JUDGMENT : The following are the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition: “a. Quash Ext.P5 by the issue of writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction; and b. Direct the District Collector to re-consider the matter afresh and hear all the affected parties as directed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.3069/2016 including the 1st petitioner by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.” 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 3. Petitioners are residents of Elavally Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioners, in the year 1968, 1st respondent obtained a licence for operating a cemetery in a property situated in Re-survey No.71/1-C of Elavally Village in Ward No.VII of Elavally Grama Panchayat, i.e., the 2nd respondent. The property in which the licence to operate the cemetery was situated at a height of more than 100 feet from the road level, as it was on the top of a small hillock. When the licence was granted, the residents of the locality including the petitioners herein, had no objection whatsoever, as it would not have affected them in any manner. Though such a licence was issued in the year 1968, the cemetery was not established and made operational because of some disputes that existed between the devotees of the Church. Anyhow, they decided to establish and operate the cemetery based on the licence issued in the year 1968, and as part of that effort, they have removed the soil from the property reducing the height of the property to an extent of 80 feet, to make it par with the road level. On removal of the soil from the property thereby reducing the height of the property, the soil has become very loose, and if burial is conducted in that property, there will be seepage, and accordingly, contaminate the water sources which situate about 100 metres from the property. 4. So, petitioners and the residents of that area objected to the activities of the 1st respondent and have approached the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad, by filing O.S.No.2988 of 2015. Even though initially an injunction was granted, the injunction was vacated and the move to establish and operate the cemetery was started again. 4. So, petitioners and the residents of that area objected to the activities of the 1st respondent and have approached the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad, by filing O.S.No.2988 of 2015. Even though initially an injunction was granted, the injunction was vacated and the move to establish and operate the cemetery was started again. Thereupon, petitioners and others approached the District Collector and the District Collector has passed an order on 11.02.2016, directing the 1st respondent to approach the Panchayat and obtain a new licence, though the licence was granted in the year 1968, and since the cemetery was not made operational till 2016. The 1st respondent thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3069 of 2016, challenging the proceedings of the District Collector. The 2nd petitioner was a respondent therein. In the meanwhile, 1st respondent also filed a petition before the District Collector. This Court directed the District Collector to take a fresh decision after hearing the parties, based on which, the Additional District Magistrate conducted a hearing on 15.07.2016, wherein the 1st petitioner was given a notice and was heard. In that hearing, the Panchayat Secretary requested the District Collector to adjourn the hearing, seeking time for the Panchayat to consider the matter afresh. The 2nd petitioner also sought time to produce documents in support of his contention and requested the District Magistrate to provide another opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned. 5. Though the petitioners have approached the District Collector several times thereafter, requesting him to take appropriate action in the matter, nothing was heard from the side of the District Collector, and ultimately an order was passed on 18.11.2017, permitting the 1st respondent to operate the cemetery as permitted in Ext.P1, ignoring the contention of the petitioners that the nature and lie of the property was changed after 1968, which will cause serious prejudice to the environment and will cause health hazards to the residents of the locality. It is also pointed out that, from the order, it is evident that the Panchayat has informed the District Collector that it has no objection in the 1st respondent operating the cemetery by constructing a concrete vault. It is very clear that the decision was taken by the Panchayat taking into account the change of nature and lie of the property that was made by the 1st respondent after 1968. It is very clear that the decision was taken by the Panchayat taking into account the change of nature and lie of the property that was made by the 1st respondent after 1968. But the District Collector ignored the suggestion of the Panchayat and has passed the order on 18.11.2017, permitting the 1st respondent to operate the cemetery as per Ext.P1 licence issued in the year 1968. According to the petitioners, Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector is in violation of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998. Therefore, the petitioners seek to quash the same. 6. The 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. The earlier round of litigation before this Court, application submitted before the District Collector are all admitted. Among other contentions, it is stated that, as per Ext.P1, 1st respondent was issued with a licence for the opening and maintenance of a burial and burning ground in the property in question. The paper publication carried out by the District Collector on 10.07.1968, in compliance of the provisions of the Rules, 1967, is produced as Ext.R1(a). Exhibits R1(b) and R1(c) are photographs showing the nature and lie of the property in question. 