Judgment : 1. The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the buried dead body and Nandi statue from the vandi pathi comprised in survey no.237/1A which is adjacent to his property, Navakurichi village, Attur Taluk, Salem District and adhere the conditions of the act and maintain law and order in the village. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in Navakkurichi Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District, there is a separate burial ground for Backward class community. In the FM Sketch and ‘A’ register, the burial ground for back-ward community is referred as 238/4 and the extent of burial ground is 94 cents. Yet another burial ground for Scheduled Caste Community is mentioned in the FM Sketch bearing reference no.252/10 and the extent of the said burial ground is 92 cents. 3. Further, the case of the petitioner is that on 16.07.2013, the 5th respondent’s mother was buried in the adjacent land of the petitioner and the same has been mentioned as Vandi-pathai “cart track” was resisted by the petitioner and others. Even though there was a complaint to the Government official by the villagers, and inspite of the presence of the 1 to 4 respondents, the 5th respondent with the help of the 6th respondent, buried 5th respondent’s mother adjacent to vandi-pathai, which in fact belongs to Government. In the FM sketch, it is clearly mentioned that poramboke land in survey no.237/1A belongs to Government and it is not a burial ground. Several complaints have been made and FIR has been registered. In the said vandi-pathai, Government land survey no.237/1A, no one shall be buried and there is also a warning board that “tres-passers would be punished” . 5th and 6th respondents indulged in such activity with an intention to create un-rest in the area. The 16th day ceremony was also conducted and nandi statue was installed in the place where 5th respondent’s mother was buried and the statue was garlanded and nearly 100 relatives of the 5th respondents participated and other persons in the locality were also witness of the occurrence. The news was published in all the papers and the petitioner has made a representation to the Government officials on various dates, more particularly on 18th July 2013. 4. The news was published in all the papers and the petitioner has made a representation to the Government officials on various dates, more particularly on 18th July 2013. 4. The petitioner further submitted that the 6th respondent, who contested against the petitioner’s husband was un-successful in the election held on 16.10.2011 and the petitioner’s husband in the capacity of President has made representation about the incident that took place between 16th July and 25th July 2013. The petitioner also sent a representation on 25.07.2013 and requested that the dead body has got to be removed from the burial place to the respective burial ground meant for (Backward community) people immediately. It is also stated by the petitioner that since the 5th respondent’s father, who is aged 95 years was sick and petitioner apprehended that he would also be buried in the same place. Since no action was taken inspite of his representation, the petitioner has approached this Court with the afore said prayer and also sought for Interim Injunction, restraining respondents 1 to 6, their men, agents or any other person on their behalf, from in any way misusing the Government poramboke land comprised in Survey no.237/1A (Vandi-pathai, Navakkurichi, Attur Taluk, Salem District. 5. The 5th and 6th respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 07.06.2014 denying the averments in the writ petition. According to the 6th respondent, survey no.237/1A consists of 1.2 acres out of which cart track consists of 20 cents and the remaining one acre is used as burial ground for the villagers for more than 200 years and the said burial ground is being used by the Arasu Vanniar, Muslims, Lingayat Jangamars, Urali gounder consisting of two groups viz., Muttayee Vagayara and Kadaimaniam Lakshmana gounder vagayara. The petitioner belongs to Urali Gounder community and the dead bodies of the petitioner’s husband’s father, grand father and mother were also buried in the same burial ground. 6. The respondents 5 and 6 contended that in the counter that the allegations of the petitioner that there are only two burial grounds are not correct. In that, there are four burial grounds, viz., Backward class burial ground, Scheduled Caste burial ground, Jangamar burial ground and those burial grounds are situated in Survey No.237/1A. 6. The respondents 5 and 6 contended that in the counter that the allegations of the petitioner that there are only two burial grounds are not correct. In that, there are four burial grounds, viz., Backward class burial ground, Scheduled Caste burial ground, Jangamar burial ground and those burial grounds are situated in Survey No.237/1A. They further submitted that the police complaint given by the writ petitioner has been closed as “mistake of fact”and accordingly notice has been served on the parties on 20.07.2013. It is submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and cart track has not been used as burial ground and that the cart track runs from Navakurichi Village to Pattuthurai village in survey no.237/1A measuring only 20 cents and no dead bodies were buried in that place. The petitioner has suppressed all these facts and filed this writ petition stating that dead bodies were buried in vandi-pathai. They further submitted that based on the representation dated 19.08.2013 to the respondents 1 and 2, one Ponnusamy, 6th respondent and others, requested to measure the cart track and to make sub-division of the said survey number in respect of the burial ground to an extent of 1 acre. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 05.09.2013 directing the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, Attur to measure the cart track and mark the boundaries and to allot the burial ground. The same was reiterated by the 2nd respondent in his proceeding dated 10.03.2014. Therefore, according to them, there is clinching evidence that the burial ground was in existence in the said survey number. They further submitted that the husband of the petitioner tried to obliterate the burial ground, divided the same into house site plot and tried to sell away the same along with the petitioner’s house site plots situated on the southern side of the burial ground. The petitioner and the 6th respondent gave an undertaking in writing that they would abide by the demarcation in the aforesaid survey number to be made by the Revenue inspector and made a police complaint dated 20.04.2014 and the same has been enquired by the Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal. They also measured 1.2 acres in survey no.237/1A belongs to the Government and that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. 7. They also measured 1.2 acres in survey no.237/1A belongs to the Government and that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. 7. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 12.06.2014 that the 5th respondent is an Advocate and with an intention to lock the petitioner’s land to an extent of 68 cents comprised in survey no.237/3, he buried the dead bodies in the land in Survey No.237/1A. The 5th respondent’s son-in-law and 6th respondent’s brother-in-law are advocates. Knowing the entire facts, they have committed nuisance and 5th respondent’s father, Palanimuthu is also no more and they have buried the dead body in Survey No.237/1A, during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner denied that the relatives of the petitioner were buried in Survey No.237/1A and stated that about 30 years ago, there was no proper road leading to burial ground and the dead bodies were burnt and put it in a odai and the practice was in existence three decades ago. At no point of time the relatives of the petitioner were buried in survey no.237/1A. 8. The Petitioner further replied that there are only two burial grounds. One is for OC, BC, MBC and other religious people used to bury the dead bodies at Survey No.238/4 and other SC dead bodies are buried at Survey No.252/10. The respondents 5 and 6 have erroneously stated that there are four burial grounds in the village. According to the petitioner, the Survey No.237/1A consists of 1.2 acres, breadth is between 20 to 30 feet and the length is 200 meters or 700 ft. in which the check dam, small “odai” and small culvert (8m) are there. The road is made up of metal leads to rest of the village and leads to farm lands. Mini bus permit also granted and plighting through the metal road which is in Survey No.237/1A and there is no space for one burial ground in Survey No.237/1A. The averments of the 5th and 6th respondents that there is burial ground in Survey No.237/1A is not correct. 9. The petitioner prayed that the dead bodies of Samporanam died on 16.07.2013, mother of the 5th respondent and Palanimuthu died on 04.06.2014, father of the 5th respondent, should be exhumed from Survey No.237/1A and to be buried in BC-burial ground namely, Survey No.238/4. 9. The petitioner prayed that the dead bodies of Samporanam died on 16.07.2013, mother of the 5th respondent and Palanimuthu died on 04.06.2014, father of the 5th respondent, should be exhumed from Survey No.237/1A and to be buried in BC-burial ground namely, Survey No.238/4. Apart from Sampoornam and Palanimuthu, there were 13 village people died due to sickness, over aged, they were buried only in Survey No.238/4 and the names are reflected in the Death Register also. Petitioner submitted that he is not aware whether the parents of the 5th respondent death, has been registered or not. 10. After hearing of the parties, this Court felt that an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed as it is persisting serious issue and no one should be allowed to use public path way to be converted into burial ground. The parties have agreed for appointment an Advocate Commissioner and accordingly this Court by an order dated 13.06.2014 has appointed Mr. Parthiban/Mr. Ilamvazhuthi as Advocate Commissioner and they were asked to inspect the property situated in Survey No.237/1A of Navakurichi Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District on 04.08.12013 at 8.00 a.m., as on that date, the obsequies were scheduled to be performed. 