Grama Natham lands: Single judge of Madras HC criticises Division Bench for letting loose ‘judicial anarchy’

A single judge of the Madras High Court on Wednesday (March 26, 2025) went hammer and tongs against a Division Bench for letting loose “judicial anarchy” by overlooking judgments passed by several coordinate benches in the last 100 years on the issue of granting patta for lands classified as Grama Natham (village site of dwellings).

A single judge of the Madras High Court on Wednesday (March 26, 2025) went hammer and tongs against a Division Bench for letting loose “judicial anarchy” by overlooking judgments passed by several coordinate benches in the last 100 years on the issue of granting patta for lands classified as Grama Natham (village site of dwellings).

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh wrote: “The Division Bench (which, in 2024, held that all Grama Natham lands belong to the government) appears to have ignored the fact that the High Court is one institution and must speak in one voice. In matters of law, it is all the more important that the High Court is univocal and not polyvocal.”

“If the Division Benches of the High Court start giving contradictory directions and speak in different voices, the very edifice of the High Court, as an independent institution, will be put to peril. It is very unfortunate that the Division Bench, in the case of Anbananthan, has thrown all norms of judicial propriety to the wind,” he added.

The single judge also expressed shock over the Division Bench having issued a direction to the State government to re-issue a circular, which had already been declared as unconstitutional by another Division Bench. Such a direction would amount to forcing the State to flout the orders of the earlier Bench, he said.

Justice Venkatesh pointed out that the Madras High Court has consistently held the view for several decades that Grama Natham lands, under private occupation for many years, must be considered private property, and not government property, in order to invoke the Land Encroachment Act.

It was only if such lands had remained unoccupied or had been recently occupied by private individuals that the paramount title over them would vest with the State, in public trust, and could be dealt with in accordance with the Revenue Standing Orders, the judge highlighted.

If the Division Bench, which dealt with Anbanathan’s case in 2024, had a different view on the subject matter, it should have referred the issue to a larger Bench instead of choosing to ignore the binding precedents from coordinate Division Benches in the past, the single judge said.