7. It is submitted, Ext.P1 licence was issued in absolute compliance of the provisions of 1967 Rules. Be that as it may, the State Government has promulgated the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998. However, as per Rule 4(1) of Rules, 1998, a cemetery which is existing at the commencement of these rules and registered or deemed to have been registered under the Kerala Panchayat (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967 shall be deemed to have been registered under the Rules, 1998. As per Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 1998, if any dispute arises as to whether a cemetery is in existence at the commencement of the Rules, 1998 and deemed to have been registered under the Rules, 1967, the same shall be subject to the decision of the District Collector concerned, which shall be final. Thus, according to the 1st respondent, as per Rule 4(1), the cemetery covered by Ext.P1 is deemed to have been registered under the Rules, 1998, by virtue of Ext.P1 licence issued under the Rules, 1967. 8. While so, complaints were filed before the District Collector regarding the operation of cemetery. Thus, according to the 1st respondent, as per Rule 4(1), the cemetery covered by Ext.P1 is deemed to have been registered under the Rules, 1998, by virtue of Ext.P1 licence issued under the Rules, 1967. 8. While so, complaints were filed before the District Collector regarding the operation of cemetery. The District Collector called for the report of the Tahsildar and as per Ext.R1(d) report dated 15.12.2015, 3rd respondent reported that the cemetery is well within the defined boundaries and there are no dwelling houses nearby. However, by Ext.P4 order, the District Collector, directed the 1st respondent not to cremate any corpse till a final decision is arrived at in W.P.(C) No.3069 of 2016 and O.S.No.2988 of 2015 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad, filed by the 2nd writ petitioner herein for a permanent prohibitory injunction. Even though an injunction was granted, the same was vacated as per Ext.R1(e) order dated 17.12.2015. Other contentions are also raised with respect to certain suppressions made by the petitioner in the suit proceedings. 9. Anyhow, despite Ext.P1 licence and Ext.R1(e) order, when the 2nd petitioner tried to obstruct the use of the property as a cemetery, 1st respondent along with the other authorities of the church have filed W.P.(C) No.3069 of 2016, and by Ext.R1(f) judgment dated 29.02.2016, this Court directed the 5th respondent to consider the nature of the issue and take a decision after hearing the parties concerned. Accordingly, a hearing was conducted and the District Collector has finally passed Ext.P5 order, specifically finding that Ext.P1 licence is still in force, and permission is granted to the 1st respondent to use the property as a burial ground. 10. Accordingly, when the church authorities made arrangements for cremation of a person who died on 18.12.2017, the 2nd petitioner again made issues which was widely broadcasted by the media, and newspaper reports appeared in three vernacular dailies are produced as Exts.R1(g) to R1(i) respectively. The 1st respondent also made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, produced as Ext.R1(j). True photographs showing the burial ground is produced as Ext.R1(k). Therefore, according to the respondent, Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector is in order and in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1998. 11. The 1st respondent also made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, produced as Ext.R1(j). True photographs showing the burial ground is produced as Ext.R1(k). Therefore, according to the respondent, Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector is in order and in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1998. 11. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, virtually justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P5 order, and also stating that, though the licence was issued in the year, 1968 and the cemetery was not established and made operational till date, has no relevance at all, because as they have already got licence, and whether anybody is cremated or not in that ground is immaterial as licence granted is in existence as far as the issuing authority has not revoked it till date. 12. Petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition, and contending that there is no registration secured by the 1st respondent for burial of the body as per Rules, 1998. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader, and the respective Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board and the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 14. The short question to be considered is, whether Ext.P1 licence secured by the 1st respondent in the year 1968 is sufficient enough to conduct cremation in the burial ground in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, since no burial has taken place in the burial ground in accordance with Ext.P1 licence issued, without securing a registration as per the Rules, 1998, no burial can be conducted in the burial ground in question. 15. The Rules, 1998 is introduced as per the powers conferred under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and as per Rule 4, certain cemeteries to be deemed registered and to undertake and register or close ownerless cemeteries, which read thus: “4. 