The Madras High Court has drawn a firm line between state control and private ownership, holding that authorities cannot demand prior permission for erecting a memorial on privately owned patta land—especially when no law mandates such approval.
The ruling came from Justice G.R. Swaminathan while examining a challenge to an order that blocked the construction of a memorial stupa in Dindigul district. The structure was intended to commemorate a battle believed to have been fought in 1755 at the Natham Kanavai, where native forces are said to have resisted colonial power.
In doing so, the Court revisited its earlier stance in a similar dispute involving a memorial pillar dedicated to late activist Stan Swamy. While acknowledging that sections of society regard Swamy as a champion of tribal rights, the Court underscored a parallel legal reality—that he was also an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and died while in custody. That case, too, had involved a memorial on private land, where the Court had ruled that state permission was unnecessary.
Justice Swaminathan made it clear that the same principle applies here. If the State could not insist on approval for a pillar commemorating an individual accused under UAPA on private land, it certainly could not do so for a stupa marking a historical battle on similar property.
The petition had been filed by Siva Kalaimani Ambalam, managing trustee of a charitable trust, who sought to install the stupa on his own patta land in Puthur village, Natham Taluk. The local Tahsildar had rejected the request, citing administrative concerns. That refusal triggered the legal challenge.
The State attempted to argue that the petition was filed belatedly and pointed to impending elections and the need for police clearance. The Court brushed aside these objections, noting that as long as the impugned order remained in force, the petitioner was effectively restrained from exercising his property rights. Delay alone, the Court said, could not defeat the claim.
More significantly, the judgment turned reflective while stressing the importance of preserving historical memory. Justice Swaminathan observed that the memorial was meant to honour resistance to colonial rule—an aspect of history that is often glossed over or misunderstood.
He referred to the constitutional duty under Article 51A, which calls upon citizens to cherish the ideals that inspired India’s freedom struggle. The judge remarked that colonial rule did not retreat through moral persuasion alone and that Indian society paid a heavy price through resistance and sacrifice.
While declining to adjudicate contested historical claims—such as whether the earliest war of independence occurred on Tamil soil—the Court noted that resistance to colonial forces in the Madurai region was a matter of record. Such victories, achieved against overwhelming odds, deserved remembrance, the judge said.
Reiterating the legal foundation of the ruling, the Court emphasized that there is no statutory framework requiring permission for statues or memorials on private patta land. Executive instructions or government orders, it held, cannot override proprietary rights. Regulations governing statues are meant for public spaces, not privately owned property.
Summing up the principle, the Court echoed its earlier reasoning: just as a home is a person’s castle, private land remains the owner’s domain. The State may intervene only through due process of law—not administrative fiat.
With these observations, the High Court set aside the rejection order, effectively allowing the memorial stupa to be erected and affirming the right to remember history on one’s own land.
