ADVERTISEMENTTAMIL NADU3 Mins ReadMadras Race Club case | State of Tamil Nadu and its Revenue Secretary have contradicted each other on backing A-G’s statements, says Madras High CourtPublished / Updated- September 26, 2024 21:42 ISTMOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.The judge observed that though a statement was made before him that the ‘State’ stands by the statements made by the A-G before a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar in a connected case on September 9, the Revenue Secretary had ‘disowned’ the statements made by the A-G. | Photo Credit: Listen to articleJustice RMT Teekaa Raman records the contradictory submissions made before him by two senior counsel as well as an Additional Advocate GeneralThe Madras High Court on Thursday recorded that the State of Tamil Nadu and its Revenue Secretary P. Amudha had contradicted each other on the issue of taking possession of the government lands leased out to Madras Race Club (MRC) at Guindy in Chennai.Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, in more than one place, recorded in his order that the stand taken by the State government and the Revenue Secretary, with respect to backing a submission made by Advocate General (A-G) P.S. Raman, “were contradictory with each other.”He observed that though a statement was made before him that the “State” stands by the statements made by the A-G before a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar in a connected case on September 9, the Revenue Secretary had “disowned” the statements made by the A-G .Justice Raman allowed an application filed by MRC to dispense with the requirement of issuing a two-month long pre-suit notice before filing a civil suit against pre-mature termination of a 99-year-long lease agreement executed in its favour in 1946 with respect to 160.86 acres.ADVERTISEMENTHe agreed with senior counsel A.L. Somayaji that there was an urgency for the club to file the suit immediately without waiting for two months and hence it must be exempted from the mandatory requirement prescribed under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.The judge pointed out that senior counsel Dushyant Dave and P. Wilson, representing the Revenue Secretary, had argued that there was no urgency at all since the Chennai Collector had already taken possession of the leased lands from MRC at 8 am on September 9.The two senior counsel had also claimed that a statement made to the contrary by the A-G before a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar on September 9 was not a correct statement. Mr. Dave had claimed that the A-G’s statement was “a mistake of fact.”On the contrary, Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran had told Justice Raman that the State stands by the statements made by the A-G before the Division Bench. Yet, Mr. Wilson continued to claim that no such instruction was issued to the A-G by the Revenue Secretary.“Now, the statement of the learned Advocate General for the State made before the Division Bench of this Court, as extracted supra, has been disowned by the first defendant (State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Revenue Secretary) through Mr. Wilson, learned senior counsel and hence I am not expressing any opinion on the point of possession,” the judge wrote.He went on to state: “Considering the scope of the enquiry under Section 80(2) of CPC [which empowers the court to dispense with pre-suit notice], I am not venturing into the statement and above dispute between the State and its Revenue Secretary though they are contradictory with each other.”Contempt pleaThough MRC had also filed a contempt of court petition against Ms. Amudha as well as Chennai Collector Rashmi Siddharth Zagade for having reportedly acted against the statements made by the A-G, the Division Bench led by Justice Sundar adjourned the hearing on the contempt plea by three weeks at the request of both sides.ADVERTISEMENTRecommendedHeadlinesNEWS6h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS8h agoMOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.NEWS8h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS8h agoP.V. SRIVIDYANEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS10h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS13h agoUDHAV NAIGNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024DENNIS S. JESUDASANNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024SANGEETHA KANDAVELNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 27,2024SANGEETHA KANDAVELNEWSSept 26,2024S. VIJAY KUMARNEWSSept 26,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 26,2024LALITHA RANJANINEWSSept 26,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 25,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 25,2024T. RAMAKRISHNANNEWSSept 25,2024LALITHA RANJANINEWSSept 25,2024THE HINDU BUREAU & JDENNIS SOLOMON JESUDASAN 10525NEWSSept 25,2024D. SURESH KUMARNEWSSept 24,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 23,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSSept 23,2024MOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.Explore more fromThe HinduSearch for topics, people, articles…IndiaWorldMoviesTechnologye-PaperScienceDataHealthOpinionNewsBusinessEntertainmentLife & StyleShow More