15. The Rules, 1998 is introduced as per the powers conferred under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and as per Rule 4, certain cemeteries to be deemed registered and to undertake and register or close ownerless cemeteries, which read thus: “4. Certain cemeteries to be deemed registered and to undertake and register or close owner-less cemeteries.--(1) The cemeteries existing at the commencement of these rules and registered or deemed to have been registered under the Kerala Panchayat (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967 shall be deemed to have been registered under these rules. (2) If any dispute arises as to whether a cemetery is in existence at the commencement of these rules and deemed to have been registered under the Kerala Panchayat (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967, the same shall be subject to the decision of the concerned District Collector and the decision thereon shall be final. (3) Where it appears to the Panchayat that there is no owner or person having control of any existing place used for burial, burning or otherwise disposing of the dead, the Panchayat shall assume such control and register such place, or may, with the sanction of the District Collector, close down it. (4) xxxxxxxxxxxx 16. Rule 5 deals with the distance to be maintained by the burial and burning ground from a residential building, which is fixed as 50 metres in respect of the burial and burning grounds and 25 metres in respect of concrete cemeteries and electric and petroleum gas crematoriums. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 makes it clear that, whether there is any burial and burning place or not within the specified limit from the dwelling house is to be determined by considering the circumstance on the date of application for licence. Rule 6 stipulates that, no new burial or burning ground, whether public or private shall be opened, constructed or used without a licence from the concerned District Collector. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, there is no proof or evidence to show that any burial has taken place after the issuance of Ext.P1 licence dated 13.12.1968. Therefore, the 1st respondent has to take a licence and get it registered in accordance with the Rules, 1998. 17. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, there is no proof or evidence to show that any burial has taken place after the issuance of Ext.P1 licence dated 13.12.1968. Therefore, the 1st respondent has to take a licence and get it registered in accordance with the Rules, 1998. 17. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that, the issue with respect to Ext.P1 licence is squarely covered under Rule 4 specified above, and since the cemetery was in existence in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967, it shall be deemed to have been registered. This question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in 'Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala' [ 2003 (2) KLT 286 ], and held as follows in paragraph 6: “6. The learned Government Pleader filed a memo with the report obtained from the District Medical Officer of Health. It is in evidence that respondents 6 to 7 are constructing a cemetery. The medical officer has visited the place and filed the above report which says that the respondents have already made a pit of 4.4 metres length, 2.75 metres width and 3 1/2 metres depth recently towards the middle of the six cents of property. The above pit was separated with three cross walls forming four separate cells and the pit was made of cement bricks plastered with cement concrete. There are eight concrete slabs thus made and the cells are covered with it. The report of the medical officer shows that from public health point of view, the above site is not suitable for burial ground and that any development or extension of the burial ground should be done only with the permission of the authorities concerned. The report of the environmental engineer of the State Pollution Control Board also was produced by the standing counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The engineer also visited the place and reported that a pit was constructed with four compartments, each of about 3.5 metres depth and 75 centimeters width and 2 metres length and the compartments had their walls plastered, but the bottom was open and concrete slabs were made for covering the top. The engineer also visited the place and reported that a pit was constructed with four compartments, each of about 3.5 metres depth and 75 centimeters width and 2 metres length and the compartments had their walls plastered, but the bottom was open and concrete slabs were made for covering the top. The petitioner's house was nearly 40 metres away from the above site and within the 100 metres of radius there were some other houses. The area was hilly with steep slopes. It was further noticed that being a rocky area, the depth of the soil was between one metre to two metres and if burial of dead bodies are done in the proposed site, there is chance of seepage and consequent pollution of water in the well. In view of the report of the Health Officer and the Engineer of the Pollution Control Board, the municipality has to examine whether such a cemetery can be allowed to be constructed in that hilly area, which was likely to cause pollution to the water in the nearby wells. Being an old graveyard, it is true that a licence may not be required for using that place as a burial ground as it was used. But in the nature of the new