V.Kaliaperumal Vs The Director

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), No.576/4, EB-Colony, Chettinaickanpatti, Trichy Bye-pass Road, Dindigul-624 004.

¶13

4.The Assistant Disrector of Town Panchayat, Collectorate, Dindigul.

¶14

5.Thiruvenkadam

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(The fifth respondent is impleaded vide Court order dated 15.05.2025 in WMP(MD)No.246 of 2025 in WP(MD)No.31020 of 2024 by KKRKJ)

¶17

1/19

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 3 to conduct a detailed enquiry based on the complaint dated 08.12.2024 sent by the petitioner and consequently take appropriate action in accordance with the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act and other laws within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar

¶22

For R1 & R3 : Mr..R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

¶23

For R2 & R4 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General-III Assisted by Mr.Muthumankckkam, Government Advocate (Civil Side) For R5 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 & 3 to conduct a detailed enquiry based on the complaint dated 08.12.2024 sent by the petitioner and consequently take appropriate action in accordance with the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act and other laws within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶26

2/19

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶29

2.The writ petitioner is the brother-in-law of the fifth respondent. He purchased the properties comprised in S.Nos.343 and 344 to an extent of 3.13 acres in Agaram Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul from the fifth respondent through various sale deeds. Likewise, the fifth respondent executed a sale deed in favour of his son-in-law namely, Sridhar. The said Sridhar sold the said property in favour of the writ petitioner on 24.10.1996 vide Doc.No.2892/1996 on the file of SRO, Joint-II, Dindigul. Thereafter, the writ petitioner sold 18 cents in favour of the fifth respondent vide Doc.No.2238/1999.Thereafter, the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent formed a lay out in respect of the properties comprised in S.Nos.343 & 344 situated at Agaram Village, Dindigul District. The writ petitioner executed a gift deed on 28.12.2006 to an extent of 12,895 sq.ft (29.50 cents) by creating a gift deed in favour of the Executive Officer of the Agaram Town Panchayat on behalf of Governor of Tamil Nadu and the same was registered as Doc.No. 5368/2006 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, Dindigul. Similarly, the fifth respondent also executed a gift deed on 28.12.2006 to an extent of 4512 sq.ft by creating a gift deed in favour of the Executive Officer of the Agaram Town Panchayat on behalf of Governor of Tamil Nadu and the same was registered as Doc.No.5369/2006 on the file of

¶30

3/19

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶33

the Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, Dindigul. After execution of gift deeds, the Agaram Town Panchayat laid a cement concrete road in the street comprised in S.Nos.343 & 344 connecting to PappanampattyThadicombu main Panchayat road. The Agaram Town Panchayat was managing the said road by installing electric poles and providing electricity connection and water facilities to the residences of the said layout in S.Nos.343 and 344. The Agaram Town Panchayat also maintained the said road for the past 18 years by collecting tax from the said layout residents. In the said gift deeds, the said Sridhar had attested the documents. That being the situation, on 06.12.2024 at 11.00 am, the fifth respondent and his son-in-law namely, the above said Sridhar, who is the Ex-Town Panchayat Councilor of Agaram Town Panchayat dug the main street and put up wired fencing in front of one Ramasamy's house and closed the entire main street by restraining the residents in S.Nos.343 and 344 to reach Pappanampatty-Thadicombu main road. Without verifying and properly conducting enquiry, the Tahsildar of Dindigul West Taluk issued patta in favour of fifth respondent and his sister namely, Kasturi Bhai by including the place covering the public cement concrete street area. The said Sridhar has caused damages to the said road and put up the fencing and prevented the public from using the 4/19

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶36

same. Therefore, the writ petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 08.12.2024 to take action against the officer and to conduct a detailed enquiry by the respondents 1 & 2. But, there was no

¶37

action. Hence, the present petition was filed.

¶38

When the matter came up for admission, Mr.Veerakathiravan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State on instructions, would submit that the writ petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the Agaram Town Panchayat by including 4.45 cents, which belongs to the fifth respondent without his knowledge. Hence, the fifth respondent filed a petition before the Tahsildar and the Tashildar made the sub division and granted patta on the ground of title over the property. Thereafter, the fifth respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.292 of 2024 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul, seeking to declare the gift deed dated 28.12.2006 executed by the writ petitioner in favour of the Agaram Town Panchayat as null and void.

¶39

On hearing the said argument, this Court asked the learned Additional Advocate General to verify about the existence of the Agaram town panchayat road for years together and damages caused to the said

¶40

5/19

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶43

road by the fifth respondent and his son-in-law, Sridhar.

