r
Church clarification reveals complex factors behind sale of Vanxim land
The Vanxim island sale is not one of those that can be rswept under the carpet. And the church, which owned the land has had to rclarify twice. Once when reports of the sale began to surface in the rmedia and now after the Industrial Promotion Board gave its nod for rconstruction of an eco-tourism project. In this case public view is not ron the side of the church and the barrage of questions has refused to rdie down. The church has, rightly or wrongly, had to face a lot of flak rfor its decision to sell the island. Two reasons why it finds itself at rthe receiving end are – lack of a comprehensive explanation in the firstr instance and it is being judged post the regional plan agitation for anr act done in good faith in 1999, and that by any measure is unfair. r
On another level the church is also a victim of perception.r In the eyes of the public the land was sold by the church, but in rreality, the tenants were the driving force and party to the sale. rAccording to the clarification provided by the Archdiocese, it was the rtenants who set the ball rolling and eventually forced the hand of the rchurch. Prior to that the church had rejected an offer to sell because rit was less than Rs 10 per sq mts, which was the price set by a team of radvisors to the church.r
In 1995, the Vanxim tenants association petitioned the rmamlatdar for purchase of the encumbered portion of the property radmeasuring over three lakh square meters at a rate of 35 paise per sq rmt. This move was challenged by the church, but it lost and was on the rverge of losing a major portion of the island for a song. The question rhere is why did the tenants association petition the mamlatdar when the rland was not being cultivated due to ingress of saline water? The game rbecame cleared in 1996 when a buyer approached the church with an offer rto buy the entire property of over 5 lakh sq mts and attached an NOC rfrom the tenants association to the application. r
The church was now caught in a peculiar situation. On the rone hand it had an offer for purchase of the entire property and on the rother it stood to lose a major chunk for a pittance to tenants who had ralready entered into an agreement with the buyer. The archdiocese set inr motion the process for sale of land which also included seeking a nod rfrom Rome. When this was completed and agreement of sale was signed rbetween the church and Mahendra Gaunekar in 1999 for a total rconsideration of Rs 37,02,500 for the unencumbered portion of 1.85 lakh rsq meters and Rs 18 lakh for the encumbered area of 3 lakh sq meters. rThe settlement between the tenants and buyer was never made public and rthe money paid to them remains under wraps. In effect the sale was a rtripartite agreement between the church, tenants who were keen in rmonetizing their tenancy, and the buyer and hence it is incorrect to sayr the church alone sold the land. r
The clarification given by the Archdiocese throws light on rthe various factors that eventually led to the sale of land on Vanxim risland, which should silence its critics. More importantly, the rclarification also reveals the process undertaken to arrive at a rdecision and fix a price for the sale of price which should convince rthose who think the sale was conducted under a veil of secrecy. This rtime the church is a lot more convincing.
r
r
r
