If Stan Swamy Stone Pillar Needed No Permission, War Memorial Stupa On Patta Land Can’t Be Blocked For Want Of Approval: Madras High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan on November 26, 2025, quashed a tahsildar’s memo refusing permission and held that a memorial stupa commemorating the Natham Kanavai War may be erected on the petitioner’s private patta land in Dindigul district. The dispute arose when district revenue authorities declined the landholder’s request to install the structure on his own survey land. Referring to a recent decision that allowed a stone pillar honouring Stan Swamy on private patta land, the court noted that Swamy was seen by some as a tribal-rights activist but had been arrested under the UAPA and died in prison, and observed that if prior permission was unnecessary for that construction, it was unnecessary for the war memorial too.
The writ petition was filed by the Managing Trustee of a charitable trust seeking to challenge an order issued by the Tahsildar, Natham, rejecting permission to erect a memorial stupa commemorating the “Natham Kanavai War” on private patta land situated in Puthur Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District. The impugned order was issued on 28 May 2024.
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the said order and for a consequential direction to permit erection of the memorial symbol on land owned by the trust. It was contended that the proposed memorial was to be installed exclusively on patta land and did not involve any public land or public access.
The respondents, represented by the State authorities, stated that the request had not been permitted due to the impending parliamentary elections and that reports had since been obtained from the jurisdictional police. The dispute centred on whether prior governmental permission was required for erection of a memorial stupa on private land and whether the rejection by the Tahsildar was legally sustainable.
The Court noted “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. 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,”
On the issue of delay, the Court recorded: “So long as the impugned memo is holding good, the petitioner cannot install the Stupa in the petition-mentioned site” and therefore held that the doctrine of laches could not be invoked to non-suit the petitioner.
The Court recorded the stand of the respondents that “since the parliamentary elections were in the offing, the Stupa was not permitted to be erected and there was no other reason”, but stated that it was “not able to subscribe fully to the aforesaid position.”
Relying on earlier decisions, the Court reiterated the principle that “to erect a statue such as the one on hand on a patta land, permission from the authorities is not required” and that “a statutory or common law right cannot be restricted or taken away through a executive instructions or government orders.”
The Court further observed that “since there is no such statutory provision or Rule regarding installation of statues, the right of an individual to erect a statue in honour of a person whom he reveres cannot be stifled or interfered with.”
Referring to the Government Order relied upon by the State, the Court recorded that “the said Government Order pertains only to erection of statues” and that the case on hand involved installation of a stupa, with no law-and-order implications.
The Court also took note of the Division Bench ruling that “it applies only to public places and not to patta lands” and that until a law is enacted, executive instructions cannot curtail such rights.
The Court held that “the impugned memo is quashed.” and “the petitioner is at liberty to erect the memorial stupa for ‘Natham Kanawai War’ in the petition-mentioned land. This writ petition stands allowed. No costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramsundarvijayraj, Advocate, for Mr. V. Kaviyarasan; Mr. Saravanakumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Ragavendran, Government Advocate, Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate
Case Title: Siva Kalaimani Ambalam v. District Collector, Dindigul & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 34220 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
