Jaya’s house in Secunderabad, now in Sasikala's name, slapped with Rs 35,424 tax
A view of J. Jayalalithaa’s house now in the name of Sasikala Natarajan at Radhika Colony, West Marredpally that has been served tax notice. (Photo: File)
Plot No 16 G/F, Radika Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, is now in the name of 'Ms Sasikala Natarajan'.
C R Gowri Shanker
The property with a ground and first floor was purchased by Jayalalithaa when she was in the film industry and was shuttling between Chennai and Hyderabad. The property on Plot No 16 G/F, Radika Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, is now in the name of “Ms Sasikala Natarajan”.
According to a Cantonment Board official, the property tax of Rs 35,424 was due for two years despite reminders. The notice was put up on Tuesday.
“House owners have to pay property tax every year. Some do not pay it on time. Defaulters are sent notices. If the house is locked as it happens in some cases, we put up a notice at the house,” the official said.
Initially, a family stayed in the house but it is vacant since three months due to renovation work, according to locals. Th-e locals haven’t seen Sas-ikala visiting the house.
Initially, a family stayed in the house but it is vacant since three months due to renovation work, according to locals. Th-e locals haven’t seen Sas-ikala visiting the house.
A frequent visitor to Hyderabad in her movie days, the actor-turned-politician used to stay in a star-graded hotel in Banjara Hills. She took a house on rent initially in Secunderabad and subsequently acquired several properties after she fell in love with the city.
She bought an agriculture land, ‘JJ Garden’ in Jeedimetla on Medchal Road in her name and the name of her mother Sandhya (Vedha), in 1968, where she has a grape garden on 14.50 acres. She subsequently acquired another 3.33 acres.
The grape garden was in the news during when the Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy go-vernment served her a notice on January 25, 20-07, stating that an 8.1-acre portion had been assigned to the poor during 1956-59. Jayalalithaa, who bought the land from different people, had denied the charges.
She bought an agriculture land, ‘JJ Garden’ in Jeedimetla on Medchal Road in her name and the name of her mother Sandhya (Vedha), in 1968, where she has a grape garden on 14.50 acres. She subsequently acquired another 3.33 acres.
The grape garden was in the news during when the Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy go-vernment served her a notice on January 25, 20-07, stating that an 8.1-acre portion had been assigned to the poor during 1956-59. Jayalalithaa, who bought the land from different people, had denied the charges.
Jayalalithaa also owned a 14,000 sq ft building in Srinagar Colony which she acquired on December 11, 1967. It is not clear if Jayalalithaa left behind a will and whether the property in Secunderabad was transferred.
In 2015, Jayalalithaa declared assets worth Rs 117.13 crores, including movable assets worth Rs 45.04 crore and immovable assets valued at Rs 72.09 crore, in her affidavit before the Election Commission for the RK Nagar bypolls in Tamil Nadu which included her Hyderabad properties.
In 2015, Jayalalithaa declared assets worth Rs 117.13 crores, including movable assets worth Rs 45.04 crore and immovable assets valued at Rs 72.09 crore, in her affidavit before the Election Commission for the RK Nagar bypolls in Tamil Nadu which included her Hyderabad properties.
Feburary 16, 2017
V K Sasikala’s wait to be sworn-in as CM may
have just got longer
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | C R GOWRI SHANKER
Not prudent to invite Sasikala now in view of the impending court verdict, Tamil Nadu Governor tells Centre.PublishedFeb 11, 2017, 1:55 am IST
UpdatedFeb 11, 2017, 3:26 am IST
AIADMK General Secretary V K Sasikala.
A day after meeting the leaders of the warring factions, the Governor sent his detailed assessment of the “extraordinary situation” in Tamil Nadu to the Centre which, according to reliable sources, may have dashed Sasikala’s immediate hopes of being sworn-in as chief minister.
It is believed the Governor has also concluded that there should be a reasonable guarantee that the person who is not a member of the Assembly should have the ability to be elected to the Assembly within six months of being named as CM.
The Governor is reported to have said in his assessment: “Even when there is iota of doubt about the ability of the person to get elected to Assembly within six months, Article 164 (4) has to be interpreted as a restriction/disqualification as contained in the interpretation of Supreme Court mentioned above.
The report is said to acknowledge the fact that the “Governor is also bound by Constitution to satisfy himself that a person staking claim would form a stable government. In view of the impending judgement in the DA case as uncertainty exists about the qualification of V.K. Sasikala to become MLA”.
The source who revealed the Governor’s thinking and his possible line of action also said pending court cases have been mentioned as an impediment to calling the particular person now.
