COMMON ORDER

The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3.The petitioner is a registered society under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Though the registration had taken place only in the year 2011, the petitioner has been in existence for close to half a century. It is operating from the premises comprised in S.No.81/1, Thiruchuli Village. Inside the premises which has an asbestos roofing a bronze bust of Dr.Ambedkar has been installed. The petitioner applied to the authorities seeking issuance of patta for the land occupied by them and for granting permission to install a life size bronze statue of Dr.Ambedkar. The request for issuance of patta was negatived by the District Collector vide order dated 19.01.2016. Vide order dated 12.09.2016, the Government also said “no” to the request for installing a new statue. Assailing these rejection orders, the above writ petitions have been filed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the respective writ petitions. He pointed out that S.No.81/1, Thiruchuli Village has been classified as natham. The persons who had put up houses in the said survey number have already been issued with patta. My attention was drawn to the communication dated 25.09.1999 sent by the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District to the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai and the proceedings dated 28.02.2000 issued by the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. State of Gurajat in S.L.P.(Civil)No.8519 of 2006, dated 02.05.2006 will not come in the way. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the restraint order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court will apply only in those cases where permission is sought for installation of a new statue. In the case on hand, a statue is already in existence for a very long number of years. He also would point out that in the very same village, abutting the main road, a life size statue of late leader Shri.Muthuramalinga Thevar was allowed to be put and that therefore, denial in the case of Dr.Ambedkar is unfair. He also would point out that grama sabha as well as local body had passed resolutions favouring installation of a new statue. His yet another contention is that there is consensus among various political parties and that therefore, the apprehension of the respondents that there would be law and order issue is not sustainable. He went to the extent of stating that if the present site is requested for road expansion, the petitioner would gladly relocate the statue provided an alternative site is given. He relied on some of the earlier orders passed by this Court. He pointed out that after such orders were passed, statues were installed adjacent to or even in the middle of the main road. He called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

5.The respondents have filed counter affidavits and the leaned Additional Advocate General took me through their contents. His objections are three fold. (a) the site in question has been classified as highways proamboke and that therefore, such a land cannot be assigned. (b) the Government is seriously proposing to expand the existing highways. (c) The Hon'ble Apex Court had passed restraint order. He called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.

6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The petitioner had drawn my attention to the order dated 03.02.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.26748 of 2019. The said writ petition was filed for a direction to the authorities to grant permission for installation of statue of Thiru.M.Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in any of the pl