Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S.- Rakhi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37221-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 422 of 2024 Smt. Shanti Bai Wd/o Late Namdas Bhargav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Mahamand, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S.- Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gram Panchayat Mahmand Through Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kamlesh Prasad S/o Late Sukhdev Prasad Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Mangla, Dhuripara, Ward No. 13, Near High School, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General ... Respondent(s) Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/07/2025 1 Heard Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3. 2 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the Court below for its perusal. B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/direction to the respondent authorities, quashing/set-aside the order dated 05.09.2024 and its consequential proceeding in interest of justice. C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. Cost of the petition.” 3 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that she is the unfortunate mother of the deceased late Shankar Dev Bhargav who expired on 24.01.2024 due to kidney failure and he was buried according to their laws and customs on the land bearing Khasra No. 330/1 admeasuring 6.710 hectares, located at Gram Panchayat Mahmand, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur, which is in possession of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 came in the knowledge of the burial and alleged that the land in which the deceased was buried belongs to him and therefore, he filed an application against the petitioner before the learned Nayab Tehsildar, Bilaspur upon which the Nayab Tahsildar 3 registered a case bearing registration No. E-court No. 2024020744500060/B-121/2023-24 and sought for inspection report from the concerned Halka Patwari vide order dated 23.02.2024. In the meanwhile the, petitioner entered into the proceedings and filed her reply to the application filed by the petitioner denying the allegations made by the petitioner stating that she was in peaceful possession of the said land for the last 30-40 years and there has never been any dispute regarding the same. In complaince of the order of the Nayab Tahsildar, the concerned Halka Patwari submitted his report and clarified that the alleged land does not belong to the respondent No. 5. The Nayab Tahsildar after perusal of the inquiry report, forwarded the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur (for short, the SDM) for further consideration. 4 The learned SDM has remanded the matter back to the Nayab Tahsildar vide order dated 01.08.2024 putting in specific queries as to the current situation of the alleged land, Khasra number of the land in which the dead body was buried, the revenue records of the alleged land and lastly, the possession holder of the alleged land. In pursuance thereof, the Nayab Tahsildar has answered all the specific queries put by the learned SDM and forwarded the same along with the inspection report of the learned Halka Patwari No.44 Mahmand vide order dated 23.08.2024, in which it was found that the respondent No. 5's land was distant from the alleged land, the deceased was buried on land bearing Khasra No. 330/1 which is a government land, the alleged land was shown as grass land/government land in the revenue records, the land was in possession of the petitioner for the last 55 years. The SDM found that respondent No.5 has failed to prove his claim but by the order dated 05.09.2024, has directed the Gram Panchayat to proceed according to sub-rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulation of Places for disposal of Dead 4 Bodies, Carcasses and Obnoxious Substances) Rules, 1999 (for short, the Rules of 1999), ignoring the actual position of law and the no objection certificate given by the Gram Panchayat dated 02.04.2024. 5 Thereafter, the respondent No.5 moved an application for issuance of direction to the Gram Panchayat for compliance of order dated 05.09.2024 on such the learned S.D.M. has issued a reminder letter dated 10.09.2024 and 03/04.10.2024 to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat for the compliance of the order dated 05.09.2024 which is sought to be challenged in this petition. 6 Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondent authorities is nothing but misuse of their power and against the principles of natural justice which also leads to the infringement of the fundamental rights. The Gram Panchayat had already given its no objection with regard to the burial of the deceased on the alleged land, which has been totally ignored by the learned S.D.M. The sub-rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 only applies to the dead bodies which does not have any legal heirs/family members for their burial or where family members are failed to bury the dead body within time, therefore in the instant case the said provision would not apply. Once it has been found that the dead body was not buried on the land belonging to the respondent No. 5, then there was no occasion for the SDM to pass any order for shifting of the dead body from the present place where it has been buried. The petitioner, being the mother, is already undergoing the grief of losing her son and even thereafter has to suffer the atrocities of the respondent authorities. Mr. Tulsyan further submits that in number of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the dead body is buried, it should not be disturbed and a court will not ordinarily order or permit a body to be disinterred unless there is a strong showing of 5 necessity that disinterment is within the interest of justice. Hence, he prays that the present petition may be allowed. