Acquisition Of Jayalalithaa's 'Veda Nilayam' : Madras HC Reserves Judgment On AIADMK's Appeal

In the third party appeal against the single judge order quashing land acquisition proceedings of 'Veda Nilayam', Madras High Court has reserved its judgment after hearing the appellants, original writ petitioners and the state in detail. While reserving the judgment, a Division Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup underscored that there was no doubt about the locus of the appellants, Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (AIADMK) and former AIADMK Minister C.Ve Shanmugam, for filing the third-party appeal since the leave was granted upon satisfaction of the same. Among other things, the verdict reserved now would determine if the appellants are 'persons aggrieved or interested' in the subject matter of memorial according to The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). Even today, the court questioned the appellants as to why they hadn't approached the single judge bench when the matter was pending before it. The court also enquired if the said abstinence could be attributed to the fact that AIADMK was in power when the land acquisition proceedings were initially challenged. The court indicated that the requiring body under Section 95 of the Act and the elected government are not the same. "Did AIADMK party identified itself as the State for the purposes of Land Acquisition proceedings and pursued its own interests as the State of Tamil Nadu?", the court asked the appellants.Arguments RaisedFor AIADMK and C.Ve Shanmugam Senior advocate A. L Somayaji appearing for the appellants contended that Puratchi Thalaivi Dr.J.Jayalalithaa Memorial Foundation, constituted through Act No.32/2020. was already a party to the proceedings before Justice N. Sheshasaaye. The second appellant. The former minister, is one of the founding members of the said foundation. AIADMK was not a party to the proceedings then since the erstwhile government have been proactive in defending the conversion of 'Veda Nilayam' to Jayalalithaa Memorial. No occasion arose for AIADMK or the party functionary to approach the court then. However, after the change in political apparatus of the state, since the newly elected government is not interested to prefer an appeal against the single judge bench order, the appellants are constrained to approach the court. When the matter was taken up for today, the senior counsel for the appellants primarily argued that there have been no allegations in the pleadings of original writ petiioners about 'malafides' or 'public policy'. The senior counsel also added that nothing in the pleadings alleges that the acquisition is an act of colourable exercise of powers. Even then, by jettisoning the pleadings in the writ petitions, the single judge bench took it upon itself to test the executive action on a broaded plane of constitutional and administrative law. The matter could not have been decided dehors pleadings and it reveals the wrong approach taken by the single judge bench while setting aside the land acquisition proceedings, said the counsel by relying on State of MP v. Behru Singh & Ors., 2011 7 SCC 639. He added that the decree in a case cannot be based on grounds outside the scope of pleadings by the parties. Senior Counsel also argued that the assumption of the single judge bench about serving the 'public purpose' was also erroneous. The parties in the instant case were trying to enforce their legal rights over the property and it was not a public interest litigation. The judge noted that 'public purpose' under Section 3 (z)(a) r/w Section 2(1) of the RFCTLARR Act cannot be unilaterally determined as inclusive of 'memorial' for the former CM, and the same is open to judicial review. The counsel contended that it was the exclusive domain of the state to see if there is a public purpose or not, and the court cannot interfere with the findings made by the government with respect to 'public purpose.' The counsel pointed out that the single judge bench ventured to determine if there is an inherent public purpose for the acquisition and conversion of J. Jayalalithaa's residence to her memorial. However, the yardstick used by the court by referring to freedom fighters cannot be said as convincing in the current scenario, he added. J. Jayalalithaa, who was the CM of Tamil Nadu for six terms, introduced novel schemes for the progress of Tamil Nadu, with emphasis on the upbringing of girl children. The construction of the memorial will help people reminisce about their great leader and the welfare measures that she undertook. It is not for the court to determine if the public expenditure that would be accrued was reasonable or not, or if the construction of two memorials were viable or not. It would practically amount to taking up the functions of the executive, added the counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on...

Acquisition Of Jayalalithaa's 'Veda Nilayam' : Madras HC Reserves Judgment On AIADMK's Appeal

Sebin James

Tags