP minister in charge — Vishwajit Rane — among the respondents.
The petitioners, including Pravin Shedgaonkar and others, sought to quash or set aside decisions taken regarding conversions of this land, alleging that proper procedures (such as environmental clearance under the EIA Notification and statutory land-use regulations) were not followed before permitting development.
The Lodha Group’s real estate entity (‘The House of Abhinandan Lodha’) and other parties (e.g., Errichter Infra Pvt Ltd, Shamba Dhavaskar, Goa SEIAA) were also notified in the PIL, indicating that the petitioners aimed their challenge at both the alleged administrative actions and the private parties benefitting from them.

Key Allegations Raised by Activists / Social Critics

  1. Alleged Misuse of Planning Provisions
    Activists and campaigners have publicly accused Rane of promoting changes to land-use regulations to benefit specific developers — allegations that include:
    • Using controversial provisions in the Goa TCP Act (e.g., Section 17(2) or Section 39A) to convert large parcels of land from agricultural/green zones to settlement or commercial use.
    • Extending these conversions allegedly in ways that favoured certain business interests, including Karapur Estates and Lodha-linked entities.
    For example, activist groups (e.g., Goencho Avaaz and Goa Foundation) publicly accused Rane of facilitating such conversions, claiming they threatened ecological and wildlife habitats in addition to procedural irregularities.
  2. High Court Notice in PIL
    The Bombay High Court at Goa issued notices to:
    • Smt/Sri Vishwajit Rane (Town & Country Planning Minister at the time)
    • Errichter Infra Pvt Ltd
    • Shamba Dhavaskar
    • Goa SEIAA
    • The House of Abhinandan Lodha

The PIL seeks:
• Quashing of orders under Section 17(2) of the TCP Act relating to the Karapur land.
• Directions to restrain further development at Karapur without environmental clearance under the 2006 EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Notification.
• Orders to clear the land of any development and restore it to its original condition if improper approvals were granted.

  1. Activist Claims (Beyond the Court Filings)
    Several public critiques and protest reports have made broader allegations, including:
    • That “25 lakh square metres of land” have been converted using questioned planning provisions, including in Karapur/Bicholim area, possibly involving Lodha-linked development.
    • Claims of conflict of interest or undue benefits to developers via controversial amendments and planning changes.
    • Calls for accountability and inquiries into whether the minister used his planning authority for personal or political ends.
    These allegations – particularly tying specific developers like the Lodha group and Karapur Estates Pvt Ltd to ministerial conduct – have been a central theme in opposition and activist campaigns, though they remain claims in public debate unless upheld by court. Legal Status vs Public Claims
    High Court notice: Officially acknowledged that a PIL has been admitted and notices have been issued to the minister and other respondents in the Karapur land matter.
    No public record yet of a final judgment or court order deciding the merits of the substantive allegations — as of the latest reports.
    Public claims and activist statements (including conflict-of-interest or corruption) have not been judicially verified in a final judgment.

So there is a distinction between:
• the existence of a court proceeding, and
• the allegations made by critics outside the courtroom.

What the PIL Focuses On
The petition argues that:
• Land-use decisions were taken without complying with environmental clearance requirements applicable to land development.
• Orders under Section 17(2) of the Goa TCP Act — which empower planning changes — were allegedly misused or improperly applied with no environmental oversight.
• It seeks restoration of the land to its prior state and to restrain further development until statutory processes (like EIA clearance) are fulfilled.

Public / Political Reaction
Activist groups and NGOs called for:
• Suspension or inquiry into the minister’s conduct.
• Strengthening environmental and planning safeguards.
• Transparency about land conversions and real estate deals.
Meanwhile, officials (including Rane’s political allies) have dismissed criticisms as politically motivated and maintained that approvals were consistent with law.

No related posts.

Search

Back to Top