A  Bill  to  provide  for  abolition  of  mulgeni  and  conferring  ownership  on  mulagenidars  and  volamulagenidars    and  other  matters  connected  therewith  or  incidental  thereto;


Whereas  some  types  of  mulgeni  leases  in  respect  of  non-agricultural  lands  mainly    house  sites  are  prevailing  in  Dakshina  Kannada  and  Udupi  districts;


Whereas,  for  various  reasons  the mulgar’s  or  inter  nediary’s  right  to  recover  possession  being  a   remote  possibility,  their  only  right  is  to  receive  annual  rent;


Whereas  mulgenidars  and  volamulgenidars  have  invested  huge  amounts  by  putting  up  structures,  either  residential  or  commercial  and  they  are  unable  to  enjoy  the  holding  to  its  full  extent,  on  account  of  reluctance  of  mulgar  or  intermediary  to  give  consent  for  putting  up  structures  or  alienation  of  interest  of  mulgenidars and  volamulgenidars;


Whereas  the  prevailing  system  of  mulgeni  lease  is  neither   advantageous   to  mulgenidars  and  volamulgenidars    nor  really  beneficial  to  mulgars  or  intermediary,  but  on  the  other  hand  differences  between   the  two  had  given  rise to   speculative  transactions  by  unscrupulous    persons  and  spate  of  litigation  thereby  causing   further  difficulty  to  mulgenidars  and   volamulgenidars  .


Whereas  abolition  of  mulgeni  and  conferring – ownership  on  mulgenidars  and  volamulagendiars  on  their  paying  certain  amount  to  mulgars  or  intermediary  in  respect  of  extinguishments  of  their  rights  and   interest  in  the   holdings  will  put  an  end  to  multiplicity   of  litigation  and  eliminate    scope  for  vested   interests  to  indulge  in  speculative  transactions  and  thus   benefit  muglars  and  volamulgenidars;


And  whereas  for  the  purposes  hereinbefore    stated,  it  is  expedient   in  the  public  interest  to  provide  for  abolition  of  mulgeni  and  conferring  ownership   on  mulgenidars  and  volamulgeidars  and  for  matters  connected  therewith  or  incidental  thereto.


Be  it  enacted  by  the  Karnataka  State  Legislature  in  the  sixty  first   year  of  the  Republic  of  India  as  follows:

                1.Short  title,  extent,  commencement  and  application:-(1) This  Act   may  be    called,  the  Karnataka  Mulgeni  Abolition  and  Conferment    of   Ownership  on  Mulageni  Tenants  A ct,  2010

                (2) It shall extend to the Districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi. The State Government may, by notification, extend to such other parts of the State, as may be specified therein.

                3) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint.

                4) It shall apply to all mulageni lease subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act.

2. Definitions: in this Act, unless the context other require:-


a)      “Competent Authority” means the Tahsildar of the “Taluk in which holdings or such other officers as may be notified by the State Government.

b)      “Holding” means land with or without building which is the subject matter of a mulageni lease.

c)       “Intermediary” means a mulgenidar who has sub-let the holding to a volamulgenidar and who is entitled to receive rent from him but not in possession of such holding.

d)      “Mulgar” means a lessor of holding who is entitled to receive rent;

e)      “Mulagenidar: means a mulageni tenant in possession of the holding liable to pay mulageni rent but does not include an intermediary.

f)       “Mulageni lease: means a permanent lease or lease in perpetuity and includes a submulageni lease from muilagenidar to volamulagenidar.

g)      “Mulageni rent” means rent fixed under the mulageni lease either in cash or kind or rendering service or by two or more of all these means;

h)      “volamulagenidar” mean a sub-mulageni tenant who has taken the holding on submulageni from a mulagenidar and who is in possession of such holding and liable to pay rent to such mulgenidar.

3. Conferment of ownership right on Mulagenider and Volamulagenidar:-

1. On the date of commencement of the Act, the Mulageni and Volamulageni is abolished. No person shall create mulageni or volamulageni from the date of commencement of this Act.

