Madras HC reserves order in land grab case against Ma Subramanian

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court reserved the final orders in the plea of Health Minister Ma Subramanian challenging the criminal case filed against him and his wife on the charges of grabbing government land.

Justice P Velmurugan, upon hearing all the parties, reserved his orders without mentioning any date.

S Parthiban, an independent candidate who lost to Ma Subramanian in the 2016 Assembly election in the Saidapet constituency, filed the complaint.

According to him, in 1996, Subramanian grabbed two plots belonging to the Small Industries Development Corporate (SIDCO) at the Labour Colony in Guindy by submitting forged documents.

Based on the complaint, the police lodged the case against Subramanian and his wife Kanchana. Subramanian and his wife filed the present petition seeking to quash the case.

Senior counsel Selvam, appearing for the complainant, submitted that with his political clout, Subramanian grabbed the plot from SK Kannan, to whom originally the plot was given at a subsidy rate.

Producing the forged document claiming that Kannan is his father-in-law, Subramanian transferred the title in his favour and constructed a three-story residential building when he was the Mayor of Chennai Corporation, the complainant has alleged. After the demise of Kannan in 2015, Subramanian settled money to the original legal heirs in an attempt to hide the offence, claimed the counsel.

Without obtaining a no-objection certificate from SIDCO, Subramanian constructed his residence, and he also grabbed another plot adjacent to the land, he contended.

Senior counsel S Muralidhar and P Wilson appeared for Ma Subramanian and his wife to defend their case.

The counsels objected to all the claims of the complainant and submitted that the petitioners purchased the plots legally and didn't submit any forged documents to obtain them, as alleged by the complainant.

It is a complaint made with malafide intent as more than 50 such plots were purchased by different parties from labourers for whom the plots were allotted. The complainant, however, preferred to lodge a complaint against only his client owing to political enmity, said the counsels.

Also, the complaint has been lodged after a delay of 20 years, the minister's advocates contended. Such sales of property were regularised in 2008, they argued.

It was also claimed that the sanction issued by the then Assembly Speaker permitting the prosecution to register the case against Subramanian is out of jurisdiction as he was the Mayor during the cause of action. Hence, the authority to issue sanctions is the State, not the Speaker, contended.