Madras High Court
P.Venkatesappa vs The District Collector on 8 February, 2016
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.02.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.25537 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 1.P.Venkatesappa 2.B.U.Gopal ... Petitioners vs. 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. ... Respondents. Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.4531/2013/A5 dated 23.7.2015, quash the same further direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to grant permission to the petitioners to install statue of NTR (former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh late N.T.Ramarao) in the first petitioner land measuring to an extent of 200 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.48/1, in Bukkasagaram Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. For Petitioners : Mr.Venkataswamy Babu For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Govt. Advocate. ORDER
The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition challenging the order of the second respondent dated 23.7.2015 and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to grant permission to them to install the statue of NTR (former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh late N.T.Ramarao) in the first petitioner's land measuring to an extent of 200 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.48/1, in Bukkasagaram Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is the owner of the land measuring to an extent of 200 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.48/1, in Bukkasagaram Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The petitioners and other villagers are ardent fans of late N.T.Ramarao and they have formed an organization in the name and style of N.T.R.Kalapettam for the purpose of propagating the achievement and work done by him. Further, they have resolved to install a statue of N.T.Ramarao in the first petitioner's land. Hence, they sought the help of Bukkasagram Village Panchayat and the Panchayat has also adopted the resolution in their favour. Thereafter, they made an application to the respondents for permission to install the statue. But, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 23.7.2015 by referring G.O.Ms.No.248 Rural Department dated 23.11.1998, refused to grant permission and directed them to get No Objection Certificate from Police, Fire Service Department, Local Authority, Health Department, Revenue Department, Environment Department and Pollution Control Board. The said GO is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter stating that after receipt of the application from the petitioners, the second respondent has only sent a letter to the second petitioner and one C.Babu requiring them to produce certificate from various departments, so that the second respondent could submit the same to the Government with proposals for granting permission to install the statue of N.T.Ramarao. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.248, Rural Development dated 23.11.1998, Government approval should be obtained for installation of a statue. Without submitting the necessary certificates, the petitioners rushed to this Court. Thus, he sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that permission of the Government is not necessary in this case since the petitioners are going to erect the statue only in the patta land of the first petitioner and in this regard, the first petitioner has also given no objection for installation of the statue in his property. Therefore, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.248, Rural Development dated 23.11.1998 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2011 (1) CWC 379 in the case of P.Maniyarasan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been held as follows:-
" 1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. 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.
4. 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 organisers 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."
Thus, by relying upon the above judgment, he sought for permission to erect the statue in the patta land of the first petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned Government Advocate also.
6. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record and I find that the first petitioner has given no objection for installation of the statue in his patta land by certificate dated 20.7.2015.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping the dictum laid down in the above decision, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the second respondent is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 23.7.2015 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioners are directed to produce all the relevant materials before the second respondent forthwith and on receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the decision reported in 2011 (1) CWC 379 in the case of P.Maniyarasan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, and also 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 petitioners, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The petitioners are also directed to file an affidavit to the effect that all necessary safeguards would be undertaken during such installation of the statue. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.02.2016 Index:Yes/No sbi To
1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
R.SUBBIAH, J sbi W.P.No.25537 of 2015 DATED: 8.2.2016