Dismissed

S.Lalitha, v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Apr 2022WP/29865/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking permission to erect a Dr. Ambedkar statute on public land. The Court held that such erection on public property cannot be permitted, but the petitioner is directed to purchase private land and seek permission thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to purchase private property and approach the Government for permission to erect the statute on that private land.

S.Lalitha, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.29865 of 2014

¶6

S. Lalitha ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.

¶9

The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Thiruporur Panchayat Union, Kancheepuram District ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to grant permission to the petitioner Panchayat to erect “Dr.Ambedkar” statute in the place earmarked i..e, in the land comprised in S.No.285/1, Mullipakkam Village, Thiruporur Panchayat Union, Chenglepet Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.Tippu Sultan

¶14

Government Advocate (R.1 and R.2) No appearance (R.3)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner wants to erect Dr.Ambedkar statute at Mullilpakkam Village as a mark of respect to the great leader who strive hard for the well being of the socially suppressed and depressed people in those days.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

The Village Panchayat Council passed Resolution to erect Dr.Ambedkar statute in S.No.185/1, classified as “Gramanatham”, Mullipakkam Old Colony and sought permission from the first respondent.

¶19

In respect of erection of statute is concerned, it has to be decided by the Government and the permission will be accorded only by the Government.

¶20

On notice to the respondents, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the property is a public property, wherein, there is a park with compound wall and the petitioner cannot be permitted to erect statute and further submits that in the year 2014, the very same statute was erected without permission and the same was removed.

¶21

Considering the policy of the Government and also the considering the fact that the property is a public place, where the petitioner wants on erect, the request of the petitioner cannot be granted. However, it is open to the petitioner to purchase a property at her own cost and make a request to the Government for erecting the statute in the private property.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will work out the possibility of purchasing private property for erecting the statute and on purchase of the land, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Government and at that time, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶23

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

¶30

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶33

The Block Development Officer, Thiruporur Panchayat Union, Kancheepuram District.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.R.Chandrasekaran, Advocate SR.No.26936

¶35

W.P.No.29865 of 2014

¶36

RK(CO) CB(03/06/2022)

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Lalitha, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Lalitha, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.a.R.Abdul Rafeekq Vs the Chairman

Indian Railway Supervisors Vs Integral Coach Factory

M/S.Pentamedia Graphics Ltd., Vs Union of India

Dr.P.Balakrishnan Vs the Chennai Metropolitan

Pandian Chemicals Ltd, Vs the Deputy Governor Cum

M.v.Sekar Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.