¶44

Further, directed the District collector, Dindigul to conduct

¶45

enquiry and submit a report before this Court.

¶46

The learned Additional Advocate General filed the report of the District Collector, Dindigul.

¶47

The report of the District Collector, Dindigul, contained two parts. One part is existence of road and another part is damage caused to the road. The road was constructed by the government at the cost of Rs.3.95 lakhs in the year 2011 and the same was damaged and fencing was also put up. The District Collector, Dindigul, on the basis of the enquiry by Tasildar submitted that the writ petitioner executed a gift deed in respect of the land.

¶48

After hearing the same, this Court asked the learned Additional

¶49

Advocate General to restore the road and allow the residents to use the road connecting the Pappanampatty-Thadicombu main road.

¶50

6/19

¶51

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

¶52

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶53

The learned Additional Advocate General in the presence of the

¶54

officials submitted that they removed all the wire fencing put up by the fifth respondent and his son-in-law, Sridhar and also restored the original status.

¶55

Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior counsel appearing on

¶56

behalf of the fifth respondent submitted that it is true that the suit was filed in O.S.No.292 of 2024 and the same was pending before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. In the plaint of the suit, it was stated that the gift deed executed by the writ petitioner is null and void and also made a complaint before the jurisdictional police station relating to the forgery of the document.

¶57

This Court asked the learned Additional Advocate General about the complaint and he also affirmed the complaint made by the writ petitioner and in view of the pendency of the suit, no action was taken.

¶58

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the report filed by the District Collector, Dindigul is biased one and the Tahsildar also did not conduct the enquiry properly

¶59

7/19

¶60

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

¶61

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶62

and no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner and the report is biased report. Further, the suit was filed after filing of this writ petition. The existence of road was not disputed by the District Collector, Dindigul, and the same was laid by the government in the year 2011 at the cost of Rs.3.95 lakhs. Both the petitioner and the fifth respondent formed layout covering the land both in survey No.343 and 344 and both the petitioner and the fifth respondent executed gift deed in favour of the panchayat and plots had been sold long back and in the gift deed, the son-in-law of the fifth petitioner is the attesting witness. He was the former Councilor and during his period the public road in the said gifted property was laid.

¶63

Now, they had obtained patta in respect of the area covered under the public road without giving notice to the writ petitioner by creating false records and also damaged the public road, which existed for number of years and collusive suit also was filed with false allegation.

¶64

The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that it is true that a police complaint was given by the fifth respondent against

¶65

8/19

¶66

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

¶67

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶68

the writ petitioner. But, no action was taken. Only summons were issued. Now, all the records were served to the District Collector, Dindigul and also the parties to the proceedings.

¶69

This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the entire records.

¶70

The writ petitioner, “Kaliyaperumal” is the brother-in-law of the fifth respondent, “Thiruvenkadam”. The father of Thiruvenkadam was Sundarraj Naidu. According to Thiruvenkadam, the property comprised in S.No.344 at Agaram Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul, is his ancestral property. He sold 17 cents and 9 cents of the property in favour of Kaliyaperumal vide Doc.No.1081/1996 and Doc.No.2237/1999. The said Sridhar sold 30 cents which was initially purchased from the 5^th respondent in favour of the writ petitioner vide Doc.No.2892/1996 and totally to an extent of 56 cents purchased by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, Kaliyaperimal re-sold 18 cents of the property in favour of Thiruvenkadam vide Doc.No.2238/1999. Subsequently, both Kaliyaperumal and Thiruvenkadam formed layout in S.Nos.343 and 344. As a condition to form a layout, both Kaliyaperumal and Thiruvenkadam

¶71

9/19

¶72

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

¶73

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶74

executed two gift deeds on 28.12.2006 in favour of the Executive Officer, Agaram Town Panchayat on behalf of Governor of Tamil Nadu and the extent and the document numbers were stated in the counter affidavit filed by the government and the same is as follows:-

¶75

Name of the Executant	Date of Execution of gift deed	Document No.	Extent of the land
Gift Deed executed by Kaliyaperumal in	28.12.2006	5368/2006	29.50 cent (12,895 sq.ft)
favour of the Agaram Panchayat.
	28.12.2006	5369/2006	1192
Gift Deed			1440
executed by the Thiruvenkadam in favour of the Agaram Panchayat			1880 ............ 4512 sq.ft

