ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner’s representation, dated 14.8.2009 and remainder dated 27.1.2020 within the time frame fixed by this Court and consequently to direct the respondents to exhume the burried dead body buried in S.No.29/1B in Nangaimozhi Village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Tuticorin District and bury it in the burial ground. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. On a perusal of the representation submitted by the Petitioner reveal that a dead body was burried near the Petitioner’s house instead of the place meant for burial. Even according to the Petitioner, the dead body was burried in the year 2009. After a period of 16 yeas, the representation submitted by the Petitioner to exhume the body to burry in the burial ground cannot be considered, since there should not be any corpse of the dead body. 4. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that in the year 20-09, there was heavy rain and as such, the entire burial ground was filled up with water. Therefore one of the dead body was burried in the Government Poramboke land situated adjacent to the Petitioner’s house. Now there should not be any burial except in the burial ground. 5. This Court, dealt with the similar matter in the Principal Bench and the relevant portion of the order reads as under: 6. Admittedly the petitioners own their patta lands adjacent to the subject property. They constructed their respective houses and are residing there. That apart, in the subject property, there is a Muniappan temple and a drinking water well for the villagers. The subject land is admeasuring 0.30.0 hectares (75 cents) and it is classified as Government poramboke-well. During covid pandemic circumstances, some bodies were buried in the subject property. It was not objected by the villagers due to lockdown. Further, there is no record to show that the subject land has been used as burial ground for the past. Even as per the report of the District Revenue Officer of Salem, in the subject land, there is a Muniappan temple and it is classified as Government poramboke-well.On the request made by the SC Arunthathiyar community people, part of the subject land was reclassified as burial ground to an extent of 0.12.0 hectares. Even as per the report of the District Revenue Officer of Salem, in the subject land, there is a Muniappan temple and it is classified as Government poramboke-well.On the request made by the SC Arunthathiyar community people, part of the subject land was reclassified as burial ground to an extent of 0.12.0 hectares. In fact, the petitioners submitted representation to take appropriate action for illegal burial in the subject land as early as on 23.01.2023. It was duly received by the respondents. There was no action and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition in WP.No.3340 of 2024. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is 13/22 that the subject land is never used for burial ground and it is not licensed to bury the body as contemplated under Rules 5 & 7 of Tamilnadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules,1999. It is relevant to extract the same hereunder: 5. Conditions for opening of burial and burning ground. (1) No new place for burying or burning the dead, whether private or public, shall be opened, formed, constructed or used,unless a licence has been obtained from the Village Panchayat on application. (2) Such application for a licence shall be accompanied by the plan of the place for which licence is required showing the locality, boundary and extent thereof, the name of the owner or person or community interested therein, the system ofmanagement and such further particulars as the Village Panchayat may require. (3) The Village Panchayat to which an application is made may- (a) grant or, if there is valid reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant a licence, or (b) postpone the grant of a licence until the objection, if any to the site has been cleared or any particulars called for by it have been furnished. (4) The Assistant Director (Panchayats) may cancel or modify any order passed by a Panchayat under sub-rule (3): Provided that no order either on application or suo motu prejudicial to the appellant shall be passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant under this sub-rule or sub-rule (3)". 7. Place for burial and burning grounds. (4) The Assistant Director (Panchayats) may cancel or modify any order passed by a Panchayat under sub-rule (3): Provided that no order either on application or suo motu prejudicial to the appellant shall be passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant under this sub-rule or sub-rule (3)". 7. Place for burial and burning grounds. (1) No person shall bury or burn or cause to be buried or burnt any corpse in any place within ninety metres of a dwelling place or source of drinking water-supply other than a place licenced as a burial and burning ground. (2) The person having control of a place for burying or burning the dead shall give information of every burial or burning of a corpse at such a place to any officer appointed by the Village Panchayat for this purpose. (3) If a Village Panchayat is satisfied- (a) that any registered or licenced place burying or burning of the dead is in such a state or situation as to be or likely to become dangerous to the health of persons living in theneighbor-hood thereof; or (b) that any burial ground is overcrowded with graves, and if in the case of a public burial or burning ground, another convenient place duly authorised for burying or burning of the dead exists or has been provided for the persons who would ordinarily make use of such place, it may with the previous sanction of the Assistant Director (Panchayats) give notice