The Hindu : New Delhi News : Supreme Court refuses to stay proceedings in land grab case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 09, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

Supreme Court refuses to stay proceedings in land grab case

J. Venkatesan

Bench seeks response of Tamil Nadu Government in four weeks

Panel targeted Jayalalithaa: petitioner’s counsel
Its findings are recommendatory in nature:
Chief Justice

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the proceedings of the Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam Inquiry Commission, set up by the Tamil Nadu government, to probe allegations of fraudulent grabbing of 53 acres of lands assigned to Scheduled Castes and landless poor in Siruthavur village near Chennai.

A Bench of the Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran after hearing senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner, T. Chitra, challenging a Madras High Court judgment upholding the setting up of the Commission told the counsel: “We will not stay the proceedings of the Commission.” The Bench, however, issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government seeking its response in four weeks.

In 1968, the State government had allotted lands to landless agricultural labourers of Siruthavur village under the Centrally-sponsored scheme, Settlement of Land to Landless Agricultural Labourers. The Commission was set up to inquire into the causes and circumstances resulting in complaints of fraudulent land grabbing by influential persons allegedly having political patronage in the AIADMK.

Mr. Salve submitted that the Commission was targeted against former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa alleging that she had forcibly grabbed the lands. This SLP raised serious questions.

The Chief Justice told counsel: “It [Commission] is not against an individual. It is not against a single transaction. It relates to large-scale grabbing of lands. What is wrong with that? The Commission’s findings are recommendatory in nature.”

Mr. Salve submitted: “In Tamil Nadu, it is a fight between two political leaders. If you want to find out who had grabbed the lands, it can be easily found out by the revenue authorities. Where is the need for a Commission? It is only to tarnish the reputation of somebody.” Justice Raveendran told Mr. Salve, “The person against whom the allegation is made has already said, “I have nothing to do with these lands”.

When senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, appearing for the State opposed stay of the Commission’s proceedings, the Chief Justice said, “We are not staying the proceedings of the Commission. We are only issuing notice.”

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi appeared for another petitioner, J. Ilavarasi, who directly moved the apex court against the Commission.

In her SLP, Ms. Chitra who had received summons from the Commission contended that an inquiry commission could not be appointed for undertaking a fishing/roving enquiry based on vague allegations and hearsay evidence. The SLP said that the Commission was set up without a proper resolution being passed in the Legislative Assembly and was set up on the basis of a statement made by Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.

It contended that the constitution of the Commission was illegal for being actuated by mala fides.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi