Justice C.V.Bhadang of the Bombay High Court at Goa today adjourned to 27th September hearing on the petition filed by Former Tourism Minister Dilip Parulekar seeking a review of the order passed by the High Court directing him to face trial in the Serula Comunidade cheating and land grab case filed against him by Adv. Aires Rodrigues.
Adv. Rodrigues in his reply to the review petition filed by Dilip Parulekar has strongly opposed it while pointing out to the Court that the Criminal law does not permit review of an order passed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical order.
Justice Bhadang on June 22nd directed Dilip Parulekar and the other two accused Peter Martins, then attorney of Comunidade of Serula and Irene Sequeira, then Administrator of Comunidade of Bardez to face trial for offences under sections 119, 120, 420 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
On a petition filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues, the Mapusa JMFC on 16th January 2014 had directed the Porvorim Police to register an FIR against Dilip Parulekar, Peter Martins and Irene Sequeira for offences under sections 119, 120, 420 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Adv. Rodrigues in his complaint had drawn the Court’s attention that the 599 sq mt of prime land on the Chogm Road at Porvorim was given away to Dilip Parulekar without any auction and without following the procedure contemplated under the Code of Comunidade and that the whole intention was to fraudulently facilitate the doling out of prime Comunidade land to Dilip Parulekar.
Adv. Rodrigues further stated that the Comunidade of Serula granted the 599 sq. mts to Dilip Parulekar for a mere Rs. 3,41,320/- though the value of the land was otherwise worth more than a crore and that Dilip Parulekar in connivance with Peter Martins and Irene Sequeira had grabbed that Comunidade land at a throw away price by illegal means.
The case against Dilip Parulekar was initially probed by the Porvorim Police and later transferred to the Crime Branch which in 2016 sought to close the case against Dilip Parulekar but the North Goa Principal District & Sessions Judge rejected the move by the Crime Branch.
Strongly opposing the move to close the case, Adv. Rodrigues had submitted to the Court that the Crime Branch in an attempt to shield Dilip Parulekar had derailed and vitiated the investigation by falsely and malafiedly portraying to the Court that Dilip Parulekar was a poor victim who was misled by the Communidade officials to grab the land.