constructions made by respondents 6 and 7, it is for the concerned municipality to ascertain whether the use of the above burial ground in the manner in which the respondents have now proposed to use would affect the health of the inhabitants by polluting the water. That is a matter which the municipality will have to consider and make suitable directions for avoiding the pollution. What steps the municipality has to take is a matter for them to decide in consultation with the concerned experts. Hence, the construction of the cemetery as proposed will have to be regulated by the municipality. Regarding the use of that area as a graveyard or a burial ground, licence from the municipality is not necessary and respondents 6 to 7 are entitled to use that area as a burial ground. But the manner in which the area has to be used should be as per the directions of the municipal authorities and it should not create any problems to the health of the nearby inhabitants by polluting the underground water. But the manner in which the area has to be used should be as per the directions of the municipal authorities and it should not create any problems to the health of the nearby inhabitants by polluting the underground water. However, it was held thereunder that, it has to secure a registration as per Sec.483 of the Municipality Act, 1994. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in 'Kelu Nambiar v. Narayani Amma' [ 1974 KLT 483 ], had occasion to consider the deeming nature of Rule 4 of 1967 and held as follows in paragraphs 3 and 4. “3. If we go by the ordinary meaning that is attributable to the words "burial or burning grounds" there is nothing which necessitates burial or burning grounds being limited in its application only to public burial or burning grounds. The words normally must take within their ambit both public and private burial and burning grounds. S.129(2)(xxv) of the Act no doubt refers to burial and burning grounds and the licensing of private burial and burning grounds apart from other matters which are not material for our purpose. But we would emphasize the word "provision" occurring before "of burial and burning grounds" and "licensing of private" occurring before "burial and burning grounds" in order to understand why the word "private" is used before "burial and burning grounds" occurring a second time in clause (xxv) of sub-s. (2) of S.129 of the Act. The Rules, in consonance with what is envisaged by this clause of subsection (2) of S.129 have enacted that "provision" can be made by the Panchayat, to be exact, the Panchayat shall make provision when there is no sufficient provision in existence for burial or burning grounds. This is seen from R.3. For that purpose under sub-rule (2) of R.3 the Panchayat has to seek permission of the Collector. For making provision under that rule it appears to us that no licensing is necessary though we notice that R.6(1) states that "no new place for the disposal of the dead, whether private or public, shall be opened, formed, constructed or used unless a licence has been obtained from the Collector in this behalf". The new place for which a licence is required under R.6(1), we consider is different from the burial or burning grounds to be provided by the Panchayat under R.3(1). The new place for which a licence is required under R.6(1), we consider is different from the burial or burning grounds to be provided by the Panchayat under R.3(1). R.7 makes a clean distinction between burial and burning grounds "provided", registered or licensed. We have already referred to R.3 and 6 which provide respectively for provision and for licensing. The registration in certain cases is deemed under R.4 and is required by R.7. We shall read both these rules in extenso: "4. Existing burial and burning grounds to be deemed registered. (1) The burial or burning grounds existing at the commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been registered under these rules. (2) If any dispute arises as to whether a burial or burning ground is in existence at the commencement of these rules, such dispute shall be referred to the Collector, whose decision thereon shall be final. (3) If it appears to the Panchayat that there is no owner or person having the control of any existing burial or burning ground the Panchayat shall assume such control and register such place, or with the permission of the Collector, close it". "7. Registration of burial and burning grounds (1) A book shall be kept at the office of every Panchayat in which places provided, registered or licensed under R.3, 4 and 6 and all such places provided, registered or licensed before the commencement of these rules, shall be recorded. (2) A notice in English and in the principal regional language of the Panchayat area to the effect that a place has been registered under sub-rule (1) shall be affixed at some conspicuous place at or near the entrance of the burial or burning ground for which the place is used. (3) The book referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be periodically inspected by the Officer or Officers authorised to inspect and superintend end the affairs of the Panchayat under the Act. 4. If burial or burning grounds can take within its ambit, private burial or burning grounds as well, the burial and burning grounds scheduled to the plaint must by virtue of R.4(1) be deemed to have been registered under the Rules. 