The Madras High Court has reiterated that in the absence of a specific statutory mandate, the State could not compel a private landowner to obtain prior permission for erecting a memorial structure on patta land, adding that notwithstanding public perception portraying the late Stan Swamy as a tribal rights activist, his undisputed legal status was that of an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The single-judge Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan at Madurai made these observations on a writ petition filed by Siva Kalaimani Ambalam, Managing Trustee of the Thannarasu Kallar Nadu Charitable Trust, seeking installation of a memorial stupa on his privately owned patta land at Puthur Village in Natham Taluk, Dindigul district. The proposed structure was intended to commemorate the 1755 Natham Kanavai (Natham Pass) battle, an armed confrontation in which native forces reportedly defeated British troops.
The High Court set aside the order dated May 28, 2024, issued by the Tahsildar, Natham, which had rejected the proposal on administrative grounds. The Court held that such executive action lacked statutory backing and amounted to an impermissible encroachment on proprietary rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
The Bench placed reliance on its earlier decision in Piyush Sethia v. District Collector, where a similar refusal by revenue authorities to permit the installation of a stone pillar commemorating Stan Swamy on private land had been quashed. In that decision, the High Court had clarified that no law, whether under the Tamil Nadu Land Revenue framework, municipal statutes, or police regulations, required prior governmental approval for erecting statues or memorials on private patta land, as opposed to public spaces or government property.
While drawing a parallel between the two cases, the Court observed that although certain sections of society regard Stan Swamy as a defender of tribal rights, the incontrovertible legal fact remained that he had been arrested, prosecuted under the UAPA, and had died during incarceration. Judicial determinations must proceed on established legal facts rather than sociopolitical narratives, it noted, adding that if no permission was required for erecting a memorial pillar in Stan Swamy’s memory on private land, the same principle would apply to the installation of a stupa commemorating a historical battle.
The State sought dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the doctrine of laches could not be mechanically invoked where the impugned administrative order continued to operate to the detriment of the petitioner. As long as the Tahsildar’s rejection order remained in force, the petitioner’s inability to exercise his proprietary right constituted a continuing cause of action.
The State further justified the refusal on the grounds of the impending parliamentary elections and the need to await a police report. The single-judge Bench rejected the submissions, holding that speculative administrative concerns, unmoored from any statutory prohibition or public order apprehension under Articles 19(2) to 19(6), could not override vested property rights.
Referring to Article 51A of the Constitution, which enumerates the fundamental duties of citizens, the Court underscored the obligation to cherish the ideals that inspired India’s freedom struggle. It noted that resistance to colonial rule predated the events of 1857 and was neither geographically nor temporally confined. While refraining from adjudicating contested historiography, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that British forces encountered sustained resistance in the Madurai region, including the Natham Kanavai episode of 1755.
It observed that memorialising such events served a legitimate public purpose by preserving historical memory, particularly of victories achieved by native forces against colonial power at a high human cost. It rejected the notion that India’s independence was secured without sacrifice, noting that regions such as Tamil Nadu had contributed materially to the anti-colonial struggle.
Noting that executive instructions and government orders regulating the erection of statues were generally intended to govern installations in public places, the single-judge Bench observed that such executive guidelines could not be expansively interpreted to impose restrictions on private patta land in the absence of enabling legislation. The Court distinguished these cases from statutory regimes governing religious structures intended for public worship, where express legal permissions were mandated.
Reiterating established jurisprudence, the Court held that ownership of land carried with it the autonomy to use the property, subject only to restrictions imposed by law. The State could intervene only through due process and not through administrative fiat, it added, holding that the petitioner was entitled to proceed with the erection of the memorial stupa on his private land.
The post Madras High Court allows 1755 war memorial on private land, records Stan Swamy’s legal status as UAPA accused appeared first on India Legal.