G. Samraj vs The Director
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011531582026}
G. Samraj,
S/o.Gnanaprakash,
No. 8/99, Amman Kovil Street,
Araikulam,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
Vs
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. ...Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents 1 and 2 to take cognizance of and initiate immediate
legal action on the petitioners complaint dt. 20.10.2026 against the
rd
3 respondent in accordance with the provision of Corruption Act,
1988.
For Petitioner : Mr. J Sivaram
For Respondents : Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
for R1 & R2
: Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
Additional Government Pleader for R3
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
rd
the 3 respondent as per the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
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
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
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
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
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
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
DR. P. MURUGAN, J.
LS
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5818 of 2026
23.10.2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:37 pm )