No permission required to erect Natham Kanavai War Memorial Stupa on private land: Madras High Court

Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.

Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed by petitioner, Managing Trustee of Thannarasu Kallar Nadu Charitable Trust, challenging the Tahsildar’s proceedings, which refused permission to erect a memorial stupa commemorating the “Natham Kanavai War” on his patta land, a Single-judge bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., quashed the impugned memo and held that the petitioner is at liberty to erect the memorial stupa for the ‘Natham Kanavai War’ on his patta land.

The petitioner asserted that the memorial commemorates the battle fought in 1755 between the Melur Kallars and the English forces, in which the Kallars emerged winners and succeeded in retrieving all the idols looted by Col. Alexander Heron’s contingent. It was stated that thousands of lives were lost in the encounter and that Col. Heron returned to Trichirappalli with only 30 surviving sepoys. The Tahsildar rejected the request and cited the impending parliamentary elections as the reason.

Although the petition was filed belatedly, the Court held that the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked, since the subsistence of the memo continued to prevent installation.

The Court devoted extensive reasoning to the importance of acknowledging native resistance to colonial rule and the contribution of Tamil Nadu’s warriors and the significance of remembering victories such as the Natham Kanavai encounter. The Court stated that “every such victory obtained at great cost and against impossible odds deserves to be relished and the memory of the martyrs honoured.” The Court held that

“For installation of the statue of a freedom fighter, that too only in a patta land, no permission is required.”

The Court reiterated its earlier ruling in R. Kanthavel v. Principal Secretary,¹ that, “to erect a statue… on a patta land, permission from the authorities is not required… One’s land is his fiefdom. The State can step in only by due process of law.” The Court held that there is no statutory provision controlling installation of memorials or statues on private land.

The Court further noted that even in Piyush Sethia v. District Collector,² the Court had permitted installation of a stone pillar containing the picture of Stan Swamy in private patta land, despite controversies surrounding him.

The Court further stated that the nonfiction G.O.(Ms.) No.629 dated 16-09-2025 pertains only to statues, not stupas. The Court also relied on Balasubramani v. District Collector, Virudhunagar,³ where the Court held that G.O.(Ms.) No.183/2017 applies only to public places and that private land installations cannot be regulated by mere circulars.

“It applies only to public places and not to patta lands… so long as such a law has not been enacted, by issuing circulars and Government Orders, the right of an individual to put up a statue in one’s patta land cannot be taken away.”

The Court observed that “there is also no controversy and there is not going to be any law and order implication, therefore, the Government may not have any objection.” The Court quashed the impugned memo dated 28-05-2024 issued by the Tahsildar and held that the petitioner is at liberty to erect the memorial stupa for the “Natham Kanavai War” in the petition-mentioned patta land.

[Siva Kalaimani Ambalam v. District Collector, W.P.(MD)No.34220 of 2025, Decided on 26-11-2025]

---

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Mr. S. Ramsundarvijayraj, for Mr. V. Kaviyarasan and Mr. Saravanakumar, Counsel for the Petitioner

Mr. R. Ragavendran, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3

Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 and 5