The decision means that without the concurrence of the Centre or instructions to the contrary, the Governor will first await the SC judgement in the Sasikala case and so is in no hurry to either invite, O. Panneerselvam or Sasikala for a show of strength. A peculiar situation in this case, the Governor is said to have stated in his report, is the resolution of the AIADMK legislators actually proposed by O. Pannerselvam.
“In the resolution given by V.K. Sasikala it is seen that it is mooted because O. Pannerselvam informed Sasikala of his resignation having being submitted to Governor.”
It is also noted that O. Pannerselvam has proposed the resolution and also signed the same. Now Pannerselvam has stated that he was constrained, forced and coerced to sign the resignation letter under duress and therefore requested to rescind any action taken thereon.
“The current situation in Tamil Nadu presents a unique set of constitutional issues with no precedent of this kind. Here is a person who stakes claim to form the government based on the resolution passed at a meeting of the party legislators. But she is not a legislator of the Assembly. Hence it is not a straight case under Article 164 (1) but has to be considered under Article 164 (1) read with Article 164 (4).
Rao, who has sent a detailed report to Centre on the developments in TN, also asserted that since OPS is the caretaker CM, “there is no vacuum and hence there is no need for being unduly alarmed.”
Sasikala case Time Line, Feb 14, 2017
Tue, Feb 14, 2017, 5:33 PM
A timeline of DA case that led CM-in-making Sasikala to jail
February 14, 2017
Following is the chronology of events in the disproportionate assets (DA) case in which the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Feb 14, 2017) convicted AIADMK General Secretary V K Sasikala that also involved late CM J Jayalalithaa.
* 1996: Subramanian Swamy, then Janata Party chief, files a case against Jayalalithaa alleging that during her tenure as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister from 1991 to 1996, she amassed properties worth Rs 66.65 crore disproportionate to her known sources of income.
* December 7, 1996: Jayalalithaa arrested. Many allegations follow, including accumulation of disproportionate assets.
* 1997: Prosecution launched in sessions court in Chennai against Jayalalithaa and three others for having assets 'disproportionate' to their known income.
* Jun 4, 1997: They are charge-sheeted for offences under sections 120-B IPC, 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
* October 1: Madras High Court dismisses 3 petitions by Jayalalithaa including one challenging the sanction granted by then Governor M Fathima Beevi for prosecuting her.
Trial progresses.
By August 2000, 250 prosecution witnesses examined and only 10 more remained.
In the May 2001 Assembly elections, AIADMK secures absolute majority and Jayalalithaa becomes CM. Her appointment is challenged due to her conviction in October, 2000 in the TANSI(Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation) case. The Supreme Court nullifies the appointment.
* September 21, 2001: Jayalalithaa ceases to be CM. After her conviction is set aside, Jayalalithaa is elected to the Assembly in a bypoll from Andipatti constituency on February 21, 2002, and again sworn in as CM.
* 2003: DMK general secretary K Anbazhagan approaches SC for transferring the trial to Karnataka on the ground that a fair trial was not possible in Tamil Nadu with Jayalalithaa as CM.
* November 18, 2003: SC transfers the case to Bengaluru.
* February 19, 2005: The Karnataka government appoints B V Acharya, a former Advocate General, as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) to conduct the prosecution.
* October/November 2011: Jayalalithaa deposes in the Special Court and answers 1,339 questions.
* August 12, 2012: Acharya expresses his inability to continue as SPP. Karnataka government accepts his resignation in January, 2013 and discharges him from the case.
* February 2, 2013: Karnataka government appoints G Bhavani Singh as SPP.
* August 26, 2013: Karnataka government issues a notification withdrawing the appointment of Bhavani Singh as SPP without assigning any reason and without consulting the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court.
* September 30, 2013: SC quashes the notification withdrawing appointment of Bhavani Singh as SPP.
December 12, 2013: Special Court allows plea by DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan and directs physical production of valuables and other assets seized from Jayalalithaa in 1997 and deposited in an RBI treasury in Chennai.
February 28, 2014: Special Court dismisses plea by SPP seeking a direction to produce before it the seized silver articles belonging to her. Judge says SPP had filed it only with the purpose of delaying the proceedings.
March 14/15, 2014: Special Court imposes a cost of one-day salary on SPP Bhavani Singh for not resuming final arguments citing ill-health.
March 18, 2014: Singh moves Karnataka HC challenging the special court order imposing cost.
March 21, 2014: HC rejects his petition saying the order of the special court imposing cost was right.
