Revenue Recovery Act invokedto confiscate Jayalalithaa’s assets

Provisions normally used to recover revenue dues from defaulters; confiscation first of its kind, says official

The State Government has invoked provisions under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act to confiscate hundreds of acres of land belonging to six firms in the wealth case against former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, her close aide V.K. Sasikala and the latter’s relatives V.N. Sudhakaran and J. Elavarasi.

Though the trial court had not specified the mode of confiscating the properties spread across six districts in Tamil Nadu, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), in consultation with revenue authorities, has suggested that the assets be taken possession of by the State Government under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act though the provisions are usually invoked to recover dues from defaulters, a State official told The Hindu on Wednesday.

“Though the Act is basically to empower District Collectors to recover revenue dues from defaulters, it was decided that the assets in this case be confiscated by following the procedures laid down in this Act. The competent authority will assign a Tahsildar to identify the lands, erect a board there that the property belongs to the Government and then change the title in the name of the State Government,” the official said.

Parrying questions on whether the lands would be sold by public auction, the official said the trial court had only directed that the assets be confiscated by the Government. “Now, it is up to the government to use the lands or sell them through public auction. This kind of confiscation is the first of its kind in Tamil Nadu,” the official said.

Asked if there was a time frame to complete the process of confiscation, the official said the DVAC had written to the District Collectors in the third week of March and the whole exercise was expected to be completed by the end of June.

FD to be adjusted

Explaining that the confiscation of lands had nothing to do with the fine imposed on the convicts in the case, the official said the trial court had directed that necessary directions be given to all banks concerned to remit the proceeds of the fixed deposits and cash balance standing in the name of the accused in their respective accounts and proceeds thereof be appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amounts.

The court had said that if the fine fell short even after adjustment of cash in bank accounts, the gold and diamond ornaments seized shall be sold to Reserve Bank of India or State Bank of India or by public auction to make deficit of fine amount good. The rest of the gold and diamond jewellery should be confiscated to the government.

On why the properties owned either directly or indirectly by Jayalalithaa were being confiscated when the charges were abated following her death in December 2016, the official referred to a specific point in the judgment.

The trial court judge had said: “In the case in hand, I have recorded a categorical finding that the properties registered in the name of the six companies are in fact the properties held for and on behalf of A-1 (Jayalalithaa) and the said properties actually belong to the accused. In view of this finding and in the light of the above proposition, there is no impediment in ordering for confiscation of the properties standing in the name of the accused and the companies...”

While the properties owned by the six firms would be confiscated, other assets of Jayalalithaa like the house at Poes Garden in Chennai would go to the legal heir. However, if there were to be no legitimate claim, the State would go on to confiscate them as well.

OSD’s tenure ends

In a related development, the tenure of A.M.S Gunaseelan, Officer on Special Duty, heading the Special Investigation Cell (SIC) in the DVAC, ended on Wednesday. The SIC was handling the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa and three others.

Mr. Gunaseelan, a 1991-batch IPS officer, retired from service as Inspector-General of Police, Special Investigation Cell, in May 2013. He was reemployed by the State Government and made Officer on Special Duty for a period of one year which was then extended to three more years.