In the light of the above discussions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned pattas, the sub-divisions made and the changes effected to the Field Measurement Book, Revenue Records etc., are set aside and the documents are directed to be restored to its original form forthwith. In addition, the following directions are issued: a) The District Collector, Dindigul, shall initiate departmental proceedings against the third respondent for manipulation of records possibly for extraneous consideration and report to this Court by 24.10.2024 on the action taken, and; b) The Additional Registrar General of this Court shall depute an Officer in the rank of Deputy Registrar of this Court to file a complaint under Section 379 of the BNS before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and prosecute the same. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the District Collector, Dindigul forthwith. 31. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Post the matter on 24.10.2024 under the caption ‘for reporting compliance’. Speaking : Yes / No 25.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Note: The Registrar (Admn.,) shall take a Xerox copies of the original file and the original notice signed by the third respondent on 12.06.2024, hand over the Xerox copies to Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader and retain the original files. To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Dindigul. 3.The Tahsildar, The Tahsildar Office, Nilakottai. 4.The Taluk Surveyor, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. P.T.ASHA, J. mm W.P.(MD) No.16457 of 2024 25.09.2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W. P.(MD) No.16457 of 2024and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.14260 and 14267 of 2024
R.Mani … Petitioner
/vs./
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Dindigul.
3.The Tahsildar, The Tahsildar Office, Nilakottai.
4.The Taluk Surveyor,
Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.
5.A.P.Azhagar
6.C.Murugeswari … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned separate patta no.4874 issued by the 3rd respondent herein dated 25.06.2024 pertaining to Sy.Nos.249/1, 249/2, 249/2A1, 249/3, 249/4, 249/5A, 249/6B1, 249/10, 249/9, 249/8, 249/6B4, 249/6B2, 254/2B1 in Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District in favour of the 5 and 6 respondents herein and quash the same as illegal and further directing the 3 and 4 respondents herein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 01.07.2024 and pass appropriate orders to restore the subdivision in its original position forthwith by cancelling the separate patta stands in favour of the 5 and 6 respondents herein within a time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi
For R1 to R4 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader For R5 & R6 : Mr.M.Sivakumar
ORDER
The case on hand is a clear illustration of how a Government Servant is able to manipulate not only the records but also the procedure in collusion with persons, who have scant respect for the rule of law. The narration of the case on hand would amply demonstrate the lament of this Court.
2. The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to cancel the separate patta no.4874 issued by the third respondent dated 25.06.2024 pertaining to S.Nos.249/1, 249/2, 249/2A1, 249/3,
249/4, 249/5A, 249/6B1, 249/10, 249/9, 249/8, 249/6B4, 249/6B2 and 254/2B1 at
Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 01.07.2024 and pass appropriate orders to restore the subdivision to its original position and to forthwith cancel the separate patta issued in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 and restore it as a joint patta.
3. The facts are being briefly set out herein below:
3.1. The properties, which are the subject matter of this writ petition, originally belonged to the petitioner’s father, Ramaraj and his brother, Krishnan jointly. The properties were the ancestral as well as self acquired properties of the brothers, which have been brought into the joint family hotch pot.
3.2. On 12.06.2009, after the demise of Ramaraj and Krishnan, their respective legal representatives had entered into a partition in respect of the properties, which are the subject matter of this writ petition, as well as the other properties. The petitioner and his brother were jointly allotted ‘B’ schedule property under the partition deed and the branch of Krishnan was allotted the ‘A’ schedule properties. Since there was some discrepancy with reference to some of the survey numbers, an arrangement deed was entered into between the two parties once again on 19.02.2010 and the ‘B’ schedule therein was once again jointly allotted to the petitioner and his brother, Karthick and the ‘A’ schedule to the branch of Krishnan. The petitioner and his brother had thereafter jointly sold some of the properties to third parties.
3.3. Certain misunderstanding had occurred between the petitioner and his brother, which resulted in some friction amongst the two. The respondents 5 and 6 took advantage of this situation and induced the petitioner’s brother, Karthick to sell his undivided share in the aforesaid properties and under a registered sale deed dated 08.06.2023, the said Karthick had sold his undivided share in the aforesaid properties to respondents 5 and 6. After the purchase, it is stated that the respondents 5 and 6 tried to threaten the petitioner into selling his undivided share as well, which was turned down by the petitioner. Immediately on their purchase, the respondents 5 and 6 had obtained joint patta along with the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents 5 and 6 without physically partitioning the properties attempted to sub-divide the survey numbers and obtain separate pattas. In their endeavor to sub-divide the property, they had sought and obtained the assistance of the third respondent, who from the narration herein below has actively connived with them.