2. Every mulagenidar or volamulagenidar who, on the date of commencement of this Act is in possession and enjoyment of the holding shall be entitled to be conferred wit ownership of he holding, on this fulfilling the conditions specified in the succeeding sections and on conferring such ownership right on him, all rights and interest of mulagar and intermediary in such holding shall stand extinguished.

                Provide that nothing in this section shall affect any mortgage or charge in respect of such holding.


4. Conditions for eligibility of conferment of ownership:- a mulgenidar of volamulagenidar shall be eligible for conferment of ownership right on him under this Act if he pays to the mulgar or intermediary or both an account equal to twenty times the annual mulgeni rent payable or rupees one thousand; whichever is more, as may be determined by the Competent Authority under Section 7.

                Provided that premium, if any, paid by the mulgenidar or volamulgenudar shall not be deducted in the payable under this section.

5. Mulgenidars and Volamulagenidars to file applications:-

                1. Every mulagenidars or Volamulagenidars entitled for conferment of ownership rights under section 3 and who desires to acquire ownership right over the holding held by him shall make an application in such form, containing such particulars, accompanied by such documents and within such times as may be prescribed.

                2. Separate application shall be made under sub-section (1) in respect of holdings situated in different village or wards and in respect of different mulgars or intermediary

                3. Names of Mulgars and intermediaries and all other persons who, in the knowledge of the mulgenidar of volamulgenidar, have interest in the holding concerned, shall be impleaded in the application as parties with full and correct postal addresses.

                4. Any mulagenidar or volamulgenidar whose application filed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961( Karnataka Act 10 of 1962) praying for conferment of occupancy rights has been rejected by the land Tribunal for the reason that, the land in question is not an agricultural land, shall also  be eligible to make applications under this section.

6. Enquiry before the Competent Authority: (1) On receipt of the application under section 5, the Competent  Authority  shall  issue  individual  notice  to  all  the  persons  mentioned  in  the  application  and  also  to  such  others  persons  as  may  appear  to  be  interested  in  the  holding,  intimating  them  the  date  and  time  fixed  for  their  appearance and  calling  upon  them  to  file  their  objections,  if  any,  and  produce  relevant  evidence  in  support  of  their  objections.

(2) The   form  of  notice,  the  manner  of  serving  the  notice  and  all  other  matters  connected  therewith  shall  be  such  as  maybe  prescribed.  The  Competent  Authority  may  for  valid  and  sufficient  reasons  permit  applicant  to  amend  the  application.

(3) On  the   date  fixed  for  appearance,  if  the  person  fails  to  appear  before  the  Competent  Authority  even  after  due  service  of  notice  or  fails  to  file  objections  if  any,  the  Competent  Authority  may, after  making  such   verification  as it deems proper , pass order either conferring ownership or rejecting the application. 

(4)Where  an  objection  is  filed  disputing  the  validity  of  the  applicant’s  claim  or  setting  up  a  rival  claim,  the   Competent  Authority   shall,  after  holding  such  enquiry  as  it  deems fit  pass  order  either  conferring  the  ownership  or  rejecting  the  application.

(5) The  Competent  Authority  may,  on  the  application  of  any  of  the  parties,  for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing, correct  any  clerical  or  arithmetical  mistakes  in  any  order  passed  by  it.

(6) The  Competent  Authority  may,  on  its  own  or  on  the  application   of  any  of  the  parties,  for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing,  correct  the  extent    of  holding  in any  order,  passed  by  it  after  causing  actual  measurement  and  after  giving    opportunity  of  being  heard  to  the  concerned  parties.

7. Determination  of  the  amount  payable  to  mulgar  and  intermediary:- After  passing  the  order  under  section  6,  the  Competent  Authority  shall,  having  regards  to  the  provisions  of  section  4  determine  the  amount  payable  to the  mulgar  and  intermediary   in  the  holding   and  prepare  a  statement  showing  apportionment  of  the  amount  so  determined  among  the  persons  entitled  to  it  in  accordance  with  the  value  of  their  respective  rights  and  interest  in  the  holding  .  The statement shall    contain such other particulars   as may be prescribed.

