Foreign owned property in Goa, (part Two)

goangoangone

I was granted an X visa based on my request to retire in Goa and showing an intention to stay. This was acceptable at the time. A Residential Permit allows you to buy a car, scooter motor bike etc in your own name. I also passed the Indian driving test( ). I haven't been told to leave but I was told that when I leave, my visa extension automatically expires and presumably the Residential Permit as it depends on the visa status.

__________________
GoanGoan......here

machadinha

Thanks for explanations above. I think that maybe I get it in a sort-of kind of way... Indically speaking shall we say.

(GoanGone, don't leave then! )

As an off-topic aside, mrs. M. was reminding me of bureaucratic nonsense moving from one city to another and back within the Netherlands tonight. How true I thought, you'd think some of the wannabe expats would have similar experiences.

__________________
Reading tips, all picked up at IndiaMike : INDAX's A Comprehensive Guide To India / Dinoj Surendran's Desi Humor / ITHVC on Culture Shock & Travel Health / JetLag Travel Guides For the Undiscerning Traveller / India Travel Links

goangoangone

I have no choice. My daughter is having her first baby in January.

machadinha

Hmm... birth in Goa... (grand) daddy around...

dzibead

Actually, I think it was just a mistake, unless you are a PIO. There is no category of x visa (entry visa) that's applicable to a person simply on the basis of a desire to retire in India and live there long term. I don't think you got it because it was acceptabe at the time and they've now changed the rules. I think you got it because you were fortunate enough (or unfortunate, as the case may be) to be dealing with a confused consular employee, and somebody has now caught the mistake, which is why they're telling you you won't be getting an x visa when you next return. Fortunately, they haven't said, "Oops, our mistake, but too bad, you're deported anyway."

goangoangone

I disagree. I know a lot of long stayers who have had 1 and 2 year x visas and also a few with 5 year visas. Usually they are issued to those showing property documents. I actually applied for a 5 year but I think as it was a first time long term they gave a 1 year X. These are not processed at the normal counter but are considered by a senior consulate official before being issued.

dzibead

But this is a bootstrap argument: they were given entry visas on the basis of showing property documents, even in cases where the property acquisitions might well have been irregular -- in fact, many of them probably were irregular, unless the property was acquired while the person was legally in India long-term on an employment visa, for example.

I'm not saying your situation was a mistake because it was a "one off." The mere fact the other "long stayers" were also given entry visas in these circumstances doesn't mean that their visas weren't also given by mistake. We know, for example, that many people "bought" on tourist visas and then turned around and presented the property "ownership" as a basis for requesting a longer visa and registering as a resident. But can you show me any statute or regulation or consular information that says that entry visas are given to people simply on the basis of property documents? I haven't seen anything to support this.

I think there was systematic cluelessness on the part of a lot of consular officials concerning what Indian national immigration statutes and regulations actually allow. Apart from people trying to retire in Goa, I don't think there are all that many people trying to emigrate to India, so I think a lot of consular personnel really didn't understand the law themselves because the situation didn't come up very often. But now the property brouhaha in Goa has led to more careful examination of what the law actually says, and these x visa are not being granted on improper grounds anymore. I don't think the law has changed; I think it is now being applied.

GoanCanuck

Agreed. The law is still the same.

dzibead

Yep. I think Nick hit the nail on the head above when he said "The basic law and regulations may not have [changed], but its interpretation and implementation has. And that, I believe, is cause for complaint by those affected, and extreme caution for those with plans."

A lot of people have been led down he primrose path by uninformed (or lazy) bureaucrats and then have been caught by surprise. I don't know which is worse: being told you're not allowed to do something you actually are, or being told you can do something and then having the rug pulled out from under you after you've changed your life circumstances in reliance on what turns out to be incorrect information. Actually, I do know which is worse: the latter.

machadinha

OK. Legally speaking then (leaving the particular intricacies of Indian bureaucracy aside for a moment), if you had gone about your business in good faith but were misled by officials here and there who may not have known all the ins and outs themselves, where would you stand? Again, in a legal sense?

GoanCanuck

You could take the matter to the courts but the main problem is that your case is going to take 15-20 years to settle because whatever one court says the matter is going to be appealed umpteen times.

capt_mahajan

You don't want to go to court over property matters in India.

Even an Indian doesnt. It can take decades, and often does.

__________________
.
Outside the machine

machadinha

Yes, I had realized as much. But can't this work to your advantage? As long as you can keep the case pending... Let's face it, you have done nothing wrong right? (And always assuming you didn't. And no, I'm not trying to give the UK crowd funny ideas. I'm thinking of the people who are actually staying there, for whatever reason.)

I'm hardly rosy colored about the workings of the Indian judiciary, it just seems like an interesting position legally. Well, less so for the subjects of that position no doubt...

btw I didn't mean ownership rights, just the right to stay.

capt_mahajan

For a foreigner, this will be opening a can of worms even if you ignore the costs and the mental agony of a prolonged court case, because your visa and your right to stay in India may get involved at some stage.

machadinha

Yes, no, maybe we're getting our subjects mixed up here (or I am). Ownership aside but purely thinking of the right to stay -- if you had acquired the latter but it turns out to be on false grounds, shouldn't/wouldn't you be allowed to stay until the case gets settled?