‘Tehsildar has no power to seize’: Madras High Court orders statue’s return, installation in Sivakasi
Madras High Court ruling, Sivakasi statue case: The Madras HC ordered release of a freedom fighter’s statue in Sivakasi and allowed its installation in the local community hall saying the tehsildar had ‘no right in law’ to take it away.
Written by Richa Sahay
New Delhi | Updated: October 29, 2025 09:48 PM IST
2 min read
Whatsapp
twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Madras High Court ruling: Madras High Court allowed installation of freedom fighter's statute in the Sivakasi community hall.
Madras High Court ruling: Coming down heavily on the local authority in Sivakasi, the Madras High Court has allowed the installation of a freedom fighter’s statue at a local community hall after ordering its release from the tehsildar’s custody.
Justice G R Swaminathan pointed out that while a statue may have “symbolic value”, it is also “property in the legal meaning of the term”.
“The Tahsildar, Sivakasi has no right whatsoever in law to take away the statue which belongs to the writ petitioner and his community. A statue may have symbolic value but nevertheless it is also property in the legal meaning of the term,” the order read.
The court, therefore, said that the authority “could not have taken it away forcibly”.
“In fact, no provision of law has been cited which enables the Tahsildar to seize the statue and retain it in his custody,” it added.
The matter came into light when a resident of Salvarpatti Village in Virudhunagar District purchased land and constructed a community hall with an intent to install the statue of freedom fighter Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Theva.
It came on record that the local authorities in Sivakasi not only prevented him from installing the statue but also seized the same.
Story continues below this ad
Aggrieved by their action, the resident moved the court praying for the handover of the statue and permission to install it.
Strongly opposing the petition filed, the additional government pleader K S Selvaganesan argued that the installation required “permission from the competent authority”.
Selvaganesan raised apprehensions of the local police over the outbreak of “a communal atmosphere” due to the installation of the statue.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate P Senguttuarasan claimed there was “not even a single objection” when it came to the statue’s installation.
Story continues below this ad
The court allowed the petitioner and said, “In view of the social profile (of the freedom fighter), installation of the statue…will not in any way disturb law and public order. ”
Richa Sahay is a law postgraduate with a keen interest in writing about legal news and updates. Passionate about making law easier to understand, she strives to simplify complex legal developments and keep readers informed about the latest changes in the legal landscape. ... Read More