Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1835 (MAD)

C. Ponnusamy v. District Collector

2014-07-02

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment 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. 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 gone ahead and fixed the date for the function to unveil the statue. ***** ****** ***** ***** ***** ***** 16. If the argument of the learned Special Government Pleader is accepted, then for putting up or hanging the picture of ones own parents or forefathers in the private pattadars lands, they should move the authorities (whether it is local body, revenue or police authorities) for seeking such permission. Such step is never contemplated. The attempt by the respondents is to clutch to a non-existing power. The Special Government Pleader had attempted to submit that the Government guidelines can be a law also cannot stand to reason. Such step is never contemplated. The attempt by the respondents is to clutch to a non-existing power. The Special Government Pleader had attempted to submit that the Government guidelines can be a law also cannot stand to reason. An embargo on the citizen's right to make use of his own land without any hindrance and it can be done in the absence of any valid law circumscribing such act, cannot be entertained by this court. A fetter on a citizen's right must be spelt out by a valid law made by the State legislature and that law alone can regulate the questions raised in this writ petition. ***** ****** ***** ***** ***** ***** 19. Further in the present case, the land owner pattadar had given a sworn statement notarized by the notary public, which could be treated as a valid authorization. It is not as if there are any other contending party to the said land. Whether the statue should be made of clay or wood or stone or metal is to be left to the volition of the organizers of the event. It may be the policy of the State that bronze statue alone should be erected in public places, lest any other forms are likely to be damaged by miscreants or by political rivals. But such ideas cannot be thrust upon to private citizens who sets up memorial in their own private lands. Nowhere in the written statement, the District Collector had said that there is any threat or opposition for erecting the statue of Muthukumar. It is for the organizers like the petitioner to take care of their memorials in the event of their proceeding to erect the statue in the village in question." Ultimately, this Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein, directed the respondents therein to permit the petitioner to erect the statue of Muthukumar in Survey No.159B/7A at Sanoorapatti Village, Budalur Panchayat Union, Thanjavur District. 9. Keeping in mind theratio laid down by this Court in the aforecited decision of this Court, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to produce all the relevant materials before the first respondent forthwith. Upon receipt of the same, the first respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the above said decision of this Court in P.Maniyarasan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (1) CWC 379 and G.O.(Ms)No.140, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, dated 18.12.2009 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall also file an affidavit to the effect that all necessary safeguards would be undertaken during such installation of statue.