Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The further case of prosecution is that the de facto complainant M.Yuvaraja (L.W.3) had formed an unapproved layout in the agriculture land bearing Re survey No.26/4 of Peelamedu Village, Erode Taluk. While so, the complainant's father V.Manoharan (L.W.4) had purchased the site No.7 in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis another R.S.No.25/2 under the sale deed document No.4000/2016 to use it as an access road to R.S.No.26/4. The complainant had formed the lay out for 27 house sites and sold house site no.9 alone to one Tamilselvi under Doc.No.5231/ 2016. The complainant obtained a power of attorney deed (Doc.No.4417/2017) from the original owners A.Maruthaiah Pillai and A.Palaniappan and based on the power of attorney, the de facto complainant had executed a sale agreement (Doc.No.4731/2017) to his father (LW4). The Government had decided to regularize the unapproved plots and the de facto complainant had submitted an application dated 01.10.2018 to LPA Office, Erode and paid requisite charges. As per the prosecution case, A1 and A2 had conducted spot visit on 10.10.2018 and they had returned the file stating that there is no direct road access to the layout. Later, the de facto complainant had submitted a fresh layout with separate path to approach the road and thereafter, the de facto complainant had approached A1 and A2 and discussed the matter on 12.07.2019. As per the complaint, A1, who is an authority to grant in- principle approval order, along with A2 abused their official position and demanded Rs.2,50,000/- to process the application submitted by the complainant.