SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
S. Chinnadurai - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Collectorate, Tuticorin and Ors. - Respondents
W.P(MD)No.1566 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD) No.1370 of 2022
Decided On : 02-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Saravanakumar
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Shanmugavel, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

A burial site requires a license from the Village Panchayat, and procedural lapses in reclassification of land as a burial ground render such actions invalid.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition for Mandamus - Direction sought to exhume a body buried inappropriately and to consider representations made by the petitioner - The court found that the request to exhume the body after 16 years was untenable due to the absence of the corpse and the lack of prior licensing for the burial site as per Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Licensing for Burial Grounds - The court emphasized that no burial should occur without a license from the Village Panchayat, and the impugned order was quashed due to procedural lapses in reclassifying the land as a burial ground. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to exhume a body buried in government land due to heavy rains preventing use of the designated burial ground. The court noted the absence of a license for the burial site and the procedural irregularities in reclassifying the land.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, and the first respondent was directed to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the burial ground classification.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the burial site and the procedural validity of the reclassification of the land as a burial ground.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a license for the burial ground and the procedural lapses in reclassification rendered the impugned order unsustainable.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner’s representation, dated 14.8.2009 and remainder dated 27.1.2020 within the time frame fixed by this Court and consequently to direct the respondents to exhume the burried dead body buried in S.No.29/1B in Nangaimozhi Village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Tuticorin District and bury it in the burial ground.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. On a perusal of the representation submitted by the Petitioner reveal that a dead body was burried near the Petitioner’s house instead of the place meant for burial. Even according to the Petitioner, the dead body was burried in the year 2009. After a period of 16 yeas, the representation submitted by the Petitioner to exhume the body to burry in the burial ground cannot be considered, since there should not be any corpse of the dead body.

4. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that in the year 20-09, there was heavy rain and as such, the entire burial ground was filled up with water. Therefore one of the dead body was burried in the Government Poramboke land situated adjacent to the Petitioner’s house. Now there should not be any burial except in the burial ground.

5. This Court, dealt with the similar matter in the Principal Bench and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:

6. Admittedly the petitioners own their patta lands adjacent to the subject property. They constructed their respective houses and are residing there. That apart, in the subject property, there is a Muniappan temple and a drinking water well for the villagers. The subject land is admeasuring 0.30.0 hectares (75 cents) and it is classified as Government poramboke-well. During covid pandemic circumstances, some bodieswere buried in the subject property. It was not objected by the villagers due to lockdown. Further, there is no record to show that the subject land has been used as burial ground for the past. Even as per the report of the District Revenue Officer of Salem, in the subject land, there is a Muniappan temple and it is classified as Government poramboke-well.On the request made by the SC Arunthathiyar community people, part of the subject land was reclassified as burial ground to an extent of 0.12.0 hectares. In fact, the petitioners submitted representation to take appropriate action for illegal burial in the subject land as early as on 23.01.2023. It was duly received by the respondents. There was no action and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition in WP.No.3340 of 2024. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is 13/22 that the subject land is never used for burial ground and it is not licensed to bury the body as contemplated under Rules 5 & 7 of Tamilnadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules,1999. It is relevant to extract the same hereunder:

5. Conditions for opening of burial and burning ground.

(1) No new place for burying or burning the dead, whetherprivate or public, shall be opened, formed, constructed or used, unless a licence has been obtained from the Village Panchayat on application.

(2) Such application for a licence shall be accompanied by the plan of the place for which licence is required showing the locality, boundary and extent thereof, the name of the owner or person or community interested therein, the system of management and such further particulars as the Village Panchayat may require.

(3) The Village Panchayat to which an application is made may-

(a) grant or, if there is valid reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant a licence, or

(b) postpone the grant of a licence until the objection, if any to the site has been cleared or any particulars called for by it have been furnished.

(4) The Assistant Director (Panchayats) may cancel or modify any order passed by a Panchayat under sub-r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top