Depa filed case against govt afgidavit copy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2020

Mrs. Deepa Jayakumar,
D/o. Late. J. Jayakumar,
W/o. K. Madhavan,
New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street,
Thiyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
…Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
4th Floor, Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2),
New No. 46, Old No. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

…Respondents

Page No: One
Corrections:

-:2:-

AFFIDAVIT OF Mrs. DEEPA JAYAKUMAR

I, Deepa Jayakumar, daughter of Late. Jayakumar, wife of
K. Madhavan, aged about 44 years, residing at No: New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street, Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely states as follows:

1. I am the Petitioner herein and I am well conversant with the facts of the case set out hereunder.

2. I submit that I am the niece of former Chief Minister Late. Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa. My grandfather is Jayaram and my grandmother is Mrs. N. R. Sandhya alias Vedha Jayaraman and they were blessed with two children my father J. Jayakumar and my paternal aunt Former Chief Minister Late. Selvi. Dr. J. Jayalalithaa. My grandfather died long back and my grandmother died on 02.11.1971. My father married my mother Vijayalakshmi and out of the wed lock me and my brother were born. My father died on 13.10.1995 and my mother died on 24.01.2013 and left behind me and my brother as the legal heirs.

3. I submit that on 27.05.2020 the Division Bench of Madras High Court pronounced the verdict on Letters of Administration in respect of the estate individually held by Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and declared that we are class-II legal heirs of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa. Besides that on 29.05.2020 the Division Bench of Madras High Court has listed the matter under the caption being spoken to and passed an order operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder: “in respect of the properties inherited by Late. Chief Minister Dr. J. Jayalalithaa from her mother, the petitioner and the respondent are the legal heirs as per section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In respect of the self-acquisitions of Late. Chief Minister Dr. J. Jayalalithaa, the petitioner and the respondent are the legal heirs as per section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956” and clarified the earlier order dated 27.05.2020. Asper the order of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in O.P. No. 630 and O.S.A. No. 445 of 2018 we are

Page No: Two
Corrections:

-:3:-
the legal heirs of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late.Selvi .Dr. J. Jayalalithaa.

4. I submit that the property situated at No.36, “Vedha Nilayam” Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086, comprised in R.S. No. 1567/50 was originally purchased by my grandmother Mrs. N.R. Sandhya alias Vedha Jayaraman in the year 1967. My grandmother Mrs. N.R. Sandhya and my aunt Late. Selvi .J.Jayalalithaa were both acting in films and acquired many properties together in those days. These properties were maintained by my grandmother N.R. Sandhya she incorporated a Trust in the name of Natya Kala Nikethan. But the Poes Garden residence, popularly known as Veda Nilayam, was the home, of my paternal aunt Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa and my father J. Jayakumar. The Poes Garden is a place for her emotional retreat of our family and for my paternal aunt Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa who spent most part of her life in Veda Nilayam. The Poes Garden residence was purchased by my grandmother Mrs. N.R. Sandhya. The residence was named as “Veda Nilayam” after my grandmother. The house warming ceremony was held on May 15th 1972 with the entire family participation. My aunt Selvi J.Jayalalithaa has in several interviews expressed her emotional attachment with Veda Nilayam. Selvi J.Jayalalithaa spent her entire life in Veda Nilayam that has now turned into a controversial political entity.

5. I submit that after the house warming ceremony of “Veda Nilayam” my father, Jayakumar married Vijayalakshmi on 10.9.1972. After the marriage my father Jayakumar and my mother Vijayalakshmi lived in Veda Nilayam along with my aunt Selvi J.Jayalithaa as a joint family. I and my brother are the two children of Jayakumar and Vijayalakshmi. Moreover, in 1991 after my aunt became Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, she invited our family, myself, my brother Deepak, my father Jayakumar and mother Vijayalakshmi regularly almost three times a week for spending time together with her as family. My father died on 13.10.1995 and my mother Vijayalakshmi on 24.1.2013. My grandmother, Mrs. Sandhya @ Veda Jayaraman had executed a Will on 1.11.1971 bequeathing the property in favour of my aunty, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa. After her demise on 2.11.1971, the

Page No: Three
Corrections:
-:4:-
Will came into force and the same was probated by my aunty on the file of this Hon’ble Court in O.P. 164 of 1973 and an order to the effect was granted on 22.11.1973. I and my brother grew up in this house till such time it was felt that privacy should be available for all. Our ancestral materials are still in the property which is the subject matter of acquisition. Till my aunt was alive everyday poojas were performed and we as family used to congregate to offer our respect to the presiding family deity in the house on all important occasions.

6. I submit that the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Edappadi K. Palaniswamy on 17.08.2017 has announced that the residence of my paternal aunt former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa will be converted as the Memorial and will be opened to the public. On 22.08.2017 I made representation to the 1st Respondent and sought to refrain all the Government officials from visiting, altering or putting any temporary or permanent structure in the property situated at No.81, Poes Garden, Teynampet, Chennai 600 089 and to restrain them from issuing press release of the properties left over by my paternal aunt and the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late.Selvi J. Jayalalithaa. Since there was no reply to my representation dated 22.08.2017, I filed W.P. No. 26286 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 23.10.2017 the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature passed an order directing the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to dispose my representation dated 22.08.2017 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy in accordance with law.

7. I submit that accordingly the 1st Respondent conducted enquiry on 07.11.2017, 20.11.2017, 21.11.2017 and the final hearing on 27.11.2017. By submitting the written submissions I requested to drop the proposal to convert “Vedha Nilayam” as Memorial and hand over the possession to me. But my request was not considered despite the fact by letter No.12817/Memorials/2017, dated 19.12.2017 the 1st Respondent stated that as per the announcement of the Chief Minister dated 17.08.2017 administrative sanction has been accorded by the Government and the copy was sent to the 4th Respondent to acquire the land measuring an

Page No: Four
Corrections:

-:5:-
extent of 10 grounds and 322 Sq.ft., comprised in survey No. 1567/50, in Block No.31, Mylapore Part -1, Mylapore Taluk in which “Vedha Nilayam” is placed under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act 2013(Central act 30 of 2013) and the 4th Respondent has been authorized to acquire the property and disburse the compensation to the legal heir of the above property and thereby he imprecisely closed the enquiry.

8. I submit that on 27.11. 2018 the 4th Respondent has issued Social Impact Assessment Notification under section vide No. J2/15750/2017under section 4 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Hereinafter called RFCTLARR ACT, 2013) that Government has intend to acquire “Vedha Nilayam” for the purpose of converting in to the Memorial of former Chief Minister Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa. The date of public hearing was fixed on 10.12.2018 @ 5.p.m. In the said notification the District Collector has also notified that no public hearing shall be conducted. Section 4(1) of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 is extracted hereunder:
“4(1) Whenever the appropriate Government intends to acquire land for a public purpose, it shall consult the concerned Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be at village level or ward level, in the affected area and carry out a Social Impact Assessment study in consultation with them, in such manner and from such date as may be specified by such Government by notification”.
As per the act section 4(1) provides the government to consult with the local authorities to carry out Social Impact assessment by the 4th respondent letter dated 27.11.2018. But elsewhere the 4th respondent has not conducted the Public Hearing of Social Impact assessment as pert section 4(5) of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. The 4th respondent while issuing the 4(1) notice itself has encoded not to consult with the public and therefore the State Government has proved that they have decided that this accusation of the property is not for the public but for the sake of the Government and for the sake of some other persons.

Page No: Five
Corrections:

-:6:-
9. I respectfully submit that Section 2 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 provides about the application of the Act in relation to acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement for certain purposes. In the entire Section 2 of the Act the Phrase Memorial is not proposed for acquisition, therefore in absence of any specific provision for acquiring our land for memorial the entire proceedings of the State Government is void and illegal.

