R.Govindasamy v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Additional Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL R.Govindasamy

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Rep. by Additional Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anticorruption Cybercell, Head Quarters, Incharge, Special Investigation Cell-II Alandur, Chennai-600 015 Crime No. 1 of 2026

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420,409 r/w. 109 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(a) r/w.Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 in Crime No.1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that accused while working in Pudukottai on collusion with each other has obtained pecuniary advantage to drop the proceedings under Section 9 (2) (b) land ceiling proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms Trichirappalli dated 2.8.2003 which identified the surplus lands of around 31 standard acres resumable to the Government under Land Reforms Act.

3.

The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact earlier land ceiling proceedings were initiated under section 9 (2) (b) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (fixation of ceiling on land) Act, 1961 by Assistant commissioner of Land reforms, Thiruchirappalli and identified 31 standard acres of surplus land. The proceedings of the Commissioner of land reforms 2/16

dated 11.5.2022 which set aside the endorsement dated 16.7.2019 and ordered RDO, Pudukottai to resume the surplus land to an extent of 31 standard acres in S.Nos. 278/1, 279, 280/1, 280/2, 273/7, 301, 302 and 302/2 at Pudhunilaivayal, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District costing around 150 crores to Government of Tamilnadu. The petitioner is the power agent of the original owners. One M.P.R.Muthiah made a petition to the Government and filed a writ petition before the High Court and the honourable High Court directed him to appear before the statutory authority. Based on the report of the Tahsildar the then RDO quashed the said land ceiling proceedings by order dated 16/07/2019. The complainant M.P.R.

Muthiah has given a complaint to the Commissioner of land reforms the then Additional Chief Secretary and the then Additional Chief Secretary stayed the endorsement by proceedings dated 4.2.2020 and directed the RDO to pass fresh proceedings. Based on the direction the DRO Pudukottai conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Commissioner of land reforms by his enquiry report dated 11/05/2022 and the same was quashed and directed to initiate proceedings under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act against the A.K.Kuttaiyan Chettiar.

the Venkatachalam Iyer and intentionally suppressed the earlier 3 successive authorised officer held that there is a surplus of 31 standard acres and intentionally suppressed to the number of family and number of surplus land as per the provisions of the Act and without examining the private individual namely the petitioner herein is not an authorised power of attorney for the landowner A.K.Kuttaiyan Chettiar and it is legal heirs and without issuing revised notice under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act and submitted a report dated 26/12/2023 that there is no ceiling land or available in the name of A.K.Kuttaiyan Chettiar. Accordingly case was registered. But the said allegation are false and the competent courts already held that no surplus land and only 5.66 standard acres alone held by the parties and without perusing the materials the present case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based on the vigilance report, a case has been registered against the accused alleging that while A1 to A3 working in Pudukkottai, collusion with each other had obtained pecuniary advantage to drop the previous proceedings under Section 9(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Act proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, 4/16

Tiruchirappalli dated 02.08.2003 which identified the surplus lands of around 31.00 Standard Acres resumable to the Government under Land Reforms Act. The Proceedings of Commissioner of Land Reforms G1/8512/2019(L-Ref) dated 11-05-2022 which set aside the Endorsement dated 16.7.2019 and ordered the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai (Authorised officer under land ceiling Act) to resume the surplus land to an extent of 31.00 Standard Acres comprised in S.No.

278/1, 279, 280/1, 280/2, 273/7, 301, 302 and 302/2 at Puthunilaivayal village, Thirumayam Taluk in Pudukkottai District costing around Rupees 150 Crores to Government of Tamil Nadu and land ceiling proceedings pending since the year 2003 under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling) Act 1961 read with 1970 and had voluntarily caused loss to the Government exchequer in many aspects. Originally land ceiling proceedings was initiated against the Surplus land of one Thiru. Venkatachala lyer in the file of M.R.I 327/212 TM/ 58-61 under the 1961 ceiling Act and dealt with to declare the surplus land to be resumed to Govt. After the demise of Thiru. Venkatachalam lyer, land ceiling proceedings was continued against Thiru A.K. Kuttaiyan Chettiar who purchased the lands of Tr.

with land ceiling proceedings.) conducted enquiry and issued Section 9(2) (b) proceedings declaring surplus land and directed the land owner to inform the lands which he is going to surrender as Surplus lands to the Government.

