Justice C.V. Bhadang of the Bombay High Court today directed former Goa Tourism Minister Dilip Parulekar to face trial for offences under sections 119, 120, 420 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in the Serula Comunidade cheating and land grab case filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues.
Dilip Parulekar and the other two accused Peter Martins, then attorney of Comunidade of Serula and Irene Sequeira, then Administrator of Comunidade of Bardez have been directed to appear before the Mapusa JMFC on 6th August. The High Court today observed that Dilip Parulekar and the other two accused could not be prosecuted under Sections 13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for lack of sanction from the Governmnet. .
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 then Tourism Minister Dilip Parulekar, Peter Martins, then attorney of Comunidade of Serula and Irene Sequeira, then Administrator of Comunidade of Bardez 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 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 Court 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.