4. If burial or burning grounds can take within its ambit, private burial or burning grounds as well, the burial and burning grounds scheduled to the plaint must by virtue of R.4(1) be deemed to have been registered under the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of R.4 gives an indication that the burial or burning grounds referred to in sub-rule (1) need not necessarily be public burial or burning grounds alone for it refers to an owner or person having any control of any existing burial or burning grounds. Further when the rules contemplate the licensing of private burial and burning grounds by the Collector as they do of permission being granted by the Collector to the Panchayats for establishing the burial and burning grounds, it appears difficult to limit the ambit of R.4 as applicable only to one class of burial and burning grounds. In other words, we find no justification whatever for denying the benefit of the deeming provision in R.4 to private burial and burning grounds that had been in existence at the commencement of the Act. R.10 which deals with “closing of burial or burning grounds” uses the expression “any burial ground except private burial ground”. This gives a clear indication that burial ground will take in not only public burial ground but private burial ground as well. As we indicated at the very beginning, burial and burning grounds must comprehend both types of burial and burning grounds, private and public. The nature of the use and purposes are the same and there ought to be no classification based on the ownership or the limited use to which the ground is put in the case of private burial and burning grounds. With respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal. It appears to us with great respect that a far too restricted meaning had been given and attributed to the words “burial and burning grounds” by the learned Judge. From all the other findings entered by the learned Judge in confirmation of the findings entered by the District Judge, it has to be held that the plaint burial or burning grounds must be treated as one registered under R.4 of the Rules. We hold so. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and restore the decree for injunction passed by the District Judge. We hold so. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and restore the decree for injunction passed by the District Judge. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this appeal.” 19. Yet again, a learned Single Judge had occasion to consider the issue in 'Komalavally Amma v. President, Kerala Brahmana Sabha' [1987 (2) KLT SN 50 (C.No.72)] and taking into account the provisions of the Municipality Act, 1960, held as follows: “Looking at the statutory scheme as a whole, the legislative object is that at any given point of time, the Municipal authorities can find out, with reference to its records, the details of the places used within its limits, for disposal of dead bodies, so that appropriate instructions can be given or steps taken for putting an end to nuisance, if there be, and for preserving the health and welfare of people living nearby. The requirement of registration is not so much to prohibit or prevent the disposal of dead bodies in its absence, as to regulate the control of the place used for the purpose. The circumstance that the Municipality failed in the performance of its duties under S.323 in maintaining a register, or that it has not been strictly enforcing S.320(1), will not be a reason enough for this Court to interfere under Art.226 of the Constitution and declare that until the Municipality performs such functions, the Community represented by the 1st respondent shall not have any place for disposal of the dead bodies within the Municipality. The provisions of the statute are designed to serve some purpose, and not to create impossible situations for a section of the people living within its limits.” 20. Later, a Division Bench of this Court in 'Sree Venketeswara Seva Sangham v. Antony' [ 2015 (1) KLT 629 ], after an elaborate survey of Rules, 1998, and taking into account all the earlier judgments, has considered the question and held as follows in paragraphs 23 to 25: “23. The Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal and restored the decree of District Judge treating the burial and burning ground as having deemed registration. The said judgment fully support the case of the appellant. Another judgment of a learned Single Judge which has been relied by learned counsel for the appellant is Komalavally Amma v. President, Kerala Brahmana Sabha (1987 (2) SN 50 (C.No.72) in which following was stated: [Already extracted above]. The said judgment fully support the case of the appellant. Another judgment of a learned Single Judge which has been relied by learned counsel for the appellant is Komalavally Amma v. President, Kerala Brahmana Sabha (1987 (2) SN 50 (C.No.72) in which following was stated: [Already extracted above]. 24. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have placed reliance on Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala ( 2003 (2) KLT 286 ). The learned Single Judge had occasion to consider Section 483 of the Municipality Act, 1994. The learned Single Judge has interpreted Section 483 of the Act to the effect that even if the burial ground was in existence prior to the coming into force of the Act, registration is required. Section 483 provides that “where such place is not already registered”, which clearly means registered or deemed to be registered. The burning or burial ground, which shall be deemed to be registered, has also to be treated as registered. Hence there shall be no requirement of S.483 nor the requirement of taking any fresh license in the facts of present case. The above view of learned Single Judge cannot be followed. We are thus of the considered opinion that Survey No.219/2, recorded in the