Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims No Notice, No Blacklist: Calcutta High Court Quashes Debarment Over Breach of Natural Justice Prosecution Must Elevate Its Case From Realm Of ‘May Be True’ To Plane Of ‘Must Be True: Orissa High Court Strict Compliance Is the Rule, Not Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tenant's Plea for Late Deposit of Rent Arrears When Accused Neither Denies Signature Nor Rebuts Presumption, Conviction Must Follow Under Section 138 NI Act: Karnataka High Court A Guardian Who Violates, Forfeits Mercy: Kerala High Court Upholds Natural Life Sentence in Stepfather–POCSO Rape Case Married and Earning Sons Are Legal Representatives Entitled to Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Motor Accident Award to ₹14.81 Lakh Driver Must Stop, Render Aid & Report Accident – Flight from Scene Is an Offence: Madras High Court Convicts Hit-And-Run Accused Under MV Act Delay May Shut the Door, But Justice Cannot Be Locked Out: Gauhati High Court Admits Union of India’s Arbitration Appeal Despite Time-Bar Under Section 30 PC Act | Mere Recovery of Money Is Not Enough—Demand and Acceptance Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Allahabad High Court Slams Bar Council of U.P. for Ex Parte 10-Year Suspension of Advocate Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to End Discrimination Against Ad-Hoc Employees in Allahabad High Court: Orders Reinstatement and Regularizationi Supreme Court Declares CSR a Constitutional Duty to Protect Environment: Orders Undergrounding of Powerlines in Great Indian Bustard Habitat A Minor’s Sole Testimony, If Credible, Is Sufficient for Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Child Trafficking Conviction Under IPC and ITPA You Can’t Invent Disqualifications After the Bid: Supreme Court Holds Joint Venture Experience Can’t Be Ignored in Tenders High Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence or Rewrite Contract to Set Aside Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reinstates Award Under Quantum Meruit Once Arbitration Invoked, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Weaponised in Civil Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Former Director in Rent Row

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