that it shall be not lawful after the expiry of a period of not less than two months to be specified such notice to bury or burn any corpse at such place. (4) Every notice given under sub-rule (3) shall be published by affixture to the notice board of the VillagePanchayat and by beat of drum in the village. (5) No person shall in contravention of any notice under sub-rule (3) and after expiration of the period specified in such notice bury or burn or cause or permit to be buried or burnt any corpse at such place. (6) The Inspector may cancel or modify any notice issued by a Village Panchayat under sub-rule (3). (5) No person shall in contravention of any notice under sub-rule (3) and after expiration of the period specified in such notice bury or burn or cause or permit to be buried or burnt any corpse at such place. (6) The Inspector may cancel or modify any notice issued by a Village Panchayat under sub-rule (3). (7) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of these Rules shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or in case of a continuing breach, with fine not exceeding fifteen rupees for every day during which the breach continues after conviction of the first breach : Provided that no prosecution shall be instituted for contravening the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 without the written sanction of the Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat,concerned". Thus, it is clear that the licence should have been obtained from the Village Panchayat for earmarking the place of burial ground. 7. After filing the writ petition, the sixth respondent on 15.03.2024, informed to the fifth respondent as the subject land has beentaken and used for burial ground as per the Rules. The fourth respondent by its communication dated 15.03.2024 made request to reclassify the subject land as burial ground as directed by this Court and to submit report on or before 21.03.2024. As stated supra, this Court never directed the respondents to reclassify the subject land as burial ground. This Court directed the respondents to file counter. In order to justify the subject lands' usage as burial ground, after filing the writ petition, the respondents reclassified the land as burial ground. On perusal of the communication dated 15.03.2024 on the file of the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent requested to classify the subject land as burial ground as directed by this Court. On perusal of the order dated 15.06.2024 on the file of the first respondent, revealed that on receipt of the request made by the fourth respondent, it was notified calling for objections in the village on 05.03.2024. However, there was no objections from the villagers for reclassification of the land as burial ground. On perusal of the order dated 15.06.2024 on the file of the first respondent, revealed that on receipt of the request made by the fourth respondent, it was notified calling for objections in the village on 05.03.2024. However, there was no objections from the villagers for reclassification of the land as burial ground. Further, the subject land is valued at Rs.5 lakhs per acre, in which 0.12.00 hectares (30 cents) land valued as Rs.1,50,000/- and reclassifed as burial ground.Even assuming that the first respondent has power to reclassify the land irrespective the Board Standing Orders, when the detailed objections raised by the petitioner dated 23.01.2023 and subsequent representation dated 02.01.2024 are very much pending on the file of the first respondent, the first respondent cannot say there were no objections from the villagers. That apart, the objections were called for on 05.03.2024 but the fifth respondent made request only on 15.03.2024 for reclassification of the subject land as burial ground. Therefore, it is sorry state of affairs that the first respondent mechanically signed the order prepared by its officers without application of mind. When the request was made on 15.03.2024, the first respondent could not have called for objections fromthe villagers on 05.03.2024. 8. Further, there is no whisper about the objections called for from the villagers in the reference of the order dated 15.06.2024. In order to satisfy this Court, in a haste and hurried manner, the order impugned has been passed by the first respondent. On this sole ground, the order impugned cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2024 of the first respondent is quashed. The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 and after giving opportunity of hearing, to pass fresh orders on the objections raised by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, no one is permitted to bury the bodies in the subject land i.e. to an extent of 0.12.00 hectares (30 cents) comprised in survey No.78/9 situated at Mallikundam Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. It is made clear that all the villagers of Mallikundam (irrespective of communities) are permitted to bury the bodies in the existing burial ground comprised in survey Nos.35/1, 35/3 & 35/4 situated at Mallikkundam Village. It is made clear that all the villagers of Mallikundam (irrespective of communities) are permitted to bury the bodies in the existing burial ground comprised in survey Nos.35/1, 35/3 & 35/4 situated at Mallikkundam Village. If anybody objects to bury the bodies in the existing burial ground, the jurisdictional police is directed to take appropriate action as against the objectors in the manner known to law. 5. In view of the above, the representation submitted by the Petitioner cannot be considered and as such, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the respondents are directed not to permit any body to burry the dead body except in the burial ground which is permitted by the Panchayat/5 th respondent.