IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
A.Sadasivam - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector and Inspector of Panchayats and ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos.3340, 25577 & 25587 of 2024 and WMP.Nos.3600, 27923, 27924, 27934 & 27935 of 2024
Decided On : 30-08-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging illegal burial on disputed land (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's objection to reclassification (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's evaluation of procedural compliance (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final orders based on judicial findings (Para 9) |
ORDER :
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
This writ petition in WP.No.3340 of 2024 has been filed for direction to respondents 1, 2, 5 & 6 to take appropriate action as against the illegal burial in survey No.78/9 admeasuring to an extent of 75 cents situated at Mallikundam Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District as per the representation submitted on 23.01.2023. The other writ petitions in WP.Nos.25577 & 25587 of 2024 have been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.06.2024 thereby reclassified the land comprised in survey No.78/9 admeasuring 0.12.0 hectare out of 0.30.0 hectares from the classification of Government poramboke to burial ground.
2. The petitioner in WP.No.3340 of 2024 and WP.No.25577 of 2024 are one and the same. He owns agricultural land in survey no.333/3A1 situated at Mallikundam Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and also residing there with his family members. The petitioners in WP.No.25587 of 2024 own agricultural land in survey No.333/1 and survey Nos.334/1A1A, 333/3A2 situated at Mallikundam Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. Adjacent to their lands, a common public well and a Muniappan temple are situated in survey no.78/9 (hereinafter called as 'the subject property')within the extent of 75 cents which is classified as Government land - well and the same is being used by the villagers for their common purpose. There is a common well for drinking water purpose to all the villagers. In the land comprised in survey Nos.35/1, 35/3, 35/4 to an extent of two acres and 49 cents situated at Mallikundam Village, used for burial ground for the past several decades by all the villagers. It has been duly approved by the local authority as per the Tamilnadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999. While being so, the subject land comprised in survey No.78/9 is under occupation of third parties to use the same as burial ground without any approval from the sixth respondent. The entire villagers are using the burial ground comprised in survey Nos.35/1, 35/3, 35/4 of Mallikundam Village. During covid 19, some bodies were buried in the subject property. Due to lockdown and pandemic circumstances, the villagers of Mallikundam Village could not able to object the same. The said Rules mandates that the burial ground should be approved by the Village Panchayat and conditions for opening of burial ground mandated under the Rules and also other conditions to be complied with. Therefore, the writ petition in WP.No.3340 of 2024 has been filed for direction to take appropriate action against illegal burial in the subject property. This Court by order dated 16.02.2024, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagadheeswari Vs. B. Babu Naidu reported in (2023) 3 LW 697, ordered that the first respondent or the authorised person shall immediately inspect the subject property to factually ascertain as to whether the subject place has been granted requisite licence under the Rules for burial or cremation and if so, whether such activities are taking place in accordance with law and file report.
2.1 After several adjournments no report was filed by the respondents. While being so, on 24.04.2004, respondents were directed to file counter. However, without filing counter, the respondents produced order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the first respondent thereby reclassified the subject property to an extent of 0.12.0 hectares out of 0.30.0 hectares as burial ground and also produced the proceedings dated 15.03.2024 on the file of the sixth respondent thereby informed that the subject land has been taken for use of burial ground as per the Rules. Therefore, this Court by order dated 18.06.2024 obser
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....
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.
Proper licensing is mandatory for the establishment of burial grounds; unauthorized usage violates statutory requirements, necessitating adherence to procedural norms.
The court emphasized the necessity for compliance with statutory regulations regarding burials, reaffirming that unauthorized disturbances of burial grounds are unlawful.
The court established that historical use and prior classification of land as a burial ground take precedence over later regulatory restrictions.
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.
The Court upholds adherence to statutory provisions for land usage and licensing relating to burial grounds.
The ruling reaffirmed that compliance with local laws and health regulations is crucial for the establishment of burial grounds, overriding entitlement claims without substantial evidence.
Mandamus issued to prevent burial on Vandipadhai land; authorities directed to provide alternative burial ground.
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.