8. Issue  of  certificate  of  ownership:- (1) The  mulgenidar  or  volamulgenidar  on  whom  the  Competent  Authority  has  conferred  ownership  of  the  holding  shall,  within  thirty  days  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  order  determining  the  amount  under  section  7,  deposit  the  amount  before  the  Competent  Authority.     

(2) The  Competent  Authority  shall,  after  the  amount  is  deposited  by  the  mulgenidars or  volamulgenidar    issue  a  certificate  that  ownership  has  been  conferred  on  the  mulgenidar  or     volamulgenidar,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  such  certificate  shall  be  conclusive   evidence  of  conferring  such  ownership.

(3) The  Competent  Authority  shall  forward   a  copy  of  the  certificate  issued  under  sub-section  (2) to  the  concerned  sub-registrar  who  shall,  notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the  Registration  Act,  1908 (Central  Act  6  of  1908)  or  any  other  law,  register  the  same.

9. Appeal:- (1) Any  person  arrived  by the  order  of  the  Competent  Authority  under  section  6  may, within  a  period  of  three  months  from  the  date  of  the  order  of  the  Competent  Authority  appeal  to  the Assistant  Commissioner    of  the  revenue  Sub-Division  Concerned.

(2) The  Assistant  Commissioner  may, after  giving  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  to  both  the  parties  pass  order  on  such  appeal,  which  shall  be  final.

10. Bar  of  Jurisdiction:- Except  as  other  provided  in  this  Act,  no  Civil  Court  shall  have  jurisdiction  to  settle, decide  or  deal  with  any  question  which  is  by  or  under  this  Act  is  required  to  be  settled,  decided  or  dealt  with  by  the  Competent  Authority   or  the  Assistant  Commissioner.

11. Removal  of  difficulties:- If  any  difficulty  arises  in  giving  effect  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  the  State  Government    may  by  order    not  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  remove  the  difficulties.

12. Power  to  make  rules:- (1) The  state  Government may, by  notification,  after  previous  publication,  make  rules  to  carry  out  any  or  all  the  purposes  of  this  Act.

(2) Every  rule  made  under  this  Act  shall  be  laid  down  as  soon  as  may  be  before  each  House  of  the  State  Legislature  while  it  is  in  session  for  a  total  period  of  thirty  days  which  may  be  comprised  in one  session or  in  two  or  more  successive  sessions  and  if  before  the  expiry  of  the  session,  in  which  it  is  so  laid  or  the  sessions  immediately  following  both  the  House  agree  in  making  any  modification  in    the  rule  or  both  the  Houses  agree  that  the  rule  shall  not  be made,  the  rule shall  thereafter  have  effect   in  such  modification  form  or  be  of  no  effect,  as  the  case  may  be,  so  however,  that  any  such  modification or  annulment  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  the  validity  of  anything  previously  done  under  that  rule.






Is  possible  if  we  fight  unitedly

Govt  is  actively  thinking  of  abolition  of  the  curse  of  Mulgeni / Chalgeni  holdings  and  hand  over  Varga  rights  to  the  occupiers  because  the  said  arrangement  is  against  the  Human  Rights  of  an  Indian  Citizen.


It  Violates

  • Ø His  right  to  life  with  dignity
  • Ø His  right  to  a  decent  shelter
  • Ø His  right  to  own  minimum  land  which  he  has  developed  and  looked  after  with  care  for  15  to  20  generations
  • Ø His  right  to  equality  and  social  justice
  • Ø His  right  to   a  dignified  living 
  • Ø His  right  to  development  and  progress

Winning a great battle for equal rights for Christian women

Winning a great battle for equal rights for Christian women

At 77, she still looks every bit the rights campaigner who created history in 1986 as the protagonist of the “Mary Roy case” which rewrote the succession rules in the Christian community in Kerala. The Supreme Court then upheld Mary Roy’s contention that Syrian Christian women should have equal rights with their male siblings on their ancestral property. Till then, Syrian Christians who constitute the majority of Christians in Kerala, had followed the Travancore Succession Act 1916 and Cochin Succession Act 1921 which gave the bulk of the father’s share to the sons.


