Civil law fraud
What the Archbishop of Goa Felipe Neri Ferrao held all along namely that his Sale of Vanxim island is legally correct but morally wrong(even though Archbishop is supposed to uphold morals he admits his own moral failures) has found to be a bluff. Evidence surfaced from section 13A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 points towards Vanxim sale being not only morally wrong but also legally wrong. This section was inserted in the law by the Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1966. Section 13A has seven clauses and we reproduce it here in public interest so that Goa Archbishop is asked by CAG members, AICU members, parishioners from various parishes in the world, Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI), Federation of Asian Bishops (FABC) and the Vatican city officials headed by Pope Francis. Fr.Francisco Caldeira too has given ill conceived, ill informed public statements in a bid to confuse public.
Vanxim paddy fields belonged legally to Santa Monica convent. Archbishop Ferrao effected the sale deed through then Attorney of Patriarch of East indies Fr. Arlino de Mello on February 11, 2006. Sale deed is recorded at sub-registrar’s office, located in Panjim.
It is worth noting that both parties: sellers - the Archbishop Ferrao as well as the buyer Mahendra Gaunekar – are bamons and this is not by co-incidence. This is where the seeds of injustice are sown by Archbishop Neri and now sought to be covered up through marathon run for Peace and Unity. It is here that Archbishop stood united for Bamons and caused body blow to the Peace of munlivasi people who are Catholics and who are not.
The paddy fields are tenanted land with nearly 60 tenants on it. We have already published as to how this sale deed has violated Canon Law but will do it here again to refresh memory. Now in this posting we are please to share text of section 13A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 to expose how Goa Archbishop has indulged in legal violations besides self admitted moral wrongs which should have prompted him to exit but has not allowed him to do so.
Section 13A: Tenant’s right of first purchase: - (1) When a landlord intends to sell any land cultivated by a tenant he shall give notice of his intention to the tenant in the prescribed manner and shall specify the price at which the sale is to take place and call upon him to state within 90 days of receipt of the notice whether he is willing to buy the land at the price specified.
(2) The tenant may within 90 days of receipt of the notice signify in the prescribed manner his readiness to purchase the land at the price specified in the notice and there upon a contract to purchase the land at the said price shall be deemed to have been concluded between the landlord and the tenant.
(3) If the tenant is willing to purchase the land but contends that the price specified in the notice is excessive he may apply to the Collector in prescribed manner within 30 days of receipt of notice under sub-section (1) for determining the price whereupon the Collector shall determine the same in prescribed manner in accordance with the principles laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the price so determined by the Collector shall be deemed to be the price specific in the notice under sub-section (1). But the tenant shall in such an event exercise the option conferred by sub-section (2) within 60 days the receipt of notice of the price fixed by the Collector.
(4) If the tenant fails within the period specified in sub-section (1) to signify his acceptance as provided in sub-section (2), the landlord shall be free to sell the land in question to any person at a price not lower than that set out in the notice or the price determined by the Collector under sub-section (3) as the case may be.
(5) Any sale by a landlord to a person other than a tenant without giving the notice required by sub-section (1), or before the expiry of the period of the said notice or at price lower than, that set out in the notice or the price determined by the Collector under sub-section (3) as t he case may be, shall be void.
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, tenant who fails to avail himself of the offer of first purchase made under sub-section (1) shall not, by reason thereof, cease to be a tenant, but shall continue as tenant under the new owner on the same terms and conditions as before.
(7) Government may, subject to due appropriation being made in this behalf, grant on such terms as may be prescribed, a loan to a tenant for the purchase of any land in respect of which a notice ha been served upon him under sub-section (1).
While the above is a complete section 13A that has been violated by Goa Archbishop lets now take closer look at clauses (1) and (5) that bear brazen violations. Santa Monica was legally bound to serve the notice of sale stating the price. Lets look at the Clause (1) again here:
“(1) When a landlord intends to sell any land cultivated by a tenant he shall give notice of his intention to the tenant in the prescribed manner and shall specify the price at which the sale is to take place and call upon him to state within 90 days of receipt of the notice whether he is willing to buy the land at the price specified.”
This clause was violated as Archbishop sold Vanxim island in secrecy.
Then clause 5 of this section invalidates such sales. It states “(5) Any sale by a landlord to a person other than a tenant without giving the notice required by sub-section (1), or before the expiry of the period of the said notice or at price lower than, that set out in the notice or the price determined by the Collector under sub-section (3) as the case may be, shall be void.”
