Dismissed¶52

A.Prabhakaran v. The State of Tamil nadu

Madras HC16 Apr 2026WP/14419/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed challenging District Collector Kancheepuram's order dated 23.01.2026 approving conversion of part of Government poramboke land in Survey No.547, Gerugambakkam Village, into burial ground for Christian and Muslim communities; Article 226 certiorari; Panchayat resolution 04.09.2025; enquiry under directions in W.P.No.45314 of 2025 dated 27.11.2025; environmental objections, water tank/channel, groundwater; alternative site Survey No.738/2 rejected as grazing land; no error or illegality found.

What did the court decide?

All objections of the petitioner were duly considered by the District Collector, who passed a reasoned order taking into consideration the factual aspects and requirements to be met; the Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order. ¶51

A.Prabhakaran Vs The State of Tamil nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the District Collector's order dated 23.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner's objections and approving conversion of a portion of Survey No.547, Gerugambakkam Village, as burial ground is erroneous or illegal. +2 more

¶30

Court's answer

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the water tank on the land would be affected by the conversion is misplaced, since only 0.81.0 hectares out of 1.88.50 hectares has been earmarked as burial ground; the water tank and other existing facilities would remain undisturbed.

¶47

Key takeaways

The Court recorded the District Collector's finding that the land in Survey No.547 lies 100 meters from the residential area and 250 meters from the School, with only a drainage channel running nearby, so there is no possibility of any environmental issue or hazard from the conversion.ratio¶46
The alternative site suggested by the petitioner in Survey No.738/2 was not found suitable for conversion as burial ground because it is classified as grazing land.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J.; order made by G. Arul Murugan, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari against the District Collector, Kancheepuram's order dated 23.01.2026 (COLKPM/5990/2025/A3) approving conversion of a portion of Government poramboke land (cart track) in Survey No.547, Gerugambakkam Village, into a burial ground. Of the total 1.88.50 hectares, 0.81.0 hectares was earmarked, with 0.40.50 hectares each for the Christian and Muslim communities, pursuant to the Village Panchayat's resolution dated 04.09.2025 meeting a nearly four-decade-old demand of about 20,000 Christians and Muslims from ten adjacent villages. After this Court's directions dated 27.11.2025 in W.P.No.45314 of 2025, the Collector conducted a detailed enquiry, considered all objections (proximity to houses, water channel/tank, groundwater contamination) and rejected the petitioner's suggested alternative site in Survey No.738/2 as it is grazing land. The Court found the site 100 meters from the residential area and 250 meters from the school with only a drainage channel nearby, held the water-tank objection misplaced since only a portion of the land was earmarked and existing facilities would remain undisturbed, found no error or illegality in the impugned order, and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs, closing the interim application.

¶1

W.P.No.14419 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.P.No.14419 of 2026 AND W.M.P.No.15627 of 2026

¶8

A.Prabhakaran S/o.Ambethkar No.443, VOC Street Gerugambakkam Village Kancheepuram-600 122

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

¶12

2.The District collector Kancheepuram District Collectorate Office Kancheepuram-631 501

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram District

¶14

Page 1 of 9

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.14419 of 2026

¶17

4.The Tahsildar Kundrathur Taluk Kancheepuram District

¶18

5.The Block Development Officer Kundrathur Taluk Kancheepuram District

¶19

6.The President

¶20

Gerugambakkam Village Panchayat Kancheepuram District.

¶21

7.The Executive officer Gerugambakkam Village Panchayat Union Kancheepuram District.

¶22

Respondent(s)

¶23

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide COLKPM/5990/2025/A3 dated 23.01.2026 passed by the second respondent the District collector, Kancheepuram District, approving conversion of Survey No.547, Gerugambakkam Village, into burial grounds, and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law and consequently direct the respondents to identify and allot an alternative site strictly in compliance with all relevant environmental and public health safeguards, principles of natural justice.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Kanishkaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader Assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate

¶25

Page 2 of 9

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Made by G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.)

