Election petition: CM Vijay produces Kodaikanal land sale deed in HC

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay has produced before the Madras High Court a sale deed to prove that he had, in fact, purchased 50 cents of land at Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal in 1997, as declared in his election affidavit while contesting from the Perambur constituency this year.
The sale deed was produced before Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, who is seized of an election petition filed by a voter, S. Dinesh, urging the court to declare Mr. Vijay’s victory from the Perambur constituency null and void on the ground of false declarations and misdeclarations in his election affidavit.
In the petition, filed through his counsel on record, V.R. Shanmuganathan, the voter, had claimed that the Vilpatti property had actually been classified as ‘Government Poramboke’ land as per the Village ‘A’ register, a land record which the petitioner had downloaded from the State government’s website.
When the judge wanted to know whether he, as the presiding officer of an election tribunal, could decide the title of a property when confronted with conflicting documents, the petitioner’s arguing counsel replied: “Definitely MiLord. Your Lordship can render a finding on the issue.”
“After taking evidence during the course of trial, Your Lordship can decide anything. Your Lordship may even render a finding that yes, the sale deed is correct and the ‘A’ register is not correct because it is an old record. Your Lordship may conclude whatever you feel is right,” he said.
However, the counsel said that a decision as to whether the sale deed was right or the ‘A’ register was not right could not be taken at the present stage when the Chief Minister had filed an application to reject the election petition at the threshold, without even taking it to the stage of trial.
He said that the election petitioner had made out a cause of action for conducting a full-fledged trial by listing a number of false and misdeclarations in the election affidavit, which had the effect of influencing the voters’ choice, and hence, the application filed by the Chief Minister must be dismissed.
On the judge’s question as to whether being in possession of government land would disentitle a person from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, the counsel said, “I would prefer not to go into that issue. I am confining my argument to the point that the applicant’s claim over the Vilpatti property is false.”
Thereafter, arguing the case on behalf of the Chief Minister, senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan said that Mr. Vijay had declared assets worth over ₹600 crore in his election affidavit. “So, if he is wealthy up to ₹630 crores, the question is whether a difference of a few crores would amount to criminalisation of politics,” he said.
After the counsel for both sides concluded their oral arguments, Justice Lakshminarayanan directed the Registry to list the case on October 14 for submission of written arguments. The judge said he shall reserve orders on Mr. Vijay’s application after the receipt of the written notes.