From: [email protected] To: From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Friends, this is an appeal from a priest . Please understand , what is he going to gain that he is running from pillar to post to save the church land ..Today ,in open space a huge tandoor for barbaeque is being made & BP and BF shamelessly tells it's a disputed property .Are these un-educated jerks who don't know to read the agreement . the structure in the peripherial is sold but land belongs to church . Even ,if BP & BF department have to say this is disputed .What have they been paid to make such a remark . I think , we need to take this up with Hon CM , If he is finished off with all his foreign tours . What is the point in just being honest when you are not acting against the evil . Your such a power & silence is hurting our religious sentiments ione after another . i... What are these so called thekedars who call themselves as great religious people . Is it only for their religion? Has racism & castesim started by bureaucracy & politicians ? Sorry ,I have never written a mail like this .But from past few months we see a lot of discrimination. In Mumbai city ,it's not accepted . Where are the so called activist who stand advocating for politicians..In this constituency of high handedness of two political groups now public land is at stake.The known devils seems to be back stabbing us .One worst than the other .It's time we hit on the roads & exchange the damage caused with all our contacts. Father Milton , This is an absolute case of RAM, RAM JAPNA PARAYA MAAL APNA . Father ,you are hitting against a dead wall & people whose conscious either runs in elevating their own community or rubbing minorities . Bureaucracy seem to have lost all their shame .It was my firm belief that there would be a good governance but it a sure worst time that local citizens are having .Each one is encashing for their own vested interest . Don't be surprised when these come up next with some forceful encroachment ideas eyeing on our building open space . I have told earlier Sharukh's ramp , Salman's case is all political rivalry with opponents ... Of course people had taken them head on BUT some dip & wanted credit and mileage for nothing .. Here , I have learnt church land has been given away for hotel & later we learnt there are chances of bar.in another case , I have learnt where they have granted stalls in masjid premises. Why is this attack on church and masjids I don't know ...Aftab . ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daphne Warapen <[email protected]> Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:19 PM Subject: Fwd: Urgent please note. To: Chief Minister office <[email protected]> Cc: ALM 144 <[email protected]>, Lillian Pais <[email protected]>, Hasim Shaikh <[email protected]>, Surindra Khubchandani <[email protected]>, Charu Kulkarni <[email protected]>, Bharat Nair <[email protected]> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ST Vincent de Paul <[email protected]> Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:46 AM Subject: Urgent please note. To: [email protected], [email protected], Sudhir Naik <[email protected]>, Ashish Shelar <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Alka Kerkar <[email protected]> Cc: Daphne Warapen <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 15th May 2015 Dear Sir’s / Madam / Friends, WE NEED JUSTICE AS THE CHURCH IS BEING VICTIMIZED AND IGNORED AS THE OWNER OF THE PLOT OF LAND AT GARDEN HOMES, CD MARG, KHAR WEST MUMBAI 400052. OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY. The church is the owner of the land known as Garden Homes. We strongly feel that due to some inducement, the BP officials and other authorities are not taking cognizance of our many complaints in connection with all the illegal activities that are going on in the open space surrounding Bungalow 5, Garden Homes Khar west, Mumbai 52 which we categorically state as per documents also, that this land does not belong to the owner or the structure but it belongs to the Church of St. Vincent de Paul Khar who is the Lessor. A regd. deed of 1955 governs the society of St. Vincent de Paul Housing society of which garden homes is a part. Garden homes has 12 bungalows on a plot that till date is not subdivided. Hence the owner of any of the bungalows on this plot of land, cannot stake any claim to the open space or claim that the bungalow has its own boundaries as plot is not subdivided. Owners do not have property cards in their name only a sale deed which stands in their name and entitles them to ownership of the structure only and not the land on which the structure stands nor the surrounding open space. The BP officials have shown a total disregard for the authority and rights of the church as the owner and Lessor of the land ignoring salient clauses in the registered deed which the church authorities have submitted to them. As per the clause, the bungalows are to be only residential and not commercial. It is a mandatory requirement that the NOC of the church for any changes structural/otherwise, in a bungalow is part of a submission to the BP authorities when permission is sought by the owner. Failing to take cognizance of these facts, they have willfully, ignored church complaints, verbal and written and even through pictures, evident that there is some understanding between the owner and the officials with political pressure to keep silent and refrain from action. They way the officials behave to church complaints, they seem to succumb to all kinds of inducement depriving the church of her rights and justice. In a similar situation an aam admi with no political connections or muscle powers would be harassed to submit all kinds of documents failing which the application for a change of user without the owner’s permission would not be granted. Why the step motherly treatment to the church is it because it’s a soft target and a minority institution. Its thought-provoking -under such circumstances would property under lease of the Collector or any other institution be treated in like manner? The owner of bungalow 5, is allowed to carry out all illegal activities in the open space surrounding his structure without an NOC from the church and no authority is stopping him. For the work that he is doing there is no permission even on record at the inspection of file at the Appeal hearing of 13.5.15.Two BP officials claim he has repair permissions for his old drains while pictures below and daily sent to the BP dept. shows new huge drainage chambers being built and no action taken. BP officials say contact the Ward BF dept. they in turn say he has permissions as claimed by him. We learn that some kind of permission paper is being flouted, but the ping pong game and dilly dallying action gives the owner time to complete his illegal activities on the open space to completion and perfection to give the site inspection officer an opportunity who is also in cahoots to give a clean report. If this is not A collusion of the officials who have been induced to keep silent due to political interference or any other, then why is there total silence from the authorities and the local political representatives when the church authorities are crying hoarse to them, as church land is being misused. Church authorities have knocked at all doors of the authorities and there is no action. Site inspection by the officials work with blinders confirming no work is on. Right through the last fortnight or more, daily pics of ongoing illegal activities on the open space were sent to the BP officials Mr. Doshi and Mr. Wakade as also Mr. Kamble the ward office. Inaction and silence is the hallmark of the BP officials while the Ward officer does send his officials to the site who claim to have limited powers since it’s the issue of the BP dept. Failure of the BP dept. to officially inform the ward or update the situation on our complaints is causing them to be helpless. Misrepresentation of the facts given at the site when the BF officials visit on our complaints to the ward officer, is another hindrance to them as they have no way checking the authentication at site due to the red tapism between the two departments. In the interim, the owner of bungalow 5, with the illegal activities in the open space continues making the church a victim and sucker for the game plan of the officials for vested interests. When officials are requested to inform the church if permissions were granted by them for work being done in the open space without NOC from church, there is disparity in the answers received from the BP officials that it clearly shows a collusion between the owner and the officials. One officer claims no permissions are given, another claims he is unsure he needs to check, the third says only repair permission to the old drains were given the owner claims he has permissions when BF officials visit the site. For clarity and put a stop to such diverse answers, Mr. Kamble assured that he would hold a joint meeting with the BP dept. but till date there has been no meeting, no action and work continues as pictured above today. How the BP officials have dared to give the owner permission to do such massive changes on a common open space that does not belong to him or his structure is highly questionable makes one wonder why the BP officials have failed to write and inform the church- the owner of the land of such permissions given by them without evoking the NOC from the church first. Due to the negligence and don’t-care attitude to pics sent daily, part of the new illegal drainage work supposedly done under garb of repair permission maintained also by Mr. Doshi and Satadekar, work in some area of the open space has now been completed and well surfaced to camouflage the hidden new drainage work done which will give impetus to the area BP official who inspects the site, to report that no illegal work was on as with blinders he will not be able to probe the underground work or revert to the pictures sent daily. Even such pics have been sent for the ongoing and completion of the new drainage chambers. Surprisingly, the plan and permissions claimed to be given, were not found on record, in the file inspection of 13.5.15 under RTI raised by Fr. Milton. On Fr. Miltons query, a senior officer claimed since it is not in file it indicates, no permission was given, while another in support states it should be in file but was unable to prove it as the file was sent for Xerox. Surely it will be surreptitiously added in the file and then claimed to have been there, as other papers were also noted to be missing. Many papers are found missing from the file which was brought to the notice of the clerk present. The owner of bungalow 5, has tacit support from the BP officials/hierarchy who are silent and inactive,/political support local and from out of this ward. This appears to undermine the authority of the Church as the rightful owner of the plot known as garden homes. In all possibility the BMC not taking action, to stop/demolish the work done in the open space without NOC from church, is making the activities of bungalow 5, a precedent for others to follow suite causing further chaos and continuous problems for the church in the near future. Inaction and attitude of the BMC officials, towards the church, in this issue, depict a sinister future for the church. It appears to prognosticate an attempt being made by the officials to support future applicants who could be builders and land mafias watching the scenario of this issue in the background. Case in point now in the horizon being bungalow 7 which was clandestinely given change of user because of political connections, without NOC from church or informing the church in about 2012. For reasons after obtaining this, the bungalow has been resold without any preemptive effort to revoke the change of user status which was given clandestinely permitted by the officials without informing the church or submission of the NOC from the church to the then owner. It is a strong belief from the circumstances enumerated and the inaction of the BMC officials and the hierarchy that they are trying to diminish the status of the church as the landowner along with the existing registered deed of 1955, to a non entity in their books for future applicants. Bungalow 5 has been initially given and still maintained in their files, a change of user by the BP official team under Mr. Mahale for a Departmental store and IT office with structural changes within the bungalow structure for the same. This has been maintained recently also in an order of 6.1.15. 