71-year-old Kayyar church demolished despite preservation pleas, allege villagers
Parish denies claim says, "all norms were followed."
Vartha Bharati English Desk ,
Vartha Bharati | 21-02-2026 | 08:28:00 IST
_vb_21.jpeg)
Image Courtesy: Instagram/ @winsonpreethesh._
Manjeshwara: What once stood rising as a beacon of faith in a tiny village 42 kms from Mangaluru’s city center, is now only debris. The 71-year-old Christ the King Church at Kayyar in Kasaragod district has been demolished, triggering a heritage row in the village.
A section of the parishioners have alleged that the Mangalore Diocese razed the structure for “personal profiteering,” although authorities maintain that the demolition was done as per due norms.
Christ the King Church, under the Kasaragod deanery of the Mangalore Diocese, was built beginning in 1953 under the leadership of Fr. Lawrence S. Pais and inaugurated on April 25, 1956, by the then Bishop of Mangalore, Rt. Rev. Basil F. D’Souza.
Constructed in Roman-Gothic style using locally available materials like traditional laterite masonry, lime-based plasters, timber roofing etc, the church rose through the labour of a largely agrarian laity, many of them poor, and with contributions from non-Catholics in the region.
Before Kayyar had its own church, devotees from surrounding villages like Kayyar, Heroor, Paivalike and others walked nearly 20 km to Bela for spiritual needs. The parish traces its roots to the 1930s, when a small chapel was first established after the Demarcation Decree of 1934.
Why did the demolition take place ?
The demolition took place as construction of a new church at a valuation of about Rs 5 crores is underway adjacent to the old site. With the old church aging, a year ago, the Mangalore Diocese distributed chits to parishioners asking them to respond to three options: i) construct a new church on a different site, ii) demolish the existing church and rebuild on the same spot, or iii) renovate the existing church, parishioners told Vartha Bharati.
Parishioners said the majority response favored preserving the existing church and constructing a new one at a different location. And action following suit was pursued, they added.
According to parish authorities, the old building was structurally and financially unsustainable. However, members of the Kayyar Church Conservation Committee allege that demolition was carried out hastily and without adequate respect for community sentiment.
“The unscientific and self-serving decision to demolish the old church has caused deep pain. This beautiful structure built through the sweat of our elders should have stood as a memorial for future generations,” the committee said in a statement.
The committee members also pointed out that despite Bishop assuring that the church won’t be demolished, it was demolished.
Oswald Dsouza, a member of the conservation committee, said the Bishop had fixed a meeting with them on February 28 and had assured that the church would not be demolished before the discussion.
“However, the structure was brought down before the meeting took place,” he alleged.
“He promised to protect the church, but it was demolished. Heritage drives a place’s growth, without history, a place has no value, and people visit only for its past, not for things entirely new,” said Wilson D’Souza, an Artist and a member of the conservation committee.
A youngster from the parish, Aneesh Suares said “I am deeply hurt. We trusted the Bishop, yet the church was demolished despite his assurance. They ask us for money to build new projects, and we contribute, but is only money valued, not our emotions?”
A viral video showing an excavator pushing down the church cross further intensified the controversy.
Wilson D’Souza alleged, “There is a proper tradition and norm of removing the cross. They should have removed it first. Instead, they broke everything and pushed the cross at the end. The public was deeply hurt.”
Another parishioner also retieriated the same, stating “the priest could have removed the cross first before the demolition began. This has caused deep pain to us.”
Responding, Parish Priest Fr. Vishal Monis said attempts were made to remove the cross manually. “We tied ropes and tried to remove it. But the entire front facade was shaking. I had to choose between the cross and the safety of workers. Life is more important,” he said, expressing regret that the visuals were perceived as disrespectful.