10. I submit that the State Government claims that they have issued preliminary notification on 28.06.2019, but the statute enumerates certain procedures for issuing the preliminary notice under section 11 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. But it was not followed by the government, notwithstanding that the Government went on its own accord and implemented the procedures to accomplish their desire. As per Section 15 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 the 4th respondent has not heard our objections, since they have initiated the proceedings without ascertaining the legal heirs. The State Government of Tamil Nadu is well aware that there is no third party claim in the property; the entire acquisition is our family property but they have not chosen to give any opportunity as envisaged in the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 towards the claimant.

11. I submit that the 5th Respondent has notified preliminary report No.3476/2018 dated 25.06.2019 in daily newspaper stating that as per the proceedings of the 4th Respondent, the authorities are going to make preliminary survey of land under section 12 the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. This notification in the newspaper is without asserting and without ascertaining the legal heirs of former the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late. Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa. On 04.05.2020 the 4th Respondent in view of the proceedings No. A1/3476/2018 has stated that there is no objection from the interested persons and after enquiry the declaration was prepared, the declaration was made on presumption that there was no objection from the interested persons.

12. I submit that on 04.05.2020 the 4th respondent has declared under section 19(1) that the “Vedha Nilayam” at Poes Garden as the Memorial as

Page No: Six
Corrections:

-:7:-
though they heard objections under section 15(1) & (2) of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. The 4th Respondent before declaring ought to have issued proper preliminary notice under section 11 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 to me and my brother, since we are the legal heirs of my aunt former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa. After issuing the preliminary notice the 4th Respondent ought to have conducted hearing under section 15(1) & (2) RFCTLARR ACT, 2013, then only the 4th Respondent can declare the acquisition under section 19 (1) prescribed in the statute. The declaration of the 4th Respondent dated 06.05.2020 without ascertaining the legal heirs of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Late. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa is not correct. The Declaration of the 4th Respondent of acquisition is against the statute and it is illegal.

13. I submit that the 5th Respondent without ascertaining the legal heirs of the property in acquisition for converting “Vedha Nilayam” into Memorial has declared by stating that there is no affected family and there is no necessity for rehabilitation and resettlement. On 19.05.2020 the 5th Respondent has issued public notice in view of the proceedings No. A1/3476/2018 calling for the persons interested in the land to appear in person or by their authorized person or Advocate before them on 03.07.2020 @ 11.00 am.

14. I submit that on 22.05.2020 the DIPR, Secretariat has issued Press Release No.357 stating that preliminary notification was issued on 28.06.2019 and the declaration was also published on 06.05.2020 and the Governor has also promulgated Ordinance for temporary possession of “Vedha Nilayam” and the movable items therein to the State Government of Tamil Nadu and to establish ‘Puratchi Thalaivi Dr. J. Jayalaithaa Memorial Foundation’ for making long term arrangements to convert ‘Veda Nilayam’ as a Memorial.

15. I submit that during the proceedings of the 4th Respondent the proceedings dated 25.06.2019 28.06.2019, 04.05.2020, 06.05.2020, 19.05.2020, 22.05.2020 and the promulgation of Ordinance by the Governor of Tamil Nadu were all preceded during the pendency of O.P. No. 630 of 2018 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras filed by us

Page No: Seven
Corrections:

-:8:-
under sections 218 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act. These proceedings were preceded by the 4th and 5th Respondent without ascertaining the legal heirs of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Selvi. J. Jayalathaa and the Government being well aware about the pendency of O.P. No. 630 of 2018 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking for remedy under section 218 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act. The proceedings of the State Government in acquisition of our family property is not in harmony with the procedures established in law and as per the provisions enumerated in the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013, since Memorial is not a purpose for acquiring the land under this act.

16. I submit that the entire country has shattered because of the Pandemic COVID-19. Our country is seriously affected with Pandemic COVID-19, during this unfortunate situation the State Government of Tamil Nadu is very much interested in converting “Vedha Nilayam” as the Memorial. Our country and our State has suffered lockdown period. The month of May 2020 has turned very contagious of Pandemic COVID 2019. But whereas the State Government of Tamil Nadu had pre-determined to convert the “Vedha Nilayam” as Memorial of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Selvi. J. Jayalathaa. The proceeding dated 04.05.2020, 06.05.2020, 19.05.2020 and 22.05.2020 of the State Government of Tamil Nadu will reveal the fact. The State Government went to an extreme to promulgate Ordinance to covert “Vedha Nilayam” as Memorial of my aunt and former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Selvi J. Jayalathaa and made a press release on 22.05.2020. There is no urgency to make an Ordinance to convert “Vedha Nilayam” as Memorial during the Pandemic COVID-19 period. Pandemic has hampered our legal options and all work related to property matters and court matters.