¶76

In the Gift Deed executed by the Kaliyaperumal in favour of the Agaram Panchayat in D.No.5368/2006, both Thiruvenkadam and Sridhar have signed as witnesses. The said Thiruvenkadam also executed gift deed in subsequent Doc.No.5369/2006 in favour of the said panchayat. The patta was also transferred in the name of panchayat as per the gift deed. The mud road was formed and maintained by the panchayat. The said Sridhar was elected as Panchayat Councilor of the said village in

¶77

10/19

¶78

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

¶79

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶80

they year 2006. During his period, in the said gifted land, cement road was laid at the cost of the government. That being the situation, patta was transferred in the name of Thiruvenkadam without notice to Kaliyaperumal and panchayat. Thereafter, Sridhar is said to have caused damage to the said cement concrete road in high handed manner. The panchayat officer has also not taken any action about the fraudulent transfer of patta in the name of Thiruvenkadam and for the mischief caused by the Sridhar to the Panchayat Road. Therefore, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court seeking a relief as mentioned above. Immediately, Thiruvenkadam filed a suit in O.S.No. 292 of 2024 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul to cancel the gift deed executed by Kaliyaperumal on 28.12.2006 vide Doc.No.5368/2006 as null and void and hence, they filed the impleading petition stating that Kaliyaperumal fraudulently transferred his land in favour of the Panchayat. The government also filed counter affidavit stating the following transaction between the parties:-

¶81

Sale	S.N		Executant/	Ex	tent
Document No./Date	o.	Executor	Purchaser	(in cent)	(in_ha_)
1081/1996	344	Thiruvenkadam	Kaliyaperumal	17	0.06.88
2892/1996	344	Sridhar	Kaliyaperumal	30	0.12.14
2237/1999	344	Thiruvenkdam & 7 others	Kaliyaperumal	9	0.03.64
		Total		56	0.22.66

¶82

11/19

¶83

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

¶84

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶85

Document

¶86

Document No./Year	S.No.	Old S.No.	Executor	Purchaser	Patta No.	Extent (cent)	(Hec)
2238/1999	344/1B 1	344/1	Kaliyaperumal	Thiruvenkadam	10460	18	0.07.34
1062/2003	344/1	344/1	Kaliyaperumal	Mariyappan	5239	5.68	0.02.25
5675/2007	2A2	344/2	Mariyappan	Nagammal		0.00	.05
5674/2007			Mariyappan Ramasamy	Velusamy Gounder
5676/2007	344/1 D 2A3	344/1 2	Velusamy Gounder	Ramasamy	5240	3.43	0.01.23 0.00.16
5368/2006	344		Kaliyaperumal	Agaram T.P.	...	7	0.02.83
3433/2008	344/2B	344/2	Kaliyaperumal	Palanisamy	5098	7	0.02.83
1081/1996 & 2237/1999	344/2 A1	344/2	Thiruvenkadam	Kaliyaperumal	4031	19.66	0.07.96
	344/1B 2	344/1	Kaliyaperumal-1 Sridhar-2 Thiruvenkadam-	3	1596	3	0.01.20
						63.77	0.25.85

¶87

The contents of the gift deed executed by both the petitioner

¶88

and the fifth respondent are as follows:

¶89

12/19

¶90

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

¶91

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶92

Gift deed executed by the fifth respondent in favour of Agaram Gift deed executed by the writ petitioner in favour of Agaram Panchayat Panchayat

¶93

2006 k; tUÑk; brk;gh; khjk; 28 k; Njjp NkjF jkpof Mseh; mth;fSf;fhf (jpz;Lf;fy; khtl;lk; jpz;Lf;fy tl;lk; mfuk; fpuhkk; NgUuhl;rp eph;thf mjpfhhp mth;fSf;F) jpz;Lf;fy; jhYfh mfuk; fpuhkk; ghg;gzk;gl;bapy; trpf;Fk; jpU.Re;juuh[;ehAL mth;fs; Fkhuh;.jpU.v];.jpUNtq;flk ; Mfpa ehd; vd; kdg;Gh;tkhf vOjpf;nfhLj;j jhd rhrdk; vd;dntd;why;. vdf;F G+h;tPf ghj;jpag;gl;lJk;. ehd; vd; iftrk; itj;J epuhl;Nrgizaha; mDgtpj;J tUfpwJkhd jpz;Lf;fy; jhYfh mfuk; fpuhkGy rh;Nt 343, 344 k; eph;fSf;Fr; rk;ke;jg;gl;l ,lj;ij vd;dhy; cj;Njr tPl;lb kidfshfg; gphpj;J cs;s kidfSf;F thq;Fk; NghJ kf;fs; cgNahfj;jpw;fhf NuhLfs; mikf;Fk; fhhpaj;jpw;fhf Nkw;gb mfuk; fpuhk eph;thf mjpfhhpahd jq;fs; %yk; NkjF jkpof Mseh; mth;fSf;F ,e;j gj;jpuk; %yk; jhd rhrdk; vOjpf;nfhLj;Jk; fPo;fz;l NuhL ,lq;fisAk; ehd; ehsJ NjjpapNyNa jq;fs; trk; xg;Gtpj;J tpl;lgbahy; ,dpjhq;fs; fPo;f;fz;l NuhL ,lq;fspy; NuhLfs; mikj;J vd;nwd;Wk; njhd;Wnjhl;L rh;t Rje;jpukhfTk; rh];tjkhfTk; Mz;lDgtpj;Jf; nfhs;s Ntz;baJ.