Paradoxically enough, the mother of activist-writer Arundhati Roy had to wait for 24 more years, that is till last week, to get the decree executed. This, when other women of her community had enjoyed the fruits of her labour after the judgment. All these years, Mary Roy was locked in a fierce legal battle with one of her two brothers, George Isaac, to take possession of the property due to her. In fact, Mary’s tumultuous road to justice goes back to 1965 when she and her children were thrown out of the family property in Ooty by her brother, six years older to her, in their mother’s presence.

The anti-climax of the story is that the proceeds from the sale of the land she has finally won over-about 9 cents of prime land in the heart of Kottayam town and some rural land-will only go to charity. “I was never after money. I wanted only justice. In fact, I’m the only one to get the land after 50 years,” she told R Gopakumar of Deccan Herald in interview at the school she founded in Kottayam – ‘Pallikkoodam’. Excerpts:

Weren’t you teaching in Ooty initially ?

I was in Assam with my husband [Ranjit Roy, NDTV head Prannoy Roy’s uncle]. But I divorced him in 1963, came to Ooty and took up teaching. Then my mother came and virtually ‘installed’ me in the family cottage we had there.


Why did your brother suddenly ask you to vacate the house?

He wanted to go to his wife in Sweden and he didn’t have the money for it. So, he wanted to sel the house. We were not unfriendly at that time, but to my knowledge, a man thinks that it is his right and I would normally have walked out had it not been for the children. My son Lalith was five and daughter Arundhati was three. My mother who stayed with him also stood by him.


The mom must’ve been in a predicament?

There was no predicament. She had always stood by her son because she saw him as a savior when she was having a tough time with her own husband, my father, who was a wife-beater. My brother had then stepped in to protect her and asked our father not to touch her.

What did you do when you were asked to vacate?

I decided to stay back, but then I found that it served no purpose because the law was not applicable in Tamil Nadu. Then I thought that I should change the law and that was how I returned to Kottayam.

Were you fighting for the property or your rights?

I was not fighting for any property, I was fighting for justice. I am a student of history and I knew we have a Constitution which gives us equality.

Initially, I did not get much support. I went to Delhi in 1984 when I had enough money to travel and met Indira Jai Singh [Presently the Attorney-General]. She told me to get other people to support my petition and then some organizations threw their weight behind me.

What was the stand of the church in your case?

They realised a bit late that they had a huge problem because women preferred dowry to property. The women said if they did not get dowry they won’t get married. The property came late, after the death of the parents by which time the women would be old and toothless. The church also encouraged this knowing well that taking dowry was illegal. But at the same time, the church asked the families to write a will.

How did the political class take it?

Politicians including Kerala Congress leader K M Mani as well as Oommen Chandy and A K Antony ganged up. They passed a bill in the Assembly which was dit-to the discriminatory Travancore Succession Act but with a new name. However, the President refused assent to it.

How much property do you get after the judgement ?

According to the law, my mother gets one third and the remaining two third is to be shared between four of us each getting one-sixth, which is very little land. But my brother gets my mother’s share too which in effect amounts to half the property. My brother gets my mother’s share too which in effect amounts to half the property. My brother who is 82 had moved into the common property. That’s the one we have knocked down now.

How are your siblings taking the verdict?

Elder brother John ws away in Canada and  is no more. My sister didn’t join the legal battle initially. It was just four years ago after our mother died that she discovered the money in it and joined the cause.

As for George who is 83 now, he came out and hugged me when the decree was executed. I said this was the end of the era. He said it is the beginning of a new one, whatever it meant.



RTI shows ex-Goa guv helped priest escape molestation charges

RTI  shows  ex-Goa  guv  helped  priest  escape  molestation  charges

Minor  girl  was  molested  on  church  premises

Devika  Sequeira

PANAJI: Former  Goa  and  Maharashtra  governor   S  C  Jamir  directly  intervened  to  stall  police  investigations  into  molestation  charges  against  a  Goa  Catholic  priest,  thus  impending  the  course  of  justice,  documents  accessed  under  the   Right  to  Information  Act  reveal.

