Tamil Nadu government makes a flip-flop on Advocate-General’s statements in Madras Race Club case

Tamil Nadu government flip-flops in Madras High Court over land possession dispute, leading to legal confusion.

The Tamil Nadu government made a major flip-flop in the Madras High Court on Monday. In the forenoon session, a submission was made on behalf of the government that it stands by the statements made by Advocate General P.S. Raman in Madras Race Club (MRC) case but in the afternoon, it was argued that the A-G’s statements “were wrong both in law and on facts.”

When an application filed by MRC was listed before Justice RMT Teekaa Raman in the forenoon session, Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran said: “ I am instructed to say that this government stands by the undertaking given by the A-G. At no point of time, we have differed with the undertaking given by the A-G. We respect his words and the government stands by them.”

The AAG clarified the issue since senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the Revenue Secretary, had on September 19 told the judge that the government had resumed the leased lands at Guindy in Chennai from MRC on September 9 itself and that a statement made to the contrary by the A-G before a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar on the same day was “not a correct statement.”

Immediately after the AAG’s submissions, senior counsel A.L. Somayaji, representing MRC and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Tamil Nadu Race Horse Owners Association and Tamil Nadu Race Horse Trainers Welfare Association, requested Justice Raman record the submissions since they were crucial to prove that the MRC continued to be in possession of the lands till date.

However, when a request for a short pass over was made on behalf of Mr. Wilson, the judge told Mr. Somayaji that the recording could be done in the afternoon. In a ligher vein, he also asked: “Do you expect another turn of events by 2:30 pm?“ The question evoked laughter in the forenoon but turned out to be serious in the afternoon when senior counsel Dushyant Dave and Mr. Wilson argued jointly for the Revenue Secretary.

Asserting that the government had taken possession of the lands at 8 am on September 9, Mr. Dave said, MRC could not rely upon the statements made by the A-G before a Division Bench to claim that it continues to be in possession of the property. “I will be able to tell your Lordship that a statement which is wrong in law as also in fact is never binding on the client,” the senior counsel said.

At this point, Mr. Sankaranarayanan intervened to say: “I am sorry to interrupt my learned friend. Mr. Dave, on your behalf, the AAG had made a submission in the morning that they stand by the A-G’s statement. This is why we had asked the statement of the learned AAG to be recorded in the morning.”