நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதில் ஒன்றும் தவறில்லை – சொல்வது எஸ்ரா சற்குணம்!

நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதில் ஒன்றும் தவறில்லை – சொல்வது எஸ்ரா சற்குணம்! சென்னையில் சர்ச்சுகளை பெருக்குவது – அதாவது அதிகமாக்குவது பற்றிய தனது பரிசோதனைத் திட்டத்தில் எஸ்ரா சற்குணம் என்ற பாதிரி, இப்பொழுதைய பிஷப் கூறுவதாவது, “ஏசுகிருஸ்துவிற்காக ஒரு சிறிய சர்ச்சைக் கட்ட இப்படி புறம்போக்கு நிலத்தை வளைத்துப் போடுவதில் தவறு இல்லை”! பாஸ்டர் தேவசகாயம் என்பவர், நுங்கம்பாக்கத்தில் எப்படி சட்டத்திற்கு புறம்பாக நிலத்தை ஆக்கிரமித்தார் என்று விளக்குகிறார்[1]. முதலில், சிலர் ஜெபிப்பதற்காக ஒரு இடத்தில் கூடுவார்களாம்; பிறகு அங்கு ஓலை குடிசை போடுவார்களாம்; பிறகு அதை பெரிய குடிசையாக்கி, ஊள்ளூர் கிருத்துவ போலீஸ் அதிகாரியின் உதவியுடன்[2] சர்ச் கட்டுவார்களாம்! ஆக இப்படி விளக்கியப் பிறகுதான், திருவாளர் எஸ்ரா சற்குணம் என்ற பாதிரி, இப்பொழுதைய பிஷப் சொல்கிறார், “ஏசுகிருஸ்துவிற்காக ஒரு சிறிய சர்ச்சைக் கட்ட இப்படி புறம்போக்கு நிலத்தை வளைத்துப் போடுவதில் தவறு இல்லை” என்று! இவர்தான், 2009ல் அன்பழனுக்கு கஞ்சி குடிக்க குல்லா மாட்டி விட்டவர்!

திமுக சர்ச்சுகளை பெருக்குவதற்கு – அதாவது அதிகமாக்குவதற்கு உதவுகின்றதாம்! திமுக நிதியமைச்சருக்கு குல்லா போட்டுவிடும் அளவிற்கு, அப்படியென்ன திமுகவின் மீது காதல் என்றால், திமுகதான் தமிழகத்தில் சர்ச் அதிகமாவதற்கு உதவியதாம்[3] – அதாவது இப்படி புறம்போக்கு நிலங்களை வளைத்துப் போடுவதற்கு, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதற்கு, வேண்டியவர்களுக்கு குத்தகை விடுவதற்கு – எனவும் விரித்துச் சொல்லலாம்! திமுகவின் இந்து விரோத போக்கு கிருத்துவர்களுக்கு உதவுகின்றது, கிருத்துவர்களின் திட்டங்களுக்கு உதவுகின்றது, என்று அவர்களே சொல்லும் போது, நாத்திகத்தின் முகமூடியும் கிழியத்தான் செய்கிறது, இருப்பினும் அதுவும் அவர்களுக்கு உதவுகிறது!

[1] M. Ezra Sargunam, Multiplying Churches in India: An Experiment in Madras, Federation of Evangelical Churches of India, 1974, Madras, p.97.

[2] இத்தகைய ஒத்துழைப்பு அமைப்பினை செஞ்சி ஆக்கிரமிப்பிலும் காணலாம். அங்கும் கிருத்துவ அதிகாரிகளின் துணையுடன், பாதுகாப்புடன் கோவில் நிலத்தை, கோவிலுடன் அபகரிக்க திட்டம் போட்டது, செய்தி தாள்களில் வெளிவந்தது. அச்சிறுப்பாக்கம் மலையும் அவ்வாறுதான் ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்யப் பட்டது.

[3] திமுகவின் இந்து விரோதத்தன்மை அவர்களுக்கு சாதமாக இருக்கிறதாம்! திமுக 1961ல் பதவிக்கு வந்ததிலிருந்து, தென்னிந்தியாவில் மதத்தை (இந்து மதம்) ஒழித்து விட்டதாம். இதனால் அவர்களது OMS-ECI திட்டத்தைச் செயல்படுத்த ஏதுவாக இருக்கிறதாம்!

M. Ezra Sargunam, Multiplying Churches in India: An Experiment in Madras, Federation of Evangelical Churches of India, 1974, Madras, pp141-142.

Advertisements

குறிச்சொற்கள்: , , , , , , , , ,

15 பதில்கள் to “நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதில் ஒன்றும் தவறில்லை – சொல்வது எஸ்ரா சற்குணம்!”

