Case Note & Summary
The judgment involved three intra-court appeals concerning the classification and use of land in S.No.621/3 and S.No.628/8 in Erode District, which were classified as 'Government Poromboke - Cart Track'. The appellants contested a common order from a Single Judge that allowed the use of the land as a burial ground based on customary rights claimed by local residents, including members of the Arunthathiyar community. The appeals were filed against the order that directed the District Collector to ensure the land was properly classified and maintained as a burial ground. The court noted that the land had been used for burials for over seventy years, despite its classification, and that a report from the District Collector supported this claim. However, the court emphasized that the existence of a customary right was a disputed fact that required evidence and should be adjudicated in a civil court. The court dismissed the appeals but clarified that the directions from the Single Judge would not be enforced further, allowing the parties to seek appropriate relief in civil court. The court maintained that the status quo should be preserved until the civil court made a determination, and any administrative actions by the District Collector regarding land classification should not prejudice the parties' claims (Paras 1-24).
Headnote
A) Land Law - Customary Rights - Disputed Use of Land - Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, Sections 172, 173 - The court found that the existence of a customary right to use the land for burial was a disputed question of fact that should be resolved in a civil court rather than through writ proceedings. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge were deemed inappropriate as they pre-empted the civil court's jurisdiction (Paras 15-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lands in S.No.621/3 and S.No.628/8 were used as a burial ground by custom and long usage despite their classification as a cart track.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ appeals but clarified that the directions from the learned Single Judge would not be enforced further. The parties were allowed to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs regarding the character of the land and their rights over it within eight weeks. The status quo was to be maintained until the civil court made a determination.
Law Points
- customary rights
- burial grounds
- land classification
- Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act
- 1998
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (09) 193
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, G.Arul Murugan
Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah, Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, Mr.C.A.Ramanan, Mr.Sathyamoorthy
T.S. Sivakumar alias Prakash, R.Kodeeswaran
T.S.Chellakumarasamy, The District Collector, The District Revenue Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar, The Sub Registrar, The Executive Officer, The Town Panchayat President, The Village Administrative Officer, Sri Venkatachalapathy Earth Movers, SMR Earth Movers
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court appeals against a common order regarding land classification and burial rights.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the common order allowing the use of land as a burial ground.
Filing Reason
Dispute over the classification and use of land for burial despite its designation as a cart track.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge had directed the District Collector to ensure the land was maintained as a burial ground.
Issues
Existence of customary rights to use the land for burial
Appropriateness of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge
Submissions/Arguments
Existence of a customary right to bury the dead on land classified as a cart track was disputed and should be resolved in civil court.
The directions issued by the learned Single Judge pre-empted the civil court's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court emphasized that disputes regarding customary rights and land classification should be resolved in a civil court rather than through writ proceedings, as such matters require evidence and cannot be settled solely based on inspection reports.
Judgment Excerpts
The existence of a customary right to bury the dead on land classified as a cart track was seriously disputed on the pleadings.
An inspection report, however carefully prepared, is not a substitute for a trial.
The larger question, namely, the true character of the land, the existence and extent of any customary right of burial, and the competing claims of access over S.No.621/3 and S.No.628/8, shall be worked out by the parties before the competent civil court.
Procedural History
The appeals were filed against a common order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.36402, 37501 and 44377 of 2025. The learned Single Judge had directed the District Collector to ensure the land was maintained as a burial ground.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998: Sections 172, 173
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
