LIVE Course on Transfer Property Law | Price Hike in 4 days | Grab it now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     05 October 2009

Drama in judiciary

 TOI of  5/10/09

Jai Ho.





Fresh evidence pops up against CJ

Panel Tells SC Of Dinakaran’s Bid To Acquire 3 Prime Plots In TN

Manoj Mitta | TNN 



New Delhi: Even as CJI K G Balakrishnan is holding a discreet inquiry into allegations of land-grabbing by prospective SC judge P D Dinakaran, Chennai’s Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) has come up with more serious evidence of properties allegedly acquired by him and his immediate family members. 

    The highlight of the third and latest representation sent by FJA to the SC collegium on October 1 is his alleged modus operandi to acquire three prime plots in 2005 from Tamil Nadu Housing Board near the IT corridor of Chennai for his wife Vinodhini Dinakaran and daughters Amudha and Amirtha. 

Violation of eligibility conditions 

    
His parents-in-law, James Kuppuswamy and Paripoornam, were allegedly benami for his daughters. The plots that finally went to the daughters were originally applied for in the names of his parents-in-law. Since those plots of about 350 sq metres were meant for high-income group, it required the applicants to have an annual income of at least Rs 90,000. But the housing board allotted plots to Dinakaran’s parents-inlaw although his father-in-law’s declared annual income was merely Rs 56,668 and his mother-in-law’s was Rs 49,200. 

Transfer of land within two days of allotment 

    
The transfer of land from parentsin-law to daughters, made through a family settlement, violated the public 
house scheme meant for the benefit of those without property and in need of housing. The allotment itself was in violation of the one-plot-per-family rule. 

Dinakaran’s order helps his family get plots 

    
Since his wife and parents-in-law were among the applicants for the housing board land near the IT corridor, Dinakaran should have declined to hear a case challenging the land acquisition. Yet, it was thanks to his order that the land acquisition was upheld and that in turn paved the way for the housing board to effect sales in favour of, among 
other allottees, his wife and parents-inlaw. FJA called this a “gross abuse of office and subversion of justice”. 

    Another shocking property transaction brought out by FJA is the purchase by his mother-in-law of a 4.5-acre bungalow in Ooty in August just around the time Dinakaran’s name was cleared by the collegium to be elevated to the apex court from his current post of chief justice of the Karnataka high court. Though the market value of that property was Rs 8 crore and the government guideline value was Rs 3 crore, the transaction was grossly undervalued at Rs 33,75,100.

    Even so, his mother-in-law, who retired as a school headmistress, and his father-in-law, who retired as a security officer, did not by their own admission have the resources to buy the Ooty and Chennai properties, FJA pointed out. 

    In its earlier representations, FJA had focused on the manner in which Dinankaran and his family, after he became a judge, allegedly fenced off over 300 acres of land in Kaverirajapuram village in Tiruvalluvar district (near Chennai). FJA had also sent balance sheets of the four companies through which Dinakaran and his family allegedly consolidated their hold over the fenced-off land which included 150 acres of government land meant for community use. FJA also alleged irregularities in the properties owned by Dinakaran in the localities of Anna Nagar and Shenoy Nagar in Chennai.


AG asks Dinakaran to preside over hearing Karnataka advocate general on Sunday appealed to chief justice P D Dinakaran, who is facing charges of ‘amassing enormous wealth’ to sit on the bench and conduct judicial proceedings, even as a controversy over the proposal on his elevation to the Supreme Court is raging. AG Ashok Haranahally’s appeal came after Justice Dinakaran reportedly expressed his unwillingness to conduct the proceedings following a resolution passed by the Advocates Association of Bangalore asking him to refrain from presiding over judicial sessions till he was cleared. AGENCIES
 
 
 
 
 
Article
Newspaper View
Quick View
Jump to Next Search Result
Jump to Next Search Result
Jump to Next Search Result
Add item to Favourites
Send item by E-mail
Print item
Feedback
Share on Facebook
Share on Delicious

 



Learning

 3 Replies

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     05 October 2009

It is shameful for the whole judiciary and legal fraternity that such persons hold such highest posts. How general person shall have faith in legal system of the country when such things happen? Better find immediate solution to such types of diseases.

2 Like

J. P. Shah (RTI & CONSUMER ACTIVIST)     05 October 2009

It is not only with judiciary, in India small  persons are occupying big chairs in almost all fields and really big people are marginalised in this corruption loaded country. In fact one cannot be big without being corrupt in one form or the other. Now at least some beginning is made in right direction. 

2 Like

SANKARAN.G. (supdt.)     15 November 2009

Well said,  u are hitting the nail on the head.   But how many of them come out so openly.  Hon. Justice(?)  still  claiming that he is right and he said silence is the weapon.  After amassing huge wealth,  the reply will be stonewalling.  How long this drama will continue?

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query