¶29

W.P.No.14419 of 2026

¶30

Challenge in the writ petition is to the order of the second respondent/District Collector dated 23.01.2026, whereby the objections of the petitioner in granting permission for conversion of a portion of land in survey No.547, Gerugambakkam Village, as burial ground, came to be rejected.

¶31

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the land in survey No.547, measuring an extent of 1.88.5 hectares at Gerugambakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, is classified as Government poramboke land (cart track). While so, the sixth respondent Panchayat has passed a resolution on 04.09.2025 for converting the aforesaid land into a burial ground/cemetery. The petitioner, along with villagers, had made objections to the resolution, as such a conversion would result in environmental degradation and public nuisance. Further, the land is situated adjacent to residential houses and the conversion is made without following the statutory procedures and the establishment of a burial ground would contaminate the groundwater source also. The District Collector had rejected the objections without considering these vital aspects, which is assailed in the writ petition.

¶32

Page 3 of 9

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.14419 of 2026

¶35

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a water channel nearby and also a water tank has been located in the land, which would get affected, in the event of converting the land as burial ground and the same has not been considered by the District Collector. He further submitted that the petitioner had suggested an alternative place, where the burial ground could be established and the present place is not suitable and is also objected by the villagers.

¶36

4.Mr.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader, taking notice and appearing for the respondents, submitted that all the objections were considered by the District Collector and after finding that the objections are untenable, had rejected the same and approved the conversion of the aforesaid land as burial ground. He further submitted that it has been a long-standing demand for nearly four decades by the Christians and Muslims in that area for providing a burial ground in the village.

¶37

5.Considered the submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

Page 4 of 9

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.14419 of 2026

¶41

6.At the outset, it is to be noted that there is an extent of 1.88.50 hectares in survey No.547 of Gerugambakkam Village, which is admittedly classified as Government Poramboke land. There had been a long-standing demand for nearly four decades by the Christian and Muslim community in that area, seeking a place for a burial ground. The sixth respondent Panchayat had also duly resolved by its resolution dated 04.09.2025, for conversion of the above land into a burial ground/cemetery. Out of the total extent of 1.88.50 hectares, 0.81.0 hectares was identified and decided to be converted as burial ground to be given for the Christian and Muslim community, by allotting 0.40.50 hectares to each of them.

¶42

7.The petitioner had made objections and pursuant to the directions passed by this Court dated 27.11.2025 in W.P.No.45314 of 2025, the District Collector had conducted a detailed enquiry. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry and all the objections were considered by the authority. The alternative place suggested by the petitioner in survey No.738/2, since it is classified as a grazing land, was not found suitable for conversion as burial ground.

¶43

Page 5 of 9

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.14419 of 2026

¶46

8.From the documents and materials placed, the District Collector found that the above land in survey No.547 is situated 100 meters away from the residential area and also 250 meters away from the School. Further, there is only a drainage channel running nearby and there is no possibility of any environmental issue or hazard, in view of conversion of the land as burial ground. The authority had also recorded that it is a long-standing demand of nearly four decades by nearly 20,000 residents belonging to Christian and Muslim community living in the adjacent ten villages seeking for a place to be allotted as burial ground and therefore, there is urgent need for allotment.

¶47

9.The contention of the learned counsel that a water tank is situated and the conversion of the land as burial ground will affect the same is misplaced and is liable to be rejected, for the simple reason that the entire land has not been earmarked as burial ground and out of 1.88.50 hectares, only a portion of 0.81.0 hectares alone has been allotted to be converted as burial ground. Therefore, the water tank or any other facility already available would remain undisturbed.

¶48

Page 6 of 9

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.14419 of 2026

¶51

10.When all the objections of the petitioner have been duly considered and the second respondent authority had passed a reasoned order, taking into consideration the factual aspects and the requirements to be met out, we find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed.

¶52

11.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall

¶53

be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.

¶54

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 16.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya

¶55

Page 7 of 9

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.P.No.14419 of 2026