  1. John Chandrasekhar Says:

    Ezra Sargunam has been a political agent of DMK and he would be acting exactly like K. Veeramani, whenever power is changed.

  2. M. F. Rahamattullah Says:

    He talks like a rogue and rowdy and perhaps, he must be have such gangs to support his activities.

    It is intriguing that he has been hobnobbing with many politicians, ministers and others, inspite of his shaddy dealings.

    Nowhere on the earth, we could think about “land grabbing” and “illegally encroaching” bishop, that too, advising his sheep to follow!

    Longf live christianity and this type of creed of christian criminals.

  3. Francis Joseph Says:

    Oh, when this has been the standards of the Indian / Madras bishops, how these Christians could have hold such authoritative advising face to others.

    First, they should hang these black sheep (including sex bishops, pedophiles and sex-pron criminals), otherwise, Christianity is doomed in India.

  4. கிருத்துவர்களின் நிலம் அபகரிப்பு தொடர்கிறது! « இந்தியாவில் கிருத்துவம் Says:

    […] [4] https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  5. தமிழகத்தில் ‘சர்ச்’கள் கட்ட சட்டப்பூர்வமாக அனுமதி வழங்க உறுதியளிக்கும் கட்சிக்கே எங்களத Says:

    […] [5] வேதபிரகாஷ், நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதில் ஒன்றும் தவறில்லை – சொல்வது எஸ்ரா சற்குணம்!, https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  6. தமிழகத்தில் ‘சர்ச்’கள் கட்ட சட்டப்பூர்வமாக அனுமதி வழங்க உறுதியளிக்கும் கட்சிக்கே எங்களத Says:

    […] [5] வேதபிரகாஷ், நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதில் ஒன்றும் தவறில்லை – சொல்வது எஸ்ரா சற்குணம்!, https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  7. அமைதி என்ற பெயரில் கொடுங்கையூரில் சட்டவிரோத சர்ச், அதர்ம ஆக்கிரமிப்பு, கிருத்துவர்களின் அராஜ Says:

    […] [8] வேதபிரகாஷ், நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதில் ஒன்றும் தவறில்லை – சொல்வது எஸ்ரா சற்குணம்!,https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  8. அமைதி என்ற பெயரில் கொடுங்கையூரில் சட்டவிரோத சர்ச், அதர்ம ஆக்கிரமிப்பு, கிருத்துவர்களின் அராஜ Says:

    […] [8] வேதபிரகாஷ், நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்பு செய்வதில் ஒன்றும் தவறில்லை – சொல்வது எஸ்ரா சற்குணம்!,https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  9. மோசடி பிஷப்புகளின் குற்றங்கள் வெளிவருகின்றனவா? அங்கிகள் கழட்டப்படுமா அல்லது மேலும் அலங்கரிக Says:

    […] [2] வேதபிரகாஷ், நிலமோசடி, ஆக்கிரமிப்புசெய்வதில்ஒன்றும்தவறில்லை – சொல்வதுஎஸ்ராசற்குணம்! , https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  10. ஏஜி கிறிஸ்தவ சபை நிர்வாகி, நில மோசடி மன்னன் ஜெயபாலை கைது செய்த, தமிழக அரசுக்கும், போலீசாருக்கும Says:

    […] [7] https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  11. கிருத்துவ பிஷப்புகள் பலகுரல்களில் பேசுவது: கூடங்குள நாடகம் (1)! « இந்தியாவில் கிருத்துவம் Says:

    […] https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  12. கற்பழிப்பு, சொத்து மோசடி, பணம் கையாடல், மடாலயங்களில் சண்டை போன்றவற்றில் ஈடுப்பட்டுள்ள பிஷப்பு Says:

    […] வேதபிரகாஷ், நிலமோசடி,ஆக்கிரமிப்புசெய்வதில்ஒன்றும்தவறில்லை –சொல்வதுஎஸ்ராசற்குணம்! ,https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  13. Ezra Sargunam, Church planting, land grabbing, politics and communalization under the guise of secularization! | Issues concerning Indian society Says:

    […] https://christianityindia.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/nothing-illegal-in-encroaching-land-for-church/ […]

  14. vedaprakash Says:

    Madras High Court
    Jothi vs Evangelical Church Of India on 16 July, 2004

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED: 16/07/2004

    CORAM

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM

    C.R.P.(PD) NO.2686 OF 2003

    AND
    C.M.P.NO.20270 OF 2003

    1. Jothi
    2. V.Moorthy alias Yoshuva Moorthy .. Petitioners

    -Vs-

    1. Evangelical Church of India
    rep. by Rev.Father Bishop Dr.Ezra
    Sargunam

    2. M. Selvamani
    3. Pazhani alias Lawrence
    4. Yovan .. Respondents

    This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of
    Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed by the
    learned 11th Assistant, Court of City Civil, Madras in IA No.13426 of 2 003 in
    OS No.6715 of 1997 dated 15.9.2003.

