WP CRL.(MD)/5818/2026 of G. Samraj Vs The Director on 23 October 2026

ORDER

The petitioner come up with this petition for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take cognizance of and initiate immediate legal action on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.10.2026 against the 3rd respondent as per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The records reveal that, according to the petitioner, the representation was dated 21.10.2026. However, the postal receipt affixed to the copy of the complaint at page No. 13 discloses that the same was dispatched from the Masilamani Nager Post Office, Tirunelveli, on 20.10.2026 at 3.21 p.m. The present writ petition was presented before this Court on 21.10.2026 and was taken on file on the same day of 21.10.2026. Thus, the petitioner approached this Court without allowing sufficient time for the competent authorities to receive and consider the representation. As per the Government Orders, it says a period of 30 days to be given to the Government machinery to consider a representation submitted by a member of the public. The circumstances surrounding the preparation, signing and dispatch of the representation, therefore, require careful scrutiny.

3. The allegation made in the representation is as that the third respondent, who is the Tahsildar, demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000 from the petitioner for granting patta in respect of Survey No. 56/44 situated at Araikulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the said property from one Elizabeth under a sale deed dated 13.08.1995. However, the precise extent of the property claimed by the petitioner is 1,011-25 sq.mt., which comes to 25 cents roughly. The third respondent demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for granting patta, otherwise they will remove the encroachment as well, which is parai poromboke. Thereby, the petitioner made a complaint before the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the third respondent / Tahsildar under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent submitted that for the same issue, already the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 1747 of 2026, by an order dated 13.02.2026, wherein the petitioner challenged the notice issued for the removal of the alleged encroachment, was dismissed, and directions were issued to the revenue authorities. This Court observed that the petitioner had put up a structure on Government land classified as “Government poramboke” and that an illegal occupation of Government land could not be protected by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. The allegations of discrimination made against the Government authorities were also considered in the light of the status report, and the writ petition was ultimately dismissed.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 2857 of 2026 before a learned Single Judge of this Court, seeking a direction to the police and revenue authorities not to interfere in the alleged civil dispute, with reference to representations dated 13.02.2026 and 18.05.2026. The said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn without assigning any reason. Again, the petitioner moved another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.19196 of 2026 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court with a prayer challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 03.07.2026 and quash the same. That petition was dismissed by an order dated 16.07.2026, by directing the District Collector to pass appropriate orders, as per the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act was pending before the District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.21575 of 2026 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court with a prayer, directing the District Collector to remove the encroachment in S.F.No.56 situated at Araikulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The facts of that case is to remove the other encroachers in the said S.F.No.56. Ultimately, that petition was dismissed by an order dated 29.07.2026, holding that the petitioner constructed a house to an extent of 800 sq.ft and the vacant extent of 23 cents has been removed. Having no merit on the writ petition, it was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition before me in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5315 of 2026, and when it was taken for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew that petition. This is the yet another round of litigation making 'U' turn allegation against the Tahsildar, without any basis to hold that the land belongs to the petitioner.

7. During the course of submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the ‘A’ Register, which discloses that Survey No. 56/44, measuring approximately 2.70 acres, is classified as “Natham Poramboke,” with the remark “empty land with rock” and the final classification as “Poramboke land.” The petitioner claims to be in possession of 25 cents of land, out of which an extent of 23 cents has already been removed from his possession as encroachment, along with a structure measuring 800 sq. ft. The petitioner further submits that an appeal challenging the said action is pending before the District Collector and that the same has not yet been disposed of.

8. The allegation made against the third respondent in the representation is that he demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for the grant of patta. However, the grant of patta in respect of the subject land would depend upon its classification, the nature of possession and the applicable rules. This Court is conscious of the fact that the issue concerning the grant of patta in respect of encroached Government land has already been considered in two Division Bench decisions and one Single Bench decision. The petitioner is expected to seek appropriate legal advice and act in accordance with the law whenever necessary. Further, the procedure prescribed under the Vigilance Manual for dealing with complaints of this nature has to be duly followed by the competent authorities, in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines. As per the submission of the learned Government Counsel that the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2026 has not been received by none of the respondents.

9. In view of the above factual scenario, when the matter was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that he sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. Considering that valuable judicial time could otherwise be devoted to other cases, this Court deems it appropriate to issue a caution. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of 10 days from today and produce a receipt.

10. List the matter on 03.11.2026 “for reporting compliance.” 23.10.2026 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No LS

Note: Issue order copy on 28.10.2026 To

1. The Director Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), No. 293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Detachment, No. 16/53A/1, Masilamani Nagar (Near Central Jail), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

3. The Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk Office, Tirunelveli District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026 23.10.2026