Veda Nilayam 'Memorial' For Jayalalithaa: Madras High Court Grants Leave To AIADMK To Challenge Order Setting Aside Land Acquisition Proceedings

A Division Bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup held that the CMPs filed by AIADMK and Shanmugam seeking the leave of court can be allowed and that the Senior Advocate for applicants 'has addressed the court to the extent necessary to point out the locus of the present applicants.'

At the outset, Senior Advocate A.L Somayaji, appearing for the applicants, laid down the grounds on which the petition seeking special leave was filed. He elaborated in detail about how the six-time former Chief Minister upheld the ideals to promote the downtrodden and showed concern for millions afflicted with poverty. He also mentioned about 'Amma Unavagam' food subsidization model propounded by the erstwhile CM which was adopted by other states too. He noted that if the court opts to choose a strict and narrow interpretation of 'the person aggrieved/ concerned', it will be detrimental to the maintainability of appeal and their interest in J. Jayalalithaa's former residence at Poes Garden in Chennai.

Considering the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case, the applicants urged the Division Bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup to accord an expansive construction to the term and consider them as 'person aggrieved'.

"I am not only a 'person aggrieved', I want to cherish the memory of our beloved leader", submitted the counsel for applicants.

Relying on various apex court judgments and a decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, the counsel argued that no set rules or principles have been laid down and even if a person is connected with the matter, that is a good enough reason to grant leave.

According to them, they were left with no choice except file a third-party appeal since the state was not going to file an appeal.

At this juncture, the court asked the counsel the reason as to why they didn't implead themselves as respondents before the single judge who set aside the acquisition of Veda Nilayam for transforming it into a memorial for late J. Jayalalithaa.

"You might be the person aggrieved or not, you might have locus or no locus. However, why did you not participate before the learned single judge? The question is why the applicant chose to intervene at this stage and not before when they could have made a request for impleadment before learned single judge?", asked the bench.

"In the judgment of the learned single judge, the last sentence of paragraph 3 is pertinent. It says 'thanks to the defence strategy, even the facts pertaining to the proceedings for filing LoA by J. Deepak has assumed significance'. The interest of the respondents before the learned single judge was the same as that of current applicants", the court observed.

The court also posed a question to the senior counsel as to whether the current applicants construed themselves as the Government in the previous proceedings.

The original writ petitioners, J. Deepak and J.Deepa, legal heirs of J. Jayalalithaa submitted to the court that the keys have been handed over to them pursuant to the order of single judge and the current application by AIADMK and Shanmugam has become infructous.He also added that the applicants does not have the locus to intervene in the matter.

The original writ petitioner, who are the legal heirs, as well as the caveator argued that AIADMK cannot be considered as a person aggrieved with the memorial of Jayalalithaa.

While granting the leave, court observed that even if the subject matter is the same, i.e, Veda Nilayam, rights on the same can be different. For the legal heirs who are the original writ petitioners, it's the property they have inherited while it is the memorial and its construction for AIADMK. The court also clarified that it doesn't mean that AIADMK is entitled to any relief in certain.

In the order, the court also noted that it was not unknown to AIADMK that the proceedings which were subject matter before the single judge was similar to their pleadings in the current application. The fact that they didn't approach the court then can very well be an issue that the Division Bench might look into in the appeal, the court noted.

Though leave has been granted in the circumstances noted, attempts on part of the applicants to delay the proceedings on the ground of non-availability of documents, which were on record of the proceedings will not be entertained, the court added. The court added the above remark in the order after enquiring to the applicants if they were going to rely on the entire records in the previous proceedings or the judgment of the single judge alone in the course of hearing. Accordingly, the matter was posted for hearing on merits the next Monday, i.e, 20^th December.

On 24^th November, a single judge bench of Justice N Seshasayee had allowed the petitions filed by J. Deepak and J. Deepa, both the children of Late Jayalalithaa's brother, challenging the Tamil Nadu Government order for acquiring 'Veda Nilayam' and converting it to a memorial.

Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam & Another. v. J.Deepak & Ors. & Connected Matters

Case No: CMP/20834/2021

Click Here To Read/ Download Order