3.4. The petitioner has stated that on 23.05.2024, the Surveyor had visited the property for surveying and sub-dividing the properties. The petitioner had given a written objection and once again, the objections were reiterated on 20.06.2024. However, no orders were passed on either of these objections. The petitioner came to learn that the third respondent without visiting the property was taking steps to issue separate patta to respondents 5 and 6. Therefore, on
25.06.2024, the petitioner had filed W.P.(MD) No.13968 of 2024 and on
27.06.2024 had obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 3 and 4 herein from issuing separate patta in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 herein in respect of the aforesaid properties. The order was also communicated to the respondents. The order dated 27.06.2024 was passed in the presence of the learned Government Advocate. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, it appears that the third respondent has issued separate patta to the respondents 5 and 6 by manipulating the records two days earlier. i.e., 25.06.2024. Therefore, this Writ Petition has been filed for the relief set out above.
4. Today, the third respondent has filed a counter and has filed 3 documents. In the counter, the third respondent has submitted that the prayer in the writ petition was not maintainable and would submit that under proceedings dated 31.03.2024 in F.L.No.2024/0123/13/000766, the petitioner and the interested parties, namely Ramamoorthi, S/o.Krishnan and Muthupandi, S/o.Rama Gounder, Srinivasan, S/o.Rammohan, Ryaran @ Rajasekaran and family and Ganesan (ELCON COMPANY), were issued notices on the basis of the application given by the fifth respondent, A.P.Azhagar.
5. Thereafter, on 05.04.2024, the Officials had surveyed the scheduled properties in the presence of all the afore mentioned persons and the petitioner, who had participated in the survey proceedings, had never given objections for the survey and issuance of separate patta to the fifth respondent. Once again it is stated that on the basis of the application given by the fifth respondent, Azhagar, the third respondent has initiated proceedings once again bearing the very same proceeding number and issued a notice dated 03.06.2024 to the petitioner, his wife, Thiruvani and the afore stated persons with regard to a survey to be conducted on 08.06.2024 at 11.00 am., He would state that this notice was served on all the interested parties. Thereafter, on 08.06.2024, the Revenue Officials had surveyed the scheduled properties in the presence of the petitioner and the other interested parties amicably.
6. Once again, he would submit that on 10.06.2024, the fifth respondent’ son, Jothi Ramalingar, had applied for the survey, demarcation and fixation of boundaries of the scheduled properties and on that basis, proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3979/2024/S dated 12.06.2024 were initiated and notice was served on all the 9 persons, who were earlier put on notice. He would submit that the Surveyor, Periyasamy, the Village Administrative Officer, Kani and the Head Surveyor, Ramakrishnan, had surveyed the scheduled properties at around 11.00 am on 15.06.2024 in the presence of all the interested parties.
7. It is also his contention that the notice was served through Village Administrative Officer of Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, to the petitioner, his wife and his son, Ramaraj Gounder, but they had refused to receive the notice and the Village Administrative Officer has endorsed the same.
8. Para 7 of the counter makes further interesting reading. The third respondent would admit the receipt of the written objection dated 25.03.2024, wherein the petitioner has stated that the fifth respondent and the petitioner’s mother, Onnammal, have preferred a complaint against each other and till the case is disposed of, the survey should be stopped. He also acknowledges the written complaint dated 20.06.2024 to stop the survey and issuance of separate patta in favour of the fifth respondent, but would state that on the basis of the survey conducted on 05.04.2024, 08.06.2024 and 15.06.2024, separate patta had been issued to the fifth respondent on 25.06.2024. He would conclude by stating that without preferring the statutory appeal under Section 12, the petitioner has approached the District Collector directly and therefore would seek to have the writ petition dismissed.
9. Extensive arguments were submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.B.Saravanan, had submitted the original file relating to the patta transfer, sub-divisions and the original notice signed by the third respondent on 12.06.2023. He would state that the revenue records and patta had been changed only after following the due procedure. In the light of the averments contained in the affidavit, the arguments made by the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the records, it is clear that the third respondent has indulged in an act of manipulating the records. This Court has retained the original files, which is a bound volume having a covering sheet, containing pages 1 to 126. The manipulation done by the third respondent is evident from the following:-
a) In the original file page 1 bears Reference No.TK8A/3700/1433 dated 29.06.2024 and the printed form has been divided into columns 1 to 4 and it reads as follows:
“Column No.1:
gzpe;J rku;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ:
,f;NfhgG; rk;ke;jg;gl;l Gjpa cl;gpupT njhlu;ghd
khw;wq;fs; tl;l Mtzq;fspy; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ. 8A gjpNtl;by; fyk; 10 Kjy; 12 tiu G+u;j;jp nra;ag;gl;lJ.
