Hearing tomorrow in crucial case

By Our Tamil Nadu Bureau

CHENNAI, AUG. 11. All eyes will be on the Madras High Court, when the appeals in the `TANSI land deal cases' come up before Mr. Justice R. Balasubramaniam for hearing on Monday. The Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalithaa's political fortunes rest on this crucial case.

As the appeals come up before a single judge, questions have arisen on the possible impact of the new twist given to the case, following a statement made by a former DIG of Registration.

Mr. N. Jothi, counsel for Ms. Jayalalithaa, has sought to dismiss the reports that fresh material is being submitted, saying the issue raised by the registration official was placed before the trial court itself.

Mr. Jothi told presspersons on Friday that one of the grounds of appeal was that the trial judge had overlooked the defence contention on the land being situated in the `Alandur' revenue village. The ``defence document'' contained other details such as a survey map to corroborate the claim.

According to him, the said `plot number 5' belonged to another company situated over one km away from the TANSI land site. The Government actually gained from the 1991 land deal, as the guideline value fixed by the then Collector of Chennai was Rs. 3 lakhs per ground, he claimed.

However, the flip side is that the value of the TANSI land, which was bought in 1991 by the Jaya Publications, was fixed, based on the guideline value meant for the Guindy Industrial Estate, where the land is situated. Officials explain that the guideline value is fixed by an empowered committee of officials.

This value changed from ward to ward and even street to street as fixed by the committee. The guideline applied in the TANSI deal case pertained to the whole of the Guindy Industrial Estate, regardless of the revenue segment under which the land fell.

There is another factor in the present impasse: when the borders of the old Alandur village were redrawn during the delimitation of districts, one part came under the Guindy-Mambalam taluk in Chennai district and another went to the Tambaram taluk in Kancheepuram district.

Both segments retained the name `Alandur'. However, in this case, the guideline value covered the entire industrial estate rather than by wards or revenue segments, they say.

But the question remains whether the issues raised now will have any impact on the appeals. It is argued that the registration official's statement might pertain only to the third TANSI land deal case, `R.R. Industries case' (in which Ms. Jayalalithaa is not an accused).

However, according to a defence counsel, the new turn will have an impact on all three cases as the three pieces of land were in the same area.

By an extended logic and because of the fact that one of the grounds of appeal pertains to the revenue jurisdiction of the land (and consequently leading to the question of under- or over- valuation of the deal for fixing the stamp duty payable), there could be attempts to link the issue to all the three TANSI land deals.

Interestingly, while sentencing the accused in the `TANSI-Jaya Publications case', Mr. P. Anbazhagan, Special Judge- III, held that as per the TANSI's Articles of Association, it was clear that its land should not be sold without the Government's permission. The Government held all shares in the company. ``So even if the aspect of the guideline value was deleted from the charge, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case''.

The sale of the entire land to the firm, instead of subdividing and selling it as industrial plots, showed that the sale had been made because Ms. Jayalalithaa was a partner of the firm, the judge said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : NDA calls for special session of Assembly
Next     : Decision on rehabilitation likely tomorrow