¶94

,dpNky; ,e;j jhd rhrdj;ij khw;wTk; jpUj;jTk; uj;J nra;aTk; vdf;F mjpfhuk; mwNt fpikahJ jpz;Lf;fy; hPb jpz;Lf;fy; [hapz;L 2 eph; rg;b jpz;Lf;fy; jhYfh mfuk; fpuhkGyj;jpy;:mad;rh;Nt 343. 344-k; eph;fSf;F rk;ke;jg;gl ; l fpoNky; Nuhl;Lf;F ehd;Fkhy;:-

¶95

11> 12-k; eph; kidfSf;Fk; : njw;F 1> 2-k; eph; kidfSf;Fk; : tlf;F fypangUkhs;> NtYr;rhkp tifawh GQ;ir epyj;Jf;Fk;

¶96

: Nkw;F Cubf;Fk; : fpof;F ,jw;Fs; fpoNkyb tlGuk; 67 njd;Guk; 82 njd;tlyb ,UgwKk; 16-k; cs;s fpoNky; NuhL ,lk; rJub 1192-k;

¶97

2006 k; tUÑk; brk;gh; khjk; 28 k; Njjp NkjF jkpof Mseh; mth;fSf;fhf (jpz;Lf;fy; khtl;lk; jpz;Lf;fy tl;lk; mfuk; fpuhkk; NgUuhl;rp eph;thf mjpfhhp mth;fSf;F)

¶98

jpz;Lf;fy; jhYfh mfuk; fpuhkk; ghg;gzk;gl;bapy; trpf;Fk; jpU.ntq;fpLrhkpehAL mth;fs; Fkhuh;.jpU.tp.fypanghUkhs; Mfpa ehd; vd; kdg;Gh;tkhf vOjpf;nfhLj;j jhd rhrdk; vd;dntd;why;. vdf;F G+h;tPf ghj;jpag;gl;lJk;. ehd; vd; iftrk; itj;J epuhl;Nrgizaha; mDgtpj;J tUfpwJkhd jpz;Lf;fy; jhYfh mfuk; fpuhkGy rh;Nt 343, 344 k; eph;fSf;Fr; rk;ke;jg;gl;l ,lj;ij vd;dhy; cj;Njr tPl;lb kidfshfg; gphpj;J cs;s kidfSf;F thq;Fk; NghJ kf;fs; cgNahfj;jpw;fhf NuhLfs; mikf;Fk; fhhpaj;jpw;fhf Nkw;gb mfuk; fpuhk eph;thf mjpfhhpahd jq;fs; %yk; NkjF jkpof Mseh; mth;fSf;F ,e;j gj;jpuk; %yk; jhd rhrdk; vOjpf;nfhLj;Jk; fPo;fz;l NuhL ,lq;fisAk; ehd; ehsJ NjjpapNyNa jq;fs; trk; xg;Gtpj;J tpl;lgbahy; ,dpjhq;fs; fPo;f;fz;l NuhL ,lq;fspy; NuhLfs; mikj;J vd;nwd;Wk; njhd;Wnjhl;L rh;t Rje;jpukhfTk; rh];tjkhfTk; Mz;lDgtpj;Jf; nfhs;s Ntz;baJ.

¶99

,dpNky; ,e;j jhd rhrdj;ij khw;wTk; jpUj;jTk; uj;J nra;aTk; vdf;F mjpfhuk; mwNt fpikahJ

¶100

jpz;Lf;fy; hPb jpz;Lf;fy; [hapz;L 2 eph; rg;b jpz;Lf;fy; jhYfh mfuk; fpuhkGyj;jpy;:-

¶101

mad;rh;Nt 343. 344-k; eph;fSf;F rk;ke;jg;gll fpoNky; Nuhl;Lf;F ehd;Fkhy;:- ;

¶102

ghg;gzk;gl;b Nuhl;Lf;Fk; : njw;F vd;NtW nrhj;Jf;Fk; : tlf;F 12> 15> 17 eph; kidfSf;Fk; ,jd; 2>3>4 yf;f nrhj;Jf;fSf;Fk; NtYr;rhkp tifawh nrhj;JfSf;Fk; : fpof;F 1 Kjy; 1 tiu cs;s kidfSf;Fk; :

¶103

Nkw;F

¶104

,jw;Fs; fpoNkyb ,UgwKk; 20 njd;tlyb fPo;Gwk; 386 Nky;Gwk; 206-k; cs;s njd;tly; NuhL ,lk; rJub 6460-k;

¶105

Nkw;gb eph;fSf;F rk;ke;jg;gl;l fpoNky; Nuhl;Lf;F ehd;Fkhy;:-

¶106

17-k; eph; kidf;Fk; : njw;F NtYr;rhkp tifawh nrhj;Jf;Fk; : tlf;F 2.Nkw;gb eph;fSf;Fr; rk;ke;jg;gl;l fpoNky; NuhLf;F 16 mb mfy fpoNky; Nuhl;Lf;Fk; : fpof;F ehd;Fkhy;: ,jd; 1 yf;f nrhj;Jf;Fk; : Nkw;F 1> 2-k; eph; kidfSf;Fk; : njw;F 3> 4-k; eph; kidfSf;Fk; ,jw;Fs; fpoNkyb tlGuk; 112-1/2 njd;Gwk; 116 njd;tlyb : tlf;F Nky;Gwk; 20 fPo;Gwk; 20-k; cs;s fpoNky; NuhL ,lk; rJub 2285-k; Cubf;Fk; : fpof;F fypangUkhs;> 3. Nkw;gb eph;fSf;F rk;ke;jg;gl;l fpoNky; Nuhl;Lf;F ehd;Fkhy;: NtYr;rhkp tifawh GQ;ir epyj;Jf;Fk; : Nkw;F\ 16-k; eph; kidf;Fk;> NtYr;rhkp tifawh nrhj;Jf;Fk; : tlf;F

¶107

NtYr;rhkp tifawh nrhj;Jf;Fk; : njw;F ,jw;Fs; fpoNkyb tlGuk; 86 njd;Guk; 94 16 mb mfy fpoNky; Nuhl;Lf;Fk; : fpof;F njd;tlyb ,UgwKk; 16-k; cs;s fpoNky; NuhL ,lk; 1440-k; ,jd; 1-yf;f nrhj;Jf;Fk; : Nkw;F 6> 8-k; eph; kidfSf;Fk; : njw;F ,jw;Fs; fpoNkyb tlGuk; 126 njd;Gwk; 129 7> 9 eph; kidfSf;Fk; njd;tlyb ,UgwKk; 20-k; cs;s fpoNky; NuhL ,lk; rJub 2250: tlf;F k; Cubf;Fk; : fpof;F 4. Nkw;gb eph;fSf;F rk;ke;jg;gl;l fpoNky; Nuhl;Lf;F ehd;Fkhy;: fypangUkhs;> NtYr;rhkp tifawh GQ;ir epyj;Jf;Fk; : Nkw;F 14> 15-k; eph; kidfSf;Fk; ,jw;Fs; fpoNkyb tlGuk; 118 njd;Gwk; 117 : njw;F njd;tlyb ,UgwKk; 16-k; cs;s fpoNky; NuhL ,lk; rJub 12> 13 eph; kidfSf;Fk; 1880 Mf Nkw;gb 1 Kjy; 3 tiu yf;f nrhj;Jf;fs; Nkw;gb : tlf;F jhd rhrdj;jpw;F fl;Lg;gl;lJ. rh;Nt 343 ghh;l;-k; eph; ];jyj;Jf;Fk; Nkw;gb nrhj;J jhdkhf nfhLj;jpUf;fpwgbahy; : fpof;F ngaustpy; kjpg;G &gha;.100/- (xU E}W) ,jd; 1 yf;f nrhj;Jf;Fk ; : Nkw;F ,jw;Fs; fpoNkyb ,UgwKk; 80 njd;tlyb ,UgwKk; 20-k; cs;s fpoNky; NuhL ,lk; rJub 1600-k; Mf Nkw;gb 1 Kjy; 4 tiu nrhj;Jf;fs; Nkw;gb jhd rhrdj;jpw;F fl;Lg;gl;lJ.