4.1. He would further submit that One Tr. R. Govindasamy (A4/Petitioner) claiming to be the Power of Attorney for the above said lands had started selling these lands concealing the fact that it is the lands under ceiling proceedings. Due to local people protest and petitions to the Government Authorities, it came to light that these lands have already been determined and declared as surplus lands and proceedings to resume the lands to the Government is pending since the year 1961. One Tr.M.P.R.Muthiah sent a petition to Government authorities and also approached the this Court and Consequently this Court directed him to appear before the Statutory Authorities. Pursuant to this, the Authorised officer and Sub Collector. Pudukkottai vide her Memo dated Na.Ka.A2/709/2018 dated 08.06.

2018 directed further enquiry and called for a report from the Thasildhar Thirumayam and also directed him to take action through Sub Registrar to restrain him from doing any Patta Transfer in the Ceiling lands.

registrar to avoid patta transfers in Ceiling lands. But after the Sub collector (Smt. Sarayu IAS) the then Thasildhar gave a misleading report suppressing the fact that the lands are under land ceiling proceedings to the Revenue Divisional Officer who is performing the role of Authorized Officer Under the Land ceiling Act and thereafter based on the report of the then Thasildhar Thirumayam and without examining the revenue documents and records available in the land ceiling files of then A.K.Kuttaiyan Chettiar, the then RDO Pudukkottai Tr.Dhandayuthapani (A01) quashed the pending land ceiling proceedings vide Endorsement Na. Ka. No.A2/709/2019 dated 16.07.2019 for illegal gain and the then RDO (A1) acted in a manner detrimental to the public interest without examining the records as per the Act and too for extraneous reasons to deprive the Government from resuming huge surplus lands of about 31.00 Standard Acres and thus illegally favoured the private individual one Thiru. R. Govindasamy (A4/Petitioner).

4.2 He would further submit that both the then Thasildhar (AO3) and RDO aided the private individual to sell the ceiling lands worth crores of rupees by way of more than 100 registered sale deeds in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Keelanilai in Pudukkottai District. The Complainant M.P.R.Muthiah has given complaint to Commissioner of Land Reforms cum 7/16

the then Additional Chief Secretary about the wrongful and illegal act of the RDO Tr. Dhandayuthapani (A01) and the then Commissioner of Land Reforms cum the then Additional Chief Secretary, Dr. Jagmohan Singh Raju, I.A.S., stayed the Endorsement vide his Proceedings order G1/8512/2019 (L.Ref) dated 04.02.2020 and he directed the RDO, Pudukkottai not to pass any further proceeding in this case and directed District Revenue Officer Pudukkottai to enquire the issue and submit a detailed report covering the all the aspects contained in the complaint within 12 weeks. Based on this direction the DRO Pudukkottai conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to Commissioner of Land Reforms. On receipt of this enquiry report the Commissioner of Land Reforms conducted a detailed enquiry and held Ref. No. G1/8512/2019 (L.Ref.) dated: 11.05.

2022 that this forum found that the endorsement passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai dated 16.07.2019 has infirmity and against the provisions of the act and thus it is quashed and also the Revenue Divisional Officer Pudukkottai is Directed to proceed with action u/s 9(2) (b) of the Act which has already been initiated against the holdings of the Tr.A.K.Kuttaiyan Chettiyar and pass necessary orders after perusal of the village accounts and other records and proceed as per the provisions of the Act.

8/16

4.3. Thereafter the RDO, Pudukkottai (AO2) (i) intentionally suppressed the village accounts and other relevant records including the Survey Numbers in O.S Numbers of which AK Kuttaiyan Chettiar purchased the lands in court auction from Venkatachalam lyer, (ii) intentionally suppressed the land ceiling file in which first land ceiling proceedings was initiated against Venkatachalam lyer under 1961 Act itself, (iii) intentionally suppressed that the earlier three successive Authorised Officers (then Assistant Commissioners of parent department-Land Reforms Dept) held that there is surplus of about 31.00 Standard Acres, (iv) intentionally suppressed the number of family and surplus lands as per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, (v) intentionally suppressed all the lands in the name of A.K.