Now because Archbishop sold Vanxim in secrecy it is a legal fraud. He sold Vanxim and kept it without informing any one for three years so that time bar for challenge in the court of law expires. This led to around 60 cases in mamlatdar’s court, Deputy Collector’s Court, Administrative Tribunal, Sessions Court, High Court resulting in people being forced to spend on lawyers.
Goa Archbishop has violated this clause by selling Vanxim paddy fields amounting to 4,85,275 square meters. On record Archbishop has received total of Rs. 55,04,150/-. Records of sale claims land sold at the rate of Rs.20/- per square meter. The actual amount at this rate works out to be Rs. 97,05,500/-. In addition there are huge financial underhand transactions in this deal between Bamons leading to eviction of the local people living on island for past many centuries.
Mahendra Gaunekar then sold this land to corporate – Ozone group from Chennai for Rs. 30 crores on record. Ozone group plans to set up Golf course, Casinos, Gambling, Spa, Private marina, Luxury villas etc after evicting all the local residents. Then the name of Vanxim island is proposed to be changed into Ozone island. Prostitution is synonymous with golf as in Philippines and Thailand. It is called ‘Sex tourism’. The entire village is objecting and by no means will allow Ozone project to materialize.
Canon Law fraud
In addition to violation of civil law relating to tenancy Archbishop has also violated Canon Law. Vita consecrata 82 urges members of institutes of consecrated life “to denounce the injustices committed against so many sons and daughters of God and commit themselves to the promotion of justice.” Who will denounce Archbishop bamon Felipe Neri Ferrao when he himself is involved in such as massive scandal of Vanxim sale?
Today’s whisper will grow into roar of tomorrow. It is just a matter of time that Bamon raj is torn asunder and mulnivasis attain their liberation from bamon tyranny. Now is the time for mulnivasi catholic priests to rise up against all the Bamani evils taking place all over Goa and rest of India.
Now lets put Vanxim sale to the test of provisions of Canon Law that governs the affairs of the Church. According to Canon law 1291 “the permission of the authority competent according to the norm of law is required for the valid alienation of goods which constitute by legitimate designation the stable patrimony of a public juridic person and whose value exceeds the sum defined by law.”
Alienation means transfer of ownership through any of the three means sale, gift, or exchange. In case of Vanxim sale as a method that is used to transfer ownership to Bamon Mahendra Gaunekar by Archbishop Bamon Felipe Felipe Neri Ferrao. He has not declared in public as to whose permission has he taken before effecting sale deed in February 2006 neither has he disclosed the value of the sold land in Vanxim. Was it 20 rupees or 6 rupees per square meter?
Next canon 1292 dealing with alienation has four parts: “(1) Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 638 (3), when the value of the goods whose alienation is proposed falls within the minimum and maximum amounts to be defined by the conference of bishops for its own region, the competent authority is determined by the statutes of juridic persons if they are not subject to the diocesan bishop; otherwise, the competent authority is the diocesan bishop with the consent of the financial council, the college of consultors, and those concerned. The diocesan bishop himself also needs their consent to alienate the goods of the diocese.
(2) The permission of the Holy See is also required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum amount, goods given to the Church by vow, or goods precious for artistic or historical reasons.
(3) If the assets to be alienated is divisible, the parts already alienated must be mentioned when seeking permission for the alienation; otherwise the permission is invalid.
(4) Those who by advice or consent must take part in alienating goods are not to offer advice or consent unless they have first been thoroughly informed both of the economic state of the juridic person whose goods are proposed for alienation and of previous alienations.”
It is crystal clear from the Canon Law 1924 (4) that the prior advice, thorough information and consent of Vanxim people were necessary before affecting the sale deed of Vanxim land in February 2006. Archbishop is guilty of violating Canon law in this case.
Why permission from Holy See not shared with Vanxim People? Which Pope sanctioned Vanxim sale? Pope John Paul II who is now a saint? Pope Benedict XVI who is a Pope emeritus now or is it the current Pope Francis who is believed to be rooting out corruption in Church?
Another fact comes to the fore that the crucial and most vital decision of minimum and maximum amount of land to be sold is taken by Catholic Bishop’s Conference of India (CBCI). What are the limits set? Who has this information? Why Archbishop has not made this information public?
