HC orders probe into fraudulent claim made over govt. property

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tiruchi Commissioner of Police to appoint a senior investigating officer to conduct a probe into the claim made over a government property that was acquired for construction of a college

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tiruchi Commissioner of Police to appoint a senior investigating officer to conduct a probe into the claim made over a government property that was acquired for construction of a college.

The court was hearing the petition filed by M.P. Udayakumar and C. Pragalathan seeking to quash an FIR pending against them. They claimed ownership of the property through a civil decree and said the owner of the adjacent land, S.A. Xavier, obstructed the common pathway. Xavier lodged a complaint with the police that the petitioners trespassed into his land and the FIR was registered.

Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan took into account that the property was a government inam land and no person was entitled to execute any title deed to anybody. The survey number had been manipulated, forged and the title over the properties had been claimed with connivance of officials. The court observed that though the petitioners had filed the quash petition claiming right over the property in Kottapattu in Tiruchi, they had not disclosed the source of title.

The court observed that the survey lands were acquired for the construction of Thanthai Periyar Women’s College. Periyar had deposited ₹50,000 to acquire the government land for the upliftment of women.

The government acquired the land and compensation was deposited in 1970 and the land was entrusted to the Dravidar Kazhagam. After completion of the land acquisition proceedings, a conspiracy was hatched and executed to grab the valuable land by filing a suit, the court observed.

It said the suit was not maintainable. Any suit for declaration of the land acquisition proceedings was not only barred under the Land Acquisition Act, but also against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

It took into account that the case had been closed as a mistake of fact. It observed that allegations about fraudulent transaction over valuable government lands had been made. It was not satisfied with the closure report filed by the investigating officer.