Habeas Corpus Petition Not Maintainable To Trace An Absconding Accused Evading Arrest: Allahabad High Court Section 33(2)(b) ID Act: Industrial Tribunal Cannot Reject Approval For Dismissing Corrupt Employee Over Minor Deficit In One Month's Wages, Holds Bombay High Court Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Claim Unreserved Vacancy Without Securing Higher Marks Than General Cut-Off: Calcutta High Court Condition Restricting Use Of CENVAT Credit For Duty Payment During Default Period Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court Domestic Incident Report Cannot Supersede Substantive Complaint Under DV Act; Summons Can't Be Refused Solely Due To Omissions In DIR: Delhi High Court Defence Evidence Not Inherently Inferior To Prosecution Evidence, Accused Need Not Prove Alibi To The Hilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 80-Year-Old In POCSO Case Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Restrain Trade Union Strike; Employer Can Approach Industrial Tribunal Under IR Code During Conciliation: Karnataka High Court Army Personnel Exposed To Radiation During Service Entitled To Disability Pension For Leukemia: Kerala High Court Failure To Give Opportunity To Accused To Explain Disproportionate Assets Is Fatal To Prosecution: Madras High Court Acquits Customs Officer Family Court Can Grant Maintenance To Major Unmarried Daughter Even If Application Filed Under Section 125 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Framing Charges Solely On Oral Testimony Despite Contradictory Medical Evidence Impermissible Without Recorded Reasons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Vehicle Seized For Alleged Cattle Cruelty Can't Be Left To Rot; Prima Facie Ownership Established Via Registration & Insurance Docs: Orissa High Court Labeling Perennial Work As 'Outsourced' To Deny Regularization Is Unconstitutional; State Can't Act Like Private Employer: Telangana High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Merely Required To Establish 'Probable Defence' To Shift Burden Of Proof Onto Complainant: Madras High Court Protests Or Being Branded A 'Traitor' Do Not Establish Threat To Life Ipso Facto: Punjab & Haryana High Court On Security Cover

Land for Muslim Burial Ground Cannot Be Opposed on Vague Health Concerns When Hindu and Christian Cemeteries Already Exist Nearby: Andhra Pradesh High Court

16 May 2025 1:25 PM

By: sayum


“No Evidence of Water Contamination or Health Hazard — Religious Bias Cannot Override Legally Sanctioned Burial Allotments”: Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, in Writ Petition No. 34697 of 2022 (Bhashyam Venkata Rao & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others), dismissed a public challenge to the government's decision to allot land for a Muslim burial ground. Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that objections based on alleged health hazards lacked evidence, especially when existing Hindu and Christian cemeteries abutted the very same land.

The Court firmly observed:
“The petitioners have not placed anything to show that there were complaints with regard to contamination of ground water and the alleged health hazards… In the absence of any evidence, the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be believed.”

The petitioners, residents of Lakshmi Narasimha Towers in Chinamushidiwada village, Visakhapatnam, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the land allotment made through Letter No. 326138/2022-Land-E4 dated 26.09.2022. The government had allotted 0.16 acres in Survey No. 138/1 for use as a Muslim burial ground on the request of the Masjid-E-Noorani Committee, following displacement of an existing cemetery due to a 60-foot master plan road widening project.

The petitioners contended that locating a cemetery near their apartments would cause health risks, especially in the context of COVID-19, and claimed their objections were ignored by the authorities.

The High Court rejected the petitioners’ argument on multiple grounds. It noted that:

“Abutting to the proposed land, there are existing burial grounds belonging to Hindu and Christian religions… which are in existence since times immemorial.”

Critically, the petitioners did not dispute this fact nor file any evidence in rebuttal.

The Court emphasized that:
“The petitioners have neither disputed the presence of Hindu and Christian cemeteries nor proved any issue of groundwater contamination or public health.”

The Court clarified that mere apprehensions, especially those unaccompanied by scientific evidence or official complaints, cannot override lawful administrative decisions taken in public interest. It stated:

“Apart from the same, the petitioners have not placed anything to show that there were complaints with regard to contamination of ground water and the alleged health hazards of the residents of the apartments.”

On the legality of the allotment process, the Court accepted the respondents' submission that the land was selected only after due procedure was followed under Section 570 of the Municipal Corporation Act, and with consideration of feasibility and necessity, given the demolition of the previous Muslim cemetery.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that religious equality and legal procedure cannot be derailed by unsupported fears. The judgment sends a strong signal against communal bias cloaked as environmental or public health concerns.

Justice T.C.D. Sekhar concluded:
“From the foregoing reasons, the interference of this Court is not warranted… There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 22 April 2025

Latest Legal News