The saying – history repeats itself – holds more relevance with respect to AIADMK than other parties. This is displayed by sealing the AIADMK headquarters MGR Maligai at Avvai Shanmugam Salai in Royapettah, Chennai on Monday.
After 32 years, the property with 10 grounds was sealed again. This is the third time in the history of the party, which is in its golden jubilee year, that the headquarters have faced treatment.
The headquarters was sealed on January 31, 1988, for the first time since the split in the AIADMK following the death of party founder MG Ramachandran last month. There were two factions: one led by his widow Janaki Ramachandran, who became chief minister after MGR, and the other led by Jayalalithaa, who became chief minister for the first time in June 1991. It was the former who bought the property in 1957 and donated it to her husband in July 1987. “Since the formation of AIADMK in October 1972, the property has been its headquarters,” said former Advocate General K. Subramaniam, who acted as Jayalalithaa’s counsel on both occasions. ,
In January 1988, Chennai Police Commissioner WI Davaram told the press that the authorities had taken over the building due to a dispute between two groups. Importantly, the property was sealed in about 15 hours after the dismissal of the ministry headed by Janaki Ramachandran and imposition of President’s rule in the state.
The matter went to the Madras High Court and then to the Supreme Court. In May 1988, the Supreme Court ordered that Janaki Ramachandran occupy the headquarters as “receiver” for two months, during which the additional district magistrate had to dispose of the case. It also set aside the order issued by the High Court in March 1988, quashing the proceedings before a magistrate. Furthermore, the Supreme Court termed unstable biased A temporary injunction of the High Court in April of that year, barring the Jayalalithaa group from interfering in the occupation of the headquarters.
Two months later (July 1988), the Additional District Magistrate directed Janaki Ramachandran to hand over the possession of the party office to the Jayalalithaa faction, which she complied with. The High Court set aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate on 31 January 1989, allowing a revision petition filed by Janaki Ramachandran. A week later, the Supreme Court stayed it. Around the same time, some political events took place, leading to the merger of the two factions. The results of the assembly elections were declared in late January and the AIADMK faction, led by MGR’s widow, performed poorly. On 10 February 1989, the two factions formally came together and Jayalalithaa became the General Secretary of the Unified Party. As a result, the headquarters remained under his control.
The headquarters was sealed for the second time on 12 August 1990, when S.K. A rebel group led by Thirunavukkarasar (now Congress and MP from Tiruchi) went to the premises and was chased by a group of party members for allegiance. to Jayalalithaa. There was a dispute over this matter, due to which the premises were locked. At that time a dispute arose as to who locked the headquarters – the police or the revenue officer. The then police commissioner of Chennai KK Rajasekharan Nair said that the police had not done the sealing.
As the case was seized by the Supreme Court, the party’s possession remained with the executive magistrate for almost four months. In December 1990, the court restored the party headquarters and allowed Mr. Subramaniam, Jayalalithaa’s lawyer, to collect the keys from the magistrate. “On December 19, 1990, I handed over the keys to Jayalalithaa in Bengaluru, where she was resting,” recalls Mr. Subramaniam.
Section 145. speaking of the importance of [which is invoked at the time of sealing any property] In the Code of Criminal Procedure (Procedure where a dispute over land or water is likely to cause breach of the peace), Mr. Subramaniam says that the scope of an order passed by the Executive Magistrate under the section shall be only in respect of a person who is on the date of the initial order. In actual physical possession of the property. The nature of proceeding under the section is only temporary. He said the right of possession would be decided by a civil court.