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that it has been contented by the petitioner that her son Shankar Dev Bhargav, left for his heavenly abode on 24.01.2024 due to kidney failure and after his death the dead body was buried on the personal land situated in Khasra No. 330/1 admeasuring 6.71 hectors and Garm Panchayat Mahamand, Janpad Bilha, District- Bilaspur. The respondent No. 5 made a complaint to the Tehsildar that the dead body has been buried in his private land and acting on such application the impugned order annexure P/1 has been passed whereby direction has been given to the Gram Panchayat Mahamand to act strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1999. The petition filed by the petitioner is without any substance and the same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. An application was moved before the Nayab Tehsildar, Bilaspur by respondent No. 5 with an allegation that a dead body has been buried on his private land. Taking cognizance of the said fact, a revenue case was registered and report was called from the concerned Patwari by the Nayab Tehsildar and after perusing the report and other documents and further taking into account that the dead body has been buried on the land other then designated place due to which there is unrest and the same is against the social order the Nayab Tehsildar forwarded the report for necessary action to the SDM, Bilaspur. The SDM, after receipt of the case, had made certain queries from the Tahsildar. On the basis of those queries, the Patwari of Patwari Halka No. 44 submitted a report to the Tehsildar on 02.08.2024, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the Khasra No. 330/1 on which the dead body has been buried is a government land and the same 6 is entered as "Chote Jhaad ka Jungle" and further it was submitted that the petitioner is having possession of the said government land. After going through the report submitted by the Patwari and taking taking into account the fact that the subject land on which the body is buried is a government land entered in the Revenue record as "Chote Jhaad ka Jungle" and further there is specific place earmarked as Shamshan/burial place in the Nistar Patra, the SDM was pleased to pass the impugned order Annexure P/1. 8 Mr. Thakur submits that in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 1 of section 95 read with clause (12) of section 49 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the Government of Chhattisgarh has framed the rules viz. Rules of 1999 and as per the clause 5 of the said Rules prescribe that a proper place shall be designated for disposal of corpses. It is an admitted position that the land on which the dead body has been buried is a government land and in village Mahamand since time immemorial a particular place has been ear marked and designated as shamshan bhoomi/ burial place. The petitioner who has admittedly encroached over the government land has buried the dead body of her son against the settled social norms and also against the provisions of the Rules of 1999 and same has disturbed the social order and may cause unrest among the villagers. The designation of an identified area for burial purposes serves the salutatory purpose of ensuring a systemised procedure of conducting last rites whilst paying due deference to the surrounding sensitivities but also importantly encompasses a public health angle and it is further submitted that the rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are subject to procedure established by law which is required to be just, clear, reasonable. There is no justification with respect to burial of a dead body 7 on any other parts of the government land other than the designated place. If the same is allowed, it may disturb the social order and also cause various hazards related to health and hygiene of the local resident the SDO after taking into account the above mentioned facts have passed the order and directing the Gram Panchyat to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10 The crux of the matter is that the respondent No. 5 was aggrieved by the fact that the dead body of the deceased, who happens to be the son of the petitioner, was buried on the land in dispute which admittedly is a government land. The death of the deceased had taken place way back on 24.01.2024. The grievance of the respondent No. 5 was that he claimed the said land to be his land but when the Patwari has given a report that the said land is a government land. Admittedly, there is a burial/cremation ground earmarked in every village where the dead bodies are cremated or buried. Though the petitioner ought to have buried the dead body of his son at the proper ear marked place, however, since much time has elapsed and it has not caused any sort of disturbance or spread of any disease, and the emotions of the poor mother is attached, we deem it appropriate to quash the order of the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Bilaspur, dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) as once a body is buried, unless there is a strong showing of necessity that disinterment is within the interest of justice, the body buried cannot be ordered to be taken out and shifted at any other place. We do not find any good ground so as to permit the order of the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Bilaspur to prevail and it is further directed that no 8 interference shall be made with the place where the deceased has been buried. 11
Decision
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not be construed as a precedent in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.31 11:55:29 +0530