Gandhi Kanimozhi Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gandhi Kanimozhi Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Personal appearance of the petitioner/accused No.2 dispensed with except for necessary hearings such as framing of charges, questioning of the accused and hearings insisted upon by the Trial Court; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2024 pending against the petitioner (accused No.2) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

Since prima facie materials are present to proceed, the final report cannot be interfered with; all contentions of the petitioner/accused No.2 are left open to be raised during trial, and finding no merits, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Once property vests in the local authority by virtue of a gift deed, the entire authority to gift or return any such land rests solely with the Government, to be exercised as detailed in Revenue Standing Orders Nos.15 to 26; neither the Panchayat nor its President is authorised to surrender or return land vested in the local body.

Key takeaways

Under Article 243-G of the Constitution, Village Panchayats have only such powers as are devolved by law; the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (Chapter VIII) confers no authority on a Village Panchayat to give back, gift or assign lands vested in it, so the panchayat cannot pass any resolution agreeing to give back lands vested in it as roads and parks.ratio¶69
Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 empowers only the Executive Authority to carry out panchayat resolutions; under Section 83 the Government appoints the Executive Authority, which it has done by appointing Block Development Officers, hence the President of the panchayat cannot execute such documents.ratio¶76
The document (revocation deed) presented is absolutely illegal, collusive and clearly aimed at causing wrongful gain to the individuals involved; when the letter of the law is violated, the pedantic argument that the two cited circulars are not violated cannot be countenanced.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quash petition under Section 528 of BNSS by accused No.2, the then Sub-Registrar, Vadalur, seeking quashing of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2024 (VC case, Cr.No.1 of 2022) arising from a revocation deed dated 19.08.2014 (Doc. No.2117/2014) by which park and road portions of a layout, earlier gifted to the local body by gift deed dated 28.01.2000 (Doc. No.139/2000), were returned. HELD: (i) upon the gift deed, the property vested in the local authority, and neither the Village Panchayat nor its President is empowered to surrender or return vested land, the entire authority to gift or return land resting solely with the Government under Revenue Standing Orders Nos.15 to 26; (ii) under Article 243-G of the Constitution and the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (Chapter VIII), the Village Panchayat has no authority to give back, gift or assign vested lands; (iii) under Sections 83 and 84 of the said Act, only the Executive Authority (Block Development Officer appointed by the Government) can carry out resolutions, hence the President cannot execute such documents; (iv) the revocation deed is absolutely illegal, collusive and aimed at wrongful gain, and compliance with the circulars of 12.04.2011 and 29.11.2018 is a pedantic argument that cannot be countenanced where the law itself is violated; (v) prima facie materials existing, the final report cannot be interfered with and all contentions are left open for trial. Petition dismissed; personal appearance of accused No.2 dispensed with except for necessary hearings. Relied on V.Balamurugan Vs. The District Collector, Virudunagar, 2007 4 MLJ 109. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1369)

2025:MHC:1369

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.06.2025

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

and Crl.M.P.Nos.6818 and 6819 of 2025

Gandhi Kanimozhi

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State rep by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore. Cr.No.1 of 2022

.. Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records and quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2024

pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in

Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2024 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Cuddalore as against the petitioner and quash the same.

Heard Mr.R.John Sathyan , Senior Counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan , learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in this case. The allegation made is

that originally, when accused No.3 developed lands in S.No. 190/1, etc., of

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

Vadakathu village, Panruti taluk, Cuddalore district, the portions earmarked

as roads and parks were gifted to the local body by a gift deed dated

28.01.2000, vide document No.139/2000.

It is also the case of the prosecution that subsequently, several plots

were sold. Subsequently, the accused Nos.1 and 3 conspired together and

the accused No.1, being the President of the village, agreed to return the

entire area that was earmarked as parks and roads. Together, they once again presented a revocation deed, dated 19.08.2014, which is said to have been registered in document No.2117 of 2014 by the petitioner/accused No.2, who was acting as a Sub-Registrar at the office of the Sub Registrar, Vadalur

at that relevant time.

The learned Counsel would submit that the prosecution is relying

solely on two circulars. A reading of these circulars reveals that the first

circular, dated 12.04.2011, produced along with the final report, states that

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

whenever properties are gifted to the local body, without the local body authorizing the presentation of the document jointly, the gift should not be canceled upon unilateral presentation of any document. In this case, the President of the local body also participated in the execution of the revocation deed. Therefore, that circular is not violated. Similarly, the second circular, dated 29.11.2018, relied upon by the prosecution, also states that unless both parties present the document for revocation of the settlement/gift deed together, it shall not be registered by the Sub-Registrar.

Thus, in this case, the petitioner has not violated any mandatory rule. In the absence of such violation and any other evidence of receiving any pecuniary benefit, with the beneficiary being only accused No.3 and the document executed solely by accused No.1, the inclusion of the petitioner as accused No.2 is entirely without foundation. Therefore, the final report is liable to be quashed.

Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in

4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

this case, the layout has been developed and several plots have since been

sold. This was originally done in the year 2000 and now, the revocation

deed has been registered in the year 2014 by violating the rules. Certainly, the accused No.2 aided and abetted the other accused in the whole episode;

as such, the petitioner has rightly been included as an accused in the final report filed by the prosecution.

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

examined the material records of the case.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, if both parties to the document entitled to present it did so and if the deed was registered by accused No.2, then the argument can be upheld. It can be observed that in the year 2000, the property vested in the local

authority by virtue of the gift deed dated 28.01.2000. Once the property vests in the local authority, neither the Panchayat is empowered to pass any

5/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

resolution nor is the President of the Panchayat in any manner authorised to

surrender or return the land vested in the local body. The entire authority to

gift or return any land is solely vested with the Government and these powers are to be exercised for various purposes as detailed in Revenue Standing Orders Nos.15 to 26. According to Article 243-G of the Constitution of India, Village Panchayats shall have the powers as devolved

on them by such laws that may be enacted by the appropriate legislature. The Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, enumerates the powers and functions

of the Village Panchayat in Chapter VIII. However, the Village Panchayat

has no authority to give back, gift, or assign lands that are vested in it. Therefore, the panchayat cannot pass any resolution agreeing to give back the lands vested in it as roads and parks. Furthermore, Section 84 of the said

Act empowers only the Executive Authority to carry out the resolutions of the panchayat. Section 83 enables the Government to appoint or designate

any authority as the Executive Authority of the Panchayat. The Government

has exercised this power and appointed only the Block Development

6/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

Officers as the Executive Authority; hence, the President of the panchayat

cannot execute such documents. Useful reference in this regard can also be

made to V.Balamurugan Vs. The District Collector, Virudunagar 1. Thus,

the document presented is absolutely illegal, collusive, and clearly aimed at

causing wrongful gain to the individuals involved. Therefore, when the letter of the law is violated, the pedantic argument that the two cited circulars are not violated cannot be countenanced.

Therefore, when prima facie materials are present to proceed, the final report filed cannot be interfered with. All contentions of the petitioner/accused No.2 are left open to be raised during the trial. Accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the personal appearance of the petitioner/accused No.2 can be dispensed

with. Except for necessary hearings such as framing of charges, questioning

of the accused, and hearings which the Trial Court insists upon, the personal 1 2007 4 MLJ 109

7/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

appearance of the petitioner/accused No.2 shall be dispensed with for other

hearings. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11.06.2025

Neutral Citation : yes grs

To

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

8/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.6818 and 6819 of 2025

9/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.10192 of 2025

11.06.2025

10/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis