1. The petitioner, a resident of Ward No. 18 of Muvattapuzha Municipality, filed this O.P. for directing respondents 2, 3 and 4 to take immediate steps to prevent respondent 6 and 7 from proceeding with the construction work of the cemetery in the six cents of property in Marady village for the Brethren Assembly without obtaining the licence or sanction from the concerned authorities.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner respondents 6 to 8 and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The Brethren Assembly purchased 6 cents of property by Ext.R6(c) document dated 11.3.1986 for the purpose of using it as a graveyard, from the C.S.I. East Kerala Maha Edavaka. The 6 cents of property covered by Ext.R6(c) was part of 1 acre 33 cents of land held by the C.S.I. Edavaka. The document would reveal that the property was being used as a graveyard for the last several years. When respondents 6 to 7 started construction of a graveyard consisting of concrete slabs and cells, the present petitioners filed this O.P. for directing the Municipality to take appropriate steps to prevent the construction of the graveyard without obtaining a licence.

4. The main contention put forward by respondents 6 and 7 was that the above land was being used as a graveyard for the last several years even prior to the coming into force of the Municipalities Act and hence no licence was necessary for burial of bodies in the premises and for construction of the graveyard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the brother of the petitioner approached this court by preferring O.P. 3864/86 when the respondents started the construction of a burial ground and the same was disposed of by this Court directing the authorities to consider the disputes in accordance with law. Accordingly the Commissioner of Municipality passed Ext.R6(c) order on 22.8.1992 holding that the burial ground was in existence for the last so many years and hence the brother of the petitioner was not entitled to any reliefs. Ext.R6(c) order would reveal that the Tahsildar had visited the place and filed a report and that the Municipal Commissioner made a local inspection before passing the order. The Commissioner further held that the above property had been used as a burial ground even prior to the coming into force of the Municipalities Act and as such the objections raised by the brother of the present petitioner could not be sustained and those objections were overruled.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of S.483 of the Municipality Act, the burial ground has to be registered. The Municipality Act, 1994 has come into force after the passing of Ext.R6(c) order by the Municipal Commissioner. S.483 of the present Act (which corresponds to S.320 of the Municipalities Act, 1960) says:

"Registration or closing of ownerless places for disposal of the dead.?

(1) Every owner or person having control of any place used at the commencement of this Act as a place for burial, burning, or otherwise disposing, of the dead, shall, where such place is not already registered, apply to the Municipality to have such place registered.

(2) Where it appears to the Municipality that there is no owner or person having control of such place, it shall assume such control and register such place or may, with the sanction of the Government, close it."

In view of S.483 of the Act, even if the above burial ground was in existence even prior to the coming into force of the Act, it requires registration. So far as the new places for disposal of dead bodies are concerned, S.484 mandate that a licence should be obtained from the municipality. The object of the above provisions are to regulate and control the disposal of dead bodies in such a manner that it should not cause nuisance to the nearby inhabitants. In view of S.483 of the present Act, respondents 6 to 7 should obtain registration from the municipality for the use of the above area for the disposal of the dead bodie