In a significant judicial development, the Madras High Court has granted permission for the State to inspect the Kodanad estate, owned by VK Sasikala, a close associate of the late Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa. This decision comes amidst allegations of illegal constructions on the estate.
The Kodanad village panchayat had initially raised concerns over alleged illegal constructions on the estate in 2007, issuing a notice to the estate management to demolish the purported unauthorized structures. The estate management responded by filing a petition to quash the notice. The court, after hearing the petition, ruled in favor of the estate, declaring that there were no illegal constructions and subsequently quashed the notice.
Undeterred by the initial court ruling, the Kodanad village panchayat appealed the decision, bringing the matter before a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan. The panchayat’s appeal sought permission to conduct an inspection to verify the allegations of illegal constructions on the estate.
During the hearing, Advocate General (AG) PS Raman, representing the State, argued that the restricted access to the estate left the allegations shrouded in uncertainty. He emphasized the need for an inspection to uncover the truth about the alleged illegal constructions.
Conversely, the counsel for the estate opposed the State’s request for inspection, pointing out that the court had already ruled that no illegal constructions existed on the property. The counsel also highlighted that the estate management had been consistently paying property taxes up to 2023, suggesting that the State’s actions were politically motivated and aimed at harassing Sasikala.
The division bench, however, questioned the resistance to inspection if there were indeed no illegal constructions as claimed by the estate. The judges noted that a neutral inspection would bring clarity to the matter and observed, “The truth would come out once the inspection is conducted.”
Ultimately, the bench ruled in favor of the State, allowing the inspection to proceed. The court emphasized that the inspection must be carried out impartially and in accordance with the law.
