27 Apr 2017  |   12:43am IST

Serula land allotment illegal, says petitioner

Claims that the State govt-appointed inquiry officer Kotwale in his deposition before the North Goa Principal District and Session Judge judge said that the land allotment in the case was not in accordance with the code of Comunidades

Team Herald

PANJIM: The petitioner in the Serula Communidade land grab case has claimed that the State government-appointed inquiry officer has said that the land allotment in the said case was not in accordance with the code of Communidades. 

Quoting the inquiry officer former Joint Secretary Home Srinet Kotwale deposition before the North Goa Principal District and Session Judge Irshad Agha, petitioner Adv Aires Rodrigues said that the allotment of the 599 sq mts of Serula Comunidade land on Chogm Road at Porvorim to former Tourism Minister Dilip Parulekar was not in accordance with the Code of Comunidades.

Kotwale has appointed as inquiry officer by the Government to probe various irregularities pertaining to the Serula Comunidade  illegal land grab case, wherein Former tourism Minister is been booked for illegalities. 

The matter has been now kept for argument on May 8.  

Rodrigues said that Kotwale in its deposition has said that Comunidade land can be granted only by auction except to the exceptions provided under Article 334-A of the Code. He said that Parulekar does not fall within the exceptions provided under Article 334-A and that grant of land without auction and following the due process of law would be an act of nepotism and in violation of the Code of Comunidade.

Further stating that when the land was granted in 2012, Parulekar was a minister and the then Administrator of Bardez Communidade Irene Sequeira was his Officer on Special duty, Kotwale also told the court that the Bombay High Court at Goa had set aside the 2012 order of the Administrative Tribunal regularising the 599 sq mtrs.  

The district court had in December last year rejected the plea of the Crime Branch to close the case against Parulekar and had noted that it was not satisfied with the investigation conducted under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.  

IDhar UDHAR

Iddhar Udhar