MAIN ALTAR OF HOLY CROSS CHURCH OF QUEPEM
DISPUTED SITE STAYED IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2000 PRESENTLY USED FOR PARKING VEHICLES OF THE FAITHFUL
IF THE NEW CHURCH IS BUILT AT THIS PLACE WHERE IS THE PARKING FOR THE FUTURE?
NEEDS OF THE PARISHIONERS INCLUDING THE YOUTH (OVER 900 AT PRESENT BETWEEN AGE GROUP OF 18 TO 24) WHERE THE PARISH PRIEST IS TRYING TO IMPOSE A SECOND CHURCH ON THE QUEPEM PARISHIONERS AT A DISTANCE OF 30 METRES FROM THE EXISTING CHURCH
STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE DY. COLLECTOR QUEPEM IN LAND CONVERSION 2000 ON 10TH JULY, 2000.
REVIEW APPLICATION FILED BY THE PARISH PRIEST TO RECALL THE ABOVE ORDER DISMISSED BY THE ADDL. COLLECTOR, SOUTH GOA, MARGAO IN CASE NO. AC-1/SG/COMB/26/2011 ON 15TH MARCH, 2012.
OWNERS NAME DELETED BY FILING APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 WHICH IS FOR CORRECTION OF ERRORS WHEN THE OWNER LEASED THE PROPERTY TO FABRICA DE IGREJA DE QUEPEM VIDE DEED OF PERPETUAL LEASE DATED 16TH JANURAY, 1987 WITH CONDITION NO. D THE LESSEE IS ALLOWED TO MORTGAGE THE PORTION OF THE LAND HEREBY LEASED ALONGWITH STRUCTURE, BUILDING ETC STANDING THEREON TO ANY BANKS OR FINANCING AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT AND RAISING INCOME TO THE CHURCH.
QUESTION 1. CAN A CHURCH BE MORTGAGED FOR RAISING INCOME TO ANOTHER CHURCH ?
CONDITION NO. F: THE LESSEE IS FREE TO OBTAIN CONVERSION OF THE PORTION OF THE LAND FROM THE COLLECTOR OF GOA AND UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING OR ANY OTHER PROJECT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LESSEE
QUESTION 2 : IS CHURCH A COMMERCIAL PROJECT ?
CAN ONE CHURCH BE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER CHURCH ? THE CONVERSION OF LAND IS APPLIED BY FR. MARIO VAZ IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS THE NAME OF FABRICA DE IGREJA DE QUEPEM IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE
APPLICATION FOR REQUEST FOR CONVERSION DATED 4TH MAY 2012.
THE ENTIRE PROPERTY ADMEASURING AN AREA OF 3,689 BEARING SURVEY NO.40/1 TO 40/20 IS ALREADY ACCORDED FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OPF ZONE FROM SETTLEMENT TO COMMERCIAL ZONE IN THE ZONNING PLAN OF QUEPEM VIDE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.4-5-95-RD DATED 9/2/1995 AND CONVEYED TO THE PRESIDENT OF FABRICA DE IGREJA DE QUEPEM VIDE LETTER DATED 2/3/1995 BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER N. PANDALAI WITH COPY TO THE JUNIOR TOWN PLANNER QUEPEM.
THIS LAND ATTRACTS THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN WRIT PETITION NO.71/2000 168/2000 WHICH DIRECTED THE REVENUE OFFICIALS TO STOP ALL THE CONSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE GOING ON AND/OR IN RESPECT OF WHICH PERMISSIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN WHERIN THE SURVEY RECORDS AS ON 2ND NOVEMBER 1990 SHOWED NAME OF THE TENANT(S) OR CO-TENANTS UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS OF THIS COURT. IT IS ALSO HELD IN THAT MATTER "IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CONSENT ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TENANT ON ONE HAND AND HIS ERSTWHILE LANDLORD ON THE OTHER". IN THE SAID MATTER THE NAMES OF THE TENANTS WERE DELETED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANDLORD AS THE LANDLORD WAS NOT MADE A PARTY AT ALL TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DY. COLLECTOR, QUEPEM FOR CORRECTION OF SURVEY RECORDS UNDER SECTION 103 OF LAND REVENUE CODE. AS PER GOVT. DIRECTIVES THE LAW DEPARTMENT SUBMITS THAT SUCH CASES DO NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF CLERICAL ERROR. IF SO DISIRED, THE PARTY IN QUESTION, HAS TO FILE A CIVIL SUIT FOR DELETION OF ENTRIES IN THE RECORDS OF RIGHTS.
IN THE PRESENT CASE STAY ORDER WAS PASSED ON 10TH JULY, 2000 AND REVIEW APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED ON 15TH MARCH, 2012 HENCE THE ABOVE ORDERS ATTAINED FINALITY.
THE TENANTS NAMES FROM THE TENANT COLUMN ARE ALSO DELETED IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 103 OF LAND REVENUE CODE IN A MECHANICAL MANNER MERELY TAKING AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE TENANTS. NO FORMAL INQUIREIS ARE CONDUCTED REGARDING THE ASPECT OF RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, NOR CONDUCTED ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES SO AS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 103 OF LAND REVENUE CODE 1968, BEFORE THE THEN DY. COLLECTOR & SDO, QUEPEM WHEREIN COLLUSION WITH TENANTS.
THIS LAND ATTRACTS THE GOA LAND USE (REGULATION) ACT, 1990 WHICH CAME IN TO FORCE ON 2/11/1990 AND THE DELETIONS OF THE NAMES OF THE TENANTS TOOK PLACE ON 9/11/1992 IN CASE NO.TNC-47/92.
As to what I have heard the Bishop has announced on 16th June that the NEW place for the NEW church will be identified by the parish priest by taking all concerned parties (Which includes parishioners) into account. so wait till new place is identified....
ReplyDeleteI know Fr. Mario personally and I am sure that he will NEVER do anything without informing the parishioners...
I know that Deao has given money to paint the church which the parishioner could not afford for so many years, now he might even donate his land for the construction of NEW CHURCH..... Praise the Lord!
All respects to you Mr. Francisco!
ReplyDeleteA per the Bishop's announcement the Place for New church is not yet identified, Right? then How come Fr. Mario applied for Conversion of the parking place in the month of May stating the conversion is for "Construction of Church"?
It proves that Fr. Mario is not even obeying the orders of Bishop, and has identified the place for the church on his own... Fr. Mario should consider of fulfilling his dreams, as per his wish and personal will in his own property not in some church where he has to preach the word of God, rather then becoming a dictator.
Secondly, you are right that parishioners couldnot afford to paint the church for more then a decade, then where the mony will come from to construct a new church?
Lastly, I agree that Fr. Mario is a Good person but the company he is with is ruining is reputation, wish he realizes that before it's too late.
I have one simple question to all those who are for a new church at the plot which parishioners are using for parking at present.
ReplyDeleteQ. It's a known fact that Fr. Mario had conducted a Videography of the survey which he conducted with the parishioners by going in every ward. Fr. Mario had told time again that the recordings were sent to the Bishop for his referance, BUT on 11th June the Fr. Loyala(Bishop's secretary and Fr. Manuel secretary of Fabrica told the parishioners that they have no idea about any Videography submitted by Fr. Mario nor they have any Videographic contents in the file which was submitted by Fr. Mario.
NOW the questions which needs the answer are: Did Fr. Mario submit the videography to Bishop? if YES then, why Fr. Loyala is telling lies? If not then, where is it?
Who is telling LIES? Fr. Loyala? Fr. Manuel? or Fr. Mario Vaz? and WHY?
Dear Bailan Bab,
DeleteFirst of all let me congratulate you for showing keen interest regarding the controversy surrounding the Quepem Church. I know that like you there will be several parishioners who are interested for a solution and consecrate a bigger House of God at Quepem due to the growing needs of the faithful on its important days of worship especially in the Holy Week and may also have doubt why some parishioners are trying to be spoil sport for this.. This group does not mind construction of 2 or even 3 NEW CHURCHES at Quepem, however they are objecting the NEW CHURCH at the disputed site bearing survey no.40/1 to 40/20 and has valid reasons for that. .
Let me shed some light to clarify your doubts:
I was personally present for the Confirmation mass held in the Holy Cross Church Quepem on 16th June, 2012 which was concelebrated by His Grace Archbishop Felipe Neri Ferrao and let me reproduce his “ Margdarshan.
“Zannaranchem mon ghetlea uprant amkam gomun ailam kim itiyasik karanak lagon hi tumchi adli Igorj moddunk zainam, nuim mhunn hea Igorejechea imarotik koslech bodlop korunk zaina” . “ Quepemchi Novi Igorj novea zagear bandchi, Igorj khuim bandchi ti Ganvcho Padvigar tharaitolo soglea lagu zatoleachem mot ghetlea uprant”
Although the Core of the announcement says that the place to build the new church was to be identified taking all the interested bodies including the Parishioners into confidence, the Parish Priest had already gone ahead well before the Announcement and had already submitted an application for conversion before the Collector South on 4th May, 2012 for CONSTRUCTION OF CHURCH at survey no.40/1 to 20 for conversion of an area of 1750 sq.mts... We have said it time and again that till date, the Parish Priest has not taken any Parishioner into confidence to identify the place or other matters of the new church, neither the PPC nor the Confraria, which are the main bodies of the church. It looks like these bodies are existing only for the sake of existence, as all the decisions are taken by the Parish Priest along with the vested interest thereby misguiding the religious Parishioners with the sole intention of imposing another Church on the parishioners of Quepem on the disputed site which is stayed by the Order of the Dy. Collector, Quepem dated 10th July, 2000 and the Review Application filed before the Addl. Collector, South was dismissed on 15th March, 2012 and no appeal is filed till date.
What we understand from the announcement is that the New Church should be at a New Place in Quepem due to the opinion given by the “Zannar”. However three days after the said announcement at Quepem, a press report appeared on the front page of Daily “Herald” dated 19th June, 2012, states that “BOM JESUS BASILICA TO GET HERITAGE FACELIFT”, which contradicts with the “Zannaranchem Mon” as referred in the above referred announcement. If the historic UNESCO World heritage monument (Basilica of Bom Jesus) can be touched and altar stones replaced, the question arises as to who are the “Extraordinary Zannar” who are of the staunch opinion that Holy Cross Church, Quepem cannot be touched? If at all there is any opinion why the same is not shown to the Parishioners even after repeated requests to Fr. Vaz, Fr. Santana Faleiro (letter dated 1st October, 2011), The Vicar Geral Fr. Remedious (letter dated 11th Novermber,2011) and the Archbishop himself. Why there is no transparency ?
continued.
contn....
DeleteAs per the letter dated 1.10.2010 written by Fr. Santana Faleiro to Fr. Mario Vaz it says that a new Church building is to be planned, as per the present and future needs of the parish having in mind the whole precinct which comprises the old Church ,Parish house and the Palacio do Deao. Special care is to be taken, while planning, to have a well planned Church square with sufficient parking lot for the vehicles of the faithful. If you count this letter itself construction of Second Church at the adjacent plot will destroy the visibility of the existing Church and the Palacio do Deao and there will be an acute shortage for parking the vehicles of the faithful considering the resent situation, It’s time to consider the need of parking space for the vehicles of the present youth in the coming years which is increasing day by day.
The Authorities owe us an answer as what they intend to do with the existing Church which they cannot maintain at present. Our Church is painted after 22 years by the Church authorities OR do they want to abandon it for the vagaries of nature like the way it happened at Murida Cuncolim for the Infant Jesus Chapel where the cross has been deconsecrated and the old structure is at present in dire straits in need of attention.
If a new Church is built at the adjacent place Our Church of Piedade Saibin Maim will lose its title officially and will be left to die which the Parishioners being the diehard devotees of Piedade Saibin Maim will never allow to happen in Quepem whose faith and love for the above church is as a rock solid as the Church`s foundation and pillars. We are of the firm belief that Our Piedade Saibin Maim has left a miraculous imprint in the very place where it is standing now.
I would like to clarify that the aspiration of all the Parishioners of Quepemcars is to have a bigger Church at the existing place itself and that they strongly object the second Church in survey no.40/1 to 20 which is nothing but a white elephant which will be a sheer waste of land and the monies belonging to the Parishioners. If the stay at this place is vacated then we can consider to construct a community Hall (which could raise income to the church) , a well-stocked reading room and recreational wing for the youth and the young, and other facilities which will go a long way to fulfill the social and other needs of the Quepemcars.
Regarding your doubts it is amply clear that it looks like the Authorities has lost their senses as they are talking non sense and every one is involved in it. First Fr. Loyala told the Parishioners to bring clarification from the Director of Archeology and when it was brought under RTI that Quepem Church is not a protected monument and that the decision to demolish or extend the existing Church is to be taken by the concerned Parishioners with the permisssion of the concerned authorities, later he told that there is objection from Indian Heritage and to get a clearance from Indian Heritage and when we obtained the clearance from Indian Heritage that " they have no objection for extending the existing Church by retaining the facade and the main altar unaltered Fr. Loyala started showing signs of loosing his grounds and this could be the reason for his flip flop opinion that the Experts may have given their opinion orally. Let the known person make his own decision who is telling the lies.
Till date the Church Authorities only succeeded in creating a divide and rift among the Parishioners be it at Shiroda, Paroda, Nuvem and other places.
We are very peace loving Parishioners, but we will continue to oppose and protest the manner in which a second church is imposed upon us at survey no.40/1 to 20 which has already created a rift among the religious Parishioners of Quepem Church.
I sincerely hope that the above clarification will solve your doubts.
I've read the contents of VOICE OF QUEPEM, which is a fact finding mission, as I also knew about it but did not take it seriously. Now the Quepem parishners can understand the true facts regarding the const. of new CHURCH at Quepem. In this process I failed to understand how Fr. Mario could sign such a misguiding documents and submit to the public authority, where the services of a public servant is at stake. I personally had an impresion that he is a good administrator and put the things in order with his sole wisdom. What would have been the state of that Officer for recomending the land conversion report, which is subsequently withdrawn. If the VOICE of QUEPEM has reported wrongly I would appreciate that the Parishners and the church authorities respond to the same.
DeleteWHO IS Fr. MARIO ??? strange!! a god's word preacher has been assign to deliever god's good word to people or to do the Videography of Quepem church ???
DeleteMoreover Fr. mario should do only what he has assinged to do ! & not To do the Job of GORJAVOI !!! OF QUEPEM.
Qatar Quepemkar
whoever you are Qatar Quepemkar, you are infact katat Quepemkar, useless fellow. first become a priest and then talk
Delete