11. After inspection, the Advocate Commissioner filed a detailed report on 17.06.2014 along with sketch. The sum and substance of the report of the Advocate Commissioner is that, while inspecting the site along with other officials of the Government and after verifying the genuiness of the records, FMB Sketch and village map, he found that there are two burial grounds. The report also states that the 5th respondent belongs to ‘Oruli Gounder’ caste. There is no record permission of Panchayat to show that particular community should use vandi pathai as burial ground. The report confirms the so-called vandi pathai in Survey No.237/1A is a Government land used by public and vehicles are plying through the said road and adjacent to vandi-pathai, two dead bodies were buried. 12. The report further states that just 100 meters away, from the place where dead bodies were buried, there are Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Panchayat Union Office, Bank and Temple situated. Report further states that the dead bodies were buried only in ‘‘vandipathai’. The report further states that when there are modularized cremation grounds, using this land as burial ground will certainly cause health hazardous. Report further states that the dead bodies were buried only in ‘‘vandipathai’. The report further states that when there are modularized cremation grounds, using this land as burial ground will certainly cause health hazardous. It further states that opposite to the places where bodies are buried, survey Nos. 204, 205 and 237 are available and the said land is cultivation patta land. The commissioner also drawn his attention by the advocate of the 6th respondent that some skulls and bones of the dead bodies are available near by buried area. But the report says that it is only created for the purpose of this issue and it is not a genuine one. 13. The sum and substance of the report is that the place where two bodies are buried is not a burial ground and it has been done in vandi pathai. 14. Today, i.e., on 30.06.2014, the impleading petition came up, when the counsel mentioned that other villagers are wanted to be impleaded as party to the respondents, in this case. It was pointed out that while filing the impleading petition, counter should also be filed so as to enable the Court to decide the matter, as the arguments were advanced by all the parties in detail. Counter has been filed by the respondents and the writ petitioner submitted that they have no objection for the impleading petition being allowed. So, impleading petition was allowed today. 15. The 3rd respondent/Tahsildar has filed counter. He submitted that there are two separate burial grounds in the village for BC and SC and that the 5th respondent’s mother’s body was buried in the cart track poramboke in Survey No.237/1A. He further submitted that to an extent of 0.49.5 hectares is classified as vandipathai poramboke in Survey No.237/1A. The petitioner’s family and the 5th and 6th respondents’family are having enmity over local body elections. Writ petitioner owns a patta land in survey no.237/2 adjacent to cart track poramboke and a cart track is running from Navakurichi and Pattuthurai and nearly 350 families are using it, towards north one Kuttai and Odai like channel is situated. Inspite of the warning in 2013, the 5th respondent’s mother’s body was buried. There are two cases pending in connection with this. There are burial grounds already existing in Navakurichi village in Survey No. 238/4 to an extent of 0.38.5 hectares. Inspite of the warning in 2013, the 5th respondent’s mother’s body was buried. There are two cases pending in connection with this. There are burial grounds already existing in Navakurichi village in Survey No. 238/4 to an extent of 0.38.5 hectares. The 5th respondent’s mother was buried in the cart track, but not in the patta land of the petitioner. 5th respondent’s father died on 04.06.2014 and his body was also buried by the 5th respondent in the same vandi-pathi poramboke land despite several warnings. Yet another case has been registered by the police on 05.06.2014. 16. Tahsildar further submitted that two dead bodies were buried in violation of the rules for which two cases have been registered. Dead bodies have not to be buried in the patta land of the writ petitioner. Tahsildar also submitted that necessary instructions were given by the Revenue and Police to all classes of people to use the burial ground intended to their community. Police and Revenue officials are closely watching further events of burning (buried) of the dead bodies. 