2. Licence from the MOH Application for Licence from MOH, on misrepresented facts and false perceptions of the approved plans of this bungalow. A different plan appears to be submitted to the MOH in order to get permissions. This is Misrepresentation at its height and in lieu thereof, immediate action must be initiated and the owner taken to task for such misappropriation of plans and facts. Open space as per the plan submitted to the MOH shows seating arrangement in the open space that belongs to the church without NOC from church, the first floor which has per BP order is an IT office, shows wine cellar and the open terrace in the BP plan shows open grill. No permissions in the file show he has permissions for a Restaurant and Bar yet he has done all the structural changes for such a provision even without getting the permissions as also the BP approval only states Departmental store even as per order of 6.1.15. Thus the BP department is candidly making a fool of the church authorities with full knowledge that the owner has well entered into a sublease with a Hospitality company in Feb.2013 and yet suppressed this fact to the church in May 2014 at a hearing with Mr. Mahale in the chair along with his team of officials, who was fully aware of this. However even in the report order given in May 2014, Mr.Mahale reiterated that the change of user was for a Departmental store while he was in full knowledge that this change of user to a departmental store was only the stepping stone, an excuse and garb for the bigger plan of a Restaurant and Bar as the next step. It is obvious collusion in support of the owner. The outcome and order of Jan.2015 was similar in nature. The officials were in full knowledge that the applicant had applied for a restaurant and Bar and no mention of this was made but to play safe it was mentioned that the order passed by the earlier officer stands in good stead. The officials fail to realize that they are not only victimizing the church authorities but that their complicity with the owner and his plans with possible involvement of the politicians, are also exposed. Distortion of Facts for Parking The owner dares to show in his plans parking space at a nearby temple trust, attached to the Charity Commissioner and which is on Collectors land without NOC from Collector just to get the plans approved. It is also reliably learnt that this just paper work to get the necessary plans approved . An eyewash to get the Traffic dept. approval with political support. It is rumored, that this temple ground was renovated with public funds through political patronage. How a religious place can be used for parking facilities for a Hospitality group is amazing. Hope the traffic dept. officials make a thorough site inspection of the location of the bungalow, the proximity to the neighboring bungalows whose NOC has not yet been obtained, to analyze the difficulties the neighbourhood will face as the main CD Marg will be used for parking. This will now lead to parking woes and traffic chaos if this bungalow 5, be allowed to have a change of User status and create a Restaurant and Bar in this residential area where bungalows are in close proximity with each other. The BP officials have ignored also a Supreme court judgment of 2008 which has laid down the law that for effecting structural changes, the NOC of the owner /Lessor is necessary. The B P officials claim that an NOC from the Society’s secretary was submitted to grant the change of user. The officials gladly accepted that submission as it was in collusion with their requirements but condoned the applicant – bungalow 5, from submitting authentication for ownership of the land and NOC from the landowner and the regd. Deed which is clearly stated in his sale agreement as leased land by the church. The members of the Managing Committee of the same society wrote to the BP officials categorically and strongly objecting that the NOC granted by the Secretary was unilaterally taken without putting it forth to the members of the general body and passing a resolution to that effect. They requested the NOC be revoked and that the same be considered in abitio null and void for the mentioned reasons as the secretary has taken the liberty of this unilateral decision without consulting the members of the Managing Committee or getting their signatures appended for this. BP dept. mindset was firm to support the owner and the secretary so they disregarded the members appeal. A recent hearing in April 2015 with DMC, its past 15 days since the order has been given, that site inspection and reports be given to him by the BMC. Instead of stopping the work or reporting what is the ground scenario, the officials are permitting the owner to carry out all the possible illegal works on the open space with conferring notices or stop work till some decision is taken. Government/BMC Authorities and Friends we wish to bring this to your notice so that you will support justice and ensure that the church- a minority institution, gets justice for her rights as the Lessor and landowner of the plot comprising of garden homes. You will see that we are being disregarded, ignored and victimized. We are not getting any political help from our elected representatives, or official help and understanding of our rights. All we are asking and appealing is that the authorities acknowledge our rights as the owner of the land and the Lessor as per an existing regd. Deed of 1955. Please do not deprive us of our property. With prayers and thanks Fr.Milton Gonsalves. -- Ms Aftab Siddique. 09821887020.
