THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Jan 5(TOI): The scam taint on former chief justice of India K G Balakrishnan's family grew on Tuesday when the name of his second son-in-law, M J Benny, surfaced in land deals worth more than Rs 80 lakh. The revelations followed home minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan calling for action on the CM's recommendation for a vigilance probe into the ex-CJI's first son-in-law P V Sreenijan's allegedly unaccounted wealth.
Balakrishnan's brother K G Bhaskaran, a special government pleader in the high court, too was summoned by advocate general C P Sudkhara Prasad on Tuesday, seeking to know the veracity of charges that he and his family owned large tracts of land in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Bhaskaran is now on leave.
According to revenue records, Benny, a lawyer, bought more than 96 cents of land (100 cents equals 1 acre) in five transactions in Maradu village in Ernakulam between 2008 and 2010 for Rs 81.5 lakh.
Reports quoting I-T authorities say Benny's income was not more than Rs 6 lakh a year in 2008-09.
The plots bought by Benny were registered at the Maradu sub-registrar's office. While 6.5 cents were purchased for Rs 9.5 lakh in March 2008, another plot of the same size was bought a month later for
Rs 2 lakh. In March 2009, Benny bought 31.5 cents of land for Rs 39.56 lakh and 7.9 cents for Rs 8 lakh three months later.
On March 26, 2010, Benny struck another deal for 44.5 cents at Rs 22.25 lakh.
Benny is from Nettoor in Maradu area, a fast developing Kochi suburb. Real estate prices there are estimated to be not less than a couple of lakhs per cent even in remote areas. Meanwhile, NHRC chairman K G Balakrishnan said it was regrettable that his name was being dragged into the controversy surrounding his sons-in-law.
The former CJI's defence appeared in a Malayalam weekly, 'Kerala Shabdam'. He said he had heard about Sreenijan buying riverside land in Thrissur and constructing a building there using bank loan, but knew nothing more about it.
Refusing to defend Sreenijan, he called for an independent probe to establish guilt, if any, and added that it was morally wrong if a public servant had assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He also said he was not obliged to reply on behalf of Sreenijan.