Madras High Court orders probe into disappearance of land acquisition file from Government Pleader’s office

The Madras High Court has ordered a probe into how the originals of certain land acquisition records went missing for several years after being taken to the Government Pleader’s office in 2021 in connection with a land dispute [Secretary Vs Nagraj]

The Court noted that the land records were eventually traced.

However, while they remained missing, the Court observed that certain litigants were able to produce apparently forged records to claim rights in land acquired by the government around five decades ago for the Coimbatore bypass.

In the absence of the original land records, the litigants also secured a partly favourable order from a single-judge Bench in 2025 by relying on altered land records or A-Registers (revenue records) produced before the Court.

However, after the State authorities challenged the single-judge Bench order before a Division Bench of the Court, the original records were eventually traced.

The Division Bench set aside the single-judge order on finding that the original land acquisition records did not support the stance of the litigants who had staked a claim in the government-acquired property.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan proceeded to direct the Coimbatore District Collector to conduct a thorough inquiry into the disappearance of the original records as well as the altered A-Registers filed before the Court.

"We direct the second appellant viz., the District Collector, to conduct a thorough enquiry in respect of the disappearance of the relevant records during the hearing before the learned Single Judge as well as the altered A-Registers filed before this Court by the petitioners," the September 3 order stated.

Depending on the findings, the Collector has been directed to lodge a complaint against those involved in fabrication or manipulation of records.

The case was tied to the acquisition of land in Pattanam village of Coimbatore district for a bypass or outer ring road. The land acquisition proceedings began in 1974, and a compensation award was passed in 1978.

The land so acquired included 4.06 acres belonging to Ramasamy Konar and his brother Kalimuthu Konar.

Ramasamy Konar died in 2019 without disputing these land acquisition proceedings. However, in 2020, one Nagaraj filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging that only a part of the acquired land had been used for the highway. The petition stated that the remaining land continued to be in the possession of Ramasamy Konar, and that he was not paid compensation either in respect of this portion.

The petition further claimed that Konar bequeathed this portion of the land to Nagaraj by way of a will executed in 2018. Nagaraj, therefore, asserted that he was the rightful owner of the land as the land acquisition proceedings in respect of this portion of the land had lapsed. Nagaraj died during the pendency of this writ petition, following which his legal heirs (petitioners) pursued the case.

To support their claim, the petitioners produced land revenue records that showed Ramasamy Konar as the owner of the disputed portion of the land.

The Tamil Nadu government and the Highways authorities opposed the petition. However, during proceedings before the High Court's single judge Bench, the original land acquisition files could not be produced to verify or dispute the petitioners' claims.

A status report filed before the single judge stated that the original file had been brought to the Government Pleader’s office for the case. An office assistant was asked to receive and keep the records, but no acknowledgement was given. They eventually could not subsequently be traced.

The single judge described this development as “startling." Departmental action was also initiated against an official over the missing files.

The single-judge eventually closed the writ petition by directing the authorities to reconsider whether the disputed property was required for the notified public purpose. If the property was required for such purposes, the authorities were to examine if the petitioners were entitled to compensation. If not, the authorities may release the property, the single judge added.

This verdict was challenged before the Division Bench by the State. While the appeal was pending, the original records were traced. On comparing these original records with the material produced by the petitioners, the Division Bench found discrepancies.

The original records classified the land as “Government Poramboke” and contained an entry referring to “National Highways." In the version filed by the petitioners, however, certain entries appeared to have been altered by inserting Ramasamy Konar’s name.

The Court concluded that the petitioners had made a bid to usurp government resources, in connivance with certain persons in a State Department.

"(The petitioners') claim was sought to be supported by records which, when compared with the original files produced before this Court, appear to have been fabricated or manipulated," it held.

The Court, consequently, allowed the State's appeal and ordered a probe into the disappearance of the original land records and the alleged fabrication of revenue records by the writ petitioners.

Additional Advocate General P V Balasubramaniam, assisted by Government Pleader K Kumaran, appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Abdul Saleem, instructed by Advocate B Nithish Kumar, represented the writ petitioners.

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, assisted by Standing Counsel SU Srinivasan, appeared for the NHAI.

[Read Judgment]