Chennai: DMK MLA M Subramanian and his wife are allegedly involved in connection land grabbing of a government property with forged documents. The Madras High Court yesterday directed police not to arrest the couple till 12 June.
The order was given by high court judge Justice G K Illanthiraiyan. The judge also posted further hearing of their anticipatory petitions for today. The complainant in the case S Parthiban was also directed to file an intervening petition. Parthiban had contested as an Independent against former Chennai Corporation Mayor Subramanian in the 2016 assembly election,
Subramanian in his election affidavit had claimed that the property belonged to his wife Kanchana. But Parthiban said that the claim was false and that the land belonged to S K Kannan who had died in 2015. in 14 February 1959, Industries and Commerce Department had allotted the land to Kannan.
Parthiban accused Subramanian of encroaching the property by forging documents in collusion with officials of Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO), the property owner. Later, the building was demolished and a new house was built by the MLA, and this was declared by him in his election affidavit, claimed Parthiban.
Counsel appearing for Subramanian stated that Parthiban had many times attempted to tarnish the image of the MLA. He was a third party and had nothing to do with the property and that petitioners were in possession of it.
The SIDCO had issued a letter for regularization, claimed the counsel. Subramanian was a sitting MLA and he has to discharge his duties. Kanchana was in no way connected with the original allottee SK Kannan, who assigned the rights over the property to her.
Vehemently opposing the plea, state public prosecutor A Natarajan submitted that SIDCO had allotted the property only to labourers. As per a government order, the property can be assigned only to the legal heirs of the allottee. There was no question of selling the property to third parties. Only for the purpose of grabbing the property, this assignment was fabricated, he alleged. In the legal heir certificate, Kanchana’s name was not mentioned. Only investigation was pending.
“It requires custodial interrogation,” the public prosecutor said. In their petition, Subramanian and his wife submitted that they had valid documents to establish that they were in lawful possession of the property. Only to harass them in one way or the other and as part of political vendetta, the de facto complainant was being used as a tool against them, “for obvious reasons,” they added.