settlement register as cremation ground, was the burial and burning ground in existence prior to enforcement of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 and The Kerala Panchayats (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967. By virtue of R.4(1) of the 1967 Rules, the burial ground shall be deemed to be registered and the mere fact that the municipal authorities have not entered in their register, shall not act to the prejudice of the appellants. The building permit which was granted to 7th respondent was a permission only to construct a chimney. Permission to construct a chimney for an existing crematorium is not grant of license by Corporation for a burial or burning ground so as to make applicable the distance rule as contained in 1994 Act. The view of the learned Single Judge that respondent/appellants have to make an application for grant of fresh license under the Municipality Act, 1994 is unwarranted and unnecessary. Under the 1994 Act registration is necessary for a new burial and burning ground, cremation ground which is running for last more than 100 years cannot be asked to make an application for grant of license. Under the 1994 Act registration is necessary for a new burial and burning ground, cremation ground which is running for last more than 100 years cannot be asked to make an application for grant of license. We thus conclude that learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the building permit Ext.P4, which was only permission to construct a 30 meter chimney in an existing burial ground. The construction of chimney in an existing burial ground was for the purpose that by burning of dead bodies no pollution is caused in the area. The learned Single Judge erred in not accepting the property as being deemed registered as burning and burial ground for the reasons as noted above. 25. The existing burial and burning ground is on a different footing from new burial and burning grounds. We, however, observe that if a burial and burning ground creates unabated pollution and nuisance, the authorities are not powerless to take action in that regard. In the present case the Kerala Pollution Control Board has already issued its consent after which the building permit was granted.” 21. The Division Bench has also held that, once it is proved that a burial ground was in existence while introducing the Rules, 1998, it is deemed to be registered, and therefore, it was held that the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in 'Anil Kumar' (supra), holding that, even under the said circumstances, registration under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 is required, is not a correct proposition of law. Moreover, in 'Sree Venketeswara Seva Sangham' (supra), it is held in unequivocal terms that it is recorded in the settlement register as cremation grounds was the burial and burning ground in existence prior to enforcement of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 and the Panchayat (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967. And further, by virtue of Rule 4(1) of the Act, 1967, the burial ground shall be deemed to be registered and the mere fact that the Municipal authorities have not entered in their register, shall not act to the prejudice of the appellants. 22. Now, coming to the case at hand, it is evident that, Ext.P1 licence is issued by the District Collector in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967, as per his order dated 13.12.1968. 22. Now, coming to the case at hand, it is evident that, Ext.P1 licence is issued by the District Collector in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967, as per his order dated 13.12.1968. Therefore, whether there was burial conducted or not, the burning ground is deemed to be registered in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1998. That is exactly the law laid down by this Court in its various judgments referred to supra. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the contention raised by the petitioners that registration is mandatory, if there is no proof to hold that cremation was conducted, cannot be sustained under law. 23. This is exactly the legal position considered by the Division Bench in 'Sree Venketeswara Seva Sangham' (supra), and held that once there is proof that there is a burial and burning ground in existence, prior to the introduction of Panchayat Act, 1960, it will have to be deemed to be in existence and deemed to be registered also. So also, the terminology “deeming” was considered elaborately, taking into account the judgment rendered by the apex court in 'Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. State of Rajasthan and others' [ (1996) 2 SCC 449 ] and 'State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram' [ (2013) 4 SCC 280 ], wherein, it is held that, what is deemed by legislature are existence of facts and what follows from the deemed fact is also to be deemed and that the legislature is competent to create a legal fiction for the purpose of assuming the existence of a fact which does not really exist. Therefore, by virtue of Ext.P1, various legal and factual aspects are to be deemed to be in existence including the registration. 24. Taking into account all these aspects and reckoning the law, I am of the considered opinion that, Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector is perfectly in accordance with law, and the legal principles laid down by this Court as well as the apex court in the judgments quoted above. Therefore, I do not find any arbitrariness, illegality or other legal infirmities, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.