The  case  is  significant  in  the  light  of  the  child  sexual  abuse  scandal  that  has  rocked  the  Catholic  Church  recently  over  its   cover-up  of  the  endemic  clerical  abuse.  During  his  visit  to  the  UK  last  month,  Pope  Benedict  XVI  had  expressed   “deep  sorrow  for  the  unspeakable  crimes”.

A  former  chief  minister  of  Nagaland,  Jamir  served  as  governor  of  Goa  from  2004  to  July  2008  after  which  he  was  moved  to  Maharashtra.

The  case  in  question  dates  back  to  2004  when  an  FIR     was  lodged  against  a  Goa    parish  priest  for   molesting  a  minor  girl  on  church  premises.

Fr.  Newton  Rodriguez,  who  served  as  parish  priest  at    Ribandar  church  at  the  time,   was  booked  under   Section  354  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  Section 8(2)  of  he  Goa  children’s    Act  by  the  Old  Goa  Police.

In  her  complaint,  the  girl’s  mother  had  said  her  daughter,  13,  was  in  the  church   with  a  group  of  children  when  the  priest,  on  the  pretext  of  hearing  her  confession,  led  her  into  his  bedroom  where  he  molested  her.

After  preliminary  investigations,  the  superintendent   of  police  directed  that  the  priest  be  charge sheeted.  The  director  of  prosecution  concurred  and  a  draft  charge sheet  was  made   out  on  August  30,  2004.  But  soon  after,  Jamir  intervened,  says  activist  lawyer  Aires  Rodrigues,  who  accessed  the  documents.

The  governor’s  nothings  show  he  asked  for  the  papers  to be  referred   to  the   advocate  general    and  the  public    prosecutor  for  their  opinion  and  directed  that  the  file  to  be  sent  back  to  him  before  a  final  decision  was   taken  on  whether  to  prosecute  the  priest  or  not.

Almost  a  year  after  the  incident,  the  file  on  the  case  was  back  before   Jamir  and  in  August   2005  the   police  told  the  Children’s  Court  that  it  wanted  the  case  against  the  priest  to  be  closed.

The  RTI  activist  says  while  the  Crime  Branch  let  the  priest  off,  13  residents  of  Ribandar  village,  including  an  80-year-old  widow  and  he,  were  charge  sheeted   for  entering  the  church  to  question  the  priest  on  the  molestation  case.

The  courts  have  twice  dismissed  the  charges  against  the  lawyer,  but  the  police  continue  to  persecute   him  and  the  others  and  have  filed  an  appeal  before  the  high  court.

Meanwhile,   Fr. Newton  Rodrigues  is  believed  to  have  been  relieved  of  his  duties.

DH News Service  

Pope’s assurance to sexual victims of the clergy

Joe  A Lewis

Pope Benedict XVI has assured the victims of sexual abuse by priests that the Vatican will take quick action against them, though those who   complained are compensated by the Church, yet they clamour for punishment of the wrong doing clergy, and Pope conceded. But despite these assurances the Vatican has not yet evolved a machinery or process to punish the priests. A separate dicastry is needed to take complaints against the priests, be it sexual aberrations, embezzlement etc. when such things happened no body took notice, and everything was put under the carpet, only it came to the surface when the media put it on the table. The joke today is that the Vatican is unable to dismiss or take stringent action against the clergy; the Vatican opens its eyes only when the media blows such scandals out of proportions. It is the policy of the Vatican that they do not act against the wrong doing clergy or Bishops. Now they have to do, as they are compelled by public opinion, in this process the church lost its morality. The problem lies with the church, why they recruit homosexuals and womanizers in the seminary? Can’t they find it out? This they have not done so for in our seminaries all over the worlds, Clergy recruit seminaries of all types and hues, sans the laity,  there  should be a recruitment board consisting  of clergy, laity and of course some ladies to recruit suitable candidates to train for the priesthood. Of course meanwhile, they have to introduce new laws as far as priest’s over sexuality is concerned in the Cannon law. So far we know the Vatican’s Cannon Law has provision for an enquiry and appointments of commission to find out the wrong-doing of clergy. We all know the clergy sexual abuse is one of the causes that some Catholics left the church for other groups.