Who are members of financial council and college of consultors that gave consent to Archbishop to sell Vanxim land? Why as per Canon 1292 (1) Vanxim people were not consulted before the sale deed even though their rights are to be affected in the circumstances after this sale deed. This violation of Canon law points towards direct involvement of Archbishop Felipe Neri Ferrao in Bamani conspiracy against mulnivasis.
“Canon 1293 (1) The alienation of goods whose value exceeds the defined minimum amount also requires the following:
1. A just cause, such as urgent necessity, evident advantage, piety, charity, or some other grave pastoral reason;
2. A written appraisal by experts of the asset to be alienated.
(2) Other precautions prescribed by legitimate authority are also to be observed to avoid harm to the church.
Canon 1294 (1) An asset ordinarily must not be alienated for a price less than that indicated in the appraisal.
(2) The money received from the alienation is either to be invested carefully for the advantage of the Church or to be expended prudently according to the purposes of alienation.”
What was a just cause that warranted sale of Vanxim? What was the urgent necessity that led to sale of Vanxim? What was the evident advantage that prompted sale of Vanxim? What was the consideration of piety that led to selling of Vanxim? What was charity that prompted sale of Vanxim? What was the other grave pastoral reason that led to sale of Vanxim? The official statement by Fr. Fransisco Caldeira reasons that the Vanxim was sold to provide for maintenance of Santa Monica convent does not fit the criteria of canon law 1293. It is not a just cause because sale of Vanxim caused injustice on people of Vanxim. There was no evident advantage, not even financial advantage when it was sold for Rs.6/- to Rs. 20/- per square meters when market rate at that time was 1000 times more. So Vanxim was sold with evident disadvantage to the diocese.
Who were the experts of Bishop that gave written appraisal advocating sale of Vanxim? How many experts were appointed on this task? Why their reports are not made public? Why their names are not made public? Why Archbishop is operating in secrecy about Vanxim on violations of Canon law? Did these experts write a grossly underestimated report?
What was the amount arrived rent at in appraisal report of experts? When these written reports of experts are going to be made public?
As per canon 1294 (1) land cannot be ordinarily sold. It is the duty of the Church to make sure that it is not going to be used for unethical purposes such as golf tourism, casinos, sex tourism, etc. In Vanxim case entire process of sale itself is case of fraudulency in total violation of canon law.
Vanxim sale of church land by Archbishop bamon Felipe Neri Ferrao to another Bamon Mahendra Gaunekar is completely unethical, marred with corruption and part of wider bamani conspiracy to make mulnivasi people of Goa captives of bamon raj. There is no ground left to be turned in where puss of corruption and Bamanism does not flow smoothly in the case of Vanxim sale. Considering Vanxim experience none of other projects undertaken by Archbishop Bamon Felipe Neri Ferrao cannot be ruled out for being done in the interest of Bamanism and against the interest of mulnivasis.
Biblical call to drive out evil doers.
Now let us deal with the issue of what is to be done with this Archbishop Bamon Felipe Neri Ferrao in Goa. The solution lies in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 “In my last letter I instructed you not to associate with immoral people. I did not mean, of course, those who do not belong to the Church and who are immoral, greedy, embezzlers or worshippers of idols. Otherwise you would have to leave this world. What I really meant was to avoid and not to mingle with those who, calling themselves brothers, become immoral, greedy, or idolators, gossipers, drunkards, or embezzlers. In which case you should not even eat with them. It is no concern of mine to judge outsiders. But you, are you not to judge those who are inside? Let God judge those outside, but as for you, drive out the evil-doer from among you.”
Archbishop Bamon Felipe Neri Ferrao has not only violated Canon Law but also civil law by selling Vanxim without giving thorough information prior to the sale deed, and seeking their advice and consent for sale but sold this island with underestimated written appraisals that he has kept secret till date. Vanxim island was sold for a song and there is not an iota of doubt in the air that Archbishop is involved in massive embezzlement and black money. Otherwise Vanxim sale at the rate of Rs.6/- to Rs.20/- is unexplained. All these acts of Archbishop are evil acts and through his hard work he has qualified himself as evil-doer. Now it is for all the mulnivasi Christians in Goa and other parts of India to reward him as per 1corinthians 5:9-13; do not mingle with him, do not eat with him and drive him away.
Post a Comment