17. The 5th and 6th respondents have filed an objection to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The 6th respondent stated that the dead bodies were only buried far away from the vandi-pathai, on the southern side. There are plan annexed to the report. The Advocate Commissioner has submitted that dead bodies were not buried in the vandi-pathai. Except the caution board, laid by the revenue officials no other caution board is available. Commissioner report is biased one. The Advocate Commissioner has projected in his report as if entire extent 237/1A is vandi-pathai and same was not classified as a burial ground is excessive exercise of the advocate commissioner, which is not the direction issued by this Court. He further submitted that the advocate commissioner himself admitted that road width comes about 22 yards but from road to the place where the bodies were buried, comes about 57 yards. They stated that Advocate Commissioner report has to be rejected and prayed for advocate commissioner to re-inspect and submit a report with the plan by noting down the correct physical features measuring the extent of vandi pathai and burial ground situated in Survey No.237/1A. 18. They stated that Advocate Commissioner report has to be rejected and prayed for advocate commissioner to re-inspect and submit a report with the plan by noting down the correct physical features measuring the extent of vandi pathai and burial ground situated in Survey No.237/1A. 18. The impleading respondents 7 to 15 have filed their counter affidavit wherein they submitted that the petitioner’s husband is the President of the Panchayat, politically influenced in the area and he is trying to plot out petitioner’s land much against the wish of the entire village people. When he levelled the grave yard in order to plot the same, the impleading respondents have objected the same. It was further submitted that all the relatives of the petitioner and husband have been buried in the said grave yard. They further submitted that RDO issued proceedings dated 05.09.2013, directing the Tahsildar, Attur to measure the land bearing in Survey No.237/1A and sub divide the burial ground and vandi pathai separately. The total extent of Survey No.237/1A consists of 1.28 acres and vandi pathai rests within 20 cents and till today, no dead bodies have been buried in the said vandi pathai. 19. The counter affidavit of the respondents 7 to 16 proceeds that various communities mentioned in previous paragraphs were buried in survey no.237/1A, the Government Poramboke land as per custom and usage. According to them, more than 500 bodies were buried in the above said burial ground. They submitted that petitioner has suppressed the real fact that burial ground in Survey No.237/1A is in existence from time memorial and that writ petition is devoid of merits. The contention that dead bodies were buried in the cart track is totally in correct. 20. Heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and perused all the material documents including the report of the Advocate Commissioner. 21. The FM Sketch filed in the typed set of papers clearly states that there are two burial grounds, one for BC and one for SC in Survey Nos. 238/1/4 and 252/2/10 respectively as stated by the petitioner and Tahsildar. The details are mentioned in Page Nos. 26 and 28 of typed set of papers dated 02.08.2013 filed by the petitioner. The impleaded parties have filed certain documents to show that the area has been levelled. If really there were dead bodies, definitely, there would have been skeleton in that place. The details are mentioned in Page Nos. 26 and 28 of typed set of papers dated 02.08.2013 filed by the petitioner. The impleaded parties have filed certain documents to show that the area has been levelled. If really there were dead bodies, definitely, there would have been skeleton in that place. The contention of the respondents that more than 500 bodies have been buried and that it is used from time memorial cannot be accepted. In the ancient days, areas for burial/cremation were not demarcated like the present one on hand. After civilization, if a person dies, the villagers started to specify the area and bury or cremate the dead bodies. Even assuming for the sake of arguments the respondents are right, when two places have been earmarked for burial ground, using the survey no.237/1A and contending that it was used as burial ground cannot be accepted. It is true that it is the Government land, but when the Government has not given any permission to use that as burial ground, the same cannot be used as burial ground. Even though the Advocate Commissioner’s report says that dead bodies have been buried in the vandi pathai, definitely dead bodies were buried adjacent to vandi pathai and to the adjacent plot is Survey No.237/3 (belonging to the petitioner). When there are Hospitals, Temples, Bank and other public places in and around that area, using poramboke land without permission of the Government as the burial ground by the respondents is not appropriate. It is true that parties have made representation to RDO and others that burial ground should be earmarked, it does not mean that burial ground is already in existence. The burial ground exists only in two places as mentioned at FMB sketch page nos. 25 and 26 typed set of papers. 