Madras High Court. File | Image source: K. Pichumani
A judge in the Madras High Court confronted the Judiciary on Wednesday (26 March 2025) to ignore the judgment passed by several coordinate benches over the past 100 years to allow Patta to grant Patta to Grama Natham (Grama Natham) (village of the village).
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh wrote: “Judges (in 2024, the court held that all Grama Natham belonged to the government) seem to ignore that the High Court is an institution and must speak in a voice. On the legal side, more importantly, the High Court is single, not single, and not very important.”
He added: “If the Normal of the High Court starts giving contradictory instructions and speaking in a different voice, the building of the High Court will be in danger as an independent body. Unfortunately, in the case of the Ambanant, the Judiciary provides all the provisions of judicial norms for the wind,” he added.
The single judge also expressed shock at the division’s judge who issued instructions to the state government to reissue a cycle, which has been declared unconstitutional by judges in another division. Such a direction would constitute a command that forces the state to violate early benches, he said.
Judge Venkatesh pointed out that the Madras High Court has always believed that under private occupation, Grama Natham land must be regarded as private property, not government property, invoking the Land Epidemic Act.
The judge stressed that only when these lands were always private or recently occupied by private individuals, would the most important title be the state under public trust and could be handled in accordance with income conventional orders.
The single judge said that if the division judge who handles the Ambanathan case has a different view on the subject in 2024, it should turn the issue over to a larger bench instead of choosing to ignore the binding precedent of the past coordinates of the Judiciary.
He observed.
Justice Venkatesh added: “Where the judgment goes back to the decisions that have been announced in more than 100 years, in the case of Anbananthan, the judges of the division had to follow the same judgment rather than seeking protection to declare that those decisions of Yesteryears lost their status.”
The judge also criticized the division for sending directions to the state government to tax officials, issuing a loop to tax officials, and although another court in the High Court announced a similar notice, the earlier issuance of directions.
“In this court’s yearbook, this direction is unheard of, as it directs the Government to issue a new circular in an earlier circular that has been dismissed as unconstitutional and is on the bench of the Coordination Division,” he said.
Justice Venkatesh also declared the judicial ruling in Anbanathan case Every Incuriam (by making judgments that do not record binding precedents).
publishing – March 27, 2025 at 11:51 am IST
