The Madras High Court held that the State cannot insist on prior permission to erect a war memorial on private patta land, reaffirming its earlier view regarding a memorial pillar for UAPA-accused activist Stan Swamy in a similar case.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court ruled that the State cannot require an individual to seek permission for erecting a war memorial on private patta land. This decision comes in light of a previous ruling where the Court stated that such permission wasn’t necessary to install a memorial pillar for UAPA-accused activist Stan Swamy on similar land.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that while Stan Swamy is regarded as a tribal rights activist by many, it is important to acknowledge that he was indeed an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The Court stated,
“It is true that Stan Swamy is seen as a fighter for tribal rights by sections of society. But the fact remains that he was an accused in a case arising under UAPA. He died in prison,”
This observation was made while addressing a plea that challenged the Natham Tahsildar’s denial of permission to construct a memorial stupa on private land in Dindigul district, intended to commemorate the Battle of Natham Kanavai, which took place in 1755.
The judge referenced a prior case, Piyush Sethia vs. The District Collector, where the High Court had rejected a Tahsildar’s refusal to permit the installation of a Stan Swamy pillar on private property.
Justice Swaminathan asserted that similar principles should apply to the installation of a war memorial on private lands.
The Court Said,
“If for erecting stone pillar in memory of Stan Swamy permission is not required, certainly, no permission is required for erecting a stupa in memory of Natham Kanavai battle,”.
The petition was filed by Siva Kalaimani Ambalam, Managing Trustee of the Thannarasu Kallar Nadu Charitable Trust, seeking to construct a stupa on his patta land at Puthur Village, Natham Taluk. The Natham Tahsildar had denied the request on administrative grounds in an order dated May 28, 2024. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner turned to the High Court for relief.
The State contended that the petition was filed too late. however, the Court rejected this dismissal based on timeliness alone.
The Court remarked,
“No doubt, the writ petition has been filed belatedly. But then, the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked in this case. So long as the impugned memo (Tahsildar’s order) is holding good, the petitioner cannot install the stupa on the petition-mentioned site,”
State representatives argued that the request was denied due to upcoming parliamentary elections and that a police report had been obtained for further action. The Court was not fully convinced by this reasoning and emphasized the necessity of preserving historical memory:
The Court noted,
“The petitioner after all wants to erect a stupa to commemorate the victory of native forces over the colonial forces. Such events must be celebrated and preserved for historical memory,”
Justice Swaminathan emphasized constitutional duties and the importance of remembering historical struggles against colonial rule. He referenced Article 51A of the Constitution of India, which states that every citizen should cherish the noble ideals that inspired the national struggle for freedom.
He highlighted that many individuals today are unaware of the battles fought by Indian society against colonial oppression.
He said that,
“Imperialism was no respecter of the biblical saying ‘ask and it shall be given’. The British occupied us and ruled us for close to two hundred years. But right from the beginning, there was resistance and struggle. A false historical narrative has been built as if we got freedom without paying any price … Tamil Nadu has contributed.”
The Court remarked on claims that the first war for Indian independence occurred on Tamil soil rather than in 1857, referring to the Indian rebellion of 1857 in northern India. While the Court acknowledged that it cannot resolve such contested historical debates, it did note the historical resistance to colonial rule in Madurai.
Justice Swaminathan referred to the victories against colonial forces.
He further stated,
“This Court is not competent to go into these historical questions. But it can take judicial notice of the fact that the British met their match in the region of Madurai,”
He added,
“Every such victory obtained at great cost and against impossible odds deserves to be relished and the memory of the martyrs honoured,”
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that there is no statutory requirement for obtaining permission to install statues or memorials on private patta land, emphasizing that executive directives cannot override property rights.
Justice Swaminathan remarked,
“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.”
The Court drew a distinction between this situation and those where specific laws require permission, such as for the construction of religious edifices for public worship, highlighting the absence of such statutory requirements for memorials on private property.
State officials had also referenced a government order concerning the erection of statues; however, the Court interpreted these regulations as applicable only to public spaces, not to patta lands.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Ramsundarvijayraj, Kaviyarasan, and Saravanak, while the respondent authorities were represented by Government Advocates Raghavendran and Albert James.
Case Title: Siva Kalaimani Ambalam Vs District Collector
Read Attachment: