K.Rajaram Vs The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 and 3 to conduct an investigation and take appropriate action on the erring

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

WP CRL.(MD). No.2983 of 2026

¶18

persons those who were involved in the corruption practice by way of manipulating the revenue records and helped to register the bogus documents by impersonation within a stipulated time period as prescribed by this Court, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 04.10.2025.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For R1 and R3 : Mr.A.Robinson, Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) For R2, R4 and R5: Mr.S.Siva Subramanian, Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Civil side)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is a native of Puthu Appaneri village, Kovilpatti Taluk. He served in the Indian Air Force from 1978 till 1993 and in the Central Revenue Department till 2019. He claims that his grandfather was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos.100/1, 100,1A and 100/4 of Uthupatti Village, Sattur Taluk and the same was in the possession of his uncle, one Gurusamy Naicker, S/o. Narayanappa Naicker until his death in 1994. He claims that one of his other relatives by the same name of Gurusamy Naicker has obtained the patta for the above lands by way of impersonation and also executed bogus sale deeds in Document Nos. 1671/2014, 4941/2014 and 6800/2014 with the connivance of the

¶22

2/8

¶23

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

¶24

WP CRL.(MD). No.2983 of 2026

¶25

officials of the Revenue Department.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner got to know about this fraud only in the year 2025 and therefore, he lodged a complaint regarding the same before the third respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption Department, Virudhunagar. He has forwarded the complaint to the first respondent, who in turn forwarded the same to the second respondent/ Inspector General of Registration. Thereafter, the second respondent forwarded the complaint to the fourth respondent on 19.11.2025 and directed him to conduct enquiry on the same. On the basis of the report of the fourth respondent, the second respondent concluded that the petitioner's complaint was civil in nature and advised the petitioner to pursue legal remedies through civil courts by letter dated 07.04.2026.

¶27

The petitioner, with a grievance that based on his complaint, action ought to have been taken against the erring officials, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶28

3/8

¶29

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

¶30

WP CRL.(MD). No.2983 of 2026

¶31

to conduct an investigation on his complaint and take appropriate action on the erring officials.

¶32

4.The learned Government Counsel (Civil Side) appearing for the second and fifth respondents submit that the properties were registered in the year 2014 based on the patta issued by the revenue officials. Assuming that the documents were registered in a fraudulent manner, the Registration Department cannot take any action on the same and therefore, the petitioner was advised to work out his remedy before the civil court. He fairly referred to Circular No.18339/C1/2012 dated 25.04.2012 issued by the Registration Department and submits that in case patta is produced as previous document during the time of registration, then the registering officer is required to ascertain the facts and genuineness of the same from the concerned department/revenue officials. However, such verification was not carried out when the documents were registered in 2014.

¶33

5.The learned Government Counsel (Civil Side) also pointed out that the requirement of identification by way of Aadhar and photos

¶34

4/8

¶35

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

¶36

WP CRL.(MD). No.2983 of 2026

¶37

during the time of registration was effected only from 08.02.2022 onwards and therefore, it is difficult to ascertain the persons, who registered the document in the year 2014. If at all any mistake was committed in the office of the Sub-Registrar, it amounts to dereliction of duty and the registering officer, who registered the document, is not in service anymore.

¶38

6.The learned Government Counsel (Crl Side.) appearing for the first and third respondents submits that the complaint of the petitioner is pertaining to the registration of documents and therefore, the same was forwarded to the concerned department.

¶39

7.This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions.

¶40

8.The petitioner has lodged a complaint that a bogus patta was obtained to his ancestral property by way of impersonation and documents were created on the basis of this bogus patta with the connivance of the revenue officials. The compliant of the petitioner has

¶41

5/8

¶42

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

¶43

WP CRL.(MD). No.2983 of 2026

¶44

been addressed by the respondents. The second respondent has ordered for an enquiry by the fourth respondent and on the basis of the enquiry, he has suggested the petitioner to work out his remedy before the civil court by communication dated 07.04.2026. In the event, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said communication, he has to work out his remedy by challenging the same or by filing a civil suit in respect of the above properties.

¶45

9.On the basis of the materials placed before this court, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedies.

¶46

22.06.2026

¶47

ogy

¶48

Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No.

¶49

6/8

¶50

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

¶51

WP CRL.(MD). No.2983 of 2026