    !For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian

    ^For Respondents : Mr.Mahimai Raj

    :ORDER
    Aggrieved over the order of the learned 11th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras allowing the application for joint trial filed by the respondents herein, the revision petitioner herein has filed this petition.

    2. As could be seen from the available materials and the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side, a suit was filed by the petitioners herein before the said Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in OS No.6715 of 1997 alleging that they were in possession of the suit immovable property mentioned in the plaint and they were forcibly dispossessed, and hence they have got to be put in possession. It is not in controversy that the respondents herein, who were defendants in that suit, appeared and filed their written statement also. Pending suit, the respondents herein have filed a suit for delivery of possession in OS No.935 of 2002 in respect of the properties mentioned therein. While the matter is thus, the respondents herein filed an application for joint trial of both the suits alleging that the parties are same and the properties in both the suits are also same and in order to avoid the precious time of the court and for appreciation of evidence, both the suits have got to be tried jointly. The revision petitioners herein were given an opportunity to file counter. The lower court, after hearing both sides, has allowed the application and the order of the lower court is being challenged before this Court.

    3. Heard both sides. From the submissions made, it could be abundantly clear that the revision petitioners filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that they were dispossessed forcibly, and hence, they should be put in possession of the property. Originally, the issue in respect of the title was included and the same was challenged before this Court. By an order of this Court, the issue regarding title was subsequently deleted. It is needless to say that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the title is not a primary consideration to be considered by the Court. The respondents have also filed a suit for recovery of possession from the petitioners herein, in which the title has got to be decided. Under the stated circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the cases need not be tried jointly as found by the lower court. But, at the same time, this Court is able to see some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents’ side that there should be an appreciation of evidence. Under the stated circumstances, though not the suits to be tried jointly, they should be simultaneously tried by the said Court.

    4. Accordingly, the lower court is directed to take both the suits and try simultaneously and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of three months herefrom and report to this Court. This Civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.

  15. vedaprakash Says:

    Madras High Court
    J.Mohana vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 August, 2006

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRS

    Dated:- 24.08.2006

    Coram:-

    The HONOURABLE Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
    and
    The HONOURABLE Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR

    Writ Petition No.3422 of 2006
    and
    W.V.M.P. No.1331 of 2006

    J.Mohana … Petitioner

    vs.

    1. The Commissioner of Police,
    Chennai City, Egmore,
    Chennai 600 002.

    2. The Chairperson,
    Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,
    N0.100, Anna Salai,
    Guindy, Chennai 600 003.

    3. The Commissioner,
    Corporation of Chennai,
    Ripon Building,
    Chennai 600 003.

    4. The Inspector of Police,
    V 4, Rajamangalam Police Station,
    Srinivasa Nagar 1st Main Road,,
    Senthil Nagar,
    Chennai 600 099.

    5. Rev.N.Ezra Sargunam,
    Bishop and Senior Pastor,
    Evangelical Church of India,
    No.27/152 Red Hills Road,
    Rajaji Nagar,
    Villivakkam,
    Chennai 600 049.

    6. Raja Singh,
    Pastor, Evangelical Church of India,
    No.27/152 Red Hills Road,
    Rajaji Nagar, Villivakkam,
    Chennai 600 049. … Respondents

    Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate and immediate action in the matter against the 5th and 6th respondents as per law to control the menace of noise pollution emanating from the Evangelical Church of India at Door No.27/152, Red Hills Road, Rajaji Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai-49, within a time frame fixed by the Court.

    For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran

    For R-1 & R-4 : Ms.D.Geetha,
    Additional Govt. Pleader

    For R-2 : Mr.Kalyanaraman
    for Ms.Rita Chandrasekar

    For R-5 & R-6 : Mr.K.Sankar Krishnan

    ORDER
    (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner by name J.Mohana, a resident of Rajaji Nagar 4th Street, Red Hills Road, Villivakkam, Chennai-49, has filed this Public Interest Litigation, seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing respondents-1 to 4 to take appropriate and immediate action in the matter against 5th and 6th respondents as per law to control the menace of noise pollution emanating from the Evangelical Church of India at Door No.27/152, Red Hills Road, Rajaji Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai-49.

