THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.No
Case Details
Acts & Sections
W.P.No.38413 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.10.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.No. 38413 of 2025Kaveriyammal.. Petitionervs1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.4.The Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.5.The Spl. Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Block Development Office, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Pin Code – 636 8036.The Village Administrative Officer, Dalavaihalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.7.The Inspector of Police, Indur Police Station,1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025 Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.8.Settu @ Periyasamy9.Muniyappan10.Rangasamy11.Saravanan12.Raghu .. RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st to 6th respondents herein to exhume the buried body of 11th and 12th respondents' father from the Petitioner's Patta Land in Survey No.21/3, bearing Patta No.1771 in Nehru Nagar, Dalavaihalli village panchayat, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District and relocate the buried body at designated common burial ground lying in Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat based on the petitioner's complaint dated 22.09.2025 and 23.09.2025; and further direct the official respondents herein to take steps to prevent further burial of bodies in the petitioner's patta land as per the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 and the full bench decision of this Court in Jagadheeswari v. V.Babu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine 4773.For Appellant:Mr.S.SathiaseelanFor Respondents:Mr.Arasakumar M.S. (for R1 to R6)Government advocateMr.R.Kishore Kumar (for R7)Government Advocate (Crl. Side)Mr.Sivaraman (for R8 to R12)2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025ORDERThe grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent nos. 8 to 12 have buried a body in the land situated at Survey No. 21/3 comprised in patta no. 1771 of Nehru Nagar, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District. His simple plea is that the said survey number is not a notified burial ground under the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999. He sought for exhuming the body, belonging to the father of respondent nos. 11 and 12, and for the said body to be reinterred in the notified burial ground. 2. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.Arasakumar took notice for respondent nos. 1 to 6, and Mr.Kishore Kumar took notice for respondent no.7, and Mr.Sivaraman took notice for respondent nos. 8 to 12. 3.I adjourned the matter to enable Mr.Arasakumar to get instructions, as to whether Survey No. 21/3 is a notified burial ground or not. I posted the matter today. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 20254.When I took up the matter, Mr.Arasakumar has produced instructions from the Tahsildar, Nallampalli in RC 1296/2025/E1 dated 10.10.2025. A perusal of the instructions indicates that the Survey No.21/3 is not a patta land belonging to the petitioner, but a government poramboke land classified as podukal. The instructions further state that the Tahsildar has written to the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the patta issued in the name of Kaveriyammal, the writ petitioner.5.Mr. Arasakumar states that there is a dispute with regard to right, title and interest over the property, and the same is a subject matter of the suit before the learned District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri in O.S.No. 111 of 2025. Mr. Arasakumar is also clear that Survey No. 21/3 is not a notified burial ground under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules of 1999. 6.I am not concerned with the disputes regarding to the right, title and interest over the property in this writ petition. Civil Courts exist for the said purpose and the parties can thrash out their rights before the jurisdictional civil court. 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 20257. A Full Bench of this Court in Jagadheeswari and others vs B.Babu Naidu and others, [AIR 2023 Mad 260] had held as follows:-“32. Both Rules 5 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules 1999 start with a negative clause. Rule 5 prohibits new place for burying or burning the dead without license obtained from village Panchayat. Rule 7 prohibits burning or burying any corpse, in any place, within 90 meters of the dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. The place licensed as burial and burning ground is exempted from the 90 meters restriction. Rule 5(1) does not indicate that the place where a body is buried or burnt, will not carry the character of burial ground or burning ground. If, single body is burnt or buried and the land owner has no intention to allow burial of body in future. Whoever prefers a new place whether private or public to be used for burying or 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025burning the dead, license from the Panchayat is a pre-requisite. Thus, it is very clear that except the place which has already been registered under Rule 4 or a new place where license is obtained following the procedures contemplated under Rules 5(2) (3) and (4), no body can be buried or burnt in the place which is neither been registered or granted license. 33. That apart, it is also to be noted that Rule 6 mandates the village Panchayat to maintain a register at its office showing places which are provided, registered or licensed under Rules 3 to 5. The framers of the Rules were conscious of the fact that there may be violation of Rule 7 (1). Therefore, the Rule prescribes punishment for contravention of Rule 7(1) but, prosecution shall be instituted only on written sanction by the Executive Authority of the village Panchayat concerned. 34. The outcome of the above analysis of the Rules and case laws leads to the conclusion, that the condition of 90 meters restriction found 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025in Rule 7(1) cannot be construed as right to bury body anywhere and everywhere. Burial or burning body is subject to the other provisions in the Rules. The conditions of distance restriction from the water body, cannot be read in isolation unmindful of the purpose of the Rules and other provisions thereunder. 