Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs Mallika Bhan on 23 March, 2022
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003. .. Applicant/
Appellant
(Cause title accepted vide order dated
1.3.2022 made in C.M.P.No.3088 of 2022)
Vs
1.Mallika Bhan
2.The Panchayat President,
Uthandi Village Panchayat,
Uthandi, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Formerly Kancheepuram District,
Now Chennai District.
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
4.M/s.VGP Housing Private Limited,
rep. by its Director,
VGP House, Hospital Road,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. .. Respondents/
Respondents
Prayer:
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022 has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 703 days in filing the appeal
against the order dated 21.11.2019 made in W.P.No.15476 of 2008.
W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the order 21.11.2019 made in W.P.No.15476 of 2008.
For the Applicant/ : Mr.S.Silambannan
Appellant Senior Counsel
for M/s.R.Gopinath
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard on the application to condone the delay of 703 days in
maintaining the appeal and at the same time, we have considered the
appeal itself.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Greater Chennai
Corporation submitted that delay of 703 days occurred in filing the
appeal for the reason that the Chennai Corporation had arranged
many meetings with the villagers to satisfy them to accept the
alternative place for burial and cremation of dead bodies. However,
despite the best efforts made, the villagers have not come forward
with an agreement with the Chennai Corporation and, accordingly,
the appeal has been preferred and the delay has been caused. Thus,
a prayer is to condone the delay.
3. Before addressing the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, we asked learned Senior Counsel to argue the
appeal on merits so that if there is substance in the appeal, the
application for condonation of delay can be decided taking note of the
aforesaid.
4. It is the case where a writ petition was filed to seek a
restraint order for using a patta land as a burial ground in violation of
the rules. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition after
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
taking note of the relevant facts referred by the parties. The villagers
have, in fact, approached the civil court to seek an injunction against
the parties for using the land as a burial ground. The injunction was
denied. It was also found that as per Section 319 of the Chennai City
Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (for short, "the Act of 1919"), a
license for disposal of dead bodies is required and Section 321 of the
Act of 1919 prohibits burying of dead bodies in the place other than
registered or for which license has been granted. As per the bye-
laws also, the use of the land as a burial ground without compliance
of law and despite being patta land was not permissible and,
accordingly, the writ petition was allowed prohibiting the use of the
land as a burial ground. It was, however, with a direction to the
Chennai Corporation to identify the alternative suitable land for burial
and cremation of dead bodies.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
Corporation submitted that no suitable land is available in the same
village and, therefore, the compliance of the order cannot be made,
though land is available in the neighbouring village.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
6. We do not find any direction in the impugned order to
identify the land for burial and cremation in the same village. Rather,
the direction is to find out a suitable alternative place for burial and
cremation of dead bodies.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason for
the Chennai Corporation to file this appeal. If any party is aggrieved
by the order of the learned Single Judge, it could have been the
villagers. Therefore, we do not find any reason to maintain the appeal
and, accordingly, the same is dismissed at the SR stage. Finding no
justification for the delay, the application for condonation of the delay
is also dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
23.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
To
1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2.The Panchayat President,
Uthandi Village Panchayat,
Uthandi, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Formerly Kancheepuram District,
Now Chennai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
C.M.P.No.4846 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 15587 of 2022
23.03.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
