A political controversy that hogged headlines in the early 80s over allegation against Karunanidhi

The then Local Administration Minister P. Kolandiavelu had alleged that the DMK president and Leader of Opposition in the Assembly, M. Karunanidhi, had purchased 100 acres of land in the name of his son, M.K. Alagiri, at Muthudevanpatti near Theni, but the Speaker held that he failed to substantiate his charges.

September 1982 to March 1983. In a matter of six months, Tamil Nadu saw two high-pitched by-elections:one to the Periyakulam (now called Theni) Lok Sabha constituency and another to the Tiruchendur Assembly seat. In both the by-elections, the ruling AIADMK emerged victorious.

It was against this backdrop that a huge political controversy broke out over the allegation made by the then Local Administration Minister P. Kolandiavelu that the DMK president and Leader of Opposition in the Assembly, M. Karunanidhi, had purchased 100 acres of land in the name of his son, M.K. Alagiri, at Muthudevanpatti near Theni (then part of the Madurai district). In fact, the allegation was first raised by the Minister during the Periyakulam by-election. According to Karunanidhi’s autobiography, ‘Nenjukku Needhi’ (Vol III, pages 491-93), he stayed at the residence of ‘Cumbum’ N. Natarajan, (who was elected to the Lok Sabha from the constituency in 1980 but died in June 1982) in Muthudevanpatti for the by-poll campaign. It was this place that later became the subject of controversy.

On March 12, 1983, the Local Administration Minister raked up the matter again when the Assembly debated the State Budget. The problem erupted when members of the Left, S. Alagarsamy of the Communist Party of India (CPI) and N.Sankariah (CPI-Marxist) questioned the propriety of a large number of Ministers camping in Tiruchendur and emphasised the need for spending the taxpayer’s money judiciously. In fact, Kolandaivelu reminded the Leftists that West Bengal was no exception where Communist ministers in the then regime, led by the CPI (M), too had campaigned in by-elections. It was the turn of DMK’s legislators, A. Rahman Khan and Duraimurugan, known as firebrand legislators, to take on the Minister. The latter, now Minister for Water Resources, recalled that Kolandivelu had declared during the Periyakulam by-election that he was prepared to quit if he was not able to prove his charge that Karunanidhi had bought lands in his son’s name in Muthudevanpatti.

Refer to BAC for solution

The Minister, who noticed the presence of Karunanidhi in the House, responded that the person himself could raise the issue. He reiterated that he did not say anything “without basis,” stated The Hindu on March 13, 1983. Having been provoked to react, the former Chief Minister rose immediately and denied “in the name of Anna [DMK founder and former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai]” that he had bought any land in the name of Mr. Alagiri and challenged the Minister to prove his charge and offered to resign if it was proved. Then, the Minister had clarified that what he meant during the by-election speeches was that the family of Karunanidhi had bought the lands in question. The Leader of the Opposition again challenged the Minister to set a date to prove his charge, whether it be one or two weeks. His point was that while he was ready to resign from the post of MLA, let alone the position of Leader of Opposition, whether Kolandaivelu, if not being able to prove his allegation, would be prepared to quit as Minister. Deputy Speaker P.H. Pandian, who was in the Chair, said he decided to refer the matter to the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) for a solution.

Nearly 20 days later (April 4), the Minister, who again raised the matter, appeared aggrieved over the BAC examining the allegation and asked why Karunanidhi’s counter-allegation, purportedly made outside the House, against him that he had indulged in “benami land transactions in Pollachi and Udumalpet” had not been referred to the Committee, whereas his charge was being looked into. The Leader of the Opposition sought to explain his position by stating that a perusal of the proceedings of the House a few weeks ago showed that he had not accused anyone of having indulged in benami transactions. He had only said the benamis were endless and only a judicial probe would expose them.

‘No basis for the allegation’

On April 15, Speaker K. Rajaram held that the Local Administration Minister had failed to substantiate his allegation that the Leader of the Opposition had purchased 40 hectares (approximately 100 acres) of land at Muthudevanpatti near Theni in his son’s name. The BAC, to which the issue was referred, went through the documents produced by both Karunanidhi and Kolandaivelu and unanimously felt “there was no basis for the allegation,” reported this newspaper on April 16, 1983. The BAC found no documentary evidence of the land purchase.

The Speaker said six documents submitted by Karunanidhi, covering an extent of 8 acres 74 cents, were all registered sale deeds; these and the house tax receipt proved that the property in question had been acquired by four minor children of the deceased Member of Parliament.

The particulars collected by the Assembly department from the Sub-Registrar concerned confirmed that between 1971 and 1983, no encumbrance other than the six documents had been registered in respect of the property.

Following the ruling, there was speculation in the Assembly lobbies that the Minister had sent his resignation letter to Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran. However, when approached by pressmen, the Chief Minister said he had not received any such letter. The next day, Kolandaivelu himself scotched rumours about his resignation. “Why should I resign?” was his stand. Even though the DMK leader had, initially, persisted with his demand for the Minitser’s resignation, he did not pursue it subsequently. After the Budget session came to an end, the controversy had met its natural end.

Published - October 15, 2024 11:30 pm IST