35. The Division Bench in P.Muthusamy's case has not declared that body can be buried anywhere other than registered or licensed place in a village Panchayat. The Division Bench had only recognized the custom prevailing in that particular village. The observation made in the Muthusamy's case, is restricted only to the facts of that case and it cannot have application in rem. 36. Moreover, after Rules, 1999 came into force, any burial in the place other than the place already registered or licensed as burial ground, goes in contravention to Rule 7(1). Any body buried in contravention to the Rules 5 and 7, is to be exhumed and buried in the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025designated place. If such violation is brought to the notice within the reasonable time and despite notice to exhume the body for to be buried in the designated place not adhered by the person concerned, the body is to be exhumed by the authority and collect the costs from the person who is cause for that illegal burial. The exhumed body must be buried in the designated place, taking into consideration the public health. Person who defies the law and refuses to exhume the body, cannot take umbrage in the delay of enforcing the law and make the Court 'fait accompli'. Accordingly, the order of reference is answered in negative.” 8.The Full Bench has clearly held that if there is a violation of the Rules 5 and 7, it is the duty of the concerned authority to exhume the body at the cost of the person who had caused the body to be so buried, and bury the same in the designated site. 9.When the judgment of the Full Bench is clear, all I have to do is apply the same to the facts of this case. When this aspect 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025was pointed out to Mr.Arasakumar, he states that there might be a law and order problem in the area, in case, this course of action is adopted. Power is granted to the executive authorities to ensure that there is no law and order problem, and at the same time, to ensure compliance with law. The Tahsildar cannot shrug off his responsibilities imposed on him under the Act to maintain law and order, and throw out his hands in air and plead that he will not implement the law. Hence, this writ petition is disposed with the following directions:-(i) the respondent nos. 1 to 6 shall ensure that the body buried in Survey No. 21/3, Nehru Nagar, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District is exhumed within a period of one week from today;(ii) the body shall be exhumed with due respect relating to the religion to which the deceased belongs;(iii) the body shall be reinterred in a place notified by the Dalavaihalli Village or such other places notified as a burial ground;9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025(iv) the costs for such exhumation and reinternment shall be recovered from the respondent nos. 11 and 12, who were responsible for burying the body in Survey No. 21/3; (v) respondent no.7 shall ensure that sufficient security is granted to respondent nos. 1 to 6 or their authorized person when they are implementing the directions set forth above; (vi) the said exercise shall be carried out before 25.10.2025;(vii) Respondent nos. 1 to 7 shall act on the web copy of this order and will not wait for a certified copy. There shall be no order as to costs. Call this matter under the caption 'for reporting compliance' on 27.10.2025.13.10.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NossmNote to Registry : Upload today10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025To1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.4.The Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.5.The Spl. Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Block Development Office, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Pin Code – 636 8036.The Village Administrative Officer, Dalavaihalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.7.The Inspector of Police, Indur Police Station, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.ssmW.P.No.38413 of 202513.10.202512/12
W.P.No.38413 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.10.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.No. 38413 of 2025Kaveriyammal.. Petitionervs1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.4.The Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.5.The Spl. Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Block Development Office, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Pin Code – 636 8036.The Village Administrative Officer, Dalavaihalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.7.The Inspector of Police, Indur Police Station,1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025 Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.8.Settu @ Periyasamy9.Muniyappan10.Rangasamy11.Saravanan12.Raghu .. RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st to 6th respondents herein to exhume the buried body of 11th and 12th respondents' father from the Petitioner's Patta Land in Survey No.21/3, bearing Patta No.1771 in Nehru Nagar, Dalavaihalli village panchayat, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District and relocate the buried body at designated common burial ground lying in Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat based on the petitioner's complaint dated 22.09.2025 and 23.09.2025; and further direct the official respondents herein to take steps to prevent further burial of bodies in the petitioner's patta land as per the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 and the full bench decision of this Court in Jagadheeswari v. V.Babu reported in 2023 SCC OnLine 4773.For Appellant:Mr.S.SathiaseelanFor Respondents:Mr.Arasakumar M.S. (for R1 to R6)Government advocateMr.R.Kishore Kumar (for R7)Government Advocate (Crl. Side)Mr.Sivaraman (for R8 to R12)2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025ORDERThe grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent nos. 8 to 12 have buried a body in the land situated at Survey No. 21/3 comprised in patta no. 1771 of Nehru Nagar, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District. His simple plea is that the said survey number is not a notified burial ground under the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999. He sought for exhuming the body, belonging to the father of respondent nos. 11 and 12, and for the said body to be reinterred in the notified burial ground. 2. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.Arasakumar took notice for respondent nos. 1 to 6, and Mr.Kishore Kumar took notice for respondent no.7, and Mr.Sivaraman took notice for respondent nos. 8 to 12. 3.I adjourned the matter to enable Mr.Arasakumar to get instructions, as to whether Survey No. 21/3 is a notified burial ground or not. I posted the matter today. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 20254.When I took up the matter, Mr.Arasakumar has produced instructions from the Tahsildar, Nallampalli in RC 1296/2025/E1 dated 10.10.2025. A perusal of the instructions indicates that the Survey No.21/3 is not a patta land belonging to the petitioner, but a government poramboke land classified as podukal. The instructions further state that the Tahsildar has written to the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the patta issued in the name of Kaveriyammal, the writ petitioner.5.Mr. Arasakumar states that there is a dispute with regard to right, title and interest over the property, and the same is a subject matter of the suit before the learned District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri in O.S.No. 111 of 2025. Mr. Arasakumar is also clear that Survey No. 21/3 is not a notified burial ground under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules of 1999. 6.I am not concerned with the disputes regarding to the right, title and interest over the property in this writ petition. Civil Courts exist for the said purpose and the parties can thrash out their rights before the jurisdictional civil court. 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 20257. A Full Bench of this Court in Jagadheeswari and others vs B.Babu Naidu and others, [AIR 2023 Mad 260] had held as follows:-“32. Both Rules 5 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules 1999 start with a negative clause. Rule 5 prohibits new place for burying or burning the dead without license obtained from village Panchayat. Rule 7 prohibits burning or burying any corpse, in any place, within 90 meters of the dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. The place licensed as burial and burning ground is exempted from the 90 meters restriction. Rule 5(1) does not indicate that the place where a body is buried or burnt, will not carry the character of burial ground or burning ground. If, single body is burnt or buried and the land owner has no intention to allow burial of body in future. Whoever prefers a new place whether private or public to be used for burying or 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025burning the dead, license from the Panchayat is a pre-requisite. Thus, it is very clear that except the place which has already been registered under Rule 4 or a new place where license is obtained following the procedures contemplated under Rules 5(2) (3) and (4), no body can be buried or burnt in the place which is neither been registered or granted license. 33. That apart, it is also to be noted that Rule 6 mandates the village Panchayat to maintain a register at its office showing places which are provided, registered or licensed under Rules 3 to 5. The framers of the Rules were conscious of the fact that there may be violation of Rule 7 (1). Therefore, the Rule prescribes punishment for contravention of Rule 7(1) but, prosecution shall be instituted only on written sanction by the Executive Authority of the village Panchayat concerned. 34. The outcome of the above analysis of the Rules and case laws leads to the conclusion, that the condition of 90 meters restriction found 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025in Rule 7(1) cannot be construed as right to bury body anywhere and everywhere. Burial or burning body is subject to the other provisions in the Rules. The conditions of distance restriction from the water body, cannot be read in isolation unmindful of the purpose of the Rules and other provisions thereunder. 35. The Division Bench in P.Muthusamy's case has not declared that body can be buried anywhere other than registered or licensed place in a village Panchayat. The Division Bench had only recognized the custom prevailing in that particular village. The observation made in the Muthusamy's case, is restricted only to the facts of that case and it cannot have application in rem. 36. Moreover, after Rules, 1999 came into force, any burial in the place other than the place already registered or licensed as burial ground, goes in contravention to Rule 7(1). Any body buried in contravention to the Rules 5 and 7, is to be exhumed and buried in the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025designated place. If such violation is brought to the notice within the reasonable time and despite notice to exhume the body for to be buried in the designated place not adhered by the person concerned, the body is to be exhumed by the authority and collect the costs from the person who is cause for that illegal burial. The exhumed body must be buried in the designated place, taking into consideration the public health. Person who defies the law and refuses to exhume the body, cannot take umbrage in the delay of enforcing the law and make the Court 'fait accompli'. Accordingly, the order of reference is answered in negative.” 8.The Full Bench has clearly held that if there is a violation of the Rules 5 and 7, it is the duty of the concerned authority to exhume the body at the cost of the person who had caused the body to be so buried, and bury the same in the designated site. 9.When the judgment of the Full Bench is clear, all I have to do is apply the same to the facts of this case. When this aspect 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025was pointed out to Mr.Arasakumar, he states that there might be a law and order problem in the area, in case, this course of action is adopted. Power is granted to the executive authorities to ensure that there is no law and order problem, and at the same time, to ensure compliance with law. The Tahsildar cannot shrug off his responsibilities imposed on him under the Act to maintain law and order, and throw out his hands in air and plead that he will not implement the law. Hence, this writ petition is disposed with the following directions:-(i) the respondent nos. 1 to 6 shall ensure that the body buried in Survey No. 21/3, Nehru Nagar, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District is exhumed within a period of one week from today;(ii) the body shall be exhumed with due respect relating to the religion to which the deceased belongs;(iii) the body shall be reinterred in a place notified by the Dalavaihalli Village or such other places notified as a burial ground;9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025(iv) the costs for such exhumation and reinternment shall be recovered from the respondent nos. 11 and 12, who were responsible for burying the body in Survey No. 21/3; (v) respondent no.7 shall ensure that sufficient security is granted to respondent nos. 1 to 6 or their authorized person when they are implementing the directions set forth above; (vi) the said exercise shall be carried out before 25.10.2025;(vii) Respondent nos. 1 to 7 shall act on the web copy of this order and will not wait for a certified copy. There shall be no order as to costs. Call this matter under the caption 'for reporting compliance' on 27.10.2025.13.10.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NossmNote to Registry : Upload today10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025To1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.4.The Tahsildar, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.5.The Spl. Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Dalavaihalli Village Panchayat, Block Development Office, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Pin Code – 636 8036.The Village Administrative Officer, Dalavaihalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.7.The Inspector of Police, Indur Police Station, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.38413 of 2025V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.ssmW.P.No.38413 of 202513.10.202512/12