The Supreme Court has refused to grant bail to those arrested in an alleged ₹100-crore land-registration fraud involving property belonging to the Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy temple trust in Tamil Nadu, while directing the state government to respond to the bail petitions.
The case concerns land owned by the temple trust in Palani, Dindigul district. According to Dinamalar, the property was allegedly registered through fraudulent documents and subsequently sold. The report identifies several people arrested in connection with the case, including sub-registrar Justin Manikandan, trust administrator Murugadas and Vellathurai, a resident of Tiruppur who allegedly purchased the land.
The accused had earlier sought bail from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. That request was rejected. The arrested persons then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order and seeking release on bail.
The bail petitions came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on November 2. The court declined to grant bail at this stage and ordered that notice be issued to the Tamil Nadu government, asking it to respond to the petitions. The report does not provide details of the next hearing date or the specific conditions attached to the notice.
The case places the functioning of the land-registration system at the centre of a dispute involving institutional property. A sub-registrar’s alleged involvement, as described in the report, brings the registration office into the scope of the criminal investigation, alongside the trust administrator and the alleged buyer. The supplied report does not establish the precise method allegedly used to register or sell the land, nor does it state whether the disputed registrations have been cancelled.
Temple and trust-owned land is managed through institutional arrangements rather than ordinary private ownership. Any dispute over such property can therefore involve the trust administration, the registration department, investigative agencies and the courts. In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision concerns bail and does not amount to a final finding on the guilt of the accused.
The immediate legal position is that the accused remain without bail following the Supreme Court’s refusal, while the Tamil Nadu government’s response is awaited. The proceedings will determine how the court deals with the petitions after receiving the state’s submissions. The report does not provide further details about the criminal investigation, the total extent of the land involved or the status of any alleged sale transactions.
The next formal step is the Tamil Nadu government’s response to the notices issued by the Supreme Court on the bail petitions.
