Tamil Nadu CM Vijay claimed ownership of more than 50 cents of poromboke land in Kodaikanal, election petitioner claims before Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay claimed ownership of more than 50 cents of poromboke government land in Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal, falsely declared a property he sold for ₹35 crore in Padi, Chennai, as his property worth ₹7 crore and wrongly identified it as a bungalow in Madengheritra, one of the high courts, before the elections.

However, Mr. Vijay said that the allegations against him are baseless and the petition should be dismissed.

In a petition heard before Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, S. Dinesh, a voter from Perambur constituency, insisted that the Chief Minister’s election must be declared void for “willful and deliberate” suppression, misrepresentation and false statements regarding numerous properties mentioned in his affidavit26.

According to petitioner VR Shanmuganathan’s counsel, Mr. Vijay claimed that he had purchased agricultural land in Vilpatti in 1997 for a consideration of ₹30,000. Mr. Vijay also said that the current market value of this property was around ₹20,000. However, an examination of the ‘A’ village register revealed that the property was actually government poromboke land, the counsel claimed.

Similarly, the Chief Minister claimed to have purchased a non-agricultural land measuring 33,955 square feet in Porur, Chennai in 2010 for ₹9.13 crore. However, an examination of the registration department’s documents revealed that he had bought only 20,773 square feet for ₹7.5 crore. According to the petitioner, there was no explanation for the excessive declaration of the extent of the land and the amount of the sale.

He went on to say that Mr. Vijay claimed to own a commercial building at Padi, Chennai, worth ₹7 crore, measuring 11,854 sq.ft and claimed to have bought it in 2009 for a consideration of ₹1.95 crore, apart from construction expenses of ₹3.9 crore. However, on February 12, 2026, he sold the commercial building with a built-up area of ​​23,460 sq. ft. for ₹ 35 crore, the petitioner claimed.

The court was further told that he did not buy the commercial property in 2009 as declared in the election manifesto and instead received it in exchange for his Korattur property from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioner said that the Chief Minister did not disclose that the property was acquired by exchange and that it was sold for ₹35 crore much before filing the election affidavit.

As regards the Neelangarai bungalow, the election petitioner said it was not inherited. Chief Minister SA Chandrasekhar’s father bought it from Sumathi Raghunath Gaitonde in 2003 and settled it in favor of his son in 2005. The settlement deed stated that the father gifted the property to the son without receiving any consideration out of love and affection.

A 2005 settlement deed declared the value of the property spread over 17,100 sq ft of land and a 5,500 sq ft building at ₹2.75 crore. However, in his 2026 election manifesto, the chief minister claimed to have spent ₹18.73 crore to develop 18,633 sq ft of built-up area on the land and the market value of the property is currently around ₹20 crore, the petitioner pointed out.

Chief Minister’s reply

After filing an application to dismiss the election petition at the threshold without taking it to a lengthy process, the Chief Minister said all the allegations leveled against him in the election petition were false, baseless, baseless and totally wrong. He said the allegations were not supported by the required details and were based on conjecture and conjecture.

“The entire election petition runs into pages and pages of microscopic dissection of my Form 26 with itemized claims about fluctuations in the value of the properties declared therein, whether these fluctuations are substantial or not… Even if it is assumed (though not admitted) that the contents of the entire election petition are true and correct, it does not disclose any cause of action,” the complainant said.

Mr Vijay told the court: “No attempt has been made by (the election petitioner) to show how these imaginary perceived defects in any way affected the outcome of the election. The people of the constituency knew they were voting for a well-known film actor who is also a very good person and who offered them a realistic, honest and promising political alternative.”

He continued: “They were certainly aware that I was a property owner in and around the state. Not a single voter would have cast his vote differently if the value of the property of one of these respondents was more or less a small amount. That does not mean that Form 26 is inaccurate. Form 26 as filed had no defects and the nomination was duly accepted.”

Having polled 1,20,365 votes and won by a margin of 53,715 votes in the Perambur constituency, the Chief Minister emphasized that his election cannot be annulled on flimsy allegations. “The allegation of corrupt behavior is even flimsier. There is not even a sentence in the election petition about who interfered with the free exercise of the right to vote and whose right to vote was interfered with,” he added.

Further, in his election affidavit on declaration of assets worth over ₹600 crore, Mr. Vijay said, “It is not the case of the election petitioner that I have not disclosed any assets at all or that I hold assets disproportionate to my known sources of income… His case is one of alleged technical irregularities… A difference of that nature in terms of description of built-up area of land or sale, regarding the extent of built-up area or sale of land. an asset that is disclosed cannot be considered for the essential.”

Justice Lakshminarayanan began hearing arguments on the chief minister’s plea to dismiss the election petition. Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, assisted by Pranjal Agarwal and Dixita Gohil, argued the case on behalf of Mr. Vijay for the past two days. The case was adjourned to Wednesday (October 7, 2026) to hear the other side.

Published – 06 Oct 2026 21:03 IST