Goa
,
Mopa
,
North Goa
Published :
Mar 2017
|
Updated :
December 19, 2025
Land acquisition and environmental contestation around Mopa Greenfield Airport project and its connectivity corridor in Goa
Reported by
Nihar Gokhale
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
7869
People affected
2008
Year started
919.06
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
7869
People Affected
2008
Year started
919.06
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Airport
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
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.

Affected residents and civil-society groups challenged land acquisition and the Environmental Clearance (EC) at forums including the NGT and the Supreme Court. The NGT in 2016 ordered a status-quo on relocations; the Supreme Court suspended the EC in March 2019 and, after reassessment, reinstated it in January 2020 — a decision that allowed airport construction to resume.

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 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 Rs 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.

Although the EC litigation phase was legally closed in early 2020, the conflict immediately shifted to the question of airport connectivity.

What project documents and early EIA studies described as a 4-lane “approach road” became an expanded 6-lane NH-166(S) that required additional acquisition and traversed new survey numbers and alignments. Villagers argued that this change—both in width (4 → 6 lanes) and alignment—placed previously unaffected agricultural and forested lands into the right-of-way, increasing social and ecological impacts beyond what the original EC covered.

By 2021–22, affected residents from Dhargal, Warkhand (Varconda), Casarvarnem and nearby hamlets pressed their objections. They highlighted ex-post facto tree-felling permissions (NOC dated 16-03-2022), authorising the cutting of 7,218 trees and ordering planting of 21,654 saplings without specifying plantation locations, and questioned the suitability of the compensatory afforestation site in Survey No. 59/0 Tuem (the paper-book evidence shows only 4,606 sq. m. available against a required 28,900 sq. m.). The applicants also argued (NGT pp. 306–307) that the airport EC coordinates did not include the new NH-166(S) alignment and that a fresh EIA/EC for the highway was therefore necessary.

As the matter progressed legally, petitioners filed Original Application No. 40/2022 (WZ) in the NGT challenging the link-road’s environmental compliance. At the same time, connected writ petitions on land-acquisition were heard by the Bombay High Court (WPs 1119/2021, 1127/2021, 1128/2021, 1149/2021). The High Court, in its judgment dated 13 April 2022, emphasised the essential public interest in airport connectivity and dismissed the writ petitions. The NGT disposed of OA 40/2022 on 27 September 2022, noting the HC’s findings and concluding that the link road’s upgrade/realignment and its classification did not require a separate EC under the tests applied.

Despite disposal, tensions persisted on the ground. Two anti-Mopa supporters were briefly arrested in January 2021 in a dispute involving a government surveyor. 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.

The contested six-lane access corridor was subsequently inaugurated in mid-2024.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Complaint against procedural violations

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.

4
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?

No

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

5
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.

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Nihar Gokhale
Show more work
Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Complaint against procedural violations

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

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.

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

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us