Remedy for Alleged Bogus Land Registration Lies in Civil Court: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently held that disputes involving allegations of bogus land registrations based on impersonation and fraudulent revenue records are primarily civil in nature, directing the aggrieved party to seek redressal through civil courts.

In a proceeding presided over by Justice B.Pugalendhi, the Court addressed a plea seeking a direction for a vigilance probe into the alleged connivance of revenue and registration officials in creating fraudulent sale deeds. The petitioner, a former Indian Air Force and Central Revenue Department employee, claimed that ancestral property was misappropriated through impersonation.

Court's Rationale on Civil Nature of Registration Disputes

The Court observed that the Registration Department's ability to act on past registrations is limited once a determination has been made regarding the nature of the complaint. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the event, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said communication, he has to work out his remedy by challenging the same or by filing a civil suit in respect of the above properties."

Regarding the conduct of the authorities and the feasibility of a criminal investigation into decade-old registrations, the Court noted the submission that identification protocols like Aadhaar were not in place in 2014. It was further noted that even if mistakes occurred, they might amount to dereliction of duty by officers no longer in service.

Limited Scope for Mandamus in Contractual Property Frauds

While the petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Constitution of India, the Court found no merit in compelling the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to investigate after the Inspector General of Registration had already deemed the matter civil. The Court has the following directions:

"In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedies."

Background:

The petitioner alleged that his grandfather's lands in Sattur Taluk were usurped by a relative with the same name through impersonation. He contended that bogus sale deeds were registered in 2014 with the connivance of revenue officials who issued a bogus patta. The fraud allegedly came to light only in 2025, leading to a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

The Government Counsel argued that under a Registration Department Circular dated 25.04.2012, while officers are supposed to verify the genuineness of a patta, such verification was not carried out in this 2014 transaction. However, the department maintained that it could not unilaterally cancel the documents and had rightly advised the petitioner to approach a civil court. The Court agreed with this stance, concluding that the writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate forum for resolving these title and impersonation disputes.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP CRL.(MD). No.2983 of 2026
Case Title: K.Rajaram Vs The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Saravanan
For the Respondent(s): Mr.A.Robinson (Counsel for State - Crl. Side), Mr.S.Siva Subramanian (Counsel for State - Civil side)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 283