IT dept. seeks compensation from Jayalalithaa’s estate
CHENNAII-T dept. seeks compensation from Jayalalithaa’s estate
Veda Nilayam, the residence of the former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa. | Photo Credit: B_JOTHI RAMALINGAM
Legal CorrespondentCHENNAI 17 JULY 2020 00:01 ISTUPDATED: 17 JULY 2020 03:28 IST
Department said it has to collect arrears of around ₹30 crore
The State government on Thursday told the Madras High Court that apart from former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s niece J. Deepa and nephew J. Deepak, the Income Tax (I-T) department too had responded to a notice issued for acquisition of her residence Veda Nilayam at Poes Garden here and payment of compensation.
Appearing before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Advocate General Vijay Narayan said the official concerned had recently issued a notice under Section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 inviting claims to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement.
Though the niece and nephew had responded to the notice in their capacity as legal heirs, the I-T department too had staked claim for compensation on the ground that it had to collect arrears of around ₹30 crore. Some cases regarding that were also pending in the High Court following orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, he said.
Advertising
Advertising
The submissions were made during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Mr. Deepak challenging the acquisition proceedings. He claimed that Jayalalithaa had treated her residence as a temple and it was her wish that the family should continue to maintain it after her death. The petitioner claimed that she never wanted it to be converted into a memorial.
His counsel S.L. Sudarsanam also brought it to the notice of the judge that a Division Bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and Abdul Quddhose had on May 27 declared his client and the latter’s sister as Jayalalithaa’s legal heirs. It also directed them to allot a few of the properties for creation of a public trust to be named after her and report compliance within eight weeks.
Since the eight-week period would get over in another 10 days, Justice Venkatesh directed the High Court Registry to list the present writ petition too before the Division Bench after obtaining necessary approval from Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi. He, however, refrained from passing any interim order restraining the government from proceeding further.
When the petitioner’s counsel insisted that at least the Advocate General could ensure that the acquisition proceedings do not proceed further until the cases get listed before the Division Bench, Justice Venkatesh said: “When I am not inclined to pass any interim orders, how can you expect the Advocate General to pass an order in your favour.”
