Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22661
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.Sadasivam – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
W.P.Nos.3340, 25577 & 25587 of 2024
Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, Mr.J.Ravindran, Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik, M/s.S.Anitha, Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Mr.T.Mohan, Mr.M.Ragul Kousik, Mr.M.Rajendran, Mr.M.Bindran
Reclassification of land for burial purposes requires adherence to licensing rules and consideration of community objections, failing which the decision is invalid.
Headnote:
Burial - Land Classification - Tamilnadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 - Sections 5, 7 - The court quashed the reclassification of land as a burial ground due to lack of proper licensing and failure to consider objections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the reclassification of land from Government poramboke to burial ground, arguing that the land was improperly used for burials without necessary approvals and that their objections were ignored.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reclassification was done without proper procedure, including failure to consider pending objections and lack of required licenses for burial as per the relevant rules.
Issues: Whether the reclassification of the land as a burial ground was valid given the lack of proper licensing and consideration of objections from the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reclassification was invalid as it did not comply with the licensing requirements set forth in the Tamilnadu Village Panchayats Rules, and the decision was made without due process.
Final Decision: The court quashed the reclassification order and directed a fresh hearing on the objections raised by the petitioners.
COMMON ORDER
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 observed that this Court is completely dissatisfied with the act of the first respondent in passing order dated 15.06.2024 in spite of the fact that time was granted to file counter when the writ petition is pending in WP.No.3340 of 2024. Therefore, till decision is taken w
