Foreign owned property in Goa, (Part One)

Shaktipalooza

The family of Mrs S has held agricultural land in Andhra for quite a long time. I think it must run in the blood as she's always talked about having her own little plot.

We really wanted for her to keep her Indian citizenship but as you know it can be quite a pain in the butt for Indian citizens to live and work around the world. That is our only incentive for getting the US passport.

We're not in a big rush to purchase property so I'm thinking we'll still check out Goa first, and so far I haven't seen any negative situations that would affect a PIO/OIC card holder who has established residency. We'll see...

__________________
Pics from India 2006
Traditional Indian Dance

goangoangone

I also had a 1 year X with an Agreement of Sale. I'm expecting the same treatment when I leave Goa in January for a necessary visit to the UK. I've done the 183 days so it serves no purpose to restrict my visa. I've heard of other people only being offered a 1 year (2x6 months) visa. As you haven't registered a Deed of Sale illegally, sit tight, I'm told there is an amendment to FEMA coming any time now which will clarify the situation. Just hope it's before January.

__________________
GoanGoan......here

praks

This issue about agricultural(ag.) land is primarily because India's is an agricultural economy and there is no tax on agricultural income, even if you earn in millions. People(businessmen, film personalities, etc.) with other incomes would simply buy ag.land and declare theirs to be ag. income to avoid tax. Hence the Govt. decreed that you needed to own ag. land prior to a certain year(I don't know exactly which) to get ag. status. And you need to own ag. land to buy more ag. land. If you sell all your ag. land, you retain your ag. status for a period of three years after which you cannot buy any ag. land. The exception to this, at least until a few years back, was the state of Tamil Nadu where non agriculturists could buy ag. land. Hence people would buy ag. land there and get the status before buying ag. land elsewhere. I don't know if this is still the case at present.

Wen

No British born and bred, no foreign ties, With the Embassy giving us a yearX to start with, they started the ball rolling for us, and then took it away without a backward glance. So we are now back to square one which at this moment in time, seems impossible to get to square 2. I know of a few more people in our position. I would have sooner had a 6 months visa from the beginning, if we had known the consquences.

Nick-H

praks... does that mean that only a farmer can buy farm land?

Theoracleiseeall

I just got a one year (180 day max stay) visa for £50 at the HCI London. As the 182 days does not have to be consecutive then I don't think it will be a problem. Will only be a problem if FEMA is amended insisting on 182 consecutive days. But that cannot be as it would be a fundamental breach of civil liberties to restrict mobility in such a way.
I am beginning to think that they are trying to encourage everyone to go through the detailed 5yr visa application process after which they can offer a 1 yr X visa to persons of non indian origin on satisfaction of intention to stay in India etc.Anyway I am flying out at the weekend and will report any progress I make.

praks

Yes, it does. Exception being, I believe, the state of Tamil Nadu. Several years ago, a cousin wanted to buy a farm on the outskirts of Mumbai but he could not prove his agricultural status and so had to buy it in my name. I held the title to that land for several years until he obtained an agricultural status by inheriting agricultural land in Karnataka from his mother after her demise. Thereafter, I transferred the title to him, but he always had my power of attorney to that land to do whatsoever he wanted with it. This is one of the several ways used by non agriculturists to acquire agricultural land. Buy it in somebody else's name but hold a power of attorney.

Nick-H

...Oh. So we might not be able to buy a Kerala house if it comes with so many coconut palms, so many teak trees, so many spice etc etc etc.... That's a shame

praks

You can check if it is N.A.(non-agricultural) in which case there will be no problem.

AnnieG

*As the 182 days does not have to be consecutive then I don't think it will be a problem. Will only be a problem if FEMA is amended insisting on 182 consecutive days. But that cannot be as it would be a fundamental breach of civil liberties to restrict mobility in such a way.*

When we bought our house 3 years ago, we were told that the 182 days DO have to be consecutive in same tax year. The way they are tightening things up, in Goa at least, I should think it is even more sure to be required.
Breach of civil liberties? Is there a Statute of Civil Liberties in India?

__________________
AnnieG

Live life to the full - you never know what's around the corner.

crvlvr

All these restrictions just means more palms need to be greased. How the heck can anyone verify of you are or not an agriculturist ?

greenchutney

i dont think so praks. a non-farmer can buy agricultural land. however he cannot use it for non-agricultural purpose...unless he circumvents that by creative ways or underhand dealings. anyone [and i am referring to indian citizens in this context] can buy any such available land but land that is deemed for agricultural use must be for agriculture..until the administration denotifies or rezones it or you bribe.

please include a legal reference/ or a link for your statement about this farmer only agricultural land purchase.

how do you anyway define a non-farmer over a farmer? ..~ two cows and a cart make me a farmer?..a goat? sheep?

Nick-H

...I don't think two cows and a cart make you a goat or a sheep !

dzibead

I think the problem is that you (and lots of others) are thinking of this as primarily a land-acquistion issue, when it seems to me that, as a threshold matter, it is really an immigration issue. Unless you qualify as a PIO or an NRI or have some other status that qualifies you to obtain some kind of visa other than a tourist visa, you simply will not be able to buy property (legally) in India as the law currently stands.

And the fixation of some posters here on the 182-day issue is wrong-headed, too. Lots of people have said things like, "Well, even if I can't stay in India for more than 180 days at a stretch on a tourist visa and therefore can't do the 182 days in one pop, if I leave and get another tourist visa and come back and complete the balance of the 182 days within the same tax year, I'll qualify to buy property." No you won't, not if you're a foreign national and have only a tourist visa. Meeting the 182-day requirement does not, in and of itself, give one the right to buy immovable property. You can't buy property unless you meet it, but meeting it is not, in and of itself, enough. It is, in other words, a condition that is "necessary" but not "sufficient." So just managing to park your behind in the country for 182 days within one tax year, even if you do that legally, will not qualify you to buy immovable property as the law currently stands. This is a distinction that many people who have discussed the property acquisition issue on the forums here, on this thread and others, seem to have difficulty grasping, but it is a routine legal concept.

The plain fact, about which so many people seem to be in deep denial, is that India strictly regulates the circumstances under which citizens of other countries can buy immovable property within its borders. Other countries don't necessarily regulate the acquisition of real property within their borders the same way. (For example, you don't have to be a U.S. citizen to buy real property in the United States.) But I get the impression that the distinction between how different countries regulate the acquisition of real property is completely lost on a lot of folks who dream of "retiring to Goa." (I wonder what Her Majesty's Government would think of my fantasy of retiring to the Hebrides? Not much, I'm sure.)

And India, like every other country I'm aware of, also regulates immigration (who gets to enter the country, for how long, and under what circumstances). So why people (especially U.K. citizens, it appears) continue to think they can just "up sticks" and move to India for the duration puzzles me. A U.K. citizen couldn't make a similar move to the United States. So why do people seem to completely disregard the fact that India, like the U.K., like the U.S., like every place I can think of, doesn't let people just waltz in and stay forever, just because they feel like it?

Wen

I have come to the conclusion the people that read these threads make their own minds up. They don't see, they don't here, they don't speak. Unless you have got something positive to say DON'T
We are trying to sort a situation out here, which is causing big problems