KJepiy tiuthsu;
epyf;Nfhl;il tl;lk;.
Column No.2: mDgG;eu;:
ghu;it fz;l 8A Nfhg;gpy; fz;l cj;jutpid fzpdp Gyg;glq;fspy; jpUj;jq;fs; Nkw;nfhzL; xU thuj;jpw;Fs; mwpf;if
rku;gpf;f mwpTWj;jg;gLfpwJ.
tl;lj;Jiz Ma;thsh; epyf;Nfhl;il tl;lk;.
ngWeh;:; FWtl;l mstu;/rhu; Ma;thsu;- epyf;Nfhl;il tl;lk;
Column No.3:
gzpe;J mDgg;g;gLfpwJ:
ghu;it fz;l 8A Nfhg;gpy; cs;s cj;jutpd;gb
fzpdp Gyg;glq;fspy; jpUj;jq;fs; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ.
FWtl;l mstu;/rhu; Ma;thsu; epyf;Nfhl;il tl;lk;.
Column No.4:
Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sgb gjpT khw;wq;fs; nrd;id epy msit kw;Wk; epytupj;jpl;l ,af;Feu; mtu;fspd; e.f.vz;:D.O.K7/19534/2019 ehs;:21.02.2023-cj;jutpd;gb fzpdp topapy; khWjy;fs; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;L 8A gjpNtl;by; fyk; 13> 14 G+u;j;jp nra;ag;gg;gl;lJ ,f;Nfhg;ig Kbf;fyhk;.
tl;lhl;rpau; epyf;Nfhl;il”
However, none of these columns have been signed by the respective persons and it appears that this 8A entry has been made on 29.06.2024, two days after the orders of injunction had been granted by this Court. In the manual of Land Survey and Boundaries, it is stated that Register No.8A is a current register in which all changes involving new survey fields and sub division will be dealt with. All cases of new sub divisions or new survey fields arising from the Taluk registers 4, 5, 6 & 7 should be entered in this register before files are closed in those registers. Only sanctioned sub divisions files should be entered in this register, before marking them to the M.F.S. for incorporation of changes in village account. Further action should be persued till the notification under sec 13 of the S & B Act in published with official Gazette. Therefore, it appears that even on 29.06.2024, the file had not been closed.
b) A perusal of the sale deed (pages 49-99) executed in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 clearly indicates that it is only an undivided half share that has been alienated. That the third respondent was very conscious of the fact that it was an undivided share that has been sold is evident from the underscoring done in the copy of the sale deed contained in the original file. It appears that in order to overcome this, an affidavit of respondents 5 and 6, which is signed on 19.06.2024, has been obtained from them (pages 117 to 125) wherein they talk about the purchase of the undivided share from Karthick. However, in para 3 of the affidavit, the following recitals have been set out:
“Mdhy;> ehq;fs; thq;fpa Nkw;gb fpiuag; gj;jpuj;jpy; ghfg;gpuptpid nra;ahj nrhj;J vd vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb nrhj;ijg; nghWj;J vq;fs; ngau;fSf;F $l;Lg; gl;lh Vw;gl;L jw;NghJ Nkw;gb fhu;j;jpf; vd;gtUf;Fk;> mtuJ rNfhjuu; kzp vd;gtUf;Fk; tha;f;fuhyhf gpupj;Jf; nfhz;l ghfj;jpd;gb ehq;fs; tptrhak; nra;J tUfpd;Nwhk;.”
c) The signature of the deponents in the above affidavit has been affixed on 19.06.2024, whereas the Notary Public has affixed his signature on 20.06.2024 at page 125.
d) Pages 37 and 39 are the sub-division sketches dated 21.06.2024, in which the seal contains details of the RTR number, the Challan paid and the date of payment etc., These columns are kept blank. This clearly indicates the haste with which this document has been prepared.
e) In page 35, there is a communication submitted by the Tahsildar for further action. The RTR number and date are described as follows:
“OPT/RTR 2024/0105/13/415995, 415996, 415998, 415999,
41600, 416001, 416768, 416773 dated 12.06.2024.”
