01Facts
The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the first and second respondents to act on his complaint alleging that the third respondent, the Tahsildar, demanded ₹3,00,000 for granting patta over land in Survey No. 56/44.
¶ 1, 3–4The complaint was stated to be dated 20 October 2026, while the judgment also refers to a representation dated 21 October 2026; the postal receipt showed dispatch on 20 October, and the petition was presented and taken on file on 21 October.
¶ 2The Court recounted earlier proceedings concerning the petitioner’s occupation of land classified as poramboke and the pending appeal before the District Collector against the encroachment action.
¶ 5–7The respondents’ counsel submitted that the representation had not been received.
¶ 802Issues
i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the vigilance authorities to take immediate action on a complaint dispatched only a day before the writ petition was filed.
¶ 1–2, 8ii.Whether, in light of the procedural circumstances and the petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition, the Court should permit withdrawal and impose costs.
¶ 903Law Applied
The Court considered the jurisdiction invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner’s requested action under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
prayer · ¶ 1It stated that, under the Government Orders referred to in the judgment, the Government machinery should be allowed 30 days to consider a public representation, and that complaints of this nature should be dealt with under the procedure prescribed by the Vigilance Manual and applicable rules and guidelines.
¶ 2, 8The Court also referred to the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in recounting the prior direction concerning the petitioner’s pending appeal, but did not decide the land dispute in this petition.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 Section 10
04Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner approached it on the day after the complaint was dispatched, before the authorities had a reasonable opportunity to receive and consider it; the respondents also stated that they had not received the representation.
¶ 2, 8It further noted the history of proceedings concerning the land’s poramboke classification and the petitioner’s earlier litigation, while observing that the grant of patta depended on the land’s classification, possession, and applicable rules.
¶ 5–8After the petitioner sought permission to withdraw, the Court did not determine whether the alleged demand had occurred or direct an investigation; instead, it permitted withdrawal subject to costs.
¶ 905Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the petitioner paying ₹5,000 to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench, within 10 days and producing the receipt.
¶ 9The matter was listed on 3 November 2026 for reporting compliance.
¶ 10Original Court PDF
G. SamrajvsThe Director
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