“We had to choose between the cross and a person’s life. During lightning, the cross was damaged, and while I regret how it appeared, we had tried to handle it carefully. There was another cross in front, which we reoved carefully. However another one which is on a concrete structure weighing heavy. Removing it risked the tower collapsing and endangering lives. We dismantled it respectfully and kept it safe. The video of the falling cross went viral to malign my name, but I followed all procedures,” Fr Monis stated.
Vice President of Parish Council, Roshan Dsouza, also stated that, "We tried to remove it using ropes, but we coudn't, it was risky."
Alongside, over the past few days, numerous people have shared reels and posts pertaining to the demolition, sparking widespread reactions and rapidly going viral.
Meanwhile, several parishioners also alleged that the demolition began shortly after Mass on February 15 and was carried out overnight without public announcement.
“The priest announced the shifting of the Holy Sacrament but never mentioned demolition. Hours later, benches and statues were removed. Information about contributions for the new church is usually shared on WhatsApp or through ward heads, so why was no communication sent on the day of demolition? It was carried out overnight,” alleged Wilson.
A 71-year-old retired teacher, John D’Souza, said, “If there were proper justifications, why demolish at night? Without taking our permission, the Bishop through the Father did this.”
Speaking about a voting held at the church, John said, “two hundred people assembled, out of which 45 people lifted hands and the remaining did not. They say 80% supported it, but who are these 80%? Hand lifted 45, where are the others? Wilson said clearly "lets conduct a voting, but the Father denied it.”
Wilson also alleged that, "for every work for the new church, parishoners were called, everybody went there and helped in the contruction, but for the demolition process people from outside, daily wage workers were called, why was this done?"
Responding to allegations that the demolition was carried out in haste and without transparency, Parish Priest Fr. Vishal Monis stated that the decision to proceed without prior public announcement was taken to prevent possible unrest within the parish.
He said that all required permissions, including ecclesiastical and research-related clearances, had been obtained before the demolition. According to him, there were indications of potential agitation from opposing groups within the parish.
“If I had publicly declared a date and asked everyone to gather for dismantling, both sides would have assembled, one in favour of preserving the church and the other supporting demolition. That could have led to confrontation and disorder,” he said.
“To avoid such a situation, the work had to be carried out discreetly. This is not a personal administrative strategy; in situations where agitation is anticipated, certain actions are handled carefully to prevent conflict,” he added.
“Have become a scapegoat amidst minority-majority”
Fr. Monis rejected the charge stating, “We announced on three Sundays asking anyone who wanted to preserve the building to give in writing how much they would contribute. No one came forward in writing,” he said.
According to him, permissions were obtained from the Bishop and the Panchayat. “The finance committee of 7 members approved 100 percent. The parish pastoral council approved with 92 percent support. And 88% of the parish assembly, parish assembly is all the people gathered. I have only carried out the decision of the people,” he said, describing himself as a “scapegoat” in a majority-versus-minority dispute.
He furthermore stated that, "there is no personal benefit here. I have only acted on the dictate of the people, the finance committee, and the parish council. As a leader, I am being targeted, but my actions serve only the church, which faces financial challenges."
“When the majority is concerned, a small minority opposes, that is what has happened here. The majority wants demolition, the minority wants preservation, and it has now turned into a conflict. I have become the scapegoat, and the entire target is on me," he stated.
"In our church structure, it is not the parish priest who decides. The move toward a new church was not my decision, my predecessor had already discussed and planned it. I only gave it direction by conducting a survey, in which nearly 85% of the people of Kayyar supported constructing a new church. A small percentage wanted the old church to remain. We again sought public opinion, and it was decided that when materials were needed for the new church, the old one would be demolished, as maintaining two churches was not feasible. The maintenance cost of the old church was high, and even a state-recognised engineer advised that the structure would need to be demolished,” Fr. Monis said.
He said parishioners were asked to submit written undertakings if they wished to preserve the building and assume financial responsibility.
“Verbal assurances or emotional responses are not sufficient for financial decisions. We require written commitments. In future, when funds are requested, emotional statements may not translate into financial support. That is why any financial claim must be submitted in writing,” he said.