Kuttaiyan Chettiar in Pudunilaivayal as well as Embal Vattam and arriving at the surplus as per the cut-off date viz 15.2.1970 mandated by the Act, (vi) intentionally avoid the land owner family and his lands in his Native Village Embal by summoning land owner or his legal heirs as per the rules and provisions of the Act, (vii) without examining that the Private Individual R.Govindasamy (A4/Petitiner) is not an authorised power of attorney for the land owner A.K.

with corrupt motive to unduly favour the Private Individual by intentionally omitting to follow the essential rules and provisions of the Land Reforms Act in discharge of his duties and submitted a report dated 26.12.2023 to the Land Commissioner stating that the ceiling land are not in the name of A.K.Kuttiyan Chettiyar and there is no surplus lands. He also deliberately and intentionally made a false final order dated 11.05.2022 of the Commissioner of Land Reforms as a petition enquiry, thereby favouring Tr. R. Govindasamy(A4/Petitioner) who had already sold several acres of ceiling land worth several crores of rupees, despite not holding any valid power of attorney, as the original landowner had passed away many years ago. Further A3 who worked as Thasildhar, Thirumayam during 28.02.2019 to 20.07.

2021 allowed patta transfers in the sale of ceiling lands knowingly and illegally favoured the private individual. The case is at the preliminary stage of investigation, and the connected vital documents are yet to be collected from the concerned Revenue Department, Registration Department, and Land Reforms Department. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10/16

6. It is admitted fact that a suit in O.S.No. 254 of 1934 was filed on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai has been decreed and through court auction the properties were sold to various persons and thereafter writ petitions were also filed and the same were also dismissed and after commencement of Act 26 of 1963, the occupants of the land have approached the Government to obtain Patta, however neither the A.K.

Kuttayan Chettiar and 12 others nor original inamdhars approached the settlement Tahsildar to get patta, ceiling limit of the standard acres was initially fixed as 30 standard acres and thereafter it was reduced to 15 standard acres and the standard acre was fixed on the basis of the land revenue paid to the Government by the landowners and no claim was made by the inamdars and the settlement was initiated by the Settlement Tahsildhar, the settlement Tahsildar by order dated 26/05/1989 refused to grant a Patta in favour of the court auction purchasers. As against the said order they filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A. No 38 of 1993 before the Sub court, Pudukottai and the same was allowed. Thereafter the same was challenged before the special Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A.No. 6 of 1997 and S.T.A.No.

While SLP are pending the Assistant Commissioner of Land, Trichy passed order dated 26.02.2024 and granted patta and issued a proceedings under section 9 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms. The Revenue Divisional Officer by proceedings dated 16.07.2019 sent a report to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, that as per the court auction sale, the said P.K.C.T.K. Subramaniam Chettiar and 11 others had purchased the said land and all the above persons are the owners of the said land and each one of the aforesaid 12 pattadars owned only 5.66 standard acres well within the limit of 15 standard acres.

Aggrieved against the order the Revenue Divisional Officer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Reforms and the Commissioner of Land Reforms, quashed the proceedings dated 16/07/2019 and directed the RDO to proceed with the action under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act which has already been initiated against the holdings of Thiru. A.K.Kuttaiyan Chettiar. Pursuant to the said directions of the Commissioner of Land Reforms,, the RDO has conducted a detailed enquiry through proceedings dated 26.12.2023 sent a detailed report to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, that the aforesaid lands were purchased by A.K.

1963, and per Land Reforms Act 1961. Therefore from the above it is clear that lands are not surplus and no proceedings have been proceeded further and no notice has been served to the petitioner, the petitioner has also filed writ petition in WP(MD) No.4728 of 2024 and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter writ appeal in WA(MD) NO.987 of 2024 has been filed and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter review application was filed in Rev.Aplc(MD) No.164 of 2024 and the same was also dismissed and even as per prosecution all the offences are borne out of records and thereby no scope to tamper the evidence, hence this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Puduktottai and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

13/16

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 08.04.2026 aav 14/16

To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Puduktottai 2.The Additional Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anticorruption Cybercell, Head Quarters, Incharge, Special Investigation Cell-II Alandur, Chennai-600 015 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

15/16

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 4725 of 2026 Date : 08.04.2026 16/16