BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.A.(MD)No.1386 of 2022 AND C.M.P.(MD)No.11003 of 2022 Balasubramani, S/o.Govindan, President, Dvendra Kula Vellalar Uravin Murai, Amaichiyarpatti, Mamsapuram, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner / Appellant Vs.

1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhundagar District.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mamsapurm police station, Virudhunagar District.

7. The Executive Officer, Mamsapuram Town Panchayat, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)

No.22120 of 2022 dated 08.11.2022 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, for Mr.B.Satheesh Kumar.

For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader.

For R-4 to R-6 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate.

* * *

J U D G M E N T

(Order of the Court was delivered by 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 sta