Whenever there is a proposal for shifting a burial ground, there is bound to be resistance from local residents. However, that cannot become a reason for government officials to allow burial of bodies in close proximity to natural water streams used for drinking, washing and other purposes, the Madras High Court has said.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh quashed Salem Collector’s December 11, 2020 order withdrawing the May 20, 2020 decision to shift a burial ground from one survey number to another at Puliyur village situated on the way from Yercaud to Cauvery peak. The decision was withdrawn following Tahsildar’s report highlighting public resistance.
Unhappy with such official action, the judge wrote: “The State and its instrumentalities must keep in mind that they must always look at the larger picture and as between maintaining a water stream and hardship caused due to the shifting of the burial ground, the former must get an upper hand since it has long term implications.”
The judge went on to state: “Just because the local people are resisting could not mean that the revenue officials will not control the situation.”
He directed the incumbent Collector to take steps to shift the burial ground, as decided in May 2020 on the basis of Yercaud Block Development Officer’s 2019 recommendation, to an alternative place within three months. The orders were passed while disposing of a writ petition pending in the court since 2020.
After the filing of the case by a local resident, the court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner who visited the spot and filed a report stating that hundreds of dead bodies had been buried over the years within a distance of one to 40 metres from the rainwater stream that ultimately reaches Vanniyar dam in Dharmapuri district.
Shocked by the report, Justice Venkatesh said, such disposal of bodies was clearly in violation of Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (provision of burial and burning grounds) Rules of 1999 which insist on maintaining a minimum distance of 90 metres between a burial ground and a source of drinking water supply.
“It is quite unfortunate that the District Collector acted upon the subsequent report of the Tahsildar without any application of mind and without taking into consideration the environmental impact and also the violation that was taking place while burning/burying the corpse just adjacent to the water stream,” the judge remarked.
