ALEXANDER THOMAS
St. Marys Orthodox Church – Appellant
Versus
Thankamani Rajan – Respondent
No, there is no explicit statutory distance rule mandating prior approval of the District Collector for establishing a crematorium (or burning/burial ground) under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960, and Kerala Building Rules, 1984.
Section 321 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960: Governs licensing for places of disposal of the dead (public or private). It requires a license from the municipal council on application with a plan, but contains no express prohibitory distance requirement or mandate for District Collector approval. The council may grant, refuse, or postpone based on objections or particulars. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Rule 36(10) of Kerala Building Rules, 1984: Regulates crematoria, burning, and burial grounds. The municipal authority, with District Collector approval, may regulate zoning, locations, and area limits generally within the municipality. It also allows prohibition of grounds deemed dangerous to health or offensive to neighbors. However, this applies to general regulatory/zoning decisions, not every individual license application under Section 321/322. Prior Collector approval is not required for individual cases; Section 45(2) empowers the Collector to suspend/review post-grant if needed. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The High Court explicitly held: "there is no necessity for seeking prior approval of District Collector for grant of permit/licence for establishment of crematoria, burning ground or burial ground in an individual case." Both lower courts erred in requiring it. The rule ensures zoning consistency, not per-application veto. [judgement_act_referred] (!)
While no direct rule exists under the Act/Rules: - Municipal authorities have discretion under Rule 36(10) to prohibit sites "dangerous...to health" or "offensive." - Courts may draw from analogous Kerala Panchayats (Burning and Burial Grounds) Rules, 1967, Rule 5 (50m for general grounds; 25m for concrete vaults from human habitation; date of application is crucial). This provides rational zoning guidance for fairness. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Permits must follow due process (e.g., DMO opinion, site inspection), but absence of Collector pre-approval does not invalidate them. Post-grant challenges (e.g., nuisance) remain available under civil/criminal law. (!) (!) (!)
1. This Regular Second Appeal essentially arises out of the challenge made as against the permission granted by the statutory authorities concerned for the establishment of a vault type cemetery in the appellant St.Mary’s Orthodox Church, Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta district. The contesting respondents herein had filed Original Suit, O.S.No.57/1999 before the Munsiff’s Court, Pathanamthitta, praying to set aside the impugned orders issued by the statutory authorities concerned in the matter of permission for construction of a vault type cemetery by the St.Mary’s Orthodox Church authorities concerned (respondents 5 and 6 in the O.S.) and for consequential injunction. The trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the Munsiff’s Court, Pathanamthitta, on 29.9.2000 in O.S.No.57/1999, the church authorities had filed Appeal Suit, before the District Court concerned. The lower appellate court, as per the impugned judgment dated 20.3.2004, dismissed A.S.No.23/2003, confirming the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court in the said suit. It is aggrieved by this, the church authorities concerned ha
Jagdish Singh v. Nathu Singh, reported in
Smt.Prativa Devi v. T.K.Krishnan reported in
Satya Gupta @ Madhu Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar reported in
Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. reported in
Molar Mal Through Lr. v. M/s.Kay Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. reported in
Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.
Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr.
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mirja Khasim Ali Beg & Anr.
Soman v. Appukutty reported in
Master Construction Co.(P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa
Singhai Lal Chand Jain v. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna & Ors.
Surayya Begum (Mst.) v. Mohd. Usman
Amrit Sagar Gupta and others v. Sudesh Behari Lal & Ors.
Singhai Lal Chand Jain (dead) v. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna and Ors., reported in
Surendran v. District Collector reported in 1999 (3) KLT 22 (F.B)
Inter Denominational Christian Fellowship v. Narayanan reported in
Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P.Joshi, reported in
M/s.Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, reported in
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B.Goyal, reported in
Ishwar Dutt v. L.A Collector & Anr. reported in
State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., reported in
Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors. reported in
Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors. reported in
V.V.Prakasini v. K.P.S.C. and Ors. reported in
Grindlays Bank Ltd., v. Income-Tax Officer, Calcutta and Ors. reported in
Rev.Fr..Antony v. Health Inspector & Ors. reported in
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.