17. I submit that in August 2017 the State Government has Appointed Justice Arumugaswamy Commission to enquire into the probe of suspicious death of my paternal aunt Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa 147 people including Ministers, Secretaries, Apollo Hospital Doctors, I.P.S. & I.A.S. Officers and others were enquired. Still the proceedings of the commission is pending, it will be pertinent to submit that my paternal aunt Selvi.

Page No: Eight
Corrections:

-:9:-
J. Jayalalithaa went to Apollo Hospital from Poes Garden “Veda Nilayam”. The acquisition proceeding has to be stopped immediately otherwise the evidence required by Hon’ble Justice Arumugaswamy Commission may be destroyed. The State Government cannot take two stands. On one side a Commission was appointed and on the other side acquisition proceedings are taking place, if the later persist the former will fail. The attitude of the State Government will definitely affect course of any such enquiry.

18. I submit that by the order of the Division bench of Madras High Court on 27.05.2020 and 29.05.2020 in O.P. No. 630 of 2018 and in O.S.A. No. 445 of 2018 myself and my brother were pronounced as the legal heirs in respect of the properties inherited by former Chief Minister Late. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa from her mother, the legal heir as per section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In respect of the self-acquisitions of my aunt Late. Chief Minister Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa, I am a legal heir as per section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.As per the order of the Court I am entitled to claim all the movables and immovable and other belongings of Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa. But the promulgation of Ordinance to take temporary possession of “Vedha Nilayam” and the movables item therein is nothing but curtailing our Civil right envisaged by the High Court Judicature at Madras. This is absolutely not fair and against the procedures established by law. The proceedings of the State Government are not properly followed in accordance with the provisions of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 consequently the State Government initiated proceedings are not valid and against the principles reputable in law.

19. On 18.05.2020 I made my objections to the acquisition proceedings under section 19 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013, on 12.06.2017 I made my representations to the State Government of Tamil Nadu and the Respondents 1 to 5 the respective department involved in this acquisition process and requested not to move any of the movables that remain in the “Vedha Nilayam” more specifically the belongings of my grandmother N. R. Sadhya alias Vedha Jayaram and belongings of Late. Chief Minister Selvi

Page No: Nine
Corrections:

-:10:-
J. Jayalalithaa and to stop the work of converting “Vedha Nilayam” into a Memorial for such a period when there is no fear of COVID-19 and state can ensure absolute public order and safety of all its citizens including the two legal heirs of Late. Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa.

20. I submit that on 29.06.2020 this Hon’ble Court has appointed me as the one of the Administrator and I have given undertaking before this to administer the same within six months and make a true inventory of the properties and the credits and to exhibit the same before the Court and render true account of the estate of Selvi J. Jayalalithaa. It is just and necessary for me to take the inventory as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court within six months and file and render true account within one year.

21. I submit that on 03.07.2020 I appeared before the 5th respondent and filed my written submission regarding the unfair acquisition proceedings. On 16.07.2020 I made representations to the 4th and 5th respondent requesting to permit me, my husband Mr. K. Madhavan and my legal representatives to take inventory of the said movable assets included in the court order and to conduct inspection regarding measurements and valuation of “Vedha Nilayam” house for presenting true accounts to the estate of late. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa to this Hon’ble court within the stipulated time. Further I submit that a memorial was proposed and under construction at Marina, whilst the conversion of “Veda Nilayam” is not at all required. The State Government instead of completing the construction of memorial at Marina, they are wickedly trying to acquire our ancestral property and convert it as memorial. It is a sheer shame on the part of State Government by taking the personal belongings of a woman including her clothes and ornaments. It is unfair and indecent and harms the dignity of a woman. I cannot allow any forms of insult by such acts on my aunt as she is like a mother to me.