                Some of us know by experience, if we complain the wrong doing of a priest to the local Bishop, he does not take any action. Only enraged laity can take action, and they have done it thru the media and forcing the priest to quit the parish or institution. Laity can take up the issue and do justice to all without resort to courts or legalities. Laity Catholics can teach the Vatican how to act if they fail to act, then we will have a church full of priests who are sexual maniacs. These days celibacy is not the rule, breaking of celibacy is the norm, what the Vatican can do? The solution is to castrate- the man who opts for priest hood.

Clamor to drop the celibacy rule

-Joe A          Lewis

Will the Pope agree to this? Then where is the celibacy rule, let them give the priest option to marry that too the laity must agree, better they will not? Who is going to sustain and support such married clergy? Church will go bankrupt. Then why our clergy became ordained? And spent 7-9 years in the seminary for formation. They should not have been ordained, is this hypocrisy? Or the priest lobby pressuring the Vatican?  If  this  happens  the  laity  will  break  the  church, as  throughout  centuries  they  carried  the  church, despite  all  evils.   Now  they  may  not  support!



Father  Muller  Road,  Valencia

Mangalore  – 575002

Ph: 4252170  Cell: 9448136737

Empowering  the  Laity  and  Protecting  their  Rights  and  Liberties

Date: June 12, 2008

Appeal submitted to Mr. Krishna Palemar Minister-in-charge of Dakshina Kannada and all the MLA’s of D.K for abolition of Mulgeni / Perpetual /tenancies and bestowing of free hold (Varga) rights on the authorized Tenants.


India is a Democratic, Socialistic, Welfare State which speaks of freedom, justice, equality, fraternity etc. and above all Right to Life with capitalistic dignity.

But since 60 years, India has become more and more Cabalistic; rich have become richer and poor still poorer majority of the citizens do not hold any land though they have cultivated and developed somebody else’s land. The basic original resources of the earth/nature i.e. land and labor (man – human being ) are deprived of their fundamental human right of shelter and minimum land needed for their survival; forger about right to life with dignity People Union for Civil Liberties.

By Land Reform Act some section of the society was benefited and large section (nearly 90%) of the society was deprived of this benefit which was under Chalgeni/ and Mulgeni system in South Kanara (now D.K. and Udupi)

We are enclosing a few newspaper cuttings to show that unrest is fast spreading amongst the weaker section of the society who are being harassed by land owners, builders and land mafia to vacate their holdings. Land lords are demanding 1/3 of the market value for conversion of the land into free hold, which is illegal. As proposed by advocate A.P Gowrishankar, landlords may be given some compensation after abolition of this outmoded system. The religious and other institutions having such Mulgeni/ Chalgeni tenants have no case for any compensation as they are not landlords of their lands but mere Trustees managing these lands on behalf of the beneficiaries.

There is no case for high compensation as all these lands had no sale ability when they were given on perpetual lease and the landlords did collect the land value of those days, when they alienated their lands forever on perpetual basis and without any rights to increase the Mulgeni rent or take over the said lands.

We therefore request you to bring in necessary legislation at an early date and restored the right to life with dignity of the poorest of poor.




The  Menace  of  Mulgeni  and  mischief  of  the  landlords  with  mulgeni   land  holders  who  are  of  lesser  means  and  lesser  income  is  getting    more  and  more  troublesome  in  South  Kanara.  Mulgeni   tenants  are  not  allowed  to  progress  and  prosper  in  this  land of  so  called  honest  and  descent  people.  Rich  people  call  them  in  any name  you  like  have  always    been  exploiters. 

