Tamil Nadu: Madras High Court Quashes Compensation Award For Sasikala’s Property

The High Court directed the authorities to commence the proceedings from the beginning after giving a fresh notice to Sasikala in accordance with the law.

Former AIADMK Leader VK Sasikala (File Picture)

Chennai: The Madras High Court On Thursday quashed an order of the highways department awarding compensation for acquisition of land belonging to former AIADMK leader and late Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s close aide VK Sasikala on Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR).

According to a report in the Times of India, about 8,438 square feet of land owned by Sasikala at Paiyanur has been acquired for widening of OMR by the highways department. 

The report further said that Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed the plea moved by Sasikala challenging the order dated September 16, 2011 and directed the authorities to commence the proceedings from the beginning after giving a fresh notice to Sasikala in accordance with the law. 

The report said that the issue is related to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the highways department for widening the OMR under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. Shortly after the proceedings were initiated, Sasikala had raised an objection to the land acquisition authority on January 18, 2010 and subsequently an inquiry was conducted by Kancheepuram district collector, the report said. 

Quoting a senior advocate B Kumar who represented Sasikala, the report said that even though the petitioner had submitted an objection to the Kancheepuram district collector, she has received no reply from the authorities and hence, the inquiry is invalid. 

As per the report, he said that Sasikala was informed of the compensation award on September 15, 2011 and was asked to bring land documents to receive compensation. Challenging it, she moved the court. 

Opposing it, the report said that the state government had said that they had initiated the acquisition proceedings legally and followed all the due procedures properly. They could not acquire the land even after completing the due procedures because of the plea pending before the court.