22. I submit that our family has a history in “Veda Nilayam” we have several treasures from our forefathers we have metal treasures like gold, silver, copper, platinum, diamonds and various precious metals. The antiques are of high value and heritage and were passed on to my aunt by our great grandfather who was a physician in the Royal palace of Mysore.
Page No: Ten
Corrections:

-:11:-
He had maintained the antiques and precious gems and jewelry that were handed over to my grandmother Sandhya who left the same in her daughter’s possession after her demise. My aunt maintained the items with great care and preserved them. We have been maintaining the same as monument; each and every movable are the tombstone for our family because we descend the same from my ancestors. Nobody has any right to touch the same, but the State Government of Tamil Nadu under the guise of conversion of “Veda Nilayam” as Memorial of my paternal aunt Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa has taken custody of movables of our family stating that the belongings of various leaders were kept in their memorial likewise they are going to keep the movables of our family at my paternal aunt Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa Memorial. In statute of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013, there is no provision to take the personal belongings but the State Government has made the above statement and thereby claiming the listed out movables belonged to them we are the legal heirs of Late. Selvi. J.Jayalalithaa and we are entitled for her belongings. The State Government of Tamil Nadu has not obtained any concurrence form us while making such statement. This is absurd I reserve my right to take action against the State Government of Tamil Nadu for its illegal extraction of our family movables. The ideology of extracting the movables from our family property is nothing but to make money out of precious treasures which are left by our ancestors. The State Government is going to make a big scandal out of our property and indulge in spoiling the reputation of my aunt Late Selvi J.Jayalalithaa and that is the reason they are galloping to towards their few months rule to acquire the property. This acquisition proceedings of the State Government is made purely for the political benefits in the upcoming elections. The Government of Tamil Nadu should not exhibit the gold, silver and diamond ornaments that were used by my aunt, also there will be a threat to robbery. It is published and known fact that became a scandal that murder took place in the Kodanadu estate of my aunt Selvi. J.Jayalalithaa. It was an act of crime intended to destroy documents and important papers that could have been kept there by my aunt. This murder took place under the Edapadi K. Palanisamy Government’s nose and it was also claimed by several sources that the murder mystery of Kodanadu was carried out under the instructions of Edapadi K. Palanisamy. Thus, I fear the exhibition of valuable jewelry in the memorial

Page No: Eleven
Corrections:

-:12:-
could as well lead to State sponsored day light robbery or other such crimes which will incur heavy losses to the property or cause damage to Veda Nilayam. Further, it is being stated by the State Government of ADMK headed by Edapadi K. Palanisamy that it was the wish of Tamil Nadu people to construct a memorial in Poes Garden. I strongly object and condemn this claim as there is no evidence in support of this from Tamil Nadu people. Also, I have personally conducted surveys in several districts of Tamil Nadu where almost 89% of votes were not in favour of converting the house as memorial. No surveys or discourse was conducted by State Government regarding the issue which involves public consent and peoples’ money. It was a politically motivated move by O.Paneerselvam who split the ADMK Party created a faction and then publicly claimed that he will convert Veda Nilayam into memorial in March 2017. He had consulted no one and it was only for his political merits. After he merged with Edapadi K. Palanisamy with the then United ADMK, Edapadi K. Palanisamy announced after more than one year in August 2017 that he will undertake proceedings to convert Veda Nilayam into a memorial again. But the house was in possession of Sasikala and her relatives and her servants. The Income Tax Department conducted a raid in the premises in November 2017. Thus, it is factually unclear when the State Government actually took formal possession of the property.

