3 months ago
1
The Madras High Court was connected Wednesday (February 4, 2026) told a “mischievous” writ petition had been filed successful the tribunal accusing Information Technology and Digital Services Minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan of having “induced and misled” a Madurai-based mates to portion with their 2.26 acres of land.
Appearing earlier Justice P.T. Asha, elder counsel V. Raghavachari, representing Madurai based chartered accountant P.V. Rajarajeswaran, said: “This is an perfectly mischievous writ petition. The petitioner has filed this lawsuit without immoderate cause. I volition exposure this man thoroughly.”
However, since the counsel representing the writ petitioner, Jai Balaji Subramaniyan (42), sought clip to amend the supplication successful his writ petition successful presumption of definite developments, the judge, successful a lighter vein, told Mr. Raghavachari: “You exposure him aft helium files the petition for amendment.”
She directed the Registry to database the petition aft the filing of the amendment plea. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that helium and his woman R. Kalavathy owned 2.26 acres of onshore astatine Kodikulam colony successful Madurai East Taluk. He claimed to person purchased the spot connected May 20, 2024.
Though the mates was funny successful converting the onshore into aggregate residential plots, they were clueless astir the statutory approvals required from aggregate authorities specified arsenic the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and others.
“Acknowledging these circumstances, the honourable Minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan voluntarily progressive and promised that helium could get the enactment done for us, arsenic helium had bully root of radical who are good conversant successful each the procedures and technicalities of this matter,” the affidavit read.
The petitioner besides claimed helium and his woman had executed a wide powerfulness of lawyer successful favour of the chartered accountant, astatine the lawsuit of the Minister, connected June 24, 2024 and handed implicit archetypal rubric documents excessively connected being told that they were required to get DTCP and RERA approval.
“However, during the period of April-May 2025, I came to cognize that the said powerfulness of lawyer was being misused for the intent of unlawfully alienating my property. Only then, I realized that we were being induced and misled by the Honble Minister for an unlawful gain,” the petitioner alleged.
He besides said that a writ petition was filed successful the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court past twelvemonth against the refusal of Madurai North Sub Registrar to registry a deed for revoking the powerfulness of lawyer and that the Bench had passed an interim bid successful his favour connected May 8, 2025.
Further, alleging that steps were taken to merchantability the spot to a backstage steadfast utilizing a fabricated beingness certificate issued by a authorities doctor, the petitioner said, helium had besides got the Othakadai constabulary successful Madurai registry a First Information Report (FIR) connected October 14, 2025 regarding the fabricated beingness certificate.
Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Lok Ayukta connected December 19, 2025 accusing the Minister of having absued his authoritative presumption and filed the contiguous writ petition seeking a absorption to the Lok Ayukta to dispose of his ailment successful accordance with law.
Though the writ petition was filed successful the High Court Registry connected January 23, 2026; it got numbered connected February 2, 2026 and listed for admittance connected Wednesday (February 4, 2026). In the meantime, the petitioner had received a amusement origin announcement from the Lok Ayukta connected January 30, 2026 asking wherefore his ailment should not beryllium rejected.
Stating determination were nary important allegations of corruption oregon coercion against the Minister, the Lok Ayukta wanted to wherefore the petitioner’s ailment should not beryllium rejected. Since the Lok Ayukta had responded aft the filing of the writ petition, the counsel sought the court’s support to amend the supplication accordingly.
