Number 13 proves unlucky for Cidade de Goa

BY A GT REPORTER

PANJIM: If numerology counts for anything, the number 13 has proved to be unlucky for the owners of Cidade de Goa.
For them it is the curious case of how a 13-word clause turned over 19,000 square metres of land from an asset into a liability.
On 15 November, 1978 the owners of Cidade de Goa made an application to then Revenue Minister Shankar Laad for acquisition of land comprising several survey numbers. After a study the government agreed to acquire land under Survey No 803 and 804.
However, under the Land Acquisition Act it was necessary for the government to sign an agreement with Cidade de Goa before handing possession of the land.
Accordingly, an agreement was signed on 26 October 1983. The third paragraph of the this agreements states that the land is being acquired for, “…the following purpose namely – tourism development project – construction of hotel at Curla, Vainguinim, Taleigao.”
The agreement governs the manner in which the land will be used and the first part of Clause 4 (viii) states, “the company shall never construct any building or structures in the acquired land.”
This is the clause that the Supreme Court relied on to come to the conclusion that the construction was illegal and therefore should be demolished. The court ruled that the agreement has the force of law. Count! This clause contains 13 words.
The acquired land was meant for a yoga center, health club, water sports and other recreational facilities. Possession of the land was granted only on 26 March 1985.
Subsequently the owners made an application to the Panjim Planning and Development Authority for extension of the hotel. Permission was granted in October 1987.
After some time another application was made by the owners of the hotel for renewal of the earlier permission “with a deviation”. This time the controversial plot number (acquired land) was included for the first time.
At this point of time it is important to refer to the second part of Clause 4 (viii) which states, “prior approval of the Economic Development Council of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu will be obtained before undertaking activities for its development, besides other statutory requirements under the existing laws.”
The order also stated that the hotel owners, because they were aware of the embargo for construction did not place their application before the Economic Development Council.
In an interaction with officials of Cidade de Goa it was clarified that the company has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court, where it hopes to show that the application was cleared by the EDC.
The question that begs an answer is, if the Clause 4 (viii) literally banned the company from erecting any construction on the acquired land why did it apply for the same?
Officials of the company argued that, over the last two decades the company and many different governments interpreted the agreement and clause 4 (viii) to be harmonious with construction since the purpose of acquisition was “Tourism Development Project – Construction of Hotel”.
Unfortunately for the hotel owners, the Supreme Court did not rely on the second part of this clause, which might be construed as allowing the owners of the hotel to seek permission for construction. Instead it relied on 13-word clause to order demolition of all construction on the acquired land.