23. I submit that simple logic is that the State Government has only few months rule, in this few months will it be possible for them to complete the conversion of “Veda Nilayam” as Memorial. The intention of the State Government is to extract the movables from Poes Garden and convert them as liquid cash in doing this process their rule will come to an end. If other party succeeds in the election they would either drop this project or thereafter this acquisition will be kept in abeyance. Thus, I will be made to approach this Hon’ble Court under 24 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. The attitude of the State Government is intolerable my paternal aunt was the then General Secretary of A.I.A.D.M.K. party and she was the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. My paternal aunt Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa is an iron lady and because of her hard work and efficiency only these ministers are

Page No: Twelve
Corrections:

-:13:-
ruling the party and State. We are recognized as the legal heirs of Selvi. J.Jayalalithaa by this Hon’ble Court, but the State Government never mind about victimizing the legal heirs of the Amma Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa. This Hon’ble Court has also given a suggestion that “to avoid making Poes Garden property “Veda Nilayam” as Memorial by acquiring the property, as it would incur huge expenses to the public exchequer”.

24. I submit that whilst on 22.07.2020 the 5th respondent has passed the impugned order vide Award. No. 1/2020. The 5th respondent is not the competent authority to pass such order. As per the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 the District Collector is the competent authority. At the outset I do not agree with the order because the provision of law in RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 is not at all followed by the State Government of Tamil Nadu its authorities and the unilateral action of the 5th respondent has caused huge disruption to our ancestral property. Therefore, it is humbly prayed before this court to set aside/quash the Impugned order of the 5th respondent, based on the grounds set out hereunder:

GROUNDS

a) The impugned order passed by the 5th respondent vide Award No.1/2020 in R.C. No. A1 3476/2018, dated 22.07.2020 is illegal and against the provision of the statute.

b) The 5th respondent is not competent to pass the impugned order, the District Collector is the competent authority therefore the order passed by the 5th respondent is a gross violation of law.

c) The 5th respondent while passing the order has failed to see that in Chapter I, section 2 of RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 has not empowered either the State Government or the authorities to acquire the land for purpose of conversion of a private land into a Memorial, the act of the 2nd respondent is in contra with the provision of law.

Page No: Thirteen
Corrections:

-:14:-
d) The 5th respondent in the impugned order has miserably failed to see that in Chapter II A enumerates that Preliminary Investigation for Determination of Social Impact and Public Purpose. The 5th respondent has issued notice under Section 4(1) RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 on 27.11.208 for the authorities and totally ignored the provision of law envisaged in section 4(5) of RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 to hear the Public hearing for Social impact Assessment. Without the public hearing the Publication of Social Impact Assessment Study is illegal and against law.

e) The 4th Respondent has claimed to have issued preliminary notification under section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 have failed to notice that before the declaration under section 19 undertake and complete the exercise of updating of land records as prescribed within a period of two months. Hence the Impugned Order has been passed by the 5th respondent in view of the proceedings of the 4th respondent under section 11(1) r/w section 19 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed/set aside.

f) The 5th respondent has erroneously failed to look into that the Preliminary Notice should be issued by the District Collector as Per the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013, despite that 5th respondent has issued the Preliminary Notice on 21.06.2019. The 5th respondent is not the competent authority to issue Preliminary Notice and hence it is void and illegal.

g) The 5th respondent has miserably failed to see that section 14 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 is a provision about Lapse of Social Impact Assessment Report and there is no subsection in section 14. But whereas in the summary of the award of the 5th respondent states that on 05.07.2019 the 5th respondent has issued notice under section 14(1) act. When the original provision of law does not contain a subsection, where does the question of subsection will arise? The 5th respondent has invented subsection for his convenience; it is a sheer non application of mind hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Page No: Fourteen
Corrections:

-:15:-
h) The impugned order of the 5th respondent is bad in law, in the summary of the award the 5th respondent has stated that they have given notification on 05.07.2019 inviting objections under section 15(2), but whereas the provisions under section 15(1) of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 is that within sixty days and the date of the objections so herd under section 15(2) was absent in the summary of the award. Astonishingly the rejection of the objections was done on 22.01.2020 under section 15(3). The reason for the rejection is that it is the policy decision of the Government. The policy of the Government should be on the basis of the welfare of the people, but the act of the Government is for the welfare of the ministers. These politicians are elected by the people but once they came to the official post they will disintegrate themselves from public and state that they are Government. The most worst thing happened is I was not given an opportunity to be heard under section 15 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 and it is against the principles of natural justice.

