A burial ground license issued in violation of statutory provisions is arbitrary, as only one burial ground is permissible per zone, which must comply with established rules.

ORDER :

N.MALA, J.

“When the struggle for space over shadows even the breath of life, death too presses its silent claim upon the earth.”

- Khushwant Singh

1. The present litigation arises out of competing interests: The petitioner who is a Developer of residential apartments seeks to preserve the living environment of the apartment complex from the activities of the burial ground of the 5^th respondent, who invoking Article 21, asserts the right to establish a space for the dignified burial of the dead. In a context where a land itself is scarce, this Court is called upon to reconcile these conflicting claims, mindful that the guarantee of dignity under Article 21 extends beyond life.

2.The petitioner is a promoter/developer of land measuring an extent of 48 cents approximately 21,023 sq.ft. comprised in S.No.216/2C (S.No.216/2C1 as per Patta No.2486), (presently bearing S.No.216/2C1B as per Patta No.3661), Muthu Nagar main Road, Madanandapuram Village, Alandur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The petitioner developed a scheme for the aforesaid land known as 'BLUE TIDE' for constructing dwelling apartments. The petitioner applied and was granted planning permission by the CMDA on 09.06.2021, for construction of residential apartments comprised of stilt + 5 floors. Pursuant to the approval, the construction was duly commenced in 2021. The petitioner states that in the course of construction of the Apartment-Complex, the 5^th respondent, who is owner of the adjacent land conducted burials in his Patta lands without obtaining any permission from the authorities. The petitioner along with the residents/owners of the adjacent locality protested against such burials. The petitioner contends that the subject land was vacant and unused and that no burial activities were conducted either during negotiations for development in 2020, or at the time of approval and commencing construction. According to the petitioner, the said land was never designated as burial ground either by the 1^st respondent or 2^nd respondent. The petitioner further states that despite objections and complaints, the official respondents failed to prevent the illegal burials or to take timely action against the 5^th respondent. The petitioner states that instead of taking action against the 5^th respondent, the 1^st respondent granted formal license to the 5^th respondent on 27.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said license, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

3.The 2^nd respondent in its counter affidavit stated that pursuant to the Government orders dated 30.10.2011, the Greater Chennai Corporation, took over the administration of Mugalivakkam Panchayat and other municipalities, town panchayats, village panchayats, and merged them with the Corporation. The 2^nd respondent stated that one Dr.Samuvel Carolinius on behalf of the C.S.I. St.Mathew's Church, applied for No Objection Certificate for operation of Crematory in its privately owned patta land. The said order was communicated to the District Revenue Off