C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Since both the Appeals arise out of the order of the Writ Court in WP 21871 of 2013, the Appeals are taken up for disposal together. 2. The Appellants who are the fifth and the seventh respondents in WP No.21871 of 2013 launched by the first respondent in both the Appeals, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents, viz. respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition to remove the dead body buried in Survey No.237/1A which is located adjacent to the property of the first respondent herein, and classified as Vandi-pathai Poramboke are aggrived by the judgment of the writ court allowing the said prayer. A prayer to remove the statue of Nandhi (Bull) installed at the grave was sought for and granted.

3. The claim of the petitioner was that there are separate burial grounds for Backward Class Community and Scheduled Caste Community in Navakurichi Village, Attur Taluk of Salem District. The burial ground for Backward Class Community measures about 94 cents and it situate in Survey No.238/4 and the burial ground for Scheduled Caste Community measures about 92 cents and it situate in Survey No.252/10. Claiming that the fifth respondent and others had buried the body of the mother of the fifth respondent in the land in Survey No.237/1A, classified as Cart Track (Vandhi Pathai), situate adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner sought for the extraordinary relief of exhumation.

4. The petitioner would contend that burial of the dead in a place which is not designated as a burial ground is prohibited. It was also claimed that on a complaint made by the petitioner, the official respondents had erected warning boards cautioning public that burial should not happen in Survey No.237/1A as such burial is in breach of the rules. There were complaints and counter complaints by the parties before the Police Authorities and it led to breach of peace in the Village.

5. The private respondents/appellants herein, resisted the claim contending that though the entire Survey No.237/1A is classified as a Vandhi Pathai, the actual cart track runs across the said survey number and several dead bodies have been buried on the southern side of the said Vandhi Pathai, while there is a Odai on the northern side. While admitting the fact that caution Boards were erected by the official respondents, the appellants would contend that it has been a custom of the Villages to bury the dead in Survey No.237/1A. The caution boards were erected on the influence of the petitioner’s husband, who happened to be the erstwhile President of the Village.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, he had also given names of persons belonging to various communities, who have been buried in Survey No.237/1A. The third respondent, the Tahsildar had submitted that since the Survey No.237/1A is not classified as a burial ground, a caution board was installed with the warning that no encroachment should be made and burials are banned. It was also submitted that the Police and Revenue Officials were closely watching the situation to avoid further burning or burying in the said land.

7. The Writ Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and file a Report. The Commissioner had filed a Report setting out the factual situation and pointing out that there are two burial grounds in the Village. The Writ Court concluded that burial of the dead in a property classified as a Vandhi Pathai is illegal and the Authorities ought not to have allowed such burial. On the said conclusion, the Writ Court directed the respondents 1 to 4/the official respondents to take steps to exhume the dead bodies and shift them to the designated burial grounds of the community of the fifth respondent, hence these Appeals.

8. We have heard Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Row & Reddy, for the appellants in WA No.909 of 2014 and the responde