Woman claims wrongful attachment of 2.15 acres of her land in Jayalalithaa's disproportionate assets case
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy on Tuesday (July 8, 2025) ordered notice to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and directed a government counsel to make sure a counter affidavit was filed to the writ petition by July 28, after verifying the records and ascertaining the veracity of the claim.
In her affidavit, the petitioner J. Kamasala said, she had purchased 33 cents of land in survey number 632/1, 1.51 acres in survey number 632/2, and 31 cents in survey number 640/6 by virtue of a sale deed executed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) Limited on August 3, 2006.
The petitioner also stated the lands originally belonged to a woman named R. Lakshmi, who had mortgaged them with TIIC but could not discharge the loan in full. Hence, the TIIC had taken possession of the properties in 2002 and sold them by way of a public auction to the petitioner in 2006.
Subsequently, when a private company named Madow Agro Farms Private Limited began interfering with a portion of the property, the petitioner's son J. Sathish Kumar filed a civil suit in 2017 for the declaration of title, and obtained a favourable decree from a district court in 2018.
However, recently, when she applied for an Encumbrance Certificate for her properties, the petitioner got to know that the entire extent of 2.15 acres of her land had been included in a long list of immovable properties that had been attached in connection with Jayalalithaa's disproportionate assets case.
She learnt that a Government Order had been issued with respect to the attachment and subsequently, the Kancheepuram Collector had sent a communication to the Sub Registrar's office on February 27, 2021 instructing the latter to not entertain any documents for the alienation of those properties.
The petitioner informed the court of having sent representations to the DVAC, Kancheepuram Collector, as well as TIIC on April 21, 2025, clarifying that her properties had nothing to do with the disproportionate assets case. However, there was no response and hence, the present writ petition was filed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court quashes dowry harassment case against in-laws, but allows trial against husband
Bengaluru: The high court quashed the proceedings against parents and a relative of a 25-year-old Bengaluru resident in a dowry harassment case. Justice M Nagaprasanna noted the allegations against these individuals lacked merit, particularly as the complainant herself admitted to a secret marriage unknown to the family. The case involves two individuals who met in their college years. The complainant frequently visited the man's residence, occasionally threatening self-harm if marriage was refused. This led to the man's father filing a police complaint on Oct 23, 2021, at Subramanyanagar police station. Following police intervention, the woman provided a written assurance to cease troubling the family. Subsequently, the couple eloped to Hassan, marrying on Jan 12, 2023, with registration completed on Jan 13, 2023. They lived separately, with the family unaware of these developments. The relationship deteriorated shortly after, leading to woman filing a complaint alleging various offences, including forced sexual relations when she was underage, brutal assault post-marriage, and stalking with threats to expose private content which the man allegedly recorded on his mobile. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The complaint also included charges under multiple acts, including SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Pocso Act , Dowry Prohibition Act, Information Technology Act, and various BNS sections. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 World's Prettiest Star In The History Half Eddie Read More Undo The other accused were charged with public abuse under the Atrocities Act. The petitioners contested these allegations, arguing no prima facie case existed. They maintained the marriage was voluntary, and the complaint emerged as retaliation to divorce proceedings. Earlier complaints did not mention sexual assault claims, which were later added, citing incidents from Aug 4, 2019, Sept 4, 2019, and Sept 29, 2019. The court found allegations against petitioners 2 to 4 (parents and relative) lacking substantial evidence and legal basis. Justice Nagaprasanna also observed the requirements for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, particularly regarding public humiliation based on caste, were absent. However, the judge maintained proceedings against the husband, citing serious allegations including Pocso Act violations and rape charges prior to marriage, which necessitate a complete trial.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Karntaka high court notice to National Highways Authority on PIL against illegal toll collection
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has ordered notice to the ministry of road transport and the National Highways Authority of India, in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to restrain them from the alleged illegal collection of Rs 40 toll at Nagasandra. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi directed the respondents to submit their response to the PIL filed by advocate AV Amarnathan and posted the matter for hearing on Sept 17. According to the petitioner, he recently shifted his residence to a township located at Dasanapura on Huskur Road. While travelling along the Nelamangala-Bengaluru Road via Nagasandra flyover, a Rs 40 toll charge was collected from him for about 5-km distance from the Parle G factory to Goraguntepalya stretch. He added that when he received a map from Bengaluru North taluk, issued by the survey department, he came to know that the collection of the toll is illegal since the 5-km stretch falls within the city. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru According to him, despite the expiry of the contract period in 2021, the toll plaza is still collecting toll fee through Fastags from every vehicle passing through the road, which connects about 20 districts of Karnataka. Apart from seeking a prayer for restraining the respondents, the petitioner also sought a direction to them to furnish details of the toll collection at Nagasandra toll plaza from 2021 till now.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court upholds action against assistant professor at DU in sexual harassment case
The Delhi High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of an assistant professor of political science in Delhi University's Bharati College over multiple allegations of sexual harassment by students. The Court described the accused's conduct as 'so profane' that it refrained from reproducing in its judgment the objectionable messages he sent to the complainants. In the July 17 judgment, Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that, 'Teachers shape the career of young aspiring students for a better future... The act of sexual harassment done by these very teachers, who are considered our guides and mentors, against young female students who have just attained majority, has a deleterious effect on the psyche of such students.' The accused had challenged the orders of compulsory retirement issued by the college's governing body in December 2020. Four complaints were filed against him — three by current students of Bharati College and one by a former student — alleging sexual innuendoes/advances through Facebook chats and WhatsApp messages. The complaints surfaced in February 2018, shortly after a video of students confronting the professor about his conduct became public. The video sparked student protests and demands for an inquiry. The matter was referred to the college's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), in line with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), and UGC regulations. The Court noted that the ICC's inquiry report of August 28, 2018, found all charges against the professor to be substantiated through both documentary and oral evidence. 'The testimony of each of the complainants remained unimpeached and resultantly, this Court finds no reason to question the veracity of the ICC's analysis of the evidence and statements,' the Court held. The Court rejected the professor's arguments of procedural impropriety, noting that it found no violation of rules in how the ICC was constituted or how the inquiry was conducted.