i) The 5th respondent has failed to see that the notice under section 21 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 on 19.05.2020, in view of their direction I made my written submissions on 03.07.2020. In the impugned order the 5th respondent has stated in Annexure-I that bank account number was not furnished on 03.07.2020. The notice dated 19.05.2020 of the 5th respondent has not directed to furnish bank account details. On 03.07.2020 after receiving my statement the 5th respondent ought to have conducted the enquiry but it was not done section, 23 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 was totally ignored by the 5th respondent. The impugned order without conducting the enquiry is against the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to set aside.

j) The impugned order of the 5th respondent failed to look into that the market value of the property was not properly ascertained by the 4th respondent. Section 26(1) RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 provides that the determination of the market value shall be on the date of notification issued under Section 11 of the ACT, but the period between 28.06.2016 to 27.06.2019 was taken and considered. This is not correct; the date of the preliminary notification is 26.06.2019 from that day onwards till the date

Page No: Fifteen
Corrections:

-:16:-
of the award only the market value shall be determined. The ascertainment of market price is also not correct there is much difference between the market value and the guideline value. In Teynampet Village market value of Poes Garden will have much difference when compared to Eldams Road. The property under acquisition is behind Cathedral Road, everybody knows that Poes Garden is a posh location and guideline value fixed by the authorities for Rs.12,060/- is really a fraud. To determine the value of the property either the guideline value or the market value whichever is higher should be taken into account as per the Act. The 5th respondent award deserves to be set aside.

k) The impugned order of the 5th respondent has not followed section 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 and therefore passed a biased order without giving me any opportunity. The entire RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 has pointed that the authority should not prejudice the right claimant in any manner.

l) The 5th respondent has erroneously failed to see that as per Section 38 of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013, the Collector shall take the possession of the land after ensuring the full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements and paid or tendered to the entitled persons. But the 5th respondent has taken the possession without following section 38 of the Act, in view of that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

m) The 5th respondent ought to have strictly followed the provision of the law in RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. In the Act there is no specific provision to move the movables especially gold, silver, diamond, other metals and the personal belongings of a person from the property to be acquired. But the 5th respondent has passed an Ordinance on 22.05.2020, Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2020. The 5th respondent has prepared a fake inventory of precious treasure vested in the property. The suppression of the material in a property is against the law and the same is liable to be quashed.

Page No: Sixteen
Corrections:

-:17:-
25. I respectfully submit that in these circumstances I have no other alternative option except to approach this Hon’ble Court for seeking remedy by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India against the respondents herein.

26. I respectfully submit that there is no other similar Writ petition is pending before our Hon’ble Supreme court or other High Court.

27. Having been left with no other alternative efficacious remedy, I am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present Writ petition, seeking issuance of a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 5th respondent in so far as I am concerned, quashing the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merits and permit me to enter and take the possession of the our family monument “Veda Nilayam” at Poes Garden, Chennai. If the interim orders were not passed against the respondents I will be seriously prejudiced on the other hand no hardship will be caused to the respondents.

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned Order passed by the 5th Respondent, Award No. 01/2020 in R.C. No. A1/3476/2018, dated 22.07.2020 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit me, my husband, my legal representatives, architect, jewel appraisers, engineers, and other technicians to make inventory of the estate of my paternal aunt and submit the same before this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents for bearing them, their men, agent, servant, staffs and subordinates from moving the movables at “Vedha Nilayam” at No. 81, Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086 and dealing with the property in view of the ordinance dated 22.05.2020, vide Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2020 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Page No: Seventeen
Corrections:

-:18:-
This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to hand over the entire movables to me which are precious treasure of our ancestors for decades vested at “Vedha Nilayam” at No. 81, Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 6th respondent not to withdraw any amount from the award passed by the 5th respondent in Award No. 01/2020 in R.C. No. A1/3476/2018 in, dated 22.07.2020 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Therefore I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of the 5th respondent Award No. 01/2020 in R.C. No. A1/3476/2018 in, dated 22.07.2020 in view of the land acquisition proceedings in converting “Veda Nilayam” as Memorial under RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai )(
this the 28th day of July 2020 )( Before me,
and signed her name in my )(
presence. )(
Advocate, Chennai

