Justice N Seshasayee, who had passed interim orders allowing the State to open to residence as a memorial but not allow the public to enter until the case was disposed of, reserved orders without mentioning a date.
While dealing with the inauguration despite its warning to the State government to not do anything adventurous in the case, the court had held then that the opening ceremony would not confer any right to the government nor deprive the rights of the legal heirs.
Alleging that the acquisition process progressed behind their backs, the legal heirs had contended that the inventory of moveable assets in their aunt’s residence had not been completed before declaring it as a memorial.
The government had submitted that acquisition of Veda Nilayam for a public purpose had not been done in haste and there was no question of establishing a memorial in an alternative place, as Veda Nilayam was closely associated with Jayalalithaa’s life and history.
Accusing the legal heirs of objecting it to serve their own interests, the government had submitted that Deepak and Deepa, who were not publicly seen or even associated with the late chief minister when she was alive, were now claiming proximity with her for the sake of retaining the properties.