The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of government permission for installing statues in private land, while also recognizing the citizen's right to use their own land without hindrance.

1. Challenging the denial for installing a bronze statue of Thiru Pasumpon Muthu Ramalinga Thevar in a private patta land situated in Survey No.104/16 at Kovilangullam Village, Kezhamavillangai Panchayat, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by the first respondent in his communication No.Na.Ka.Oo.Ne.2/1742/2012(1), dated 26.10.2012, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner to install the bronze statute of Thiru Pasumpon Muthu Ramalinga Thevar in his land was rejected by the first respondent stating that if permission is granted to the petitioner for such installation of statue, then, there would be many claims from the other sections of the people residing therein also.

3. At the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the letter dated 02.03.2011, wherein the first respondent referring to G.O.(Ms)No.140, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, dated 18.12.2009, observed that there is no need for prior permission for installing the statues, except to take preventive measures to avoid any untoward incidents. He also submitted that without considering G.O.(Ms)No.140, dated 18.12.2009, the impugned order came to be passed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that without considering the above said G.O.(Ms)No.140, dated 18.12.2009 and also without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed.

5. Whereas the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.248, Revenue Department, dated 23.08.1998, prior permission for installing the statute(s) in any private land is mandatory and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that such prior permission is not required, in view of the decision of this Court in P.Maniyarasan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (1) CWC 379.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

8. This Court, in P.Maniyarasan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (1) CWC 379, has held as follows:

"9. Subsequent to the said letter, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998 announcing the decision of the Government taken in an all party political meeting on 22.10.1998 and 26.10.1998 regarding the erection of statues. It was stated in that meeting that in future if any statue is to be erected, the Government's prior permission should be obtained and that maintenance of the statues solely vest with the persons, who are responsible for the erection of statues. The existing statues should be maintained either by the Association or section or individual who was responsible for erection of it. In the same way, consolidating all the Government Orders with reference to erection of statues in the village panchayat, panchayat union and the District panchayat, the said order was issued. In that order, it was stated that for erection of statue, memorial pillar or memorial hall or memorial arch, Government's permission should be obtained. The existing statues should be protected by persons who were responsible for erection of statues. In case statues are not in good condition, they should be removed to a safer place and be brought back for erection. For this purpose, once again the Government's permission is required. Whatever order issued in respect of erection of statues will also apply to the memorial pillar or memorial hall or memorial arch.

10. The said order had come into effect from 23.11.1998. The District Collector had also stated that when the petitioner made a request, he was asked to produce all necessary details which is in consonance with the Government letter. Without complying the same, the petitioner has