    2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above Petition, it is stated that the house of the petitioner comes within Zone No.4 and Division/Ward No.62 of the Corporation of Chennai and adjoining her house on the northern and eastern sides, situates the Church run by the 5th and 6th respondents. For the past one year, the sound emanating from the said Church during the time of prayer and other services has reached and surpassed unbearable proportions with the decibel levels of multiple times than the audible level. Further, High Watt Loudspeakers are positioned towards south facing her house. The cacophony of high decibel sounds and the torrential hand claps while rendering the hymns from the said Church literally paralyses every activity of the petitioner and her family members due to the fact that the sound speakers are kept at just 8 feet away from the compound wall of her house. The church also periodically organizes special prayer meetings apart from regular meetings. The church is also conducting marriages, receptions, birthday and other ceremonial functions of its members with the facilities available for cooking and dining. Since the church is situated in the midst of a cluster of residential houses, the noise pollution created in the church premises poses a serious health hazard to the public in general and the family members of the petitioner in particular. The respondents are aware that use of cone speakers has been completely banned and, in spite of the same, the Church still makes use of the cone speakers. She made a representation, dated 12.01.2006, to respondents-1 to 4 herein, praying to take appropriate and immediate action in the matter as per law to control the menace of noise pollution emanating from the church of the 5th and 6th respondents. Though respondents-1 to 3 received the same on 18.01.2006 and respondents-5 and 6 on 25.01.2006 and 23.01.2006 respectively, there was no proper action. In such circumstances, she filed the present Writ Petition.

    3. On behalf of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board/R-2 herein, its Additional Chief Environmental Engineer, has filed a counter affidavit, highlighting their stand. It is stated that Ambient Noise Level Survey has been conducted by the Board officials in the premises of the petitioner on 17.2.2006 and 19.02.2006, both Friday and Sunday respectively, during which period, activities like singing songs/prayers/sermons were carried out in the Evangelical Church of India, located adjacent to the petitioner’s premises. The time taken for singing songs varied between 2 to 3 minutes and for the prayer/sermons between 3 to 7 minutes. The report of analysis of Ambient Noise Level Standards is enclosed along with the counter affidavit. There has been no cone speakers placed in the church and the box speakers are placed inside the Church. During the time of noise level survey, two box speakers have been placed inside the church near the window facing the petitioner’s premises on the northern and eastern sides. The distance of the petitioner’s building to Church building is about 13 feet. The open area distance between the Church building and the compound wall is about 10 feet. The open area distance between the petitioner’s building and the compound wall is about 3 feet. In the counter, the details regarding results of the Ambient Noise Level Survey conducted on 17.2.2006 and 19.2.2006, which are compared with the background noise level and the Ambient Noise Level prescribed in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, have been mentioned in a tabular form.

    After narrating the same and after referring to the relevant Rule, viz., Rule 7(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000, it is stated that the activities of the Church, ie, singing songs/sermons/prayers using song drums and other musical instruments with box speakers had resulted in the increase of the noise level more than 10 dB(A) Leq of the back ground noise level and also the ambient noise level standards, which is a clear violation of the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000.

    4. In the light of the above pleadings, we heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. The counter affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, amply shows that the noise arising from the activities of the Church, ie., singing songs/sermons/prayers using song drums and other musical interments with box speakers, exceeded the prescribed noise level.

    5. Rule 7(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000 reads as follows:-

    ” A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone make a complaint to the authority.”

    Rule-7(2) of the said Rules provides as follows:-

    ” The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the provision of these rules and any other law in force.”‘

    6. The information collected by the Board on two days, viz., 17.02.2006 (Friday) and 19.02.2006 (Sunday) show that the noise level was above the prescribed standards. This is, undoubtedly, in violation of the the provisions of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

    7. It is seen that as per Rule 2 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, the District Magistrate / Police Commissioners are empowered to take appropriate action for violation of the said Rules.

    8. When the report and the information furnished by the Pollution Control Board was brought to the notice of the 5th and 6th respondents, learned counsel appearing for them informed this Court that, in future, the noise level will be controlled and it will not exceed the prescribed standard. The above statement made on behalf of respondents-5 and 6 is hereby recorded. We are of the view that no further direction is required, however, it is made clear that, in future, if there is any violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and the noise level exceeds the prescribed standard, the Pollution Control Board or the prescribed authority/authorities shall take appropriate action to reduce the noise level by enforcing the Rules. In case of violation, the petitioner is also free to make representation to the authorities concerned including the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, and on such representation/complaint being made, it is needless to mention that the same has to be verified and appropriate action be taken to reduce the noise level.

    9. With the above observation/direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

    (PSJ) (SMKJ) JI.

    To

    1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai 600 002.

    2. The Chairperson, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, NO.100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 003.

    3. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.

    4. The Inspector of Police, V 4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Srinivasa Nagar 1st Main Road, Senthil Nagar, Chennai 600 099.

    [PRV/7782]

மறுமொழியொன்றை இடுங்கள்

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: