Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims

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