Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Yadava Mahasabai vs State : Rep By Its on 14 August, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
W.P.No.23485 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 11.08.2023
Pronounced on : 14.08.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.23485 of 2023
Tamil Nadu Yadava Mahasabai
Kancheepuram District
Rep by its District Secretary ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.STATE : Rep by its
The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
at Kancheepuram.
2.The Superintendent of Police
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Kancheepuram Revenue Division
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Tahsildar
Kancheepuram Taluk
Kancheepuram.
5.The Inspector of Police
B-1, Sivakanchi Police Station
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23485 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to remove
the Tins Sheets and consequently permit the writ petitioner Mahasabai to
unveil statue of great freedom fighter Veeran Azhagumuthu Kone within
their private property viz., at Sri Gokulam Marriage Hall bearing Door
No.70, East Raja Veedhi, Big Kancheepuram-2 in the land comprised in
Survey No.1098, measuring 95.0 sq.mtrs = 11 ares situated at Ward No.4,
Block No.15, Kancheepuram Taluk and District.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Raja, Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.K.S.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4
Mr.N.Muthuvel
Government Advocate [Crl. Side] for R5
ORDER
1. This case involves a very short question, but the very significant right of a citizen: Whether the State can interfere with the Constitutional right to property of the citizen and cover a statute of a freedom fighter within the private property.
2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023
2. The petitioner is a registered Society. It has its private property in Sy.No.1098, Block No.15, Ward No.4 in Kancheepuram Taluk, where it has constructed a marriage hall. Within its property, it has erected a statue for Veeran Azhagumuthu Kone, a freedom fighter, and it was to be unveiled on 11.07.2023. While so, on the very date on which the inauguration was to take place, the revenue officials backed by the police, descended on the scene, entered the private premises of the petitioner, and directed the petitioner not to unveil the statue, and closed the same with tin sheets. The petitioner would then issue a representation dated 14.07.2023 to the respondents, requesting them to open the statue, but it was of no avail. Hence, this petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the tin sheets, and to let the petitioner open the statue within its premises.
3. The action of the authorities was defended by the learned Special Government Pleader, who brought to the notice of the Court G.O.(Ms) No.183 Revenue Department, Land Disposal Wing (L.D.4(1)) Section dated 23.05.2017, which provides the following guidelines :
'8. The Government after careful examination have decided to issue the procedures to be followed and ordered as detailed below :-
i. If future, the request for installation of Statues as 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 forwarded by the District Collector will be scrutinized by Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department / Highways Department or by more than one departments as the case may be and recommendations be sent to the Revenue Department, which will be the Nodal Department in this regard. The final orders will be issued by the Revenue Department only after obtaining orders in Circulation from Hon'ble Chief Minister.
ii. It should, however, be borne in mind that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(c)8519/2006 has ordered that the State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
iii. Information and Public Relations Department will keep on maintaining the Installed Statues wherever they are maintaining now.
iv. Revenue Department being the Nodal Department, will hence forth (only for future installations and fresh cases) deal with the Court cases relating to installation of Statues. However, the Departments concerned will give necessary assistance as the case may be for scrutiny of Draft Counter Affidavit etc.,' 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the petitioner has not obtained any permission as contemplated, the revenue officials were constrained to intervene.
