Madras High Court Single Judge Criticises Division Bench for Ignoring Precedent

March 26, 2025 7:57 PM

In a strongly worded judgment delivered today, a single judge of the Madras High Court, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, sharply criticized a Division Bench ruling for disregarding over a century of judicial precedent on the ownership of “grama natham” lands in Tamil Nadu. The critique came as part of a common order disposing of four writ petitions—W.P. Nos. 4936, 6015, 6514, and 6795 of 2025—filed by N.S. Krishnamoorthi, Maruthamuthu, V. Rajendiran, and S. Subramani, respectively, who sought “patta” (land title) for occupied village habitation lands. Justice Venkatesh not only granted relief to the petitioners but also declared the Division Bench’s 2024 decision in S. Anbananthan Vs. District Collector as “per incuriam” (legally erroneous), accusing it of undermining judicial consistency and propriety.

Background of the Case

The dispute centers on “grama natham” lands—village sites historically reserved for habitation and exempt from revenue assessment. The petitioners challenged the refusal or inaction of revenue authorities to grant them patta, citing either restrictive Revenue Standing Orders (RSO) or the state’s claim of ownership under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The cases are:

W.P. No. 4936 of 2025: N.S. Krishnamoorthi contested a December 31, 2024, order by the Revenue Tahsildar, Tenkanikottai, rejecting his patta claim for lands (180 sq.m. and 920 sq.m.) in Thenkanikottai Village, Krishnagiri District, occupied by his family since a 1951 partition deed.

W.P. No. 6015 of 2025: Maruthamuthu sought a mandamus to compel action on his December 24, 2024, representation for patta over land in Kadathur, Tirupur District, where he lived for over 30 years.

W.P. No. 6514 of 2025: V. Rajendiran demanded action on his October 7, 2024, representation for patta over a 2.75-are plot in Tirupur District, inherited from his great-grandfather.

W.P. No. 6795 of 2025: S. Subramani sought patta for a three-cent plot in Neikkaran Palayam Village, Tiruvannamalai District, occupied since his marriage, adjacent to his mother-in-law’s pattad land from 1995.

The respondents—District Collectors and Tahsildars from Krishnagiri, Tirupur, and Tiruvannamalai Districts—argued that grama natham lands vest with the government under the 1905 Act, except where explicitly exempted, and that mere occupation does not confer ownership rights.

Important Legal Issues Involved

The judgment grappled with two core legal issues:

Ownership of Grama Natham Lands: Whether occupied grama natham lands are private property of the occupants or vest with the state under the 1905 Act.
Judicial Precedent and Stare Decisis: Whether the Division Bench in S. Anbananthan (2024) was justified in departing from a century-long line of precedents affirming occupants’ rights over occupied natham lands, and the implications of such a departure on judicial consistency.

The petitioners relied on a slew of prior rulings, including Executive Officer Vs. V. Swaminathan (2004) and T.S. Ravi Vs. District Collector (2018), which held that occupied grama natham lands belong to the occupants and cannot be reclassified or subjected to eviction under the 1905 Act. The state countered with the Anbananthan ruling, which asserted government ownership over all grama natham lands, occupied or not, and dismissed earlier judgments as non-binding.

Court’s Decision and Key Observations

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh delivered a comprehensive 72-page order, resolving the petitions in favor of the petitioners while launching a scathing critique of the Anbananthan Division Bench (comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar). The court’s key findings and observations include:

Occupied Grama Natham as Private Property:

The court reaffirmed that “where the grama natham land is occupied and such occupation has been recognized by the State by way of successive transfers etc., the land is the private property of the occupant” (Para 48(i)). It clarified that the 1905 Act’s vesting provision does not apply to such lands due to the exception for house sites.

Decision: In W.P. No. 4936, the impugned order was quashed, and the Tahsildar was directed to issue patta within 12 weeks after verifying possession per the 1951 partition deed. In W.P. Nos. 6015, 6514, and 6795, the Tahsildars were ordered to process the petitioners’ representations and grant patta for occupied extents within 12 weeks, rejecting the RSO ceiling as inapplicable to occupied natham.

Criticism of the Anbananthan Division Bench:

Justice Venkatesh accused the Division Bench of “refusing to follow binding precedents” and creating “judicial anarchy” by disregarding over 100 years of consistent rulings. He observed: “In attempting to distinguish precedents going back over 100 years, they appear to have overlooked the very elementary proposition of law set out by the Supreme Court” (Para 55(s)).

The court found Anbananthan per incuriam, noting: “To the extent that the decision in the case of Anbananthan claims to take a different view from the decisions of the earlier Division Benches by disregarding them, it must follow that the decision… is clearly rendered per incuriam” (Para 46).

A particularly stinging criticism came over the Division Bench’s direction to issue a fresh circular akin to one quashed in Babu Vs. District Collector (2023): “Such a direction is unheard of in the annals of this Court… The Division Bench appears to have ignored the fact that the High Court is one institution and must speak in one voice” (Para 60(ac)-(ad)).

Judicial Propriety and Stare Decisis:

Quoting the Supreme Court in Waman Rao Vs. Union of India (1981), the court emphasized: “It is sufficient for invoking the rule of stare decisis that a certain decision was arrived at on a question which arose or was argued, no matter on what reason the decision rests” (Para 56(v)). The Anbananthan Bench’s claim that prior rulings lacked “adjudication in entirety” was dismissed as “wholly uncharitable and sanctimonious” (Para 42(c)).
Decision: The court declined to refer the matter to a larger bench, holding that Anbananthan’s deviation from precedent rendered it non-binding.

Directives to the State:

The court ordered the Commissioner of Land Administration to issue a new circular within four weeks, aligning with its conclusions that occupied natham is private property and unoccupied natham vests with the state for public distribution (Para 48(vii)). It warned against resurrecting the quashed 2015 circular, threatening contempt proceedings if defied