¶108

Nkw;gb nrhj;J jhdkhf nfhLj;jpUf;fpwgbahy;> ngaustpy; kjpg;G &gha; 100/- (xU E}W)

¶109

13/19

¶110

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

¶111

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶112

18.1.From the above factual circumstances and the contention

¶113

raised by the parties, the questions that arise before this Court are

¶114

18.1. Whether the gift deed executed by the writ petitioner in favour of the Agaram Town Panchayat on 28.12.2006 vide Doc.No. 5368/2006 is the property of the fifth respondent(Thiruvenkadam)?

¶115

Whether the claim of the fifth respondent (Thiruvenkadam) over the road portion on the basis of the mutation proceedings in spite of the execution of the gift deed dated 28.12.2006 in favour of the Agaram Town Panchayat vide document No.5369 of 2006 co vering the property both in survey Nos. 343 and 344 is right or not?

¶116

Whether the writ petitioner's allegation that the fifth respondent son-in-law, namely Sridhar obliterated the Panchayat concrete cement road and put the fencing is correct?

¶117

Both writ petitioner and the fifth respondent executed the gift deed in favour of the Agaram Town Panchayat and donated the land covering both Survey Nos.343 and 344 to lay the road. Subsequently, cement road was laid by the panchayat in the year 2011 at the cost of

¶118

14/19

¶119

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

¶120

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶121

Rs.3,95,000/- and the same was in usage. According to the fifth respondent, the writ petitioner executed a gift covering his land under survey No.344 and patta was mutated in his name in the year 2017. On the basis of the same, he claimed title to the said road portion. His sonin-law is said to have obliterated the said road portion. Now, the obstruction was removed by the official respondent and there is free access to the road by the public as existed earlier.

¶122

20.In the said circumstances, the above framed questions are disputed question of fact and the same required factual adjudication . Now, the suit is pending before the competent civil Court. Therefore, this Court without going into the allegation and counter allegation, directs the parties to redress the grievance before the civil Court.

¶123

21.This Court is not going into the criminal imputation made against Sridhar and the allegation of forgery made against the writ petitioner (Kaliyaperumal) in this proceedings. As per the report of the District Collector dated 05.01.2025, the fifth respondent (Thiruvenkadam) caused damages to the road. In view of the above situation, all the Criminal imputations are subject to the result of the civil 15/19

¶124

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

¶125

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶126

litigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to go into the allegation made against Sridhar and Kaliyaperimal.

¶127

22.But, the road was formed as earlier in the year 2006 and proper cement road was also laid in the year 2011 and the same is being used by the public to reach the Pappanampatty-Thadicombu main road and now, there was allegation made against Sridhar that he caused damages to the cement road laid by the panchayat and put up fencing restraining the public from using the said road. Now, the said road was restored and the fencing also was removed by the official respondents on 06.12.2024 and there is a free access to road by the public as existed earlier on 06.12.2024 and the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for fifth respondent undertook to keep the restored road without any damage and they would not cause any obstruction to the public in using the road as pathway.

¶128

Therefore, this Court, disposes the Writ Petition on the following terms:-

¶129

i) This Court hereby directs the parties namely, the writ petitioner Kaliyaperumal, the fifth

¶130

16/19

¶131

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

¶132

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶133

respondent, the Revenue Officials and the Panchayat Officials to maintain the road in the restored condition during the pendency of the writ proceedings till the Civil dispute would reach its finality.

¶134

ii) Neither party has any right to either demolish, obstruct free access of a person using the said pathway to reach the PappanampattyThadicombu main road.

¶135

iii) The learned trial Judge in O.S.No.292 of 2024 is hereby directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.292 of 2024 on the basis of the document produced by the parties and not relying on any of the report filed by the Revenue Authorities before this Court and without influenced by the mutation entry made by the Tahsildar in favour of the Thiruvenkadam. No costs.

¶136

15.05.2025 2/2

¶137

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No dss

¶138

17/19

¶139

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

¶140

W.P(MD)No.31020 of 2024

¶141

To

¶142

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

¶143

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶144

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), No.576/4, EB-Colony, Chettinaickanpatti, Trichy Bye-pass Road, Dindigul-624 004.

¶145