IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Datla Narayana Raju – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.24872 of 2020 & 21068 of 2019
Decided on : 26-1-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21 , 226 snd 300-A - Right to Information Act - Burial ground - Endorsement - Case of petitioners is that for last 100 years the burial ground of Village, Mandal to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.79/1 was allotted by Grama Panchayath for purpose of funeral activities of demised persons in the village and since then villagers are using same for their customary funerals - As some encroachers have occupied said burial ground, villagers made a representation before District Collector dated through Programme and after receipt of the said representation, District Collector directed Thasildar to take action for eviction of encroachers from burial ground - Pursuantly, Tahsildar made an endorsement, dated informing that they are taking steps to evict encroachers - But 7th respondent obstructed officials by showing the patta issued by 4th respondent/Tahsildar stating that it is a private land and that, he filed - Held, Learned counsel further contended that 5th respondent has issued notice dated and to said notice, 7th respondent issued a reply notice through his counsel, which is placed on record and drawn attention of this Court to same - In said notice, dated nowhere it is stated that the said land is a burial ground and even though received said reply notice, respondent authorities without passing any orders tried to evict 7th respondent, without following due process of law, which is illegal and arbitrary, prayed to pass appropriate orders - Per contra, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that, during pendency of the writ petition, Court has directed Joint Collector to enquire into issue and asked to file a report and accordingly, Joint Collector filed his report categorically stating that land is a burial ground and patta claimed by 7th respondent is fake - Inspite of said report, respondent authorities did not evict 7th respondent - In reply, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that even petitioners in both these writ petitions in a post haste manner approached Court without giving any breathing time to the authorities to take steps as per Law - Writ petition dispose of
ORDER :
W.P.No.24872 of 2020
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
3. As the issues in these two writ petitions are interrelated, these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order. The parties hereinafter will be referred to with their status in W.P.No.24872 of 2020.
4. The case of the petitioners is that for the last 100 years the burial ground of Sagipudi Village, Gopalapuram Mandal to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.79/1 was allotted by the Grama Panchayath for the purpose of funeral activities of demised persons in the village and since then the villagers are using the same for their customary funerals. As some encroachers have occupied the said burial ground, the villagers made a representation before the District Collector dated 16.09.2019 through Spandana Programme and after receipt of the said representation, the District Collector directed the Thasildar to take action for eviction of the encroachers from the burial ground. Pursuantly, the Tahsildar made an endorsement, dated 01.10.2019 informing that they are taking steps to evict the encroachers. But the 7th respondent obstructed the officials by showing the patta issued by the 4th respondent/Tahsildar stating that it is a private land and that, he filed W.P.No.21068 of 2019. When an application, dated 20.05.2020 was made to the 4th respondent by a villager by name Sri Mallipudi Yesu Ratnam under Right to Information Act requesting as to whether a patta can be granted to private persons for the land classified as burial ground of the village, if so, under which regulations. In response to the same, it is informed that the land to an extent of Ac.3.96 Cents in Sy.No.79/1 as per the Revenue records of Gopalapuram Mandal has been recorded as burial ground and no patta has been issued from their office in favour of the 7th respondent. Inspite of the same, the authorities have not evicted the 7th respondent from the burial ground, hence, they filed the W.P.No.24872 of 2020.
5. It is the case of the 7th respondent, who is writ petitioner in W.P.No.21068 of 2019, that his father by name Tanuku Kovvadayya has acquired the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3.10 cents in R.S.No.79/1 and enjoyed the same
Mandamus issued to prevent burial on Vandipadhai land; authorities directed to provide alternative burial ground.
Reclassification of land as a burial ground must follow legal procedures, including obtaining a license and allowing for community objections; failure to do so invalidates the administrative decision....
The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to dignity and respect, which extends to a person's dead body.
Point of law: Land cannot be utilized for any other purpose, except for grazing cattle as ‘mandabayalu’ and no change of classification of the land in Sy.No.74/3 is for ‘mandabayalu’ into ‘assessed w....
Illegal burial in private patta land violates Rule 7(1); liable for exhumation per Full Bench precedent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.