‘It’s like Govt. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul’- Lawyer Pais on Mulgar/Mulgeni Issue
“This is not a case where the Government acquires the rights of the Mulgar’s under the Land Acquisition Act. This is an extraordinary case where the Government takes upon itself the role of a self-appointed arbitrator and on deciding upon what the landlord should get transfers its right to the tenants. Such a procedure is totally illegal on the face of it. It is like saying “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul”- Senior Advocate Clarence Pais, President of Mulgar’s Association, Mangaluru
Mangaluru: Tit for tat!- In response to the meeting held by the Mulgeni Vokkalu Rakshana Vedike at Don Bosco Hall on 8 January 2017, where a mega gathering of Mulgeni’s assembled to learn about the rules and acts of Mulgeni/Mulgar, a press meet was held today, 11 January 2017 at Mangalore Press Club by the members of Mulgar’s Association to clarify some false statements delivered by the representatives of Mulgeni’s Association during the 8 Jan meeting.
Addressing the media persons, Vice President of Mulgar’s Association Ms Freida Saldanha said, “At the Mulgeni Vokkalu Rakshana Vedike meeting held at Don Bosco Hall-Mangaluru on 8 January 2017, where the Vedike had informed its members that there is NO stay against the Conferment of ownership of Mulgeni and Vola Mulgeni Tenants Act 2011/12 and the Rules of 2016 by Karnataka High Court which is blatantly false and in violation of the direction of the Honorable Karnataka High Court. This press meet was arranged in the interest of disseminating the fact that the Honorable High Court has ordered all the parties to maintain Status Quo in this matter lest violating the High Court Order of Contempt”.
She further said, “The Mulgar’s Association-Mangaluru has filed the Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court to stay the Conferment of ownership of Mulgeni and Vola Mulgeni Tenants Act 2011/12 and the Rules of 2016 made thereunder. We are pleased to inform you that the Honorable Karnataka High Court has ordered to maintain “Status Quo” until further orders. The Mulgar’s Association has filed a copy of the order of Honorable High Court before the Deputy Commissioner of DK and Udupi to maintain “Status Quo” and not to proceed further and implement the Mulgeni and Vola Mulgeni Tenants Act 2011/12 and Rules 2016.”
Gishelle D Mehta (Treasurer) and members-DB Mehta and Prakash Alva were also present during the press meet. Speaking to Team Mangalorean, Mulgar’s Association president Advocate Clarence Pais said, “I am furnishing you additional points in support of the Mulgars’ case that Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Moolgeni or Vola Moolageni Tenants Act 2011/12 and Rules are illegal arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution. They are as follows:
– Mulgeni tenants have a wrong assumption that the Mulgeni leases are permanent leases. In fact, in the registered Mulgeni leases there are clauses of forfeiture and re-entry to the land by the Mulgar, in the case of violation of the lease deed by the tenants. Which means that if the terms and conditions of the leases are violated by the Mulgeni tenants the Mulgar can take back his land. There are numerous cases where the Supreme Court has handed back properties to the Mulgars on account of violation of the terms and conditions by the Mulgeni tenants. Hence Mulgeni leases are not permanent leases and can be revoked for the violation of the terms and conditions. Therefore the tenants do not have a permanent right over the land as they claim.
– There are several such perpetual leases in the other parts of India with clauses of forfeiture and re-entry for the Lessor. For example, Connaught Place in Delhi is on a perpetual (Mulgeni lease) with the President of India as a Lessor (Mulgar) and these leases have stricter terms and conditions in them, which when violated by the tenant the land reverts back to the Mulgar (Owner). So if such an Act comes into effect only in Karnataka it shall contradict the leases in Delhi, Madras etc and shall be illegal and ultra vires the Constitution.
– Further no payment has ever been made for the land by the Mulgeni tenant and only minimal rents set in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s are continued despite the fact that rent of Rs.10/- in the year 1800 is worth approximately 10 lacs times more as the value of the Rupee has appreciated over the last two centuries. So a compensation of 1000 times the rent of Rs 5/- i.e. Rs 5,000/- for a property worth Rupees Twenty Crores and more today, is totally unjust and unconstitutional.
– There is no provision in the Constitution to take non –agricultural town property from one person (Mulgar) and hand it over to another, (Mulgeni tenant) without it being first vested in the Government as in the case of the Land Reforms Act of 1973 when the land vested with the Government for the period of fifteen years before it was given to the agricultural tenant. Hence this Act is totally ultra-virus to the Constitution.
– Furthermore, the Government can only acquire town property for a public purpose. Unless this condition of ‘public purpose’ is satisfied, the government cannot acquire or regulate, or interfere in the ownership of non-agricultural town property. This is ultra vires the constitution.
– When the Government acquires Mulgeni property for a Public purpose such as Airport authority of India, it pays 40% of the market value to the Mulgar. Therefore the compensation mentioned in this Act is unjust, absurd and ultra-virus to the Constitution.
– Media persons should stand in the Mulgars shoes and consider this analogy. Imagine your grandmother got a gold chain and your grandfather got a gold ring at the time of their marriage for which they might have paid Rs.100/- each. How will you feel if the Government now says we acquire it for Rs.200/- and take away your gold chain and gold ring because your grandparent has spent only Rs.200/- to acquire them. Will you allow them?
– This is not a case where the Government acquires the rights of the Mulgars under the Land Acquisition Act. This is an extraordinary case where the Government takes upon itself the role of a self-appointed arbitrator and on deciding upon what the landlord should get transfers its right to the tenants. Such a procedure is totally illegal on the face of it. It is like saying “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul”.