Court ruling necessitates an examination of cemetery establishment in relation to land usage regulations under patta conditions.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P18 and P23 orders. Petitioners have also sought for other consequential reliefs.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners herein are local residents near to the property having an extent of one acre comprised in resurvey Nos.117/3 and 117/3/3 of Malayattor Village, which is in exclusive possession of the 7^th respondent. The 7^th respondent filed an application seeking permission for the construction of a burial ground before the 3^rd respondent. Later, as per the direction issued by this Court based on the objection raised by the petitioners Ext.P3 decision was taken by the 2^nd respondent District Collector refusing sanction to construct the proposed burial ground. After Ext.P3 decision, 7^th respondent again approached the 3^rd respondent for the sanction of construction of a concrete vault cemetery. Thereupon, petitioners again approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.40723 of 2018 and various representations were also filed. Thereupon, the writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P7 directing the 2^nd respondent to take a decision in accordance with law. Various reports were called for, as evident from Exts.P9 to P17 and without considering various reports, a decision was taken in favour of the 7^th respondent and sanction was granted for the construction of the vault cemetery. Aggrieved by the same Ext.P19 appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P23 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. The main contentions raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that the area where the proposed burial ground is sought to be established is a place where 90% of the people living there belong to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community and as per the terms of Ext.P6 patta the land assigned can be used solely for the purpose of agriculture and for no other purpose. The further contention raised by the petitioners is that in Ext.P1 committee report and Ext.P3 order wherein the earlier application was rejected, there is a finding to the effect that there are residential houses at a distance of 11.10 metres and 39 metres respectively and there are four other dwelling houses situated at a distance of 50 to 51 metres from the site proposed for cemetery. The said reports were overlooked while granting permission as per Exts.P18 and P23. Yet another contention raised by the petitioners is that the establishment of a cemetery will result in communal disorder in the area and further it will cause contamination of the water sources. It is further contended that six quarries are functioning in the area and due to the blasting of the quarries there is every chance of causing damage to the cemetery.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 7^th respondent wherein it is stated that there are about 34 families belong to muslim community and the nearest burial ground is almost 15 kms. away and that the permission was granted after obtaining all necessary permissions and licences including no objection certificate from the District Medical Officer (Ext.R7-A), consent to establish issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (Ext.R7-B), permission from the District Collector (Ext.R7-C), approval from the Senior Town Planner (Ext.R7-D), building permit from the local authority (Ext.R7-E), completion certificate issued by the District Medical Officer (Ext.R7-I) and consent to operate by the Pollution Control Board (Ext.R7-J). The violation of the distance criteria alleged by the petitioners is