22. This issue of burying the dead bodies on the cart track, made me to recollect a well-known Tamil song- “Samarasam ulavum idame, namvaalvil kaanaa, .... Jaathiyilmelor endrum, thaaznthavartheeyor endrum bethamillathu, .... Aandiyenge, arasanum yenge, aringyanyenge, asadanum yenge, ....” .... aavi ponapin kooduvaar inge......” ....yellorum inge ondraay uranguvadhinaale....” It has a great philosophy, conveying ultimate truth about the grave yard that- “once we die, we are all the same!, does not matter how and what we lived!! and in this world, this is the place where equality prevalent and where, a begger finally comes! and a king finally comes!!. aavi ponapin kooduvaar inge......” ....yellorum inge ondraay uranguvadhinaale....” It has a great philosophy, conveying ultimate truth about the grave yard that- “once we die, we are all the same!, does not matter how and what we lived!! and in this world, this is the place where equality prevalent and where, a begger finally comes! and a king finally comes!!. This issue also made to recollect an Article which I read about the Great China Wall, which known as “the longest cemetery in the world” which also described as “Wall of death” since thousand of labourers who died while constructing the Wall, were buried under the sections of the Great Wall. 23. Even though there are many different religions in our country, but everyone realized the truth that the burial ground is the only place where there is no caste or religion atleast for dead bodies. However, it is very unfortunate and deplorable to note that the parties in this Writ Petition have not made the dead bodies to lie in rest. As could be seen from the report of the Advocate-Commissioner and the FMB sketch appended, it appears that the dead bodies have been buried just adjacent to vandi pathai and the said place was not ment for burial ground. As long as the area is demarcated as burial ground as contended by the respondents 5 and 6 and the impleading respondents, they cannot use that place as burial ground. The rivalry between two persons and their two families, made the situation bad to worst and in that process, the poor villagers are made to suffer. Unless the citizens of this country, more particularly, the villagers realise that they have to abide by the Laws and legal norms prescribed by the Government, the Society/country will not be in peace, but will be in peril. 24. I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances which were established by the Report of the Advocate-Commissioner that beside the cart-track (vandipathai), the dead bodies have been buried, which was not actually ment for it and in view of the existence of hospitals, temple and bank, etc. in and around the area where the dead bodies were buried, I am constrained to allow this Writ Petition as prayed for. in and around the area where the dead bodies were buried, I am constrained to allow this Writ Petition as prayed for. Though the Government Officials have got better work to do, but because of the act of the 5th respondent, the said officials, viz., Collector, Tahsildar and Police have to be directed to be at the spot, who have to necessarily direct their subordinates to exhume bodies from where they were buried to the burial ground of the community to which the 5th respondent belongs. 25. According, this Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps to exhume the dead bodies from the place where they were buried and shift them to the burial ground of the community to which the 5th respondent belongs. The respondents 1 to 4 are at liberty to take requisite police protection from the concerned police who shall assist the said task and see that no law and order problem should arise. The respondents 1 to 4 are also permitted to record the task by way of video-graph. The said exercise shall be completed within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The cost incurred by the Government will have to be ascertained and shall be recovered from the 5th and 6th respondents. The Advocate commissioner is entitled to additional remuneration of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only). The total amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) to the advocate commissioner shall be borne by the 5th and 6th respondents and they are directed to reimburse Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the writ petitioner which was already paid to him. The remaining amount of Rs.15,000/-shall be paid to the advocate commissioner by way of Demand Draft, by the 5th and 6th respondents. Since the Government Officials are taken for a ride by the 5th and 6th respondents, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/-shall be paid by the 5th and 6th respondents towards cost to the burial ground of the 5th respondent community. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition M.P. No. 1 of 2013 is closed. No costs. Petition allowed.