Chennai: The Madras high court has directed the police not to arrest till June 12 DMK MLA and former Mayor of Chennai Corporation Ma. Subramanian and his wife in connection with a case relating to alleged grabbing of a property belonging to SIDCO by creating forged and fabricated documents.
Justice G.K.Illanthiraiyan gave the direction orally and posted to June 12 further hearing of the anticipatory bail petitions filed by Ma.Subramanian and his wife Kanchana. The judge also permitted the de facto complainant S.Parthiban to file an intervening petition.
When the case came up for hearing, senior counsel P.Wilson appearing for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant was a third party and he has nothing to do with the property. He was a rival independent candidate contested along with Ma. Subramanian during the 2016 general election and got a meagre 87 votes.
He made many attempts to tarnish his image including filing of election petition by alleging as if Ma. Subramanian furnished false and fraudulent information in his nomination papers about a property belonging to his wife and he wanted his election to be declared as null and void but his election petition was rejected.
He also filed a writ petition in which also no positive direction was issued. Hence, he filed another petition and obtained liberty to file a private complaint and the magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the police, he added.
Wilson said the petitioner were in possession of the property. The SIDCO itself has issued a letter for regularisation. Ma.Subramanian was a sitting MLA and he has to discharge his duties. Kanchana was in no way connected with the original allottee S.K.Kannan, who assigned the rights over the property to her, he added.
Vehemently opposing the plea, state public prosecutor A.Natarajan submitted that SIDCO had allotted the properties only to the labourers. As per a G.O, the properties 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. In the legal heir certificate, Kanchana's name was not mentioned. They created a story as if Kanchana was the daughter of S.K.Kannan. Only the investigation was pending. It requires custodial interrogation. They demolished the original building and constructed ground plus 3 floors. Though he was a mayor, no planning permission was obtained from the authorities, Natarajan added.
In their petition, the petitioners submitted that they have got valid documents to establish that they were in lawful possession of the property. During his lifetime, SK Kannan assigned his rights over the superstructure in favour of Kanchana. After his demise, Kannan's legal heirs have also confirmed Kanchana's rights over the superstructure by way of a deed of confirmation dated June 25, 2016. She was paying property tax since 2005 and electricity connection stands in her name. Only to harass the petitioners in one way or other and for political vendetta, the de facto complainant was being used as a tool against the petitioners, for obvious reasons, they added....