Madras High Court
Karuppusamy vs The District Collector on 19 February, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.5600 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.5600 of 2025
KARUPPUSAMY ... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE, ERODE.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
GOBICHETTIPALAYAM , ERODE DISTRICT.
3. THE THASILDHAR
ANTHIYUR, ERODE DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
(WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT)
BACKSIDE TO SUB- REGISTRAR OFFICE,
ANTHIYUR, ERODE DISTRICT.
5. THE PRESIDENT
MICHELPALAYAM PANCHAYET,
MICHELPALAYAM, ANTHIYUR TALUK,
ERODE DISTRICT.
6. THE INSPECTR OF POLICE,
ANTHIYUR POLICE STATION,
ERODE DISTRICT. ... respondent
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5600 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records with
respect of the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 17.12.2024
in Na.Ka.No.7001/2022/A1 and quash the same, consequently direct the
respondents to exhume the dead body of the deceased Periyakutti which was
buried on 26.09.2024 at S.F.No.906/2 at Anthiyur A revenue Village,
Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District and bury the same at the designated burial
ground by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated
26.09.2024, 30.09.2024 and 11.11.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For R1 to R6 : Mr.V.Manoharan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed calling for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 17.12.2024 in
Na.Ka.No.7001/2022/A1 and quash the same, consequently direct the
respondents to exhume the dead body of the deceased Periyakutti which was
buried on 26.09.2024 at S.F.No.906/2 at Anthiyur A revenue Village,
Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Additional
Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. In view of the nature of relief that is granted, the matter is disposed
of at the admission stage itself.
4. The brief factual background in which this writ petition arises is that
the original designated burial ground in respect of the Poiyerikarai Village lies
in S.No. 906/2 with a distance of ½ kilometres, while the burial site lies
elsewhere. Very often, the villagers not respecting the law, have been burying
dead bodies in S.F.No. 906/2. Earlier, criminal cases were registered for the
burial of other bodies as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this
Court made in Jagadheeswari and others vs B.Babu Naidu and others (2023
(4) CTC 481), which held that nobody is entitled to bury a body except in the
designated place. In view thereof, the first information report was also
registered in respect of the unauthorised burial and the case is under progress.
However, it is the contention of the petitioner that every time a case is
registered, the act of burying bodies in unauthorised places continues
unabated. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition, praying for the exhumation of the body and reburial in a proper
place. This Court directed the consideration of the representation, pursuant to
which the impugned order is passed.
5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would
submit that since the burial is clearly an illegal act, as per the Hon’ble Full
Bench judgment of this Court, the law should be in favour of rectifying the
mistake and the body should be exhumed and buried in the proper place only.
Therefore, the impugned order is to be interfered with.
6. Per Contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents would submit that without disputing the legal position, since
the body was buried as early as September 2024 and strict action is now being
taken by the officials to ensure that no other body is buried except in the
designated place, the prayer of the petitioner to exhume the body need not be
considered by this Court on humanitarian grounds as it may cause hardship to
those who have already buried their loved ones.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
perused the material records of the case.
8. Considering the fact that now five months have already lapsed after
the burial of the dead body and considering the submission made by the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that
henceforth strict vigil will be maintained to ensure that no dead body is buried
in any place other than the earmarked burial ground, this Court is not
interfering with the impugned order. At the same time, it is made clear that the
Tahsildar shall instruct the jurisdictional revenue officials, including the
Village Administrative Officer and the Village Assistant to maintain strict
vigil. It is also made clear that if they fail to report or object on the date of
death, and burial immediately to the Tahsildar so as to prevent such acts, their
names will also be included in the criminal case that will be registered, and
they will be investigated.
9. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
To
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE, ERODE.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
GOBICHETTIPALAYAM , ERODE DISTRICT.
3. THE THASILDHAR
ANTHIYUR, ERODE DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
(WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT)
BACKSIDE TO SUB- REGISTRAR OFFICE,
ANTHIYUR, ERODE DISTRICT.
5. THE PRESIDENT
MICHELPALAYAM PANCHAYET,
MICHELPALAYAM, ANTHIYUR TALUK,
ERODE DISTRICT.
6. THE INSPECTR OF POLICE,
ANTHIYUR POLICE STATION,
ERODE DISTRICT.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
