Is the Kerala CPI(M) Justified in Its Land Acquisition for the New Headquarters?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant legal battle, the CPI(M) stands firm on its land acquisition for the A.K.G. Center, asserting its legality amidst claims of rightful ownership by a retired scientist. The ongoing case has drawn attention to past transactions and the transparency of the party's actions. Will the Supreme Court uphold the CPI(M)'s claims?
Key Takeaways
- CPI(M) defends land acquisition in Supreme Court.
- Affidavit stresses legality of purchase.
- Petitioner claims historical ownership.
- Supreme Court's decision may set precedent.
- Transparency in land deals is crucial.
New Delhi/Thiruvananthapuram, Oct 15 (NationPress) The CPI(M) has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, defending its land acquisition for the A.K.G. Center in Thiruvananthapuram. In this affidavit, Kerala’s party secretary, M.V. Govindan, stated that the 32-cent land obtained in 2021 was acquired legally, with a nine-storey building developed on the premises for Rs 30 crore.
He emphasized, "There were no ongoing disputes or legal issues linked to the land at the time of purchase." This affidavit surfaces amidst a conflict over land ownership that is central to the current case. A retired scientist has claimed in the Supreme Court that she is the legitimate owner of the property.
In response to her petition, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the CPI(M) state unit. Despite this, the party insists that their acquisition was entirely lawful and that the petitioner lacks any credible legal claim.
The petitioner contends that the 34-cent land, which houses the A.K.G. Center, was co-acquired by her grandfather, Janardanan Pillai, in 1998 and 2000 through two distinct transactions.
She alleges that the transaction involving the CPI(M) was facilitated through a private financial institution in Kottayam, which obscured these previous claims.
Documents addressed to the then CPI(M) State Secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan reportedly pointed out the alleged disputes during the party's acquisition process.
The CPI(M) has consistently asserted that the land acquisition satisfied all legal stipulations, and the construction of the A.K.G. Center was conducted transparently.
Govindan’s affidavit aims to elucidate these matters before the apex court, stressing that the acquisition and subsequent development were entirely lawful.
Interestingly, the area previously occupied by the old state party headquarters has been mired in allegations of encroachment from land belonging to Kerala University, located in the heart of the state capital.
During the tenure of A.K. Antony as Chief Minister, a part of the land for the old party headquarters was sanctioned, which has since been transformed into a CPI(M) research center. The new, grand building was recently inaugurated, raising questions regarding how a party like the CPI(M) could afford such a construction.
Point of View
It's crucial to approach the CPI(M) land acquisition case with impartiality. The party asserts its legal rights, while the opposing claim raises significant questions about transparency and historical ownership. This case could set a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing the need for clear legal frameworks in property transactions.
NationPress
15/10/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main issue regarding the CPI(M) land acquisition?
The CPI(M) is facing a legal challenge over the ownership of land acquired for the A.K.G. Center, with a retired scientist claiming rightful ownership based on historical transactions.
Who filed the affidavit in the Supreme Court?
The affidavit was submitted by M.V. Govindan, the Kerala secretary of the CPI(M), defending the legality of the land acquisition.
How much did the CPI(M) spend on the construction of the A.K.G. Center?
The construction of the A.K.G. Center was completed at a cost of Rs 30 crore.
What is the significance of the ongoing case?
The case highlights legal and ethical considerations surrounding land acquisition and ownership disputes in India.
Is the CPI(M) confident in its legal position?
Yes, the CPI(M) maintains that their acquisition was lawful and that the petitioner has no valid claim to the land.