Last Page
Corrections:

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2020

Mrs. Deepa Jayakumar,
D/o. Late. J. Jayakumar,
W/o. K. Madhavan,
New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street,
Thiyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
…Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
4th Floor, Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2),
New No. 46, Old No. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

…Respondents

-2-
WRIT PETITION

The address of the Petitioner for service of all notices and processes is that of his counsel M/s. G.J. BASKAR NARAYAN & R.KAVI NILAVU, No. 315/152, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001.

The address of the Respondent for service of all notices and processes is that of the same as stated above.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of the 5th respondent Award No. 01/2020 in R.C. No. A1/3476/2018 in, dated 22.07.2020 in view of the land acquisition proceedings in converting “Veda Nilayam” as Memorial under RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.

Dated at Chennai this the 28th day of July 2020.

Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P. No. of 2020
in

W.P. No. of 2020

Mrs. Deepa Jayakumar,
D/o. Late. J. Jayakumar,
W/o. K. Madhavan,
New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street,
Thiyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
…Petitioner/Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
4th Floor, Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2),
New No. 46, Old No. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

…Respondents/Respondents

-2-
PETITION FOR STAY

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned Order passed by the 5th Respondent, Award No. 01/2020 in R.C. No. A1/3476/2018, dated 22.07.2020 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Dated at Chennai this the 28th day of July 2020.

Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P. No. of 2020
in

W.P. No. of 2020

Mrs. Deepa Jayakumar,
D/o. Late. J. Jayakumar,
W/o. K. Madhavan,
New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street,
Thiyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
…Petitioner/Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
4th Floor, Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2),
New No. 46, Old No. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

…Respondents/Respondents

-2-
PETITION FOR DIRECTION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit me, my husband, my legal representatives, architect, jewel appraisers, engineers, and other technicians to make inventory of the estate of my paternal aunt and submit the same before this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Dated at Chennai this the 28th day of July 2020.

Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P. No. of 2020
in

W.P. No. of 2020

Mrs. Deepa Jayakumar,
D/o. Late. J. Jayakumar,
W/o. K. Madhavan,
New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street,
Thiyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
…Petitioner/Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
4th Floor, Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2),
New No. 46, Old No. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

…Respondents/Respondents

-2-
PETITION FOR DIRECTION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents for bearing them, their men, agent, servant, staffs and subordinates from moving the movables at “Vedha Nilayam” at No. 81, Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086 and dealing with the property in view of the ordinance dated 22.05.2020, vide Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2020 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Dated at Chennai this the 28th day of July 2020.

Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P. No. of 2020
in

W.P. No. of 2020

Mrs. Deepa Jayakumar,
D/o. Late. J. Jayakumar,
W/o. K. Madhavan,
New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street,
Thiyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
…Petitioner/Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
4th Floor, Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2),
New No. 46, Old No. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

…Respondents/Respondents

-2-
PETITION FOR DIRECTION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to hand over the entire movables to me which are precious treasure of our ancestors for decades vested at “Vedha Nilayam” at No. 81, Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Dated at Chennai this the 28th day of July 2020.

Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P. No. of 2020
in

W.P. No. of 2020

Mrs. Deepa Jayakumar,
D/o. Late. J. Jayakumar,
W/o. K. Madhavan,
New No.13, Old No.9, Sivagnanam Street,
Thiyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
…Petitioner/Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort’ St George,
Chennai 600 009.

4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
4th Floor, Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2),
New No. 46, Old No. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

…Respondents/Respondents

-2-
PETITION FOR DIRECTION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 6th respondent not to withdraw any amount from the award passed by the 5th respondent in Award No. 01/2020 in R.C. No. A1/3476/2018 in, dated 22.07.2020 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders of this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Dated at Chennai this the 28th day of July 2020.

Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME