Palani Temple land case: Sub-Registrar seeks anticipatory bail; DMK, AIADMK up pressure on TVK govt
A Sub-Registrar facing allegations linked to the registration of property belonging to the Palani Sri Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple Trust has approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
Justin Manikandan Subramanian argued through his counsel that he had only carried out his official responsibilities after complying with an earlier High Court directive. According to the petition, he was serving at the Joint-II Sub-Registrar Office in Palani on July 6, 2026.
The registration office had initially refused to register the sale deed because civil litigation concerning the property was pending. The buyers later challenged that refusal before the High Court. In April 2026, the court set aside the refusal slip and instructed officials to complete the registration within one week.
Subramanian submitted that he registered the document solely because of the court’s direction and maintained that he had no involvement in any alleged conspiracy beyond performing his statutory duty.
Meanwhile, the alleged land issue has become a political flashpoint in Tamil Nadu. Both the DMK and AIADMK criticised the TVK government over its handling of the matter.
DMK legal wing joint secretary I. Paranthamen alleged that the government was protecting those responsible and suggested the incident could be part of a broader conspiracy. He pointed to differing explanations from ministers, noting that one minister described the registration as an error made out of ignorance, while another said it was carried out in compliance with a court order. He also referred to submissions made by the public prosecutor, who reportedly stated that relevant HR&CE records had been withheld and that the registration took place under pressure.
AIADMK Rajya Sabha MP I.S. Inbadurai questioned the government’s response, particularly the police case filed against an AIADMK functionary over a social media post about the controversy. He argued that while legal remedies such as defamation proceedings are available, police action should not be used to discourage public criticism.