Chennai, Mar 13 (UNI) Madras High Court today ordered issuance of notice to the Tamil Nadu Government, on a petition, challenging the appointment of an inquiry commission to investigate the alleged land grabbing in suburban Siruthavur, involving former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and others.
Mr Justice D Murugesan ordered notice to State Chief Secretary and Secretary, Mr Justice K P Sivasubramaniam Commission of Inquiry, on a petition filed by T Chitra, who was summoned to appear before the Commission of Inquiry.
Posting to March 27, further hearing of the case, the judge said the appearance of the petitioner before the inquiry commission shall not be insisted till such time.
In her petition, Chitra sought to quash the appointment of Justice K P Sivasubramaniam Commission of Inquiry.
She submitted that the entire purpose of the commission was to inquire into the allegations of fraudulent grabbing of land assigned to Adi Dravidars and landless poor in Siruthavur Village, Chingalpattu, Kanchipuram District. Whereas no details of such assignment has ever been stated till date. All the persons, who gave the representation to the Government are not the actual assignees.
They claim themselves to be the heirs of the assignees or their relatives.
She said one or two persons were the assignees. According to the notification, the assignment was made in the year 1967. Whereas many persons, who have made representations to the Government are of the age of 40 years or around. They have stated that no assignment deed or any patta was ever given by the Government. They stated that only possession was given.
One Subburam stated before the Commission that the condition of the assignment was that alienation was prohibited only upto a period of ten years. For sale the assignee should get permission either from the Revenue Divisional Officer or from the Tashildar. It was only the assignee, who intends to sell should get permission for alienation, she added.
She said if a sale has to be set aside, there are ways and means under law to do so. If there was an alienation contrary to law or contrary to the assignment deed, the Government can very well take steps to retrieve the land from purchasers, if law could permit.
From the date of assignment to the date of constitution of the Commission, 40 year period had lapsed.
If a successor of any assignee wants to recover the possession of the property, there was always ways and means under law to file a suit for possession of the land and for declaration of the title.
Instead, political vendetta was being let lose on an issue which was purely a private affair. The present political party which was running the State Government was under the impression that an enquiry into the allegation may give trouble to its political opponents, she contended.
UNI
Mr Justice D Murugesan ordered notice to State Chief Secretary and Secretary, Mr Justice K P Sivasubramaniam Commission of Inquiry, on a petition filed by T Chitra, who was summoned to appear before the Commission of Inquiry.
Posting to March 27, further hearing of the case, the judge said the appearance of the petitioner before the inquiry commission shall not be insisted till such time.
In her petition, Chitra sought to quash the appointment of Justice K P Sivasubramaniam Commission of Inquiry.
She submitted that the entire purpose of the commission was to inquire into the allegations of fraudulent grabbing of land assigned to Adi Dravidars and landless poor in Siruthavur Village, Chingalpattu, Kanchipuram District. Whereas no details of such assignment has ever been stated till date. All the persons, who gave the representation to the Government are not the actual assignees.
They claim themselves to be the heirs of the assignees or their relatives.
She said one or two persons were the assignees. According to the notification, the assignment was made in the year 1967. Whereas many persons, who have made representations to the Government are of the age of 40 years or around. They have stated that no assignment deed or any patta was ever given by the Government. They stated that only possession was given.
One Subburam stated before the Commission that the condition of the assignment was that alienation was prohibited only upto a period of ten years. For sale the assignee should get permission either from the Revenue Divisional Officer or from the Tashildar. It was only the assignee, who intends to sell should get permission for alienation, she added.
She said if a sale has to be set aside, there are ways and means under law to do so. If there was an alienation contrary to law or contrary to the assignment deed, the Government can very well take steps to retrieve the land from purchasers, if law could permit.
From the date of assignment to the date of constitution of the Commission, 40 year period had lapsed.
If a successor of any assignee wants to recover the possession of the property, there was always ways and means under law to file a suit for possession of the land and for declaration of the title.
Instead, political vendetta was being let lose on an issue which was purely a private affair. The present political party which was running the State Government was under the impression that an enquiry into the allegation may give trouble to its political opponents, she contended.
UNI
Oneindia Login