The Madras High Court on Thursday (September 3, 2026) directed the Chengalpattu Superintendent of Police to keep in abeyance a land grabbing complaint lodged by an individual against Chengalpattu Collector, Tambaram Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Tahsildar and two other government officials.
Justices G. Jayachandran and E. Manoharan requested State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan to convey the court order to the Superintendent of Police since the Collector agreed to return the land to its owner after demolishing all constructions put up in 2023 and restoring it to its original condition.
The judges granted time till September 28, 2026 for the Collector M. Veerappan to comply with the undertaking given by him to the court and said, the land grabbing complaint lodged by the land owner M.R. Vasanthan of Raja Annamalaipuram in Chennai shall be kept in abeyance until further court orders.
The land owner had filed a writ petition in the High Court in 2024 accusing the government officials of having constructed a revetment wall on his private land measuring 1,318 square metres in Selaiyur. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar in 2025 found the petitioner’s claim to be true.
However, since the private land had been used for a public purpose of ensuring free flow of water, the judges ordered that the petitioner must be suitably compensated. Thereafter, the Tambaram Tahsildar ascertained the value of the land to be ₹2.9 crore but the government did not settle the amount for long.
When the writ petition came up before the Bench led by Justice Jayachandran on Wednesday (September 2, 2026), the judges took serious note of the issue and rebuked the government offiicals for their “audacity to grab” a private property under the guise of public purpose without even compensating him.
The Bench permitted the petitioner to lodge a police complaint against all the officials concerned and ordered registration of the complaint. However, the Collector appeared before the court on September 3, 2026 and assured the court that the land would be returned to the petitioner within 15 days.
Additional Advocate General P.V. Balasubramaniam told the court the officials had decided to run the canal through an alternative route and return the land to the petitioner. He also said the revetment wall was constructed on the petitioner’s property under a wrong impression that it was a government land.
After recording the AAG’s submissions, the judges adjourned the case for further hearing to September 28, 2026.
