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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2483

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For the Respondent:Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik, Government Advocate, M/s.S.Anitha, Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.Ragul Kousik

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.

Headnote:(A) Tamilnadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 - Legal requisites for classification and usage of land for burial ground - The land was illegally reclassified as burial ground without required licenses and proper procedure, quashing the impugned order - The classifications were not justifiable as no objections were sought or properly reviewed after pending complaints. (Paras 7, 8)

(B) Administrative Procedure - An order cannot be passed without considering pending representations or providing an opportunity for objections; such lack of procedural adherence renders the decision unsustainable. (Paras 4, 8)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitions challenge the order that illegally classified Government poramboke land for burial without proper approvals, despite existing objections and regulations requiring licensing under applicable rules.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the first respondent's order to lack legitimacy due to insufficient administrative process, thereby requiring proper consideration of objections from affected parties.

Issues: Whether the first respondent had the authority to reclassify the land and if proper procedure was followed in doing so, including the need for licenses for burial grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: It was held that decisions regarding land classification must adhere strictly to established rules and allow for community input to preserve lawful governance; the lack of due process invalidates administrative decisions.

Result: Writ petitions allowed, quashing the impugned order.

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

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