BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, M. JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
Balasubramani, S/o. Govindan - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar & Ors. - Respondents
W.A.(MD) No.1386 of 2022 And C.M.P.(MD) No.11003 of 2022
Decided On : 28-02-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu, for Mr. B. Satheesh Kumar.
For the Respondents : Mr. K. Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader, Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate.
JUDGMENT :
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
The only question that calls for determination is whether permission from the authorities has to be obtained for installing statues in one's patta land.
2. The petitioner wants to erect a bronze statue for Thiagi Immanuel Sekaran at Amaichiyarpatti Village. According to the petitioner, a clay statue was there originally and that they only want to replace the same. The learned Special Government Pleader would however contest this statement and point out that the clay statue was in some other place and that without any prior permission, a bronze statue has now been installed. Since the authorities had declined permission to install the statue, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No. 22120 of 2022. The appellant did not get relief in the writ petition. The learned single Judge was of the view that in view of the G.O.(Ms)No.183 Revenue Department dated 23.05.2017, without permission from the authorities concerned, the statue cannot be installed. Aggrieved by the said decision, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader would point out that installation of the statue as requested by the appellant would lead to serious law and order problems. They point out that in the year 1997, the place witnessed as many as five murders. They called upon this Court to sustain the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the appeal.
4. In our view, the issue has to be approached from a different perspective altogether. The question is whether the appellant has any legal right as such. If the appellant is legally entitled, he cannot be restrained from exercising his right by citing law and order problems. One of us sitting singly vide order dated 04.01.2024 in W.P.(MD)No. 24595 of 2023 ( R. Kanthavel V. State of Tamil Nadu ) had dealt with the issue in the following terms:-
“ 4. ... What does the petitioner want? He wants to install the statue of a highly revered freedom fighter and leader in a community hall built on a patta land. Does he require prior permission from the government or any other statutory authority?. The issue is no longer res integra. The answer is that to erect a statue such as the one on hand on a patta land, permission from the authorities is not required. This is because there is no statute governing the subject matter. A patta holder has certain rights over his land. Just as one's home is his castle, one's land is his fiefdom. The State can step in only by due process of law. A statutory or common law right cannot be restricted or taken away through executive instructions or government orders. Only a statute that is not ultra vires the Constitution can impinge on such rights. For instance, if one wants to put up a religious structure for public worship, then, prior permission from the District Collector would be required. Since there is no such statutory provision or Rule regarding installation of statues, the right of an individual to erect a statue in honour of a person whom he reveres cannot be stifled or interfered with.
5. It is true that G.Os were issued from time to time framing guidelines in this regard. They have been considered in many a case. ... A learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.No. 23485 of 2023 ( Tamil Nadu Yadava Mahasabai Kancheepuram District Rep by its District Secretary Vs. District Collector ) held as follows:
“7. Right to property is a Constitutional right, and it cannot be interfered with except as per a fair procedure established by law. No legislature or the executive can arrogate to themselves any power to interfere with the private life of a citizen. A citizen has every right to use his property subject only to any objectival regulation. Directing a citizen not to erect a statue as a mark of respect for a freedom fighter in his property involves both a right to faith and right to privacy, both of which are fundamental rights now recognised under the Constitut
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.