The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions and restrictions for burying a body, as outlined in Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999, are essential for public health, hygiene, and the dignity of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10908 of 2023.)

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

“Whether, under the Rules of 1999, the burial can take place at a place other than the designated land, more particularly when the designated land exists in the village?”

Is the order of reference for which this Full Bench is constituted.

2. For answering the order of reference, the genesis of the dispute needs to be understood. Hence, the same is narrated in a nutshell.

Thiru.Narashimmulu Naidu, a resident of Vijayamambapuram, Nochili Village, Pallipet Taluk, Tiruvallur District died at Chennai on 01.04.2023. On the next day, he was buried in his village which is in a portion of the land comprised in S.F.No.201/3. The said land is classified as ''Dry Land'' as per the revenue records. It stands in the name of one Ramesh Naidu, S/o.Chengalvaraya Naidu vide Patta No. 119. The said Ramesh Naidu died 10 years ago and his wife Shantha and two sons are residing in Chittor, State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. W.P. No.10908 of 2023 was filed by one B.Babu Naidu, who claims to be the neighbouring land owner, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Thiruvallur, and other officials to take action against the wife and children of Narashimmulu Naidu for burying the dead body in the place other than the place designated for burying and burning dead persons. He also prayed for an order to exhume the body and bury the same in the designated burial ground situated at S.No. 205, Vijayamambapuram, Nochili Village, Pallipet Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

4. Learned Single Judge, after considering the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rule, 1999, allowed the writ petition and passed the following direction:-

“32....this Court directs the 1st respondent to take appropriate action through respondents 2 to 6 to exhume the body, which has been buried in S.F. No.201/3 by respondents 7 to 11 and bury the remains of the dead body in the designated existing burial ground at S.F. No.205/1. The said act shall be undertaken and completed by the official respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the 6th respondent is directed to provide necessary police force for the purpose of maintaining law and order at the time of exhumation and burial of the body so that no law and order problem is created in the said village by the private respondents and the persons action on their behalf. The cost towards the exhumation of the dead body from S.F. No.201/3 and burial at S.F. No.205/1...”

5. Being aggrieved, Jagadeeshwari, W/o late Narashimmulu Naidu and others preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.1037 of 2023. After hearing the counsels, the First Bench of this Court consisting the Hon''ble Chief Justice and Hon''ble Justice P.D.Audikesavalu, found that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Muthusamy and another v. B.Vennila and Others in W.A.Nos.909 and 910 of 2014, had delivered a judgment on 21.11.2022, without specific reference to Rules 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999, though it has extensively discussed and interpreted Rule 7. Hence, the interpretation of Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999, by the Division Bench in the case of P.Muthusamy and another, cited supra, needs reconsideration.

6. As a consequence, the question, “whether, under Rules 1999, the burial can take place at a place other than the designated land, more particularly when the designated land exists in the village?” was referred to Larger Bench.

7. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in his own inimitable style submitted that the