Though  land  reforms  had  come  to  Karnataka  more  then  30  years  back  the  crooked  landlords    have  been  obstructing  transfer of  Muli  rights  to  the  occupiers  on  various  grounds.  There  are  so  many  cases  pending  in  the  High court  and  in  the  land  tribulars  and  the  sufferers  are  weaker  people. Rich  people  with  middlest  petro-dollars,  smugglers  and  black  markeleers  have  got  their  Varga  Rights  by  paying  33%  of  market  value  to  the  landlords   in  black  money.  The  Bishop  who  is  the  biggest  landlord  has  been  collecting  this  amount  without  issuing  a  proper  receipt.  He  merely gives  a  receipt  as  a donation  with  the  intention   to  hoodwink  law  and  cheat  the  poor   men, and  he  represents  God  and  foolish  people   trust  that  he  will  send  them  to  Heaven.

The  term  landlord  used  for  the  Bishop  is  a  misnomer.  In  fact  he  is  not  a  landlord  in  the  words  of  justice  M.F.Saldanha.  the  Bishop  is  a  religious  head  of  christeners  who  can  be  correctly  described  as  a  Trustee  of  the  land  in his  possession.   He  is  entrusted  with  the  responsibility  of  managing  these  properties  in  the  interest  of  and  for  the  benefit  of  ultimate  beneficiaries,  who  are  all  common  christens  occupying  these  properties  in  the  earst  while  district  of   South  Canara.  The  Bishop  has  no  right    what  so   ever  to  demand  any  money  from  the  occupiers   as  he  has  handed  over  permanent  possession    of  these  lands  to  the  occupiers  collecting  the  market  value of  the  land  existing  at  the  time  of   transferring  these  lands  to  various  occupiers.  Over  the  years  loop  holes  of  law  and  eccentricities  of  lawyers and  judges  has complicated the issue to such an extent that while in some cases landlords are benefited in some other similar cases the occupiers are benefited. But in more cases it is the poor occupiers who is suppressed and deprived of this  legimates rights as well as his human right, a right to exist on earth in dignity enjoying peaceful possession of lands belonging to him from generations.

The irony of fate is that the so called lands owned by Church or temples, are legally not their properties. These lands were donated by philanthrophist kings, landlords and some of these even by the government for the benefit of Christens or Hindus as the case may be. How Bishops and Temple  Chiefs can claim ownership is a mystery.people’s  belief  in  God  and  so  called  God’s  men  has  landed  poor  citizens   in  a  mess.

Over the last 40 years these so called landlords are misusing their position and oppressing the mulgani tenants. A number of tenants under chalganni rights have been thrown out under cover of a new tenancy law which is favouring the landlords and now these landlors ( religious leaders having tasted blood) having tasted success are blackmailing the Mulgani tenants on technical grounds. This tendency has to be fought back both in the courts, in the streets in the legislature & in the parliament. People must unite to achieve this goal.

Divide and rule is the modus operandi of the religious leaders. This is the same method a ruler uses to attack victims. Ruthless oppression follow this tacties, Benovolent and religious minded people do not use this method because they believe that their kingdom is not of this world, but of the other world, which Jesus Christ has promised them. But our religious leader follow Jesus Christ only in words and not deeds. That is exactly why George Bernard shaw called Christianity as a highly organized hypocrisy.

Indian Christian service Association which took birth   10  years back in Mangalore and operating all India basis  is, striving to  Humanize, Democritise, Indiainise Indian church and has taken up this issue of mulgeni  and chalgani tenency and welcomes the moolgeni tenants to come and join them so that united  efforts can be made to escape from the oppression and suppression practiced by the religious leaders in the garb of God and Jesus Christ.

