Acquisition necessity for burial-ground access must be decided by authorities after hearing affected parties.

The petitioner sought a direction to complete acquisition of land in Survey No. 97/1, Nemam village, to create a pathway to a burial ground in Survey No. 13, Karuvepilankurichi village.

The petitioner claimed that access had previously been permitted across Survey No. 97/1 but was later denied after the land was assigned and sold to the seventh respondent.

The State submitted that the District Collector had decided on 15 August 2025 to acquire the land under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, subject to further action, including availability of funds.

The seventh respondent disputed the need for acquisition, asserting that alternative access existed and that the petition related to a pending private dispute in O.S. No. 365 of 2025.

Whether the Court should direct the respondents to complete acquisition of the land for a pathway to the burial ground.

Whether the necessity for acquisition and the availability of alternative access should be determined by the Court at the preliminary stage, or by the competent authorities in the first instance.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 to seek mandamus.

The State identified the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978), as the proposed statutory basis for acquisition.

The Court held that the competent authorities must consider whether a pathway is required and whether an alternative route exists when deciding the acquisition question; those matters need not be determined by the Court while the proposal remains at a preliminary stage.

A landowner may challenge an acquisition notification on appropriate grounds, including that acquisition is unnecessary or motivated.

Because the acquisition proposal had not proceeded beyond the preliminary stage, the Court declined to decide whether the pathway was necessary, whether alternative access existed, or whether the request was motivated by the parties’ private dispute.

Those matters were for the authorities to assess in deciding whether to acquire the land, and could be raised by the landowner in a later challenge if acquisition proceeded.

The Court instead directed the District Collector to hear both the petitioner and the seventh respondent and decide the issue expeditiously.

If acquisition is decided upon, only the barest minimum land necessary for the pathway is to be acquired, and the acquisition proceedings are to be expedited; the seventh respondent remains at liberty to challenge any acquisition in accordance with law.

No costs were ordered.