Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
SATHEESH D. – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9543 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SMT.M.BINDUDAS, SRI.NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP
For the Respondents: SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SHRI.A.D.SHAJAN, SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM, SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY, SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, JISHNU P.P., SMT.RADHIKAKRISHNA, SMT.ANIMA M.
Timely administrative action is essential to prevent law and order issues concerning property rights and burial legality.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Sections 152 and 194 - Delay in decision by Revenue Divisional Officer regarding removal of mortal remains - The petitioner contends that the deceased was buried in his property unlawfully, obstructing access to his residence - The court directs timely conclusion of the proceedings. (Paras 2 & 8)
(B) Writ Petition - Purpose - The petitioner sought directions to expedite procedural hearings, indicating public interest and evading law and order issues. (Paras 3 & 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased property for a pathway; the deceased was allegedly buried in this property, obstructing access. The petitioner and an Action Council sought decision from authorities under relevant sections for removal and inquiry into the death.
Findings of Court:
The court instructs the Revenue Divisional Officer to expedite conclusions within a given timeframe to prevent potential law and order situations.
Issues: The main issues regarding the property sale agreement and the legality surrounding the burial of remains in the petitioner’s land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscores the necessity of prompt administrative action to address public concerns while maintaining due process entitlement for involved parties.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with a directive to finalize proceedings expediently.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property rights obstructed by illegal burial. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding authority and property disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. pending civil disputes affecting administrative actions. (Para 7) |
| 4. court directs administrative officer to conclude proceedings. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2025 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the inordinate delay in taking a decision by the 1st respondent to remove the mortal remains of deceased Sri.Vijayan illegally and unauthorisedly buried in the property of the petitioner which is being used as a pathway, as the only means of ingress and egress to his residence.
2. The petitioner purchased an extent of 21 Square Metres of property from the deceased Sri.Vijayan for using it as an exclusive pathway for his residential home which is situated on the south of the property of the deceased as per Sale Deed No.103/2024 dated 02.02.2024. He effected mutation, changed patta and is paying tax to the said property as paramount title holder in possession. The vendor of the property namely deceased Vijayan who was otherwise healthy was seen dead under suspicious circumstances on 11.09.2024. He was unmarried and resided alone in his house. The ward member, who has an axe to grind against the petitioner along with the siblings of deceased except one, had buried the mortal remains of deceased in the property purchased by the petitioner, without conducting religious rites and custom. 3. The petitioner as well as the Action Council approached the 1st respondent seeking to remove the obstruction to the pathway by taking away the mortal remains of deceased from the property of the petitioner under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and to conduct an enquiry as to the cause of death of the deceased under Section 194 of . Though notice was issued to the petitioner for personal hearing as per Ext.P5, neither the personal hearing materialized nor orders passed under Sections 152 and 194 BNSS . Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to expedite the proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P5 and take it to its logical conclusion within such time as may be fixed by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 8 and the learned counsel for the 9th respondent-Action Council.
5. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 1st respondent to take proceedings initiated by him to its logical conclusion after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 9.
6. The counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 8 would submit that since there is no public pathway, a proceedings in the nature of Ext.P5 is unsustainable. Counsel for respondents 4 to 8 further submitted that they are disputing the alleged sale of property by the deceased in favour of the petitioner and Ext.P1 title deed has been subjected to challenge in a Civil Case pending before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara.
7. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Munsiff Court has declined any interim injunction in favour of the respondents.
8. Be that as it may, from Ext.P5, I find that the Revenue Divisional Officer has already issued notice to the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 9. Going through the pleadings and after hearing the petitioner and the respondents, I also find that this is an issue which can give rise to law and order problems also. In that view of the matter, it would be only appropriate that the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer conclude the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5 within a reasonable time. Respondents 4 to 8 questioned the maintainability of the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer. This is also a matter which the Revenue Divisional Officer can decide.