A parishioner abroad, speaking anonymously, questioned whether the seven-member finance committee truly represented the community. “How is that fair?” they asked, noting many overseas members share a deep emotional connection. They also challenged the demolition’s urgency, asking why parishioners weren’t allowed a final visit, and argued that a new church would still require maintenance.
Oswald Dsouza also alleged that, "the parish committees comprised of only those members who favoured the parish preist, whoever stood against would be sidelined."
Roshan D’Souza, Vice President of the Parish Council, stated, “Although the work began on Sunday, we had already informed the ward heads in advance that we (committe and parish council) had submitted a report and were sure that an order like this would come. We had informed them in prior that whatever order may come we will carry out action at the earliest. The order came on Friday, and the demolition was executed on Sunday.”
“There is a lot of struggle to preserve it. We have a new building in construction, with that we have to preserve this, it is very difficult,” Roshan said.
Fr. Monis also pointed out that an assessment conducted in 2022 estimated a minimum of Rs 75 lakh for repairs.
He further argued that maintaining two churches would be financially burdensome for a small parish. “Materials from the old church will reduce costs for the new one by at least Rs 20 lakh,” he added.
Fr. Monis stated, “It all started in October 2025. We announced it on 3 Sundays: January 26th, February 1st, and February 8th. If at all somebody wants to keep the building, let them give it in writing. Nobody came forward in writing saying that we will contribute this much to keep the building. There was a lot of liability in maintaining the old building. Repair cost was assessed at a minimum of 75 lakhs.
“If demolition was ever intended, we would have voted for it in the Bishop’s chit a year ago. Back then, the majority wanted a new church at a new site. So why, just three to four months ago, was this issue suddenly raised? How did the majority, which opposed demolition, change its stance? And if the church’s condition was a concern, why wasn’t a fitness study done when requested two years ago? Why the sudden urgency?” asked another parishioner.
However, conservation committee members contest this narrative. They claim eleven members submitted written undertakings taking financial and physical responsibility for maintenance.
“We spent Rs 27,000 to obtain a structural stability report. We attached all the documents. Despite that, everything was ignored,” the committee said, demanding answers from Bishop Peter Saldanha.
When asked about the undertaking of the eleven members, Fr. Monis said, “Carpenters may say they will do work free of cost, but who will provide raw materials? Wood, cement, sand, all need money. And fire and safety compliance involve heavy expenses,” he said.
The NITK Report
A structural assessment conducted by engineers from the National Institute of Technology Karnataka concluded that “no major distress or deficiency” was observed and that minor repairs could extend the building’s service life.
Professor Sunil BM of the Civil Engineering Department, NITK speaking to Vartha Bharati said, “It was a very good building. We did the study of it through visual observation. No structural distress or foundation issues were observed. It only needed minor maintenance.”
When asked about the building’s future and whether it could survive for another 20–30 years, Sunil said, “Definitely, more than that.”
Fr. Monis stated that, “NITK cannot issue fitness certificates. Panchayat authorities must issue them. Their (NITK's) report is only an observation,” he said.
He also stated that the protocol was not followed, “I am the highest church authority here, and neither I nor they have intimated the Bishop. There is no clarity on the methodology followed to issue the fitness certificate.”
“NITK has neither contacted me nor the Bishop to conduct the survey,” he added.
"The NITK report also shows critical areas of the building, this report is not addressed to us. Church officials were not present during the inspection. We were not intimated about their coming," Fr. Monis said.
Conservation architect Caroline D’Souza defended the study, stating, “NITK is an institute of national importance. The report was about structural stability. The question of jurisdiction does not arise. We have lost an important piece of our heritage.”
“I am unsure about the jurisdiction, but at the same time I don't think so this should be an issue regarding this. It is very unfortunate,” Professor Sunil BM added.
Arguing on this, Wilson said, “How can it be that a report from NITK, a national institute, has no significance in Kerala? Is Kerala outside the country?”
"Church holds high historical, architectural, socio-cultural significance," says report by conservation architect
A detailed “Statement of Significance” by conservation architect Caroline D’Souza evaluated the architectural, historical, socio-cultural and ecological value of Christ the King Church and recommended conservation over demolition.
The report identifies the church as a rare surviving example of early 20th-century west coastal Catholic ecclesiastical architecture, built with traditional laterite masonry, lime plasters, timber trusses and Mangalore tiled roofing. It notes a high degree of material authenticity and structural integrity, retaining original spatial volumes, handcrafted joinery, lime mortar construction and climate-responsive coastal design.
Architecturally, the church follows a tripartite nave–aisle plan suggestive of a Roman cross layout, with semicircular laterite arcades, clerestory openings for natural light, handcrafted timber elements and in-situ oxide flooring. It states the structure maintains strong authenticity in form, materials, workmanship and setting, with no major alterations affecting its original character.
The report highlights nearly nine decades of continuous liturgical use, describing strong functional continuity and deep community attachment. It records that many parishioners trace ancestral ties to its construction and that members of multiple faiths contributed to building it, underscoring its role in inter-community harmony.
On structural viability, the assessment states the building is technically repairable and suitable for strengthening. It cites an independent evaluation by engineers from the National Institute of Technology Karnataka (NITK), Surathkal, which found no major structural distress and concluded that minor repairs could extend its service life.
Ecologically, the report argues that retention would avoid the carbon cost of demolition and reconstruction, aligning conservation with sustainability principles and global heritage frameworks that emphasise embodied energy, material ethics and climate-responsive design.
Citing the Venice Charter, the Nara Document on Authenticity and UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape recommendations, the report concludes that the church holds high historical, architectural, socio-cultural and ecological significance, retains authenticity and integrity, and remains viable for continued use. It recommends preserving the existing fabric, undertaking conservation-based repairs and implementing structural strengthening measures as advised by NITK.
While, Wilson maintains that the the document was submitted to the bishop, and says they were ignored. However Parish Priest, Fr. Monis said that they were not made aware about any such survey.
What do rules state ?
According to reports, under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (S.R.O. No. 829/2019), structural safety certification and occupancy approval are governed by specific statutory provisions applicable to all buildings within Panchayat limits, including places of worship.
Rule 20(1) of KPBR 2019 mandates that upon completion of construction, reconstruction, addition or alteration, the owner must submit a completion certificate signed by the owner and a registered Architect / Registered Engineer / Registered Building Designer / Registered Supervisor, as recognised under the Rules.
The reports also suggest that the Rules make it clear that structural stability certification must be issued by a qualified and registered professional under the Panchayat Building Rules framework, not by any person outside the recognised registration system.
The Rules do not empower private engineers to independently issue a legally binding “fitness certificate” in substitution of the Panchayat’s statutory authority. While a registered structural engineer may provide a structural stability report, the final statutory certification permitting occupation rests with the Panchayat Secretary.
According to legitquest.com, the building rules mandate that structural stability certificates be prepared and signed by a registered Structural Engineer or licensed engineer, not just any designated panchayat engineer.
When VB attempted to contact Panchayat officials and the State Planning Commission to verify whether the rules were applicable, they were unavailable for comment at the time of reporting.
Fr. Monis told VB that a fitness certificate was obtained from registered engineers who deemed the building unfit. He added that, citing a local engineer, the Panchayat also does not grant a door number for two churches in the same area, which would prevent electricity connections and other provisions, the report stated.
E Dinesan, Kerala State Director of Archaeology, clarified that heritage protection act typically applies to structures over 100 years old and possessing historical or aesthetic importance. “If a 70-year-old building is demolished, it does not automatically fall under heritage violation unless specific criteria like aesthetic or historical significance are met,” he said.
“The Town Planning Commission decides whether any monument is designated for heritage preservation,” he added.
Both the District Town Planning Officer and District Collector were unavailable for comment at the time of reporting.
Diocesan officials from the Bishop’s house maintained that procedures were followed. “Whenever there is a new project, it is discussed in the finance committee and parish council before recommendation to the Bishop. It is not a personal decision of the priest,” an official said.
“Normally, whether it involves constructing a new building or demolition, the proposal is first presented to the entire community. We evaluate the pros and cons, whether the existing structure should be maintained, retained, or replaced. Next, the finance committee examines the financial aspects, followed by the parish council, which takes a decision and makes recommendations to the bishop on whether the action should proceed. All procedures were followed, including inspections by the building committee of both the old and proposed new structures, before the bishop reached a conclusion,” the official added.
Meanwhile, members of the Conservation Committee questioned the necessity of the demolition, citing the NITK report that confirmed the building could remain strong for years.
"If at all its not considered heritage now, nothing would have happend to the building, if we had kept it intact for another 20-30 years the arcahelogy department would have took initiative to look after it later," said Wilson.
"The civil engineer confirmed the building could still serve its original function. Yet, as a community, we’ve lost a structure that defined our identity. It may not meet strict heritage criteria, but heritage isn’t always rigid, its value lies in craftsmanship. The masonry and timber roofing techniques used here are lost today. Even if not officially heritage, such buildings embody traditional building principles and should be preserved when possible," said Caroline.
“If the church is in a dilapidated condition, how will materials from it reduce costs by RS 20 lakh for the new church, and won’t using these materials pose a safety threat?” questioned Oswald Dsouza.
Parish youth allege threats; Fr. Monis says he only guided them
Several members of the youth speaking to this correspondent accused the priest of threatening them when the youth went to question the demolition overnight.
“An official of the parish council threatened a young boy not to record any video. He was not even filming, but he was pulled away from the spot. He then called us. When we reached there, the parish priest allegedly warned us that marriage certificates would not be issued at the church and that criminal cases could be filed,” said a youngster on condition of anonymity.
A purported video of the incident is also said to be going viral on social media.
Responding to the allegations, Fr. Monis denied threatening the youth and said he had only advised them not to record videos or obstruct the demolition work, which he claimed had proper permission from the Bishop and the Panchayat. He said he merely warned them about the legal consequences of stopping authorised work and maintained that his remarks were guidance, not threats.
“I spoke to the youth, asking them not to be guided by emotions. I did not threaten them. The work had proper permission, and when they tried to stop it or record videos, I warned that interfering could be a legal offense. I also reminded them to focus on their future and not get caught up in the dispute,” Fr. Monis said.
"End of an Era," say locals
Speaking to Vartha Bharathi, Oswald Dsouza said his mother had worked during the church’s construction and recalled childhood memories associated with it. He claimed the church had been renovated 7–8 years ago and that the only issue was minor water leakage.
“She (Oswald's mother) shed tears at the old church vicinity hours before it was demolished,” Oswald said.
“My grandmother worked to build this church. We grew up there. From Baptism to Holy Communian we recived everything there. The holy cross was not respected. We feel deep pain. Its end of an era,” said a young parishioner.
John Dsouza, says, “I was 1 yr old when it was inaugurated, I have an emotional attachement towards the church, my mother worked during the construction then in 1953.”
The conservation committee in its statement has warned that if satisfactory answers are not provided, protests will be staged before the Bishop’s residence in Mangaluru's Kodiabail.
Meanwhile, it is worth noting that in the same Kasaragod deanery, the old churches in two other parishes, Bela and Kasaragod town, have been preserved in their original form.
While the parish priest insists the demolition was “the dictate of the people” and not for personal gain, a section of parishioners believe sentiment and heritage were sacrificed in haste.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter
and Help us deliver
the Truth to one and all.
