NE LEGAL BUREAU
CHENNAI, JULY 16
A single judge of the Madras High Court on Thursday referred to a division bench a petition filed by late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s nephew, challenging acquisition of her residence here by the state government.
Justice Anand Venkatesh heard the plea by J Deepak and directed the Registry to place the petition before the Chief Justice to be referred to the Division bench, which declared the petitioner and his sister Deepa as legal heirs of the former CM. Deepak moved the court challenging the acquisition proceedings of ”Veda Nilayam,” residence of late AIADMK Supremo at upscale Poes Garden here, by the state government to convert it into a memorial. He also sought the keys of Jayalalithaa’s house.
The development comes a day after the government had informed the High Court that it is also actively considering converting “Veda Nilayam” into the official residence of the Chief Minister. Refusing to grant any interim relief, the judge said, “To avoid any contradicting orders by two different benches of the court, referred the matter to the Chief Justice of the court for posting it before the division bench which declared him as legal heir.
This cause of action is adopted to avoid any contradicting orders by two different benches of the court.” Deepak submitted that he and his sister were emotionally and sentimentally attached to the Poes Garden residence of former chief minister and they have plans to use it for doing charity through a public trust in her name.
He claimed that the authorities have not given opportunity either to him or his sister to submit their objections against the acquisition of ”Veda Nilayam” in total violation of the principles of natural justice as mandated by the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Therefore, as an interim relief, he wanted the court to stay the acquisition process and direct the state to hand over the keys of the property to him. He further submitted that acquisition for public purpose as claimed by the government to build a memorial would not fall under the permitted grounds of acquisition under the law.