P.B.D’Sa                                                                                                        Date: 22-10-10

Catholic church paid US$ 4 Billion as compensation

Joe A  Lewis

Cases  and  complaints  were  filed against  Bishops  and  priests  for  sexual  abuse  with  women  and  boys,  most of  them  were  settled  out  of  court,  in  the  process  the  diocese  involved  had  to  pay  nearly  US$  3  Billion  as  compensation/damages.  Because  of  this  diocese  have  gone  into  debt,  even  they  had   to  sell  their  immovable  properties  to  compensate  the  victims.  Is  this  the  Church  Christ  established,  is  these  Bishops  and  priests  are  followers  of  Christ  or Satan?.  Europe  and  other   countries  involved  in  this  scandal  paid  another  US$  1  Billion  to  the  victims.  Most  of   the  US  diocese  were  involved  in  clergy  sexual  scandals.  How this happened?  Vatican  has  not  bothered  to  find  out,  as  it  does not  care.  Even  Pope  Benedict  XVI  said  that  he  presides  over  a  sinful  church?  Vatican  could  have  made   a  survey  or study  to  find  out  the  wrong  doing  ,  the  cause  and  effect,  nothing  had  been  done.  Barring  a  few  clergy  who  have  gone  into  jail  rest  all  are  still   around  doing  sacramental  and  pastoral  work.  They are scot free.  Such  handling  by  the  Vatican  has  compelled  the  laity  that  they  do  not  belong  to  one  true,  holly,  Catholic  Apostolic  church.  If  our  clergy  do  not  follow  the  ten  commandments  and  have  no  love,  then  our  rituals  and  sacraments  are  not  valid.  Anyway  Bishops  and  clergy  has  fooled  us  for  centuries,  but  the  Vatican  cant  fool  the  educated  well  informed  people.  We  all  believe  that  we  do  not  need  the  Catholic  church  for  salvation,  we  need  Christ  and  His  gospel.

Double standards of Vatican in appointing Bishops for the Latin Church and Eastern Churches

-Joe A Lewis

In  the  Latin  church  the Pope  appoints  the  Bishop  to  a  diocese,  in  the  Eastern  churches  for  example   our  own  Syro- Malankara  church,  after  a  Bishop  dies,  they  have  the  synod,  and  after  due  deliberations,  they  appoint  by  consensus  their  own  Bishop  to  head their  diocese,  the  name  goes  to  Vatican  and  the  Pope  endorses.  Thus  they  have  freedom  to  appoint  their  Bishops  of  good  moral  standing,  fit  to be  a Bishop  according  to  the  directives  of  Apostle  Paul  in  Timothy I  and  II.  In  our  church  Bishop  is  imposed  on  us,  we  may  not  know  him,  but  this  Bishop  may  have  his  influence  in  the  Vatican,  either  he  was  educated  there,  or  he  may  have some  God  Fathers  who  recommend  his  candidature  to  the Pope.  So  Bishops  are  made  by  the  Vatican.  Why  these  double  standards?  One  for  the  Latin  church  and  one  for  the  Eastern  churches.  Why  the  Latin  churches  are  not  allowed  to  select/choose  its  own  Bishop?  In  the  olden  times  it  was  done,  later  on  due  to  some  reasons  it  was  taken  away  from  the  laity.  most  of  the  Bishops  appointed  by  Vatican  are  not  fit  to  be  called  Bishops,  they  lack  holiness,  piety,  prayer  life,  administrative  ability,  in  fact  they  lack  whatever,  Apostle  Paul  writes  in  Timothy  I  and  II.  Because  of  this  many  Vatican  watchers  think  that  we  have  wrong  Bishops,  who  are  consummate  fornicators  and  thieves.

The  Holy  Spirit  is  not  there  in the  appointment  of  the Bishops. Once  such  Bishops  are  appointed   they  are  not  dismissed  even  for  wrong  doing,  they  are  secure,  example   some   of  our  unworthy  Bishops,  less  said  the  better  for  us.  We  have  a  few  Bishops  in  India  not  worthy  to  be  called  Bishops,  some  how  they  became  Bishops  because  of  the  blessings  of  the  Vatican  mandarins,  some  even have   concubines  and  children,  so  our  church  is  degraded  by  the  Vatican   in  appointing  a  Bishop  in  the  local  diocese,  why  there  is  secrecy?  Is  our  faith  secret  ,  is  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  secret,  is  the  Vatican  follows  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  its  own gospel?