Statue Encroachment: High Court Slams Goa Govt. and MPA, Suspects ‘Conspiracy’ to Defy Demolition Order

The High Court has come down heavily on the Goa government and the Mormugao Port Authority over an eleventh-hour attempt to regularise an unauthorised statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj erected on port land at Headland Sada, Vasco. The court has observed that the authorities appear to be in “gross breach” of its earlier demolition directive.

The High Court further noted, prima facie, the existence of a “conspiracy to violate the order” and a calculated attempt to spend public funds to protect private interests. The court has directed Goa’s Chief Secretary to file a comprehensive explanatory affidavit by October 20, 2026, detailing the legal and administrative basis for the State’s proposal to purchase the encroached land.

The matter dates back to February 2026, when an unauthorised statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, along with beautification and masonry works, was erected on MPA-owned land—Chalta No. 42, PT Sheet No. 30, City Survey Vasco—at the Headland Sada junction without the port’s consent. The statue was unveiled on February 19, 2026, reportedly in the presence of Mormugao MLA Sankalp Amonkar.

After statutory authorities failed to act on its complaints, the MPA approached the High Court through a writ petition. On April 7, 2026, the court issued an interim order directing the South Goa District Collector, the Superintendent of Police and local executive magistrates to provide armed security and all necessary assistance to enable the Port Authority to demolish and clear the encroachment.

At the time, the High Court criticised the local administration for being a “mere bystander” and noted a “tacit understanding” between the authorities and those who erected the structure. A challenge to the order by local residents before the Supreme Court was subsequently withdrawn on July 2, 2026.

Despite the clear court directive, the authorities repeatedly delayed the removal process, citing the possibility of law-and-order disturbances and police bandobast duties.

The controversy took a sharp turn on September 9, 2026, when the Port Authority sought oral permission to withdraw its writ petition. It cited a September 8 letter from Goa’s Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue) to the MPA Chairman.

The letter disclosed that the State Cabinet had granted in-principle approval to purchase the encroached 178-square-metre plot from the MPA to avoid a possible law-and-order conflict arising from “strong public sentiments”.

Refusing to entertain the MPA’s request to withdraw the case, the High Court expressed dismay that the State had chosen to negotiate the acquisition of land instead of complying with a binding judicial order that had remained unchallenged since April.

“Accountability is essential, especially when ‘public interest’ is cited as the reason for spending money on a structure erected without permission, and that too on land owned by the Port Authority,” the High Court said.

The court also pulled up the MPA for its sudden change of position. It cautioned that if the port agreed to participate in a post-facto sale of the land after invoking the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction, it would be “equally liable for abusing the process of law”.

The court further noted that, despite several months having passed, the police had not identified or booked the individuals responsible for criminal trespass and for erecting the structure.

Taking a serious view of the administration’s conduct, the High Court directed the Goa Chief Secretary to file an affidavit by October 20, 2026. The affidavit must address several pointed questions and include records of all meetings, discussions and decisions that led to the September 8 letter proposing the purchase of the port land.

The court has also sought an explanation of the factual and procedural basis on which the State granted in-principle approval to purchase the encroached property. It has asked the State to identify the specific statutory provisions, policies or government rules that permit the use of public funds to purchase land in order to regularise unauthorised encroachments.

The court made it clear that no extension of time would be granted to the Chief Secretary for filing the affidavit. The matter is scheduled to be heard on October 21, 2026.