SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 157

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
R. Kanthavel, Ramanathapuram - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P (MD) No. 24595 of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:E.V.N. Siva, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Siddharthan, Additional Government Pleader.

Individuals have the right to install statues of revered figures on their private property without needing permission from the authorities, as there is no statutory provision or rule governing the installation of statues on private land.

Headnote:

Statue - Permission to Erect Statue - G.O Ms No.140 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 18.12.2009, W.P.No.23485 of 2023, W.P.(MD)No.8935 of 2012, W.P.No. 43657 of 2016, W.P.No.9249 of 2015 - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to the erection of statues on private land, emphasizing the right to property and the limitations on government interference. The court cited various judgments to establish that permission from the authorities is not required to erect statues on private patta lands, and individuals have the right to install statues of revered figures on their private property.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, founder-trustee of a charitable trust, sought permission to erect a bronze statue of Thiru.Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar on the trust's private land. Despite a court direction, the authorities did not pass an order, leading to a contempt petition and subsequent writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had the right to erect the statue on private patta land without requiring permission from the government, as there was no statutory provision or rule governing the installation of statues on private property.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner required permission from the government to erect the statue of Thiru.Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar on private patta land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that individuals have the right to install statues of revered figures on their private property without needing permission from the authorities, citing various judgments and emphasizing the right to property and limitations on government interference.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, granting the petitioner the liberty to unveil the statue of Thiru.Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar within the premises of the petitioner's community hall.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to grant necessary permission to erect and unveil the Bronze statue of Thiru.Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar in petitioner's Trust land in Survey No.532/4 at Mustakkuruchi Village in Door No.2/68 of Mustakkuruchi Village Panchayat.)

1. The petitioner is the founder-trustee of Mustakkuruchi Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Charitable Trust. It is a registered body. The trust has constructed a community hall bearing Door No.2/68. The trust has resolved to erect the bronze statue of Thiru.Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar in the said campus. Though the petitioner has moved the authorities for erecting the statue, no order was passed till date. The petitioner, therefore, filed WP(MD)No.18056 of 2019 for directing the District Collector, Ramanathapuram to consider granting permission for erection of the statue. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2019 in the following terms :

    “13.As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue of erecting the statue of a National Leader/freedom fighter in private land/patta land is no longer unsettled as there is no restriction from the side of the Government and in this context, the aforesaid judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have given clear guidelines.

    14. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner also wanted to erect the statue of a Freedom Fighter, that too, in a patta land belong to the petitioner, for which, permission has been granted by the village panchayat by passing resolution to that effect in the year 2012 itself, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-

    “that the respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.07.2019 seeking permission to erect and unveil the statue of the Freedom Fighter Thiru.Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar at the private patta land of the petitioner, in the light of the judgments, as referred to above, as well as the Panchayat resolution passed in the year 2012 by the village panchayat concerned and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, final order shall be passed by the respondent/District Collector, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

    2. The direction given by this Court was not complied with. Hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition (MD)No.1225 of 2022. The contempt petition was closed in the following terms :

      “2.Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the contemnor has submitted a detailed report to the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration on 12.11.2020 and recommended for installing the statue of Thiru.Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar. Further, he has also sent a reminder communication to the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration on 16.09.2022 to pass final orders on or before 13.10.2022. However, till date no final order has been passed.”

      The petitioner was given liberty to approach the Commissioner of Revenue Administration by sending representation. However, till date, no order has been passed on the petitioner's request. That led to the filing of this writ petition.

      3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and called upon this Court to grant the relief sought for. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that Government Orders issued from time to time have stipulated certain restrictions and that therefore, the petitioner cannot install the statue without getting permission from the Government. He placed particular reliance on G.O

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top