August 28, 2014: Special Court reserves judgement for September 20 and directs all the four accused, including Jayalalithaa, to appear before it on that date.
September 16, 2014: Special Court defers by a week to September 27 the pronouncement of its verdict.
September 27, 2014: Special Court convicts Jayalalithaa and three others including aide Sasikala. Awards four years' prison term to Jayalalithaa, slaps Rs 100 crore fine.
September 29, 2014: Jayalalithaa moves Karnataka HC challenging conviction, seeks bail.
October 7, 2014: High Court denies bail, citing 'no grounds,' to do so.
October 9, 2014: Jayalalithaa moves SC seeking bail. October 17, 2014: SC grants bail to Jayalalithaa.
October 18, 2014: After 21 days in prison, Jayalalithaa released from prison on bail. SC says it will ask Karnataka High Court to complete hearing on appeal in three months.
December 18, 2014: SC extends Jayalalithaa's bail by four months. A bench headed by CJI H L Dattu orders that her appeal challenging conviction in Karnataka HC be conducted on a day-to-day basis by a Special Bench.
February 26, 2015: DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan moves SC seeking stay of the case against Jayalalithaa questioning impartiality of SPP Bhawani Singh.
March 9, 2015: SC issues notice to Jayalalithaa and others on plea by Anbazhagan seeking removal of prosecutor.
March 11, 2015: Karnataka HC reserves order on appeal by Jayalalithaa and three others including confidante Sasikala in disproportionate assets (DA) case. April 1, 2015: Jaya defends Singh's continuance.
April 15, 2015: SC gives split verdict on plea seeking removal of Bhawani Singh in Jayalalithaa's DA case before Karnataka HC, refers the matter to a larger bench.
April 27, 2015: SC rejects Bhawani Singh's appointment as "bad in law", says case does not warrant de novo (fresh) hearing of appeals. Allows Anbazhagan and Karnataka to file written submissions in HC
April 27, 2015: Anbazhagan files written submission with Karnataka HC seeking confirming of Jayalalithaa's sentence.
April 28, 2015: B V Acharya appointed new SPP, files written submission before Karnataka HC praying for dismissal of Jayalalithaa's appeal.
May 8, 2015: Karnataka High Court notification says Special Vacation Bench of Justice CR Kumaraswamy will pronounce verdict on Jayalalithaa's appeal on May 11, 2015.
May 11, 2015: Karnataka HC acquits Jayalalithaa and three others.
June 23, 2015: Karnataka Govt moves SC against Jayalalithaa's acquittal in DA case.
July 27, 2015: SC issues notice to Jayalalithaa on appeal challenging her acquittal.
Feb 23, 2016: SC commences final hearing on the appeals against Jayalalithaa's acquittal.
June 7, 2016: SC reserves verdict on appeals in DA case against Jayalalithaa.
Dec 5, 2016: Jayalalithaa dies after prolonged illness in Chennai.
Feb 14, 2017: SC convicts Sasikala and her two relatives, V N Sudhakaran and Elavarasi by restoring the trial court verdict in toto directing them to serve the remaining jail term.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside AIADMK general secretary V.K. Sasikala's acquittal by the Karnataka High Court in the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case and "restored in full" the trial court conviction of September 2014.
A Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy also set aside the acquittal of her two co-accused J. Ilavarasi and V.N. Sudhakaran and restored their conviction in the case.
The SC said the appeals filed by Karnataka government and others, including DMK leader K. Anbazhagan, against the former Chief Minister has abated after her death on December 5, 2016.
The Supreme Court ordered Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran to surrender forthwith before the trial court concerned.
Even after Sasikala comes out after serving her four-year sentence, she would be disqualified to contest elections for the next six years as per the Supreme Court judgment in Lily Thomas versus Union of India of July 2013. The voluminous main judgment authored by Justice Ghose held that the trial court conviction of the three accused — A2 to A4 — on September 27, 2014 has been restored in full along with the consequent directions, including payment of fine and attachment of properties.
Fine of Rs. 10 crore
The trial court had sentenced Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act — abetment of criminal misconduct of a public servant — to simple imprisonment for a period of four years each and pay a fine of Rs. 10 crore each. In case of default, they would have to further suffer imprisonment for another year.
For the offence of criminal conspiracy leading to criminal misconduct of a public servant (Section 120 (B) IPC read with Section 13 (2)) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, all three were sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each.
Special Judge John Michael Cunha had ordered the attachment properties held by Indo-Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., Signora Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., Meadow Agro Farms, Riverway Agro Products.
No comments:
Post a Comment