4. Mr.N.L.Rajah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner took this Court through the decisions of this Court in P.Maniyarasan, General Secretary, Thamizh Thesa Poduvudamai Katchi Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu [2011(1) CWC 379], Ramadurai Vs The District Collector, Tirunelveli District [order dated 13.07.2015 in W.P.(MD) No.9249 of 2015], Vijayan, The President / Founder of Gounder Maha Jana Sangam [(2017) 5 MLJ 641] and M.Ramachandran Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District [Order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 08.04.2021 in WP.(MD) No.7639 of 2021] and T.Amirthalingam vs. State, rep by its Secretary, Department of Home, Chennai and other [2010 (2) MLJ 1022] and argued that where a statue is proposed to be erected in a public place, one needs permission, as installation of statute in public places is barred by the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.8519 of 2006 dated 18.01.2013, but it is 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 confined to statues in public places and not in private property. He submitted, this came to be distinguished by this Court in P.Maniyarasan case [2011(1) CWC 379], where the learned Single Judge of this Court had categorically held that this restriction would not apply to a statue erected within private premises. The decision in P.Maniyarasan case was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan, The President / Founder of Gounder Maha Jana Sangam [(2017) 5 MLJ 641 (DB)], where the Court has held that erection of a statue in private property cannot be interfered by the authorities.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the same Judge who delivered the judgment in Vijayan case [(2017) 5 MLJ 641] has insisted that the norms stated in the G.O must be strictly followed while presiding another Bench in M.Ramachandran Vs The District Collector, Trichy District in W.P.(MD) No.7639 of 2021.
6. It all started with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.8519 of 2006 dated 18.01.2013. The relevant portion reads :
'4. ...... ...... ...... We further direct that henceforth, State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. Obviously, this order shall not apply to installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for development and beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc., and relating to public utility and facilities.' A careful reading of the above passage of the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it very evident that it has only forbidden installation of statues in public places, and its applicability has little to do with private places. In P.Maniyarasan case [2011(1) CWC 379] and Vijayan case [(2017) 5 MLJ 641], the property where the statue was proposed to be erected were private properties and not public properties. It is hence this Court has decided that the Government can bring in restrictions only to anything done outside the private property, but not inside it. Indeed, Justice T.S.Sivagnanam (as His Lordship then was) has made a sarcastic statement in Vijayan case, when he observes that if only the contention of the Government (which was something very similar to what is now argued before the Court on behalf the respondents) were to the accepted, then, even for hanging a picture of one's forefather and parents in private property, one may have to move the authorities. The other two authorities which were circulated before this 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 Court including the one by Justice T.Sivagnanam relate to installation of statue in public place and not in private place.
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 Constitution.
8. The authority of the State therefore, commences where the boundaries of the private property ends. To state it differently, no State has any right to interfere with the private life of a citizen and his right to erect any statue within the private premises. It is plainly not the business of the State and its instrumentalities. The State does not have the authority to peep into the private affairs of the citizens through which they give expression to the exercise of their fundamental and constitutional rights. 8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 9.1 This Court has least hesitation in holding that the respondents have exceeded their authority in entering a private property without authority and covering the statue in question when the regulation regarding erection of statue is limited to only public places. The respondents have terribly misunderstood the G.O.(Ms) No.183. Indeed, this Court even doubts if ever the legislature or the executive can ever make a law or an executive order for restraining the citizen from erecting statues when they are done consistent with his right to faith within his private property. 9.2 Now, even if the respondents had bonafide believed that they had any authority vis-a-vis the statue in a private place, they should have only issued notice to the citizen concerned and gave him an opportunity to explain it. That will have a two way advantage: Both the citizen and the authority will have the advantage of knowing their law. Except in cases such as those involving the commission of a cognizable offence, or a search under the Income Tax Act and the like, which are sanctioned by law, no authority can barge into a private property without notice, and do what it has now done. And, the authorities are told that entering a private property 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 without any legal sanction will be a trespass, and that they need to guard themselves against it.
10. The conclusion is to state the obvious: This petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to open the statue forthwith. If the respondents do not open the statue within this evening, then the petitioner is entitled to remove the tin sheets of the statue of Veeran Azhagumuthu Kone, on the 77th Independence Day falling on 15.08.2023, which perhaps may be a befitting homage to the freedom fighter. No costs.
14.08.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ds Note : Issue order copy today (14.08.2023).
10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 To:
1.The District Collector Kancheepuram District at Kancheepuram.
2.The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Kancheepuram Revenue Division Kancheepuram District.
4.The Tahsildar Kancheepuram Taluk Kancheepuram.
5.The Inspector of Police B-1, Sivakanchi Police Station Kancheepuram District.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23485 of 2023 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds Pre-delivery order in W.P.No.23485 of 2023 14.08.2023 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis