Meenakshi temple land case: Court denies bail to duo; Madras HC adjourns AB pleas of 10 accused

MADURAI: The principal district court dismissed the bail petition filed by deputy Collector-rank official Anbalagan and another accused, who were recently arrested by the police in connection with the alleged fraudulent transfer of a 60-crore property belonging to a trust attached to the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and Alagarkoil to private individuals.

The State government suspended Deputy Collector-rank officer Anbalagan, Personal Assistant (Land) to the Ramanathapuram District Collector, following his arrest by CCB on August 4. So far, the police have arrested five persons, including Rajkumar from Pudukottai, in this case.

Anbalagan and Rajkumar have filed bail petitions before the Madurai Principal District Court.

When the petitions came up for hearing before District Principal Judge Sai Saravanan on Thursday evening, government advocate P Pandi appeared for the prosecution and strongly objected to granting bail. The charges against them are serious, and granting bail at this stage will hamper the investigation, the advocate argued. After recording the submissions, the court rejected their bail.

Meanwhile, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday adjourned the hearing on the anticipatory bail petitions filed by 10 persons accused in the alleged Rs 60-crore Meenakshi Amman Temple land fraud case to September 11.

The petitioners — Ramayi Ayyar, Senthamizhselvi, Prema, Muthurani, Rajendran, Kulandhaiyya, Pushparaj, Jothi, Geetha and Kavitha — sought anticipatory bail, denying any involvement in the alleged fraud. The petitioners contended that the property was purchased in 1912 by Pudukottai Prince Dakshinamurthy Durairaja and had remained under the control of his legal heirs.

They further contended that a will executed in 1930 only stated that the income from the property should be used for charitable or trust-related purposes for the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, but did not transfer ownership of the land to the temple.

The petitioners further claimed that the temple’s name was included in the revenue records due to clerical errors. However, they said subsequent orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer restored the title in the name of the original owner, Pudukottai Dakshinamoorthy Durairaja,

The petitioners assured the court that they would cooperate with the investigation and sought anticipatory bail.