A month after Bismarque’s death, IPB clears Vanxim island tourism project, he had bitterly fought against

BASURI DESAI

basuri@herald-goa.com

VANXIM: A little over a month since Goa’s warrior priest Father Bismarque died in circumstances which should surely be probed as a homicidal death, the Government has cleared a project in Vanxim, which he bitterly fought against

The Investment Promotion Board’s (IPB) decision to clear the eco-tourism project at Vanxim island, proposed by Ozone Group, and held up since 2010 following protests from the islanders, raises some serious questions, about the hurry to clear a project against which so many questions have been raised. 

“This was the first issue taken up by Fr Bismarque after leaving his association with the Church. If anyone wants to pay his soul homage then it will be only after taking the Vanxim land grab case to a conclusion. It is because of this issue that Fr Bismarque left the Church,” said Sudeep Dalvi, an activist with Musical Warrior’s, a group Father Bismarque was a part of.

The land on which Ozone Group is planning a five-star eco friendly luxury resort had belonged to the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman and Fr Bismarque had questioned the church for selling the property.  He had even met with Church officials in 2010 on the issue, and unsatisfied with the answers had left the meeting halfway. 

According to Vanxim resident Margarette Sylveira, the Church violated civil as well as canon laws (law that governs the affairs of the church) while selling the property to Mahendra Gaunekar who later sold the property to Ozone Group, a company based in Bangalore.

Almost 5 lakh sq mtrs of the land on Vanxim island were sold to Gaunekar at Rs 20 per sq mtrs in 2006, amounting to about Rs 10 crore, whereas in 2009 the property was sold to Ozone Group by Gaunekar for Rs 30 crore. According to the details, the sale deed was signed between the Church and Gaunekar on February 11, 2006 and on August 11, 2009 Ozone Group and Gaunekar signed a joint agreement.

Sylveira said that the period to file objections over the sale deed has already expired and that is the reason why they could not fight over the deed. She, however, said that two crucial codes of laws have been violated since the agreement was made. 

“The Archbishop of Goa has not taken the tenants into confidence before selling the property which is under tenancy and thus there is a violation of the code of Agricultural Tenancy Act,” Sylveira said.

The Church has, however, clarified the facts and said, “There is no violation of civil and canon law, the sale was done by following the proper procedures as per laws”. 

Fr Valeriano Vaz from Archbishop House said the church has not sold the right of the tenants whereas the tenanted land was sold to the party with deed of transfer of ownership and assignments of rights which uphold the rights of the tenants. 

Fr Vaz explained that only non-tenanted land, measuring 1,85,125 sq mtrs, was sold to Gaunekar though a sale of deed whereas tenanted area of almost 3,00,275 sq mtrs has been sold through transfer of ownership which keeps the rights of the tenants intact.

Fr Vaz further clarified that it is not the entire island which has been sold and the residential area of the island, where people reside, has not been touched. 

As per records with the church, in 1992 the tenants association of Vanxim had given the NOC to sell the land and based on that in the year 1997 the permission to sell the property was taken from the Holy See. In April 1999 the agreement of sale was signed with the Gaunekar by the Church but the sale deed was signed on February 11, 2006.

But on the ground at Vanxim, resentment brews. There are nearly 80 families residing on the island, while a couple of families have left the island and settled abroad or elsewhere. There are about 200 people residing over the Vanxim island.            

“We will fight to get justice and save our island where we and our ancestors have been residing for decades and decades. The property has been sold in violation of Section 13-A of the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1964 and in violation of Canon law,” another resident Seby Rodrigues said.