In an interesting turn of events, a single-judge of the Madras High Court on Wednesday strongly criticised a Division Bench ruling for refusing to follow the law laid down by previous Benches [NS Krishnamoorthi and ors v. District Collector].In his order, Justice N Anand Venkatesh undertook a detailed examination of the Division Bench ruling in which the latter had made an observation that several case laws cited before it contained "no adjudication in entirety."However, Justice Venkatesh said the Division Bench cited wholly superficial grounds as excuse to not follow the law laid earlier."One can only say that an exercise undertaken to 'eradicate the confusion' has only ended up in creating more confusion by refusing to follow the law laid down by Coordinate Benches on wholly superficial grounds. One would also regard the remark that there is 'no adjudication in entirety' in all the earlier Division Benches of this issue as a wholly uncharitable and sanctimonious observation. Out of a sense of curiosity, this Court decided to embark on examining the sudden wisdom imparted by the Division Bench in the case of Anbananthan, which issue had somehow allegedly missed the attention of several eminent Judges of this Court for well over a century," Justice Venkatesh said. .Out of curiosity, this Court decided to embark on examining the sudden wisdom by the Division Bench, somehow missed by Judges for over a century....Justice Anand Venkatesh.Justice Venkatesh added that the Division Bench's approach affected the High Court's image of being 'one institution with one voice'. "The Division Bench 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," the single-judge said. .The single-judge flagged these issues while dealing with a batch of petitions by various individuals who sought rights over "grama nathan" land (land earmarked for building houses). The legal question in focus was the extent to which the State can assert ownership rights over such land. Justice Venkatesh concluded that this question would depend on whether the grama nathan land has been occupied for a long time or not. "Where a grama natham land has been occupied for a sufficiently long period of time and the occupation has also been legally recognized by the State by allowing transactions to take place, it becomes a private property and it cannot then be said that those lands still vest with the State ... Where the land is unoccupied, the paramount title to these lands would vest in the State, in public trust, to be dealt with according to the Revenue Standing Orders," the single-judge eventually ruled after relying on various caselaws. The Court also asked the State to issue a circular incorporating these aspects before posting the case for compliance on April 28. Individual writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the considered authorities to examine the patta requests in line with the observations made in this ruling. .Judge take's exception to Division Bench's 'discordant note'.However, while considering the matter, the Court was informed that a 'discordant note' was taken by a Division Bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar in a 2024 ruling in the case of S Anbananthan v. District Collector..If the Division Benches of the High Court speak in different voices, the very edifice of the High Court will be put to peril...Justice Anand Venkatesh.In the latest ruling, Justice Venkatesh decided that he was not bound by the Division Bench ruling in the Anbananthan case since it refused to follow earlier case laws that went back over a 100 years.The single judge concluded that the ruling in Anbananthan was per incuriam (bad in law or not legally binding as it was rendered in ignorance or without following binding legal precedents)."It is not open to a Division Bench to disregard let alone circumvent the law declared by the earlier Division Benches on a question of law ... 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 of the Division Bench in the case of Anbananthan is clearly rendered per incuriam," Justice Venkatesh said. .It is not open to a Division Bench to disregard the law declared by earlier Division Benches...Justice Anand Venkatesh.The judge also took a dig at another ruling passed by the same Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mitra Srikanth wherein it said that judgments that conflict with findings in Anbananthan's case need not be followed."These are truly surprising statements and one wonders if the Division Bench, which referred to Hobbesian anarchy (in its judgment), should have lost sight of another form of anarchy viz., judicial anarchy, which its decision was bound to let lose in the State," Justice Venkatesh remarked..The judge was also disturbed by a directive in the Abananthan judgment by which the Division Bench ordered the State to issue a circular to regulate the manner in which pattas are granted in respect of grama natham lands. The Bench had asked the State to issue a circular on the lines of an earlier 2015 circular after "correcting the lacunae in the same."Notably, the 2015 circular referred to had been declared unconstitutional by another Division Bench (Justices SS Sundar and D Bharatha Chakravarthy) in Babu v. District Collector..In this context, Justice Venkatesh questioned why Justices Subramaniam and Rajasekar had asked the State to issue a similar circular, when it had already been quashed. The single-judge concluded that such a directive by the Division Bench is void. The judge also warned the State against resurrecting the 2015 circular in any form. "This Court would not hesitate to initiate proceedings for contempt if such attempts are made to indirectly interfere in the administration of justice by undermining a series of judicial orders," the ruling said. .Advocates N Manokaran, A Parthasarathy, R Sathishkumar and Vijayakumari Natarajan represented various petitioners. State Government Pleader Edwin Prabhakar, assisted by Special Government Pleader Selvendran appeared for the State authorities. .[Read Order]
