Panaji, October 21, 2026:In a significant ruling concerning construction permissions and the legal status of access roads shown in the Regional Plan, the Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside a District Court order that had upheld the Assagao Village Panchayat’s refusal to grant permission for constructing a compound wall on private property.

Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar, while allowing Writ Petition No. 739 of 2026 filed by Ryago Homes Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Akshay Chaudhry, held that once an access road is reflected in the officially notified Regional Plan, the Panchayat cannot arrive at a contrary conclusion merely on the basis of its site inspection.

The judgment, pronounced on October 21, 2026, overturns the January 20, 2026 order of the Ad-hoc District Judge-2 at Merces, which had upheld the Panchayat’s decision to reject the developer’s application.

Dispute Over Access Road

The controversy arose after Ryago Homes Pvt. Ltd. applied to the Assagao Village Panchayat on February 28, 2025, seeking a construction licence for a compound wall around its property bearing Survey No. 69/1.

Following a site inspection conducted on April 17, 2025, the Panchayat observed that the property lacked proper access and clear demarcation. Consequently, the Panchayat rejected the application during its meeting held on April 19, 2025.

The developer challenged the decision before the Additional Director of Panchayats, who initially directed the Panchayat to grant permission. Following subsequent legal proceedings and reconsideration, the Additional Director again ruled in favour of the developer.

However, the Panchayat challenged this decision before the District Court, which set aside the Additional Director’s order and upheld the Panchayat’s refusal.

Aggrieved by this decision, the developer approached the High Court.

Regional Plan Takes Precedence

Advocate Shivan Desai, appearing along with Advocate Riya Amonkar for the petitioner, argued that the property had valid ownership documents, conversion sanad, settlement-zone classification and technical clearance from the Town and Country Planning Department.

He submitted that the Regional Plan for Goa 2021 recognised an eight-metre-wide access road passing through Survey No. 74/1 and providing access to the petitioner’s property.

The Court noted that the Town and Country Planning Department had issued a notification under Section 17(2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, correcting the Regional Plan to reflect the existing road.

Importantly, the notification had not been challenged either by the Panchayat or by the owner of Survey No. 74/1.

The High Court observed that the available material prima facie established access to the petitioner’s property through the adjoining survey number.

Dense Forest and Overgrown Access

The Court also took note of the fact that the property was situated in a densely forested area.

Justice Chapalgaonkar observed that an existing access route could be covered by shrubs due to prolonged non-use. Such circumstances, the Court held, could not justify drawing conclusions contrary to the officially published development plan.

The Court emphasised that Sections 15 and 16 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act require development activities to conform to the notified Regional Plan.

Accordingly, once the Regional Plan showed the existence of an access road, the Panchayat could not reject its existence solely on the basis of physical inspection.

The High Court further observed that the District Judge had failed to give due consideration to the legal effect of the published Regional Plan.

District Court Order Set Aside

Holding that the District Court’s January 20, 2026 order was legally unsustainable, the High Court allowed the developer’s writ petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

The ruling removes the District Court’s reversal of the Additional Director of Panchayats’ decision directing the Panchayat to grant permission for the proposed compound wall.

Advocate Shivan Desai, assisted by Advocate Riya Amonkar, represented the petitioner. Additional Government Advocate Shivdatt P. Munj appeared for the State authorities, while Advocate Ameya Venkatesh Nayak Salatry represented the Assagao Village Panchayat.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment highlights the legal importance of officially notified Regional Plans in deciding disputes concerning access roads and development permissions.

It also raises an important question for village Panchayats across Goa: whether a local authority can disregard a road reflected in a statutory planning document merely because the route is not clearly visible during a physical inspection.

While the ruling concerns a specific property and compound wall application in Assagao, its reasoning could have wider relevance in similar disputes involving access roads, construction permissions and the authority of Panchayats in Goa.