Judgment Heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. .2. The petitioner, who is the resident of Vallam Village, Vandavasi Taluk has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to maintain and keep the .Survey No.184 as a burial Ground situated at Vallam village and consequently prevent the respondents from constructing a pond in the burial ground. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents on 31.08.2009. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the second respondent District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, a counter affidavit dated 111. 2009 was filed. On behalf of the third respondent – Block Development Officer, a counter affidavit dated 010. 2009 was filed. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 211. 2009. 4. Pending the writ petition, this Court had granted an order of status quo on 31.08.2009, which order was extended from time to time. 5. The case of the petitioner was that there is a burial ground in the village at Survey No.184 and it has been in existence from time immemorial and that is the only burial ground which is used by the village people. According to him, the village map clearly demarcates the survey number to be a burial ground. On 13.08.2009, few staff from the Revenue Department came to the burial ground and was marking some areas. When enquired as to what was to be executed in the said place, it was informed that 3/4th portion of the burial ground are to be converted into a pond. The village people objected to the same and their representation was also not considered. 6. On 25.06.2009, a bulldozer was brought in along with certain men and started digging the burial ground for converting it into a pond. According to the petitioner, this was in total violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act, 1994 and the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules 1999. The contention of the petitioner was that no construction shall be put up within a distance of 90 metres from a place used as a burning or burial ground. The contention of the petitioner was that no construction shall be put up within a distance of 90 metres from a place used as a burning or burial ground. It was also stated that if any pond is constructed that will be a source of pollution because of the activities that will be carried out in the said burial ground. .7. The second respondent (District Collector) in his counter affidavit stated that all the village panchayat in each Block are categorized and tabulated for every year to implement schemes for an estimated amount of Rs.20 lakhs to improve the basic amenities. The said scheme is implemented by Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi .Thittam. In so far as the Vallam village is concerned, that was also listed for implementation of the scheme. The Village Level Committee for implementing the said scheme has selected the particular place where a pond was already situated. Such a necessity is also there because of the activities that may go on in the burial ground and the water from the pond can be used for conducting cremation ceremonies. The pond which is in existence in Survey No.184 is in a bad condition. It was also stated that the petitioners objection was unjustified and it is to dismantle the effective scheme implemented by the State Government. In so far as the village is concerned, it has got sufficient drinking water source available to meet the needs of the public with a Over Head Tank (OHT) with capacity of 60,000 Litres and two other Tanks with a capacity of 30,000 Litres. The renovation of the pond will not in any way affect the village. On the contrary, it may help the village people. The reference to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act and Rules are not relevant. The petitioner was a retired teacher and is having a piece of land in Survey No.183, adjacent to the present burial ground and the attempt of the petitioner is to grab the excess land from the burial ground. 8. The third respondent in his counter affidavit had stated that the amount received from the scheme is to be utilised for the digging of the pond and already work order has been given to a Contractor. 8. The third respondent in his counter affidavit had stated that the amount received from the scheme is to be utilised for the digging of the pond and already work order has been given to a Contractor. It was also stated that the pond was in existence for more than ten decades in Survey No.184 to the extent of 25 cents out of 2.10 acres. The said pond will only occupy only 1/8th of the total extent. It was stated that they are not digging a new pond. The present survey number is described as "Kuttai Poramboke" and it is only a renovation work which is going on. It was also stated that the said renovation has been done so far three times under the leadership of the previous panchayat presidents namely M/s.Panduranga Naidu, Sampath Naidu and Savari Naidu. It was also further stated that the petitioners attempt to stall the work is only malafide and after his owning the Survey No.183, he has also encroached to an extent of about 10 cents in the said land by planting Teak Wood saplings at the bank of the existing pond. .9. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner has come forward with public interest and that digging the pond is only to siphon of funds from the public ex-chequer. Apart from this, he has also dealt with at length about their being no necessity to have the pond in the said land. The petitioner also produced certain photographs and a village map. It is seen that substantial excavation have already been done in one corner .of the burial ground and it cannot be said there is no necessity to have a pond in the burial ground. 10. On the other hand, the respondents have stated that for more than ten decades, the pond has been in existence and from time to time it has been restored from being put to disuse. The District Collector has concurred with the view and the work has already been started. The respondents have also come forward to assert these facts. At the instance of a neighbouring land owner against whom allegations of encroachment had also made, it is not safe to entertain the writ petition. Further, the decision has been taken by the Village Panchayat. The District Collector has concurred with the view and the work has already been started. The respondents have also come forward to assert these facts. At the instance of a neighbouring land owner against whom allegations of encroachment had also made, it is not safe to entertain the writ petition. Further, the decision has been taken by the Village Panchayat. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such decision, he cannot file a writ petition challenging the said decision. He should have found a remedy in terms of Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act. In any event, accepting the stand taken by the respondents, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. 11. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.