Therefore, the proceeding, under which the sub-division has taken place, is as above.
f) Pages 3 to 25 dated 25.06.2024 are the new pattas. A perusal of the same would indicate that it is issued on the basis of an application made by one Alagar Alice Alagarsamy on 12.06.2024. Page 27 relates to the patta in respect of S.Nos.
254/2B1, 254/2B1A and 254/2B1B. Once again, the applicant is Alagar Alice Alagarsamy. The petition is dated 14.06.2024. The next patta is in pages 31 to 33 relating to S.Nos.249/8, 249/8A and 249/8B, in which once again the applicant is
Alagar Alice Alagarsamy and the petition date is 25.06.2024.
g) From a perusal of pages 31 to 33, it is not known as to how the survey could have been conducted in respect of S.Nos.249/8, 249/8A and 249/8B on 15.06.2024 when the application itself is on 25.06.2024.
h) The application, based upon which the survey was alleged to have been conducted on 15.06.2024, is one given by Jothi Ramalingar, which is evident from the original survey notice sent by the third respondent under proceeding Na.Ka.No.3979/2024/S dated …..06.2024 issued on 12.06.2024. The application is dated 10.06.2024 and not 12.06.2024. In fact, there is no application of the said date filed by the respondents. Further, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the third respondent would contend that the proceedings had been initiated only based on the application given by the fifth respondent’s son.
i) A perusal of this notice dated 12.06.2024 would highlight the further manipulation. The notice would show that the intimation has been sent to 9 persons with a copy to the Village Administrative Officer informing the addressees about the survey that is proposed to be conducted on 15.06.2024 at
11.00 am., in respect of the land in S.Nos.249/1, 2A1, 3, 4, 5A, 6B2, 6B4A1, 8, 9, 10, 250/2C, 254/2B1. On the reverse, there is an endorsement of the Village Administrative Officer informing about the service of the notice. The date on which his signature has been affixed is 10.06.2024. It is not known as to how the notice, which is dated 12.06.2024, could have been served on the addressee two days earlier.
j) There is no document produced before the third respondent to show that a partition of these survey numbers by metes and bounds had taken place and showing which portion has been allotted to the petitioner and which portion to the vendor of the respondents 5 and 6.
10. The aforesaid observations would clearly show that the entire exercise of granting the patta on 25.06.2024 has been made to overcome the injunction orders of this Court on 27.06.2024 and possibly for extraneous considerations. Without disposing the objections or passing the orders thereon, there is no explanation as to why the third respondent/Tahsildar has rushed to sub-divide the lands and to prepare the survey sketch without even entering the land and issuing the patta, more particularly when the property in question is an undivided extent.
That apart, admittedly the third respondent has been put on notice of the objections of the petitioner to the survey on 23.05.2024 and 20.06.2024, despite
which the survey is proceeded with. Therefore, the subdivision, FMB and the patta has to necessarily be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
11. The conduct of the third respondent is an act of deliberate deception made with the intent of favouring respondents 5 and 6 and securing for them a relief which only a civil Court or a partition between the parties could grant.
12. Considering the manner in which the Tahsildar/the third respondent has proceeded in the above matter, this Court directs that the departmental action has to be initiated against the third respondent. The first respondent shall initiate these proceedings and report to this Court by 24.10.2024.
13. A reading of the counter affidavit signed by the third respondent would clearly clinch the corrupt act of the third respondent and that he has submitted a false affidavit to this Court to cover up this corrupt act. For the purpose, para 4 to 6 of the affidavit has to necessarily be extracted, which reads as under:
“4. It submit that we have Initiated the proceedings in F.L.No.2024/0123/13/000766 dated 31.03.2024 to survey the scheduled property and notice send to the writ petitioner namely Mr.Mani, S/o.Ramaraja Gounder and the interested parties namely Ramamoorthi, S/o. Krishnan and Muthupandi, S/o. Rama Gounder, Srinivasan, S/o. Rammohan, Ryaran @ Rajasekaran family and Ganaesan (ELCON Company) based on the
application given by the Algar, S/o. Perumal Who is the 5th respondent herein. Thereafter, on 05.04.2024 our official have survey the schedule propriety in presence the above said persons. Even petitioner also participated in the survey proceedings he never give any objection with regard to survey and issuance of separate patta to the 5th respondent.
5. It is submitted that based on the application filed by Alagar who is 5th respondent in the Writ petition, we have initiated proceeding in F.L.No.2024/0123/131000766 dated
03.06.2024 who have issued notice to writ petitioner as well as his
wife Thiruvani and above stated persons with regard to conducted the survey on 08.06.2024 at around 11.00A.M., that was duly served to the all the interested parties. On 08.06.2024 our revenue officials have surveyed the schedule property in presence of Writ petitioner as well as other interest parties amicably.
6. It is submitted that on 10.06.2024 Mr.A.Jothi Ramalingar, S/o. Alagar has preferred on application for survey, demarcation and fix the boundaries of the scheduled properties. Based on the application given by the 5th respondent’s son, we have Initiated the proceeding in Na.Ka.No.3979/2024/S dated 12.06.2024. The notice was served to all 9 persons, those who are put on notice already. Our official namely, respondents Mr.Periyasamy (Surveyor), Miss.Kani (V.A.O.), Mr.Ramakrishnan (Head Surveyor) have surveyed the scheduled properties at around 11.00
A.M. On 15.06.2024 in presence of all interested parties. The
Notice was served through V.A.O, Pallapatti Village, Nilakottal
Taluk Dindigul District to the writ petitioner and his wife
Thiruvani and his son Ramaraj Gounder. But, they have deliberately refused the notice given by the V.A.O. The V.A.O. has also acknowledged the same.”
14. Along with the counter affidavit, a typed set of papers containing 3 notices had been filed before this Court. The first notice is dated 31.03.2024. The reference number in this notice is vg;.vy;.vz;.2024/0123/13/000766. It is a printed form, wherein the parties to whom it was addressed are 8 in number, who were informed that the survey was proposed to be conducted on 05.04.2024 at 11.00 am, There is nothing to show that this notice has been issued at all and served on the addressees. The next notice is dated 03.06.2024 containing the very same reference number and informing the addressees now 9 in number that the same lands as set out in the notice dated 31.03.2024 are to be surveyed on 08.06.2024 at 11.00 am., Once again, there is no proof to show that this has been issued and served on the addressees.
15. In the counter affidavit, the contention of the third respondent is that the survey had been completed on 05.04.2024, where the petitioner has participated and not objected either to the survey or the issue of patta. When such being the case, there is no explanation in the counter affidavit as to why a second survey was required and why the second notice dated 03.06.2024 was issued for surveying the very same properties. Further, the counter affidavit does not make any reference as to the service of the first notice dated 31.03.2024 on the addressees. However, with reference to the second notice dated 03.06.2024, in para 5 it is stated that the notice was served on all the interested parties and once again, the said property had been surveyed in the presence of the petitioner and other parties. The third notice is signed on 12.06.2024, which is a typed notice giving the details of the subject and the references. In this notice, the first reference is a petition dated 10.06.2024 of one Jothi Ramalingar and the second reference relates to the sub-division petition number 2024/0105/13/000766, 416001, 416000, 415999, 415998, 415996 and 415995. This reference number was not reflected in the notices dated 31.03.2024 as well as 03.06.2024.
16. Here once again, the third respondent has addressed the notice to 9 persons informing them that the survey in respect of the property is proposed to be conducted on 15.06.2024 at 11.00 am, though the counter affidavit would state that the survey had been completed in the presence of all the parties amicably on
05.04.2024 and 08.06.2024. Therefore, why a fresh survey on 15.06.2024 was needed has not been explained.
17. As already stated, in the patta transfer orders, reference is to the petition of one Alagar Alice Alagarsamy and not Jothi Ramalingar. With reference to 4 survey numbers, the petition date is given as 12.06.2024, with reference to one, the petition date is given as 14.06.2024 and with reference to the last, the petition date is given as 25.06.2024. However, in para 6 of the counter affidavit, the third respondent would submit that based on the fifth respondent’s son’s application dated 10.06.2024, the survey has been done. Therefore, the earlier statement that the survey was done on 05.04.2024 and 08.06.2024 is a false statement. Further, with regard to the notice dated 31.03.2024 and 03.06.2024, the third respondent has not stated as to who had made the application. All these are details culled out from the original files and the typed set of papers that have been submitted for the scrutiny of this Court. Further, neither Jothi Ramalingar nor Alagar Alice Alagarsamy are the owners of the property and it is clear that the respondents 5 and 6, the purchasers, have not made the application.
18. Therefore, from a perusal of the documents, it is crystal clear that the third respondent has filed a false affidavit before this Court. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily consider, if the third respondent has committed an act of perjury and the direct initiation of proceedings for perjury against the third respondent.
19. This Court is also conscious of the fact that when starting a prosecution for perjury, the Court has to be satisfied if there is a deliberate falsehood and a foundation for the charge. The narration supra of how the impugned orders have been passed amply demonstrates the active role played by the third respondent in creating the impugned orders and how the same has been sought to be explained away in the counter affidavit.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 383 [Meghmala and others v. G.Narasimha Reddy and others] has observed as follows:
“33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.
34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with
fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.”
21. Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (herein after referred to as BNSS) (which has repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure) deals with prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. Section 215 of BNSS corresponds to Section 195 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Section 215 of BNSS, is extracted herein below:
“215. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023; or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely, sections 229 to 233 (both inclusive), 236, 237, 242 to 248 (both inclusive) and 267, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court; or
(ii) of any offence described in sub-section (1) of section 336, or punishable under sub-section (2) of section 340 or section 342 of the said Sanhita, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant or by some other public servant who has been authorised to do so by him under clause (a) of sub-section (1), any authority to which he is administratively subordinate or who has authorised such public servant, may, order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former
Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:
Provided that-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. ”
22. Section 379 of the above Act subscribes the procedure that has to be adopted in cases mentioned in Section 215 of the BNSS. This Section corresponds to Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 379 of
BNSS reads as follows:-
“379. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 215, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 215.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section
215.”
23. In the judgment reported in 1998 (6) SCC 689 (Mohan Singh Vs. Amar Singh), the learned Judges had elaborated on what is perjury in para 9 thereof and the same is extracted herein below:
“9 Perjury is an obstruction of justice. Deliberately making false statements which are material to the case and that too under oath, amounts to crime of perjury. Thus, perjury has always to be seen as a cause of concern for the judicial system. It strikes at the root of the system itself and disturbs the accuracy of the findings recorded by the court. Therefore any person found guilty of causing perjury has to be dealt with seriously as it is necessary for the working of the court as well as for the benefit of the public at large”
24. In the judgment reported in (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 289 ( in Re. Suo motu Proceedings against Karuppan, Advocate), a Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering an affidavit filed in the case which turned out to be based on false facts. The Bench observed as follows in para 13 thereof:
“13. Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would be-wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance with the truth: The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.”
25. Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponds to
Section 191 of the earlier Indian Penal Code and reads as follows:
“227. Giving False Evidence: Whoever, being legally bound
by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know.”
26. In the case of R.Karuppan (supra), the learned Judges after considering the provisions of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code observed as follows in para 15 therein:
“15. In India, law relating to the Offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to betaken for preventing the evil of perjury, conceitedly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country.”
27. The Bench observed as follows:
“16………. We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affidavit of the respondent was known to whom to be false which he believed to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true, It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.”
28. Ultimately, the learned Judges issued the following directions:
“17. With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the Registrar General of this Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.”
29. In the instant case also, the third respondent has deliberately made false statements on oath in paragraph numbers 4 and 5 which from the perusal of the documents and his own statement in para 6 of the counter affidavit is proved to be false. The third respondent, a Government Servant, is bound to discharge his duties as per the procedure and rules set out in the statute book and when he bends the procedure to give an unfair benefit to one person to the detriment of another, this Court cannot be a silent spectator. He has further attempted to mislead the Court by filing a counter affidavit, the contents of which he is fully aware are false.
30. In the light of the above discussions, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
The impugned pattas, the sub-divisions made and the changes effected to the Field Measurement Book, Revenue Records etc., are set aside and the documents are directed to be restored to its original form forthwith. In addition, the following directions are issued:
a) The District Collector, Dindigul, shall initiate departmental proceedings against the third respondent for manipulation of records possibly for extraneous consideration and report to this Court by 24.10.2024 on the action taken, and;
b) The Additional Registrar General of this Court shall depute an Officer in the rank of Deputy Registrar of this Court to file a complaint under Section 379 of the BNS before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and prosecute the same.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the District
Collector, Dindigul forthwith.
31. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Post the matter on 24.10.2024 under the caption ‘for reporting compliance’.

Speaking : Yes / No 25.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note:
The Registrar (Admn.,) shall take a Xerox copies of the original file and the original notice signed by the third respondent on 12.06.2024, hand over the Xerox copies to Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader and retain the original files.
To
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Dindigul.
3.The Tahsildar, The Tahsildar Office, Nilakottai.
4.The Taluk Surveyor,
Nilakottai